Step 2: Reviewing and Testing Your Research Topic
Step two is where an idea you like becomes a topic you can defend. Two sets of questions do the testing — one aimed outward at the research, one aimed squarely at you — and only one of them is comfortable to answer honestly.
What this step is actually testing
Step one produced a candidate that survived a screen about problems and literature — the routine on generating and refining a research idea. Step two is different in kind. It asks whether the topic is worth doing and whether you are the person to do it, which are separate questions with separate failure modes.
The source frames both sets as things to consider "before you settle on a topic". That word matters. Nothing here is irreversible yet, and it is far cheaper to fail a topic at this step than at any point after it.
Five questions aimed at the research
Answer them in writing. Each has a characteristic weak answer, and the weak answers are much easier to spot on the page than in your head.
WHAT EACH FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS TESTING
| Question | What it tests | What a failing answer sounds like |
|---|---|---|
| Worth asking, and why | Whether a reason exists beyond your own curiosity | "Because I have always wondered about it." Curiosity sustains you; it does not justify the study to anyone else |
| Already answered | Whether you are about to repeat work that exists | "I don't think so." The source is explicit that the literature review answers this, so an untested hunch is not an answer |
| In whose interest | Whose agenda the question serves, including yours and your employer's | Silence. If the question serves your organisation's position, that is workable — but it has to be visible, not discovered later by a reader |
| Method fit and resources | Whether the methods answer the question, and whether you can actually run them | "I'll do a survey." A method named before the question is settled is a decision made in the wrong order |
| How findings could be used | What happens downstream, including misreading | "They'll inform practice." Too vague to be a test. Name who would act on the findings and what they might wrongly conclude |
Column one paraphrases the source's questions. Columns two and three are our reading; the source poses the questions without discussing answers.
The fourth question is doing the most work, because it bundles two independent tests. Method fit asks whether the approach can answer the question at all; the time, money and access clause asks whether you personally can run it. A topic can pass one and fail the other, and you should record which.
Five questions aimed at you
The second set is addressed in the first person, and the source's parenthetical remarks in it are unusually blunt. They are worth keeping, because they are where the practical warnings live.
The source's five personal questions
What am I most interested in?
The source adds the warning directly: "If your topic is not of interest to you it will be a real 'slog!'" This is the question practitioners answer least honestly, because the topic that impresses a sponsor is not always the one you will still care about eight months in.
What topic can I focus on and in which I have technical knowledge?
Existing technical knowledge is treated as an asset, not a bias risk. For a practitioner this is usually the strongest card you hold — you can read the literature faster and interpret the findings against something real.
What should I include and, more importantly, exclude?
The source's emphasis on exclusion is its own, and it attaches the warning that "many people take on too big a project at first". Exclusions belong in writing, because an unwritten boundary will not hold.
What are the relevant questions I can ask? What is my particular focus?
Note the phrasing — the questions you can ask, not the questions that exist. This is where access, position and confidentiality quietly determine what is available to you.
What is my timeframe?
Asked last and answered first in practice, because it constrains everything above it. A fixed submission date is a hard boundary on scope, method and sample.
Answers that settle a topic, and answers that do not
The topic is ready to settle when
- You can say why the question is worth asking without referring to your own interest
- Your reading, not your impression, tells you it has not already been answered
- You can name whose interest the question serves, including your own
- The method follows from the question, and you can run it in the time you have
- You can state what you are excluding, in writing
- You would still choose this topic if a more convenient dataset appeared elsewhere
Go back a step when
- The justification is circular — it matters because it is important
- You are relying on a hunch that nobody has looked at this
- The only beneficiary you can name is the organisation paying you
- You picked the method before the question and are now reverse-engineering
- Every attempt to write the exclusions makes the topic smaller than it can bear
- The honest answer to the interest question is that you are indifferent
Brainstorm, cluster, title
Having tested the topic, the source gives a short sequence for turning it into something with edges. It opens with brainstorming and suggests using one of the many mind maps available on the website — a resource that is referenced by the material but is not part of the supplied dataset.
The sequence as the source sets it out
List aspects, then elements
"List all possible aspects of the topic of interest to you and then list as many elements as you can think of in each aspect." Two levels, not one — the second level is what makes the clustering step possible.
Cluster and choose
"Cluster the elements into categories and then determine the aspect that is of most interest to you." The clustering is doing the analytical work; the choice that follows is a judgement you make, not one the categories make for you.
Write a title that shows the boundaries
"Select a title that focuses the nature of your topic and that also illustrates the boundaries of the topic. Make sure the title includes your main interest. If possible make your title 'catchy.'"
Confirm it is doable
"Ensure that relevant material is available and your topic is 'doable.'" This closes the loop back to the literature check and to the time, money and access clause.
Stay flexible
"Be flexible about your topic as it will evolve as you discover more." Consistent with the same material's insistence that the research process is ever-changing rather than fixed.
This page stops at the sequence. The practical mechanics of shrinking a topic — how far to narrow, what to cut first, how to test that a boundary holds — are treated separately on narrowing and scoping a research topic, which draws on the same material.
What the title is being asked to carry
The source loads four requirements onto a single line of text. That is more than a title usually carries, and it is worth checking each one deliberately rather than assuming a well-phrased title has met them all.
Test your working title against the source's four requirements
- It focuses the nature of the topic — a reader can tell what the study is about from the title alone
- It illustrates the boundaries — the title implies what is out of scope as well as what is in
- It includes your main interest — the thing that will keep you working on this is visible in it
- It is catchy if that is achievable, and the source treats this as optional rather than required
- It survives being read aloud to somebody outside your field without needing a paragraph of explanation
Settle, reshape, or go back
The step ends in a decision. The source does not describe it as one, but everything in the two question sets is pointed at a choice between three outcomes.
Closing out step two
Once the topic is settled, the process moves on to checking the literature properly and then to stating the question in one sentence. The full sequence and its numbering are on the ten-step thesis model.
What to carry forward
- Two question sets, ten questions, all to be answered before you settle. Write the answers down — weak answers are visible on paper and invisible in your head.
- The fourth fundamental question bundles method fit with time, money and access. Record which of the two a topic fails.
- The source warns plainly that an uninteresting topic will be a slog, and that many people take on too big a project at first.
- Exclusions are the deliverable of this step. A boundary that is not written down will not hold.
- The title has to focus the topic, show its boundaries and carry your main interest. Catchy is optional.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between step one and step two?
Step one generates an idea and screens it, mostly against the literature and against anything that would stop or delay the project. Step two tests whether the topic is worth doing and whether you are the right person to do it, then turns it into a bounded topic with a working title.
How do I answer 'in whose interest are the questions being asked?'
Name the parties who benefit from an answer, including yourself and your employer. The source poses the question without discussing answers, so it is your responsibility to make the interests visible. A study that serves an organisational position is not disqualified, but a reader should not have to discover that on their own.
Should I write the title now or at the end?
The source places title selection in this step, immediately after clustering, and treats it as a scoping instrument rather than a finishing touch. Expect it to change — the same material tells you to stay flexible because the topic will evolve as you discover more.
What if I am interested in the topic but have no technical knowledge of it?
The source lists both interest and technical knowledge as personal questions without ranking them. In practice, missing technical knowledge is recoverable through reading, while missing interest is not recoverable at all. Weigh the two accordingly and give yourself extra time for the literature.
How narrow is narrow enough?
The source gives no measure. It offers a direction — many people take on too big a project at first — and a test, which is whether relevant material is available and the topic is doable. The mechanics of narrowing are treated on the separate page for that topic.
Do I need to answer all ten questions before moving on?
The source presents both sets as things to consider before settling, without saying that every one must be answered. Two of them — whether the questions have already been answered, and whether you have the necessary access — often cannot be closed until you have read further, so record them as open rather than treating a provisional answer as final.
References and source attribution
- Naoum, S. G. 2013, Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 3rd ed., Routledge (set as reading on topic selection, pp. 9–11).
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London (the topic-development material also cites the 2010 edition).
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford (listed among the source's references).
- The supplied teaching source: master's-level teaching material on developing a research topic, supplied as study notes and accompanying slides. Both question sets and the brainstorm sequence are quoted from that material.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- What questions should I ask before settling on a research topic?
- How do I test whether my research topic is worth doing?
- What should a research title include according to this library's source material?
- How do I decide what to exclude from my research topic?
- What happens if the literature shows my research question has already been answered?