Overview
Weak research questions are one of the most common reasons proposals are sent back. Typical problems include questions that are really topics ("the impact of social media on students"), yes/no questions that a single statistic can close, objectives that restate the questions, and hypotheses that cannot be tested with the planned design or measures.
We work with the draft questions you bring. We test them against recognized criteria such as FINER, apply structures like PICO where your field uses them, check that quantitative hypotheses are directional or non-directional for a reason, and check that qualitative questions stay open and exploratory. We then map each question to the data, analysis and chapter where it will be answered.
You end up with a question set you can explain and defend, and a clear line from aim to objectives to questions or hypotheses that your supervisor can follow at a glance.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Students preparing a proposal or ethics application who must state research questions or hypotheses
- Researchers told their questions are "too broad", "descriptive" or "not aligned with your method"
- Health, nursing and clinical students whose program expects PICO, PICOT or PEO formatting
- Quantitative researchers turning a conceptual model into testable hypotheses
- Qualitative researchers who need open, non-leading questions that still set boundaries
Common problems we help with
- Your questions describe a topic rather than something you can answer
- Aims, objectives and questions repeat each other or pull in different directions
- Hypotheses do not match the variables you can actually measure
- A qualitative study has questions phrased like hypotheses ("Does X increase Y?")
- Your questions changed during the project and the introduction no longer matches the findings
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Review of your aim, objectives, research questions and any hypotheses against your topic and design
- FINER screening: feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant
- PICO, PICOT, PEO or SPIDER structuring for health and evidence-based practice questions
- Advice on main versus sub-questions and how many are realistic for your level
- Conversion of conceptual model paths into testable null and alternative hypotheses with clear variables
- Checking that qualitative questions are open, non-leading and matched to the chosen approach (for example phenomenology or case study)
- An alignment matrix linking each question to data source, analysis method and results section
- Feedback on two rounds of your rewording
Not included
- Writing your questions or hypotheses for you to submit unchanged — we give feedback and model alternatives you adapt
- Rewording questions after data analysis to fit results you already have without disclosing the change (HARKing)
- Selecting statistical tests on your behalf for submitted work without explaining the reasoning
- Promising that an ethics committee or proposal panel will accept your questions
What you receive
- Annotated question set
- Your aim, objectives, questions and hypotheses with comments on clarity, scope, answerability and alignment, plus alternative phrasings to consider.
- FINER or PICO worksheet
- A completed screening sheet showing how each question performs on the relevant criteria and where it needs tightening.
- Alignment matrix
- A table mapping each question or hypothesis to variables or phenomena, data source, analysis and the chapter section where it will be answered.
- Hypothesis notes
- For quantitative work, notes on directionality, operational definitions and which statistical family would typically test each hypothesis.
How it works
Share your draft
Send your current questions, topic summary, intended design and any supervisor feedback. A rough draft is fine.
Diagnostic review
We identify the main issues — scope, answerability, alignment or wording — and prioritize the fixes that matter most.
Working session
We work through the questions together, explaining why each change helps, so you can apply the same reasoning to later revisions.
Revision and alignment
You redraft; we review again and complete the alignment matrix with you.
Criteria and structures we apply
- FINER criteria
- From Hulley and colleagues' clinical research design text: is the question feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant? Widely used beyond medicine as a quick quality screen.
- PICO and variants
- Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (plus Time in PICOT) for intervention questions; PEO (Population, Exposure, Outcome) and SPIDER for qualitative or mixed-evidence questions.
- Aim → objectives → questions hierarchy
- One overarching aim, a small set of objectives expressed as actions (to examine, to compare, to explore), and questions that each objective answers.
- Hypothesis formulation
- Null and alternative hypotheses stated in terms of measurable constructs, with directional hypotheses used only where theory predicts a direction.
- Qualitative question design
- Central "how" or "what" questions with a small number of sub-questions, avoiding causal wording and presupposed answers.
Descriptive, relational and causal questions
Questions differ in what they claim. Descriptive questions ask what is happening; relational questions ask whether things vary together; causal questions ask whether one thing produces another. The design must match the claim: a cross-sectional survey can support a relational question but not a causal one. Examiners frequently flag causal language ("the impact of", "the effect of") attached to correlational designs, and we help you choose wording that your data can support.
From conceptual model to testable hypotheses
If your study tests a model, each arrow usually becomes a hypothesis. We check that each construct has a defined measure, that mediation and moderation hypotheses are phrased as such, and that the number of hypotheses stays manageable. Where your model is complex, we flag the analysis family it implies, such as multiple regression or structural equation modeling, so you can plan skills and sample size early.
- State the population and constructs, not just "there is a relationship"
- Use directional hypotheses only where prior theory justifies a direction
- Keep mediation and moderation hypotheses separate from direct effects
Keeping questions consistent across chapters
Questions often evolve during a project, which is normal. The problem arises when the introduction, methodology, results and conclusion each show a slightly different version. We help you settle a final wording and check every chapter uses it, and advise on how to report legitimate changes transparently rather than silently rewriting them.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative example: from topic to aligned questions
A fictional MEd student submitted the question "What is the impact of flipped classrooms on students?" for a small qualitative study in one secondary school. All details are invented.
Diagnosis
The question implied a causal effect the design could not test, left "students" undefined, and gave no outcome. The planned interviews were suited to experience, not impact.
Revised main question
"How do Year 10 mathematics students in one urban secondary school describe their learning experience in a flipped classroom?" with two sub-questions on preparation habits and in-class interaction.
Alignment
Each sub-question was mapped to specific interview prompts and to a theme-reporting section of the findings chapter, and the objectives were rewritten as actions (to explore, to identify) rather than repeating the questions.
Invented illustration for explanation only. It does not represent a real student or school.
What you’ll need to provide
- Your current aim, objectives, questions or hypotheses
- A short description of the topic, intended design, population and data
- Your conceptual framework or model, if you have one
- Program guidance on how questions should be stated (some require objectives only, some require hypotheses)
- Supervisor or panel comments
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Number of questions, objectives and hypotheses to review
- Whether a conceptual model must be translated into hypotheses
- Number of feedback rounds and whether a live working session is included
- Complexity of the design, for example mixed methods with separate question sets
Turnaround depends on
- Proposal or ethics submission deadlines
- Whether your design and data are settled or still open
- How quickly you return redrafts between rounds
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
How many research questions should I have?
It depends on your level and design. Many master's dissertations work well with one main question and two or three sub-questions; doctoral projects may have more. More questions mean more chapters of results to write, so we help you keep the number realistic.
Do I need hypotheses if my study is qualitative?
Usually not. Qualitative and exploratory studies typically use open research questions. Some programs still require propositions for case studies; we can help you phrase those appropriately.
My supervisor prefers objectives, but the guide I read says questions. Which is right?
Follow your supervisor and program handbook. Conventions differ by field and country. We help you express the same logic in whichever format is expected.
Can you tell me which statistical test answers each hypothesis?
We can indicate the analysis family and explain why it fits, so you can confirm with your supervisor. If you want the analysis carried out, see our statistics services.
I already collected data. Can I still change my questions?
Refining wording is often acceptable, but changing questions to fit results you have already seen should be disclosed. We help you decide what is legitimate and how to report it transparently.