4.2 MOTIVATION TO DO RESEARCH AND DECIDE
experience is that practitioners are delighted to tell you about what they are doing. One only has to ask and most practitioners and politicians will take advantage of all the help they can get.
Questions also come from reading the literature on a regular basis and from doing a literature review.‘‘Research topics can come from questions discovered in texts, in the professional literature, from classroom discussions, from hobbies and other outside interests, and, of course, from the life experience of the researcher’’(McNabb, 2002, p. 63).
Andrews (2003) indicates that there are two common ways to develop research questions.‘‘One is to work hard and fast, early in the project, to generate and refine your research question. The other is to let the research question emerge from the literature’’ (Andrews, 2003, p. 9). Developing a question early starts with a literature review and a decision about what aspect of the topic you want to focus on.
Researchers almost always stand on the proverbial shoulders of their predecessors. Why not take advantage of the work of others, get a running start so to speak, rather than reinvent the proverbial wheel. As Gordon Tullock points out that‘‘new discoveries are based on older discoveries [and] . . . that the absence of these [earlier] discoveries would significantly reduce our present rate of progress’’(1966, p. 24). So researchers build on the work of their predecessors and knowledge cumulates.
Strong motivations drive the researcher to do a literature review. This is described as one of the standard steps in the research process or good science in virtually every research methods text and course. Some authors of methods texts devote substantial attention to how a literature search and literature review should be done (Johnson, 1997), whereas others do not get into the nitty gritty deeply. To not do a literature review risks discovering that someone else has already done your study.
For that matter the author believes that most researchers do not want to simply repeat exactly what a predecessor has done. A primary purpose of research is learning and doing new and different things.
Besides, going where none have gone before is exciting for an academic, and perhaps more likely to result in a publishable manuscript.
In its simplest form, building on the work of another may start with a single study. Almost any study can be extended. This can be done in an endless variety of ways. Almost any study can be carried out in a different or larger setting, looking at additional things (variables) that may affect the result, and using different measures. Neuman (1997) suggests that the individual seeking a research problem might do any or some combination of the following:1
. Replicate a research project in a different setting or with a different population
. Consider how various subpopulations might behave differently in the same situation
. Apply an existing perspective or explanation to a new situation
. Explore unexpected or contradictoryfindings in previous studies
. Challenge researchfindings thatfly in the face of what you know or believe to be true Another source of ideas for new research questions is found in the suggestions for further research that is an expected part of any research presentation. Today, virtually every article contains suggestions for further research. These statements come in the direct form of suggestions of what needs to be done in future studies. Also, suggestions occur indirectly through statements recogniz- ing limitations of the current study.
Alternatively, one can ask‘‘What do these results contribute to theory?’’ ‘‘Do they support what we know or not?’’ ‘‘Do they extend it in some way?’’Would-be researchers are taught to constantly question theory and these endeavors allow them to testfindings and theory. If confirmation does not occur then the researcher faces the task of explaining why and modifying what is known. Because theory is always in a process of development, replication and extension efforts are good science. For example, Janet Kelly examines the theoretically important problem of the linkage between citizen satisfaction and service quality (Kelly, 2005). Specifically the issue is, ‘‘We don’t know the relationship between the performance of government and improvement in citizen satisfaction with or confidence in government, though we assume it exists and that it is positive’’(Kelly, 2005, p. 77).
Another way tofind research questions is to reexamine a classic work in thefield. Such is the case, for example, in recent reexaminations of Herbert Kaufman’s The Forest Ranger (Carroll, Freemath, and Alm, 1996; Koontz, 2007; Luton, 2007; Martin and Toddi, 2004).
New theories are developed or old ones extended because old theory, despite some degree of longevity, proves to be either invalid or inadequate. Someone may introduce a new idea. In an effort to develop theory this type of endeavor can be based on drawing different works together in new and particular ways. One can take multiple studies and bring them together assembling them into a new whole, much the way a child builds something with Legos. For example, in part, Maslow’s theory of motivation was assembled in this way (Maslow, 1970), and so too the theory of public service motivation (PSM; Perry and Wise, 1990).
Others then develop and extend these new ideas. For example, Perry and Wise extended motivation theory by developing the concepts and theory of public service motivation to better explain behavior they observed among people engaged in public service (1990). How can this concept and its subcomponents be measured? What does it mean? Does it apply? How can it be used? Is it valid? In fact, for example, at the end of their initial study Perry and Wise called for further research on public sector motivation (1990). Perry did substantial follow-up work on public service motivation focusing on measurement, antecedents of the construct, refinement of the theory, and ethics (Perry, 1996, 1997, 2000; Perry, Coursey, and Littlepage, 2005). And Wise incorporated the concept in a larger theoretical context (Wise, 2003).
Many other researches have used the PSM concept in a variety of different ways including measurement issues, conditions that foster PSM, gender differences, and productivity (Alonso and Lewis, 2001; Brewer and Facer, 2000; Bright, 2005; DeHart-Davis, Marlowe, and pandey, 2006;
Houston, 2006; Miller and Whitford, 2007; Moynihan and Sanjay, 2007; Wright, 2001, 2007).
Perry and Wise’s, 1990 study has been cited 110 times (results from a Google Scholar search identifying the original 1990 study that indicated‘‘Cited by 110’) in other researches although this probably underestimates the actual amount of research being done, and a search for [Perry AND Wise AND‘‘public service motivation’’] produced 121 hits. And a broader search using the target [Perry AND Wise AND motivation] produced 5260 hits.
Rather than improve on or build on a single study, a researcher could use a literature synthesis to develop research questions. One way to go about this is by synthesizing the work of several other individuals by examining multiple studies. What does the body of evidence say about a topic or multiple subtopics? What answers do the studies consistently offer to research questions? What are the effect sizes of these studies? For example, Edwards et al. (2002) summarized the results of 292 empirical studies of methods designed to improve response rate to mail-back surveys. They provide substantial evidence of what works and what does not and provide subsequent investigators with ideas about what needs to be examined in future studies.
Similarly, meta-analysis could be used to develop similar questions from prior research. For example, a now-classic study examined earlier research reports to determine the effects offinancial rewards, goal setting, participation, and job enrichment on employee motivation (Locke, Feren, McCaleb, Shaw, and Denny, 1980). Further work has been done to elaborate all four of these suggested means of stimulating employee motivation.
As mentioned earlier, existing lines of research can be extended in many ways. For instance, considering how various subpopulations might behave differently in the same situation is the basis for much research today. For instance, a large number of research studies exist that focus on issues involving race, gender, age, disability, religion, ethnicity, and cultural background. Gone are the days when such questions would not be asked but simply assumed away. The whole basis of ethnic studies and of feminist studies rests on the assumption of and demonstration of differences. Even without questions of discrimination there are a myriad number of issues because one can ask these kinds of questions about any researchfinding. For example, how might this apply to public service motivation? Is it the same for African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and whites? Does it change with age? Do people become more or less altruistic with age? Is it the same for persons of different
religious and cultural backgrounds? Do the disabled exhibit PSM? How do they compare with members of other groups? Overall, how do the values of members of these different groups come into play? And, how does PSM affect the attitudes and work behaviors of these different subgroups?
A number of studies examine these questions.2
Answering the following questions may help the researcher select, define, and refine a research question:3
. Is this a worthwhile question?
. Is the question answerable?
. Are there ethical issues involved in research on this question?
. Is there a clear reason for asking this question?
. What is already known about this issue? This is the reason for conducting a literature review. Virtually all texts emphasize this.
. What assumptions exist in what is already known?
. How does the topic fit into the exploratory research categories you might use such as personal, sociological, political, historical, and scientific categories?
. Are you interested in this question? Do you care about it or not?
. Early on develop a wide range of potential questions and refine that list as your knowledge of the topic develops.
. Do you want to be known as a person who does or did research on this topic?
. Will this project help you develop in a desirable way? Each research project contributes to your knowledge and professional development and helps define who you are as a person.
. How have others conducted research on this issue? What theories and methods did they use? What problems did they encounter? This is the reason for conducting a literature review. Virtually all texts emphasize this.
. Who is requesting this research? Do they really know what they need to know or not? Will they be willing to work with you putting in the amount of time required to execute the project in an appropriate manner? Do they have a particular outcome they hope the research will support?
. Are there any mandates from policy makers involved?
. Does this research have political implications? Can this project potentially blowback on you and your employer?
. Who are the likely users of the research? What are they most interested in?
. In relative terms how easy will it be to answer this question?
. Do you have the resources necessary to answer this question including the expertise, time, money, and access to data sources? What are the resource requirements, data availability?
Questions posed by those sponsoring research may not be clear. For example, the questions in a public agency’s RFP may not be clear and simple because the individuals who wrote the RFP did not spend sufficient time refining them or deciding what they really needed to know or think about how they were going to use the information collected. Questions in the RFP may not be specific enough to be researchable and may even be unrelated to what that public agency actually needs. One way to resolve the clarity of the problem is to confer repeatedly with stakeholders until they have defined in a clear, focused, and relevant manner what they need to know (Johnson, 2002, pp. 27–29; Patton, 1986).
This is an important issue because slightly altering a research question may change the focus of a project so much that different data is needed to answer it. This data may have to be collected and analyzed in entirely different ways. Alternative methods and analyses may drastically change the time and cost required to carry out a project. Gail Johnson provides a perceptive illustration of this issue.
If the legislature asks the transportation department ‘‘Can you evaluate a road construction project between several suburban communities and a large retail area in the central city?’’this is rather vague.
There are several possible questions that have slightly different wording but suggest different data collection strategies:
. If the question is ‘‘What is the quality of the road?’’ the transportation department might want to bring in some engineering experts to determine the number and size of potholes in the roads.
. If the question is ‘‘How frequently is the road used?’’ the department may want to use a method to count the traffic.
. If the question is‘‘How satisfied are citizens with the road?’’then the department might want to gather data directly from citizens.
. If the question is‘‘Has business at the retail center increased as a result of the roads?’’then the department might want to collect sales data over time or ask the owners whether they think business has improved (Johnson, 2002, p. 28).
To help a group generate a list of questions, Michael Patton suggests a practical exercise. Meet with a group of key stakeholders, and ask them to complete ten times the blank in the sentence
‘‘I would like to know _____ about (name of program or object of study).’’Then, divide them into groups of three or four people each and ask them to combine their lists together into a single list of ten things each group wants to know. Finally, get back together and generate a single list of ten basic things the group does not have information on but they would like to know, things that could make a difference in what they are doing. Follow-up sessions should be held to refine and prioritize these questions (Patton, 1986, pp. 75–77).
This is an important issue because slightly altering a research question may change the focus of a project so much that different data is needed to answer it. It may have to be collected and analyzed in entirely different ways. The data may change the time and cost required to carry out a project.