This article or chapter is incomplete and its contents need further attention.
Some information may be missing or may be wrong, spelling and grammar may have to be improved, use your judgment!
Finding a research subject is trivial, if you have to pick it from a list that your professors define. On the other hand, if you have the liberty and the obligation to define your own, you may be surprised at how much time and effort it may take.
Learning goals
Understand the various parameters that you should look at
Understand how to optimize the process
Understand how important it is to be able to define a "big question"
Learn that the big questions should then decline into a set of research objectives and research questions
Finding a research subject is the first stage of a research project. This may seem obvious, but it is not. Students without tight advising often tend to identify just a research topic, but then fail to formulate a research subject in terms of precise research objects and research questions.
In other words: If you don't watch out, you are unlikely to know what you really are going to do and you will loose a few month...
Finding a research subject is an iterative process and has to be done in several stages. The final formal step happens when you write the research plan and the final non-formal one happens when your really implement your research. E.g. you may find it necessary to add a new question or to downsize the initial project. Nevertheless, you really should aim to do plan as best as you can what you are going to do. This way you will get better advice and you will be done earlier.
There are several elements you should look at and we shall discuss them in more detail in the following sections
Major elements of subject identification process
The most important phases of the process are roughly the following ones:
Identify a few topics / subjects and make a "short list"
You should take some time and think about the larger implications of your projects (besides just getting a degree or publishing a paper).
Do you want to learn something ? Are there institutional constraints (e.g. does your employer wants you to do something for them) ? To you just strive for intellectual fun ? ....
Some questions you might ask:
What should your job be in 3-4 years ?
A thesis is part of your "profile", a "visit card"
A thesis will teach you a lot, what do you wish to learn ?
And your employer ?
Is he interested in your master thesis
can you marry academic work with the goals of your organization ?
Firstly you must understand that a research subject is not just a topic !
It must be of some academic interest, for example: explain a phenomenon, identify
processes, provide scientific arguments for an expertise, prove cognitive ergonomics of
some software, demonstrate pedagogic effectiveness, invent new design rules, ...
Even if you did manage to phrase a good "big question", your intentions are still too vague. You will have tear your big question apart and make it more operational, i.e. make a least of research objectives.
You absolutely must make all your objectives explicit, else you are looking for conflicts and other problems.
It is mandatory that you must formulate research questions that cover your objectives.
You can write them as "working hypotheses" if appropriate
Research question then could be further detailed in terms of scientific hypothesis and that are based on theoretical argumentation
It is much easier to deal with hypothesis than with more open research questions ....
Finding the right research questions / hypothesis is an iterative process.
Usually you only get them right after having written a draft of the literature review !!
Therefore, don’t start field research, development etc. before you have done some theory !
Let's look at two examples now.
Example: Etude pilote sur la mise en oeuvre et les perceptions des TIC[edit | edit source]
Luis Gonzalez, DESS thesis 2004. Ttranslation needed ....
Main goal: "Understand the factors that favor teacher’s use of ICT"
The author first defines 8 factors and then also postulates a few relationships among
them. The 8 factors were found through a literature review.
Below we quote from the thesis (and not the research plan):
Sachant qu’une faible proportion d’enseignants utilise le matériel informatique
dans leur pratique, je me suis demandé s’il était possible d’identifier des facteurs
favorisant l’intégration des TIC.
Mon hypothèse principale postule l’existence d’une corrélation entre les facteurs
suivants et la mise en œuvre des TIC par les enseignants :
Le type support offert par le cadre institutionnel
Leurs compétences pédagogiques
Leurs compétences techniques
La formation reçue, que se soit la formation de base ou la formation continue
Leur sentiment d’auto-efficacité
Leur perception des technologies
Leur perception de l’usage pédagogique des TIC
Leur rationalisation et digitalisation pédagogique
Engineering project: a system to support inquiry-based learning (IBL)[edit | edit source]
(Translation needed)
L'objectif de ce module est de donner une structure basique adaptable, aux enseignants qui désirent offrir une activité d’apprentissage par investigation à leurs élèves. Ils peuvent ainsi aisément créer des supports informatisés pour des activités pédagogiques de ce type.
The goals of this research have been defined implicitly by deriving the specification of
the software module from a known inquiry framework:
L'enseignant peut ainsi créer un type de fiche qui correspond à l'activité qu'il a en tête, [....]
Cette fiche donne une structure qui permettra aux apprenants de répondre à des questions [...] (étape 1 : Questionner).
L’enseignant soumet l’activité aux apprenants qui peuvent créer une instance de la fiche type afin de faire l’exercice. [...]. Dès lors, ils recherchent les informations susceptibles de les aider à remplir les différents éléments de la fiche (étape 2 :Questionner), [...]
Une fois les informations trouvées, l’apprenant rempli son instance de fiche, [...] (étape 3 : Créer),
puis, au moyen de la visualisation des instances des autres apprenants et de la possibilité des commenter, il peut débattre avec les différentes personnes ayant fait la même fiche que lui (étape 4 : Discuter). [....] Enfin, il soumet son instance de fiche au professeur et/ou à l’expert associé à l’activité.
La 5e étape du modèle (Réfléchir) peut être incluse dans l’activité de différentes manières, [...]
This master thesis clearly lacked precise research questions
the big questions was: how should we design a system for IBL support (and can I do it ?)
the driving operational questions were a specification based on a popular IBL model
but it was accepted that this development would lay the basis for further research,
since such a tool did not exist before
( only preliminary usability testing was required from the thesis advisor )
start with 2-3 articles/standard works and that contain a survey of your topic or a related area.
ask experts, use the library, use scholar.google.com, use on-line journals
if you can’t find anything:
hunt for articles that cover subjects with similar structural properties (e.g. concerning the approach, the “way to look at things”, etc.)
start to occupy "islands" (and enlarge with ”circles”)
look for further publications
follow-up leads from you 2-3 initial articles
go through specialized indexes
systematically browse through specialized journals
Go through the Internet pages of well know researchers in your field
do not trust randomly found things (e.g. indirect quotes) on the Internet
hunt down the home pages (a lot of researchers publish at least a few papers on their site)
etc.
Don’t read too much ! Stop when:
the same information comes back,
you found a good central framework, the analysis grids for your concepts, experimental designs that provide you with a good example, etc. (details depend on your approach),
you can relate your research questions to published work.
Exploitation of literature and draft of the theory part[edit | edit source]
Don’t write “summary memos”, it takes to much time (IMHO)
Here is an advice:
Step 1: Read texts "diagonally", and just mark the most relevant concepts, theories, models, hypothesis, etc.
Step 2: Make a matrix of the most important concepts like this:
Concepts
Articles
Concept A
Concept B
Concept C
Concept D
....
1
x
x
2
x
x
x
...
x
you may add some small comments
Step 3: Sort concepts
mark the most important ones
look at relations
throw away the ones you won’t need (the theory part must support the empirical part, nothing else)
Step 4: Write a draft
Be synthetic and be critical (!)
Do not align one mini-summary after each other (i.e. order by concepts and not authors !)
End up with a conclusion that argues in favor of a central framework, that identifies major dimensions (elements) and corresponding analysis grids
Look again at your research questions (revise them or add/remove things from your draft)
Write rapidly keywords (what you want investigate, know, etc.) on paper
Take this list and do it again for each point
Sort/clean and go to the next steps (see below)
It is important that brainstorming is done quickly since you want to trigger associations in your brain (and not reflection), else it's not brainstorming ...
but don’t not overdo it, since mind mapping may generate too much complexity. All you may get is something "wow, look its complicated". Doing research means that you should answer precise questions and just "map out things".
(2) You then could use concept maps to draw relationships between important concepts.
Alternatively, consider using a wiki (make sure to think about categories tagging and making links). A wiki should not just a be random collection of entries, but an organized whole. Else you better use some blogging software. Daniel K. Schneider used this wiki to prepare an introductory text on educational technology ... and it turned out to be a good strategy. See [and outcomes] about edutechwiki.
Have something to write on you (always)! Alternatively, as soon as you power up your computer write it down.
Good ideas sometimes pop out of nothing at odd times (this is documented in the auto-biographies of some really outstanding scientists). So make sure not to forget good inspirations.