Questions on RG are often incomplete or open ended. Should there be a format to ensure that everyone understands what is being asked and understands the conditions of the question?
Examples of weak questions:
- What is better A or B?
- How do I find X in my data?
- I want to make the best XYZ. What do I need?
There are more examples, but all of the above are weak because no conditions are described; better, best, or limits are not described; no final or preferred result is described; and why is the answer is needed is not described.
There may be reasons for not completing the question. Concern for revealing the intent to rivals, proprietary reasons, lack of understanding, fear of looking stupid, or not knowing how to ask a question.
What should we do to improve the questioning and discussion?
Dear Joseph,
At first glance (from the presented question, not the associated description) your question could be interpreted as a rhetorical one in which a simple answer to getting the "answer you seek" is simply to use a "leading question". More seriously, and to the point, THIS may be an example of the problem with not getting the "answers we seek" --- i.e., we are not clearly communicating "what we seek" from the intended respondent.
This is much more than a simple matter of semantics, this involves our very careful and deliberate construction of the "answers we seek" (i.e., what do we really want to know and in what fashion --- a quick yes or no response, a paragraph or two of prose, etc). In addition, generally, we can obtain more accurate data from respondents if the questions are formulated in an open, non-judgmental, and non-threatening manner (i.e., non-threatening to, for example, the self-image of the respondent).
I trust that this may be of some assistance and will, at least, stimulate responses from others that may be the "answer YOU seek"!!
Sincerely,
Lou
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning