Choosing the Research Project Question
In the Romanian continuers research project, students investigate a question connected to Romanian language or culture and present findings in Romanian. Mira proposes: 'What is Romanian food like?' Her supervisor notes the question invites description and a list, offers no arguable position, and could be answered by a cookbook. Mira's second idea is: 'Why do Romanian recipes in diaspora communities substitute ingredients, and what does that show about how identity is maintained abroad?' She has access to three relatives in Adelaide and Melbourne, a Romanian-language community newsletter, and one academic article in English. She worries the second idea is 'too sociological' and that her Romanian will not stretch to it, and she has 5 weeks.
1. Diagnose why the first question fails the project's requirements, and evaluate whether the second question is feasible and appropriate given her sources and timeline.
Read the worked answer
The first question fails on several counts. It has no arguable position, so it cannot generate analysis or a conclusion; it invites a descriptive catalogue. It is not genuinely researchable within the constraints, because the answer is diffuse and unbounded. And it offers little scope to demonstrate evaluative or hypothetical language in Romanian, since listing dishes uses a narrow vocabulary range. The second question is a real improvement: it poses a why-question with a mechanism (substitution) and an interpretive payoff (identity maintenance). Feasibility is the concern. Three family interviews are a workable primary base if she treats them as cases rather than a sample, and the community newsletter gives her a Romanian-language written source, which also supports her language goals. The English academic article is acceptable as background but should not carry the analysis, since the project is assessed in Romanian. Five weeks is tight but sufficient if she interviews in week one, transcribes selectively in week two, and drafts thereafter. She should narrow the scope explicitly to one or two diaspora cities rather than 'diaspora communities' generally.
2. Mira asks whether she can keep the broad framing but 'just add analysis'. Advise her, explaining the relationship between question scope and the quality of the conclusion.
Read the worked answer
Adding analysis to a descriptive question rarely works, because the question determines what counts as an answer. If the question is 'what is Romanian food like', any conclusion she reaches will be a summary, and the analysis will sit on top of the data rather than emerge from it. The fix is to change the question, not the decoration. She should keep the broad topic as background context in her introduction, then state a focused question that names a comparison, a cause, or a tension. Her second question already does this: it compares substitution practices and asks what they reveal. She should be careful not to broaden it again in the name of coverage; a narrow question answered with evidence and a qualified conclusion scores better than a broad question surveyed thinly. She should also pre-plan her conclusion type - for example, 'substitutions are not merely practical but function as markers of hybrid identity, though my three informants differ in how consciously they do this' - and check that her interview questions will actually produce evidence for it. Scope and conclusion quality are the same design decision.