Formulating Research Questions and the Hierarchy of Knowledge in Speech Pathology
Introduction and Acknowledgements
The tutorial marks week two of SPH 526, with a primary focus on the formulation of research questions.
The facilitator acknowledges the traditional custodians of the lands on which the meeting takes place and pays respects to elders past, present, and emerging, extending this respect to First Nations people participating in the course.
The tutorial aims to provide an overview of knowledge creation, investigate the continuum of research and study types, and conduct an in-depth critique of existing research questions.
The current stage of the research process for students involves identifying a research problem, developing research questions, and integrating these elements with findings from the literature review.
The Hierarchy of Knowledge Acquisition
According to Portney and Watkins, there is a hierarchy of ways to acquire knowledge and determine what is true regarding phenomena. The levels range from basic belief systems to rigorous scientific inquiry:
Tradition: This is the baseline of the hierarchy. Information is accepted as true simply because it has always been thought to be true within a specific culture or context. Belief systems at this level are accepted without external validation.
Authority: Authorities are expert sources of information recognized by their success, experience, or reputation. People tend to accept statements as true when an authority figure asserts them.
Personal Trial and Error: Often used by clinicians when established research is lacking. It involves trying an intervention with a specific client and evaluating its outcome. Professional practice continues with a treatment if progress is observed through this individualized trial process.
Logical Reasoning: This level combines personal experience with systematic thinking. It uses different types of reasoning to draw conclusions and is essential in both quantitative and qualitative research.
The Scientific Method: The highest and most rigorous level of the hierarchy. It incorporates both deductive and inductive reasoning in a systematic and controlled manner to generate new knowledge through research.
Logic and Reasoning: Deductive vs. Inductive
Logical reasoning is categorized into two primary directions, which often manifest in different sections of a research paper:
Deductive Reasoning:
Definition: Beginning with a known scientific principle or broad generalization and deducing specific conclusions from it.
Application: Usually found in the Introduction section of research papers. Researchers state what is generally known to date and then hypothesize what will occur in their specific study based on that theory.
Inductive Reasoning:
Definition: Starting with specific observations and then generating a general conclusion or building a theory from the ground up.
Application: Often used in qualitative research and found in the Discussion section of research papers. Researchers take specific observations from their study and suggest how they might be generalized to other circumstances.
The Continuum of Research
Portney and Watkins, along with Chris (as mentioned in the lecture), describe a continuum that helps researchers define their research design. Most student projects in SPH 526 will fall on the descriptive end due to the constraint of using fellow students as participants.
Descriptive Research:
Goal: Describing a group or individuals based on a set of variables and documenting their characteristics to understand phenomena.
Context: Often serves as a starting point for further investigation or a "pilot study."
Examples: Qualitative studies (interviews or focus groups), case studies, case series, developmental studies, and normative studies. In student projects, this might involve describing peer knowledge, perceptions, or planned practices.
Exploratory Research:
Goal: Examining how specific variables relate to one another and whether relationships exist.
Examples:
Epidemiology: Investigating if exposure to a specific factor leads to a certain disease or disorder.
Correlational Research: Determining if an increase in variable relates to a high level of variable .
Student Application: Looking at the relationship between past professional/lived experience and current confidence or planned practices in a specific area.
Experimental Research:
Goal: Establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between variables.
Design:
Pre and Post Surveys: Measuring a baseline, providing an intervention (e.g., a video, task, or education), and measuring the outcome.
Randomized Control Trials (RCTs): Participants are randomly allocated into an intervention group or a control group.
Quasi-Experimental: Non-random allocation, often due to existing circumstances (e.g., comparing children on a waiting list to children already receiving speech pathology services).
Characteristics of a Research Question
Investigable: The question must be something that can actually be researched or investigated using the scientific method.
Confined and Focused: It should not be too wide-ranging or broad. Broad questions are difficult to answer scientifically.
Meaningful: It should generate knowledge that matters to society or professional practice. It should avoid being obvious or merely assumed.
Research Aim vs. Research Question:
Aims: Broad, overarching statements about what the study intends to achieve. They are less specific than questions.
Questions: Very specific and point directly toward the research design and the methodology intended to be used.
Critique of Research Question Examples
Example 1: Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) in Adults
Title: "I still have issues with pronunciation of words": A mixed methods investigation of the psychosocial and speech effects of childhood apraxia of speech in adults.
Critique:
Contains both an aim and specific questions.
The questions narrow the focus to the specific characteristics of CAS and its psychosocial outcomes.
Discussion was held on the difficulty of defining and measuring "psychosocial outcomes" and the risk of confounding factors (current life experience vs. the outcome of CAS).
Design: Primarily descriptive (characteristics) and exploratory (relationship between CAS and outcomes).
The inclusion of the phrase "if any" is praised for avoiding the assumption that characteristics or effects must exist.
Example 2: SLP Literacy Domain (Telepractice vs. On-site)
Title: An exploratory study of speech-language pathologists' clinical practice in the literacy domain, comparing on-site practices with telepractice service during COVID-19.
Critique:
Provides only an aim; lacks specific research questions.
The terms "practicalities, feasibility, and sustainability" require strict definitions to be measurable.
Questions could have focused on specific similarities and differences between the two service models to make the procedure clearer.
Example 3: Adult Critical Care in Ireland and International Settings
Title: Perspectives on speech and language pathology practices and service provision in adult critical care settings in Ireland and international settings: a cross-sectional survey.
Critique:
Extremely broad; the tutor estimated that at least nine specific questions would be needed to cover it adequately (comparing Ireland vs. international across categories like dysphagia, communication, tracheostomy, training, skills, and resources).
A cross-sectional survey ("one and done") might struggle to cover such depth without becoming too superficial. For a student project, it is recommended to focus on just one area (e.g., dysphagia).
Example 4: Intellectual Disability and Dysphagia
Title: Being practically, professionally, and personally prepared: supporting people with intellectual disability and dysphagia to eat and drink outside the home.
Critique:
Qualitative and descriptive in nature.
The research merit is clear as it informs mealtime management planning.
Potential for assumptions: It assumes challenges exist without using "if any."
Methodological complexity: Includes two participant groups (people with intellectual disability and their carers), which may require different sets of interview questions.
Methodological Foundations
Quantitative Research: Gathers numerical data such as percentages, means, and counts. It deals with closed questions and values.
Qualitative Research: Gathers insights, opinions, and themes from what people say. It uses open-ended questions and seeks descriptive depth.
Mixed Methods: A combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches (e.g., gathering numerical data on experience and thematic data on opinions).
Refinement: It is normal and expected for research questions to be refined throughout the course (from assessment one to the final presentation).
Strategies for Developing Research Questions
The "Funnel Method" for drafting research questions:
Topic: Identify the basic area of the literature review.
Gap: Locate what was missing in the literature review from SPH 516.
Problem: Explain why this gap is a problem clinically or professionally.
Aim: Write a broad statement of the research objective.
Question: Narrow it down to specific research questions.
The Five W's (and one H) for Questions:
Who: The participants (e.g., SPH 526 students).
When: The timeframe (e.g., over a semester).
Where: The setting.
What: The variables or phenomena under study.
How: The methodology or process.
Questions & Discussion
Audience Question (Ilse): What is the difference between research aims and research questions? Tutor Response: Aims are wider and more overarching—what we are trying to achieve overall. Questions are very specific and point to the exact research design and how the research is being performed.
Audience Inquiry (Critiquing Example 1): Is the psychosocial outcome referring to well-being? How do you distinguish between CAS-related depression and general life experience? Tutor Response: These must be defined in the study. Distinguishing between life experience and the specific effects of CAS is difficult and requires precise measurement tools to pull those factors apart.
Audience Discussion (Critiquing the book reading question): How can "How can reading books improve children's literacy?" be improved? Discussion Points: It is too broad. It needs a target group (SPH 526 students). It lacks definitions for "reading books" (shared vs. independent, physical vs. digital). It needs to mention frequency, child age groups, and specific measures for literacy.
Audience Discussion (Critiquing the teenagers who stutter question): What approach will SPH 526 students take when working with teenagers who stutter? Discussion Points: While specific to students and the population, the term "approach" is vague. It could result in one-word answers (e.g., "Lidcombe" or "Camperdown"). It should be broken down into assessment, intervention, strategies for engagement, or psychosocial support to get richer, qualitative data.