I can think of a couple of main changes to my research question that I think are kind of fun to look at now that I'm done. Specifically, in the beginning, my research question was extremely broad in that I was looking at where, when, why, and how audiobook listeners use audiobooks. I knew that there was something interesting about how these aspects of audiobook listening fit together but I could not figure out how exactly and to what end. After I got feedback from my first proposal, I started to narrow the goal of my research to helping with marketing efforts and adoption issues. Also, I tried to narrow the where, when, why, and how down to the profiling of audiobook listeners, but something felt off. Then, as a really started to focus on the research method--interviewing--I would use, I realized that there are different ways to interview people. As I made choices about how I would want to interview people, mainly I want to interview using a narrative style, I realized that I wouldn't really be profiling people by hearing their stories. At last I had an ahha! moment, where my knowledge from information system and design (IS&D) intersected with my library and information science (LIS) knowledge: what I want to look at in my research is the use cases of audiobook listeners.
In retrospect, this history is probably only fun to me but I think it is interesting that my main idea from the beginning stuck, but it took me almost four months to articulate that idea in a succinct and effective way.
References
Heaberlin, P. (2009). Day 110/365[Photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.flickr.com/photos/lobsterboy1980/
I know exactly what you mean. I too feel that my research is both same and different now that it was at the beginning. Like you, the difference for me has been in how I frame the topic, rather than a chance in focus.
ReplyDelete