Find your focus DoingResearch.net

Find your focus Turn a Topic into a Question

Research a questionPhase 2 · Find your focus

Turn a Topic into a Question

A topic tells you what to read about; a question tells you what to look for and when you're done. Here's how to turn one into the other, and how to test whether your question can be answered with sources you can get.

Type
Method
Updated
Read
7 min
Steps
6
Sources
5

Purpose

A topic is a subject: “the 1918 flu in Chicago.” You can read about it indefinitely, because nothing in it tells you what matters. A question is a gap: something you don’t know yet and want to find out. It tells you which sources are relevant, which details to note, and when you’ve found enough.

The Craft of Research, by Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb and Joseph Williams, builds its whole approach on this move from topic to question, and then from question to why it matters. First published in 1995 and now in its fifth edition (2024), the book’s core tool is a three-part sentence that university writing centers have adapted into worksheets:

I am studying (your topic) because I want to find out (your question) so that readers understand (why it matters).

Each part does a job. The first names the topic. The second names what you don’t know. The third makes you say why anyone else should care, which is what turns private curiosity into research someone will read.

When you need it

  • You have a narrow topic but no idea what to say about it.

  • You’re collecting notes on everything because you can’t tell what’s relevant.

  • Someone asks “what’s your paper about?” and you answer with a subject, not a puzzle.

  • You need to write a proposal, a research statement or an introduction.

  • You’re not sure whether your project needs an archive, a survey or an experiment.

How to do it

1Explore first, then ask

Don’t force a question on day one. Carol Kuhlthau’s research on how people do research found that a focus usually forms during what she calls formulation, after a stretch of exploring, and that it more often emerges gradually than in a flash. She describes the focus as a guiding idea, something like a hypothesis, that directs the rest of the search. Read broadly until you notice something that puzzles you, then start writing questions. Expect to Feel Lost covers the exploring stage.

2List questions without answering them

Take your narrow topic and write as many questions about it as you can in ten minutes: who, what, when and where, and especially how and why. Don’t stop to answer them. Quantity helps here; the good question is often the eighth one, not the first.

3Know what kind of question you’re asking

The kind of question decides the kind of evidence you need. One common way to sort them, from William Trochim’s Research Methods Knowledge Base:

  • Descriptive: what is happening or what exists. “How did the city’s newspapers report the epidemic?”
  • Relational: how two or more things vary together. “Did neighborhoods with more crowded housing record more deaths?”
  • Causal: whether one thing affects another. “Did closing schools reduce the spread?”

Trochim notes that each type builds on the one before. You can’t show a relationship between two things you can’t describe, and you can’t show a cause without first showing the relationship. He calls causal studies the most demanding of the three. If you have one term and an archive, a descriptive or relational question may be the one you can actually finish.

4Test each question

Imagine the answer to each question you’ve listed. Cross out any that fail one of these tests:

  • Already settled: the answer is in an encyclopedia. That’s a fact to look up, not a question to research.
  • Speculative: no evidence could settle it, such as “What would have happened if…?” or “Was it the worst…?”
  • A dead end: the evidence might exist, but not anywhere you can reach in the time you have.
  • Not yours yet: you can already answer it. If you know the answer, you’re writing an argument, not doing research.

5Fill in the three-part sentence

Take the strongest question left and put it into the sentence. I am studying how one city’s newspapers covered the 1918 epidemic because I want to find out how their reporting changed as deaths rose so that readers understand how local news shaped what residents knew in a public health emergency. If you can’t finish the third part, the question may be sound but not yet significant. Keep reading until you can say why it matters, or pick another question.

6Expect to revise it

Your first question is a working question. As you read, it will get narrower, shift, or split in two. That’s normal. Update the sentence each time, and keep the old versions: they show how your thinking moved, which helps when you write the introduction.

Try it

Your task

Your narrow topic is the 1918 influenza epidemic in one American city. Here are six draft questions. For each, decide whether it passes the tests in step 4, and label the ones that pass as descriptive, relational or causal. Then write the three-part sentence for the one you’d choose if you had one semester and access to the city’s newspaper archive.

  1. What was the 1918 influenza epidemic?
  2. Was the epidemic the worst disaster in the city’s history?
  3. What would have happened if the city had closed schools a month earlier?
  4. How did the city’s daily newspapers report the epidemic, from the first local cases to the end of the year?
  5. Did neighborhoods with more crowded housing record more deaths?
  6. Why did city health officials act when they did?
Show a hint

For each, ask: could I already look this up? Could any evidence settle it? Could I reach that evidence this semester?

Show the answer and the path
  1. Fails: already settled. Any encyclopedia answers it. It’s background reading, not a research question.
  2. Fails: speculative as written. “Worst” isn’t defined, so no evidence can settle it. It could be rescued by naming a measure (“Did it cause more deaths than any other event?”), which turns it into a descriptive question you’d answer from death records.
  3. Fails: speculative. A counterfactual can’t be settled from archives alone. Getting anywhere with it would take modeling, which is a different method and a different project.
  4. Passes. Descriptive. The newspapers are the evidence, and you can reach them.
  5. Passes, if the records exist. Relational. You’d need deaths and housing data by neighborhood, so check first that someone recorded them. If not, it’s a dead end.
  6. Passes, if the records exist. Causal in the explanatory sense: it asks what led officials to act. You’d need health board minutes, official statements or letters. Check the archive before committing.

For one semester and a newspaper archive, question 4 is the best fit: it’s answerable from sources you have, and it’s the least demanding type. A model sentence: I am studying how the city’s newspapers covered the 1918 epidemic because I want to find out how their reporting changed as the death toll rose so that readers understand what residents could have known about the danger, and when. If your sentence names a topic, a gap you can fill from the newspapers, and a reason a reader would care, it works.

Common mistakes

  • Treating the topic as the question. “The 1918 flu in Chicago” is not a question. If you can’t end it with a question mark, you don’t have one yet.

  • Asking a causal question with descriptive evidence. A few newspaper articles can show what people said, not what caused what. Match the question to the evidence you can get.

  • Asking a question you’ve already answered. If your conclusion is fixed before you start, you’ll read only for support. That’s advocacy, not research.

  • Skipping the “so that” part. Without a reason a reader should care, the project can be correct and still pointless to everyone but you.

  • Refusing to revise. Holding on to your first question after the sources point elsewhere wastes the best thing exploring gives you.

Limits

The three-part sentence comes from writing in the humanities and social sciences. In lab sciences, the equivalent is often a hypothesis with a test, and a supervisor may hand you the question. The tests still apply: can it be answered, with what you have, in the time you have?

Question types blur at the edges. “Why did officials act when they did?” asks about causes, but a historian answers it with documents, not an experiment. Trochim’s categories are one useful sorting, not the only one.

A good question doesn’t guarantee a good answer. Sources can turn out thinner than you hoped. When that happens, change the question rather than stretching the evidence. For judging whether evidence supports a causal claim, see Post hoc on ThinkingCritically.net.

Sources & further reading

End of page · Back to top