Choosing a Topic for the External Investigation
The external investigation is worth 30% of the final subject grade. Students must negotiate a research question, gather and analyse evidence, and produce a report. A student, Dan, proposes: 'Has feminism gone too far?' His teacher, Ms. Okafor, worries the question is too broad, invites opinion rather than evidence, and risks producing a polemic. Dan argues that the course should allow debate and that he has found many online articles supporting his view. Another student, Aisha, proposes a narrower question: 'How have Australian workplace entitlements for casual workers changed since 2010, and how do these changes affect women disproportionately?' Ms. Okafor must respond to both within the negotiated timeframe of two weeks before the proposal deadline.
1. Evaluate both proposed questions against the criteria for a strong investigation, and recommend what Ms. Okafor should do.
Read the worked answer
A strong investigation question must be researchable, bounded, evidence-based, and analytically open - it should not presuppose its answer.
Dan's question fails on several counts. 'Gone too far' is undefined: too far by what measure? It invites assertion rather than analysis, and 'many online articles supporting his view' signals confirmation bias rather than a search for evidence. The scope is unbounded - it could cover any country, any decade, any feminist issue. It is not automatically unacceptable, but it needs reconstruction: for example, 'How have public debates about [a specific policy] framed feminist claims, and what evidence supports each framing?' That version is bounded, requires evidence, and remains genuinely open.
Aisha's question is stronger: it is bounded by time (since 2010) and place (Australia), it names a measurable object (workplace entitlements), and it includes an analytical dimension (disproportionate effects on women) that requires linking policy to labour-market data. It is answerable with legislation, tribunal data, and workforce statistics.
Ms. Okafor should negotiate rather than reject. She should explain the criteria, ask Dan to narrow and reframe, and confirm Aisha's question with guidance on data sources. The two-week window allows one revision cycle for Dan.
2. Dan claims that restricting his question limits his freedom to debate. How should Ms. Okafor respond, and what does this reveal about the nature of the investigation?
Read the worked answer
Ms. Okafor should distinguish freedom of viewpoint from quality of method. Dan is free to reach uncomfortable conclusions; what the task requires is that conclusions follow from evidence and analysis, not from the framing of the question. A question that already contains its answer ('has feminism gone too far?') makes genuine inquiry impossible, because any evidence can be read as confirming the premise.
She can show him that a sharper question is more dangerous to his opponents, not less: if he asks, for example, 'How do critics and supporters of [specific feminist reform] use evidence, and which claims are best supported?' he can argue forcefully while meeting the standards. The constraint is on research design, not on conclusions.
This reveals the nature of the investigation: it is an inquiry, not an essay or a debate. Its quality is judged by the transparency of method, the range and reliability of sources, and the coherence of analysis. A polemic can be well written and still fail because it does not test its own claims. Ms. Okafor should make this explicit and offer Dan a revised proposal deadline within the two-week window.