Part A: The project chapters
Introduction to research
Key takeaways
- Research is the systematic investigation of a question: what separates it from opinion is a method that is stated, defensible and capable of being repeated by somebody else.
- A CQP project is applied research: it investigates a quality problem in a real organisation or sector and produces recommendations that could be implemented.
- The proposal is approved before fieldwork begins and becomes chapters one to three of the project, rewritten in the past tense with what actually happened.
- A plausible study passes four tests: researchable, feasible, significant and original in some respect. A topic failing any of them should be abandoned early rather than defended.
- Narrow a broad topic by adding constraints to it (the aspect of quality, the population, the geography, a measurable variable, the period) rather than by changing subject.
This paper is assessed by what you produce rather than by what you can recall. The output is a research project on a quality management problem, and the single largest determinant of whether it succeeds is the choice of topic, which is made in the first weeks and cannot be undone later without starting again.
Overview of research
How to study this paper
- The paper is learned by doing, so read the guidance once and then begin work on your own topic rather than reading further.
- Work in the order of the chapters: a literature review written before the objectives are settled will be discarded.
- Expect the topic to narrow substantially. Almost every candidate's first topic is too broad to research within the time and resource available, and narrowing it is progress rather than retreat.
- Use your supervisor early and often. A project corrected at the proposal stage costs an afternoon; the same error found at submission costs a term.
- Keep a research log from the first day, recording decisions, sources and changes, since chapter three must explain what you did and memory will not supply it later.
- Set the reference manager up before reading anything, because reconstructing references from a folder of downloaded articles is among the most tedious tasks in the process and is entirely avoidable.
Texts and resources
- The current published research project guidelines of the institution, which govern format, length, submission requirements and the plagiarism threshold, and which take precedence over any general guidance including this material.
- A research methods text covering design, sampling, instruments and analysis; any standard text is adequate and the choice matters less than reading one properly.
- The APA publication manual or a reliable summary of it, since APA is the required style.
- Access to scholarly databases through the institution's library, and Google Scholar for locating material that can then be obtained properly.
- Reference management software, which pays for the time spent learning it within the first month.
- Statistical software appropriate to the analysis planned, which for most CQP projects means a spreadsheet or SPSS rather than anything more specialised.
- The quality management literature of the qualification itself, since a CQP project should be grounded in the frameworks of Quality Management Systems, Quality Control, Assurance and Performance Management, and Quality Improvement and Excellence Models rather than in general management theory.
From problem area to plausible study
The research process end to end
| Stage | Output |
|---|---|
| Identify a problem area | A field of concern, still too broad to research |
| Review preliminary literature | An understanding of what is already known and where the gaps are |
| Narrow to a researchable problem | A specific problem statement |
| Formulate objectives and questions | General and specific objectives, research questions, hypotheses where applicable |
| Design the study | Design, population, sample, instruments, analysis plan |
| Write and defend the proposal | An approved proposal, being chapters one to three |
| Obtain authorisation | Institutional approval and any permit or organisational consent required |
| Collect data | Completed instruments, records, transcripts |
| Analyse and interpret | Findings, being chapter four |
| Conclude and recommend | Chapter five |
| Present and submit | The bound project and the defence or workshop presentation |
Narrow by adding constraints, not by changing subject
Candidates asked to narrow a topic often abandon it and choose another equally broad one. The productive move is to add constraints to the topic you have. 'Quality management in manufacturing' becomes researchable by specifying the sector, the geography, the population, the aspect of quality and the period: 'the relationship between ISO 9001 certification and customer complaint rates among food processing firms in Nairobi County, 2022 to 2025'. The subject has not changed; four constraints have made it a study.
Narrowing a topic through four iterations
Start: 'Quality management and performance.' Not a topic; it is a field.
Iteration 1, specify the aspect of quality: 'The effect of ISO 9001 certification on organisational performance.' Still unbounded as to who and where.
Iteration 2, specify the population and geography: 'The effect of ISO 9001 certification on the performance of food processing firms in Nairobi County.' Now bounded, but performance is undefined and unmeasurable as stated.
Iteration 3, specify the variable: 'The effect of ISO 9001 certification on customer complaint rates and rework costs among food processing firms in Nairobi County.' Measurable, and the data plausibly exists.
Iteration 4, check feasibility: how many such firms are there, how many are certified, will they release complaint and rework data, and do you have access? If the answer to the last question is no, the topic fails the feasibility test however good it looks, and this is the point to discover it.
Self-check
Explain the criteria against which the plausibility of a proposed research topic should be assessed, and illustrate how a broad topic is narrowed into a researchable one. (12 marks)
Distinguish a research proposal from a research project, and outline the stages of the research process. (8 marks)
Show worked answer
Plausibility criteria and narrowing (12 marks).
A plausible study is one that can actually be completed and is worth completing. It is assessed against four criteria.
Researchability requires that the question be answerable by evidence. Questions of value or of preference cannot be answered by research however important they are: asking whether an organisation ought to prioritise quality over cost is a question of judgement, whereas asking what relationship exists between quality expenditure and operating cost in a defined population is a question of fact and can be investigated. A proposal whose central question cannot be settled by any obtainable evidence should be reformulated before anything else is done.
Feasibility requires that the data can be obtained within the time, budget, skill and access actually available. Access is the constraint candidates most frequently underestimate: a design requiring cooperation from thirty organisations will not be executed by a candidate with a working relationship with two, and no amount of methodological sophistication compensates. Feasibility also covers time, since a longitudinal design cannot be executed in a single term, and skill, since a design requiring statistical technique the candidate cannot perform will produce an analysis that cannot be defended.
Significance requires that the answer matter to somebody identifiable, whether the organisation studied, the sector, the regulator or the professional body. A study whose findings would change nothing and interest nobody is not worth the effort even when competently executed, and the significance section of chapter one exists to make the candidate state who will use the result.
Originality requires that the study contribute something not already established, but the requirement is weaker than candidates fear. For a professional qualification originality may lie in the population studied, the geographic or sectoral context, the period, the method, or the combination of these. Applying a well-established framework to a Kenyan sector in which it has not previously been examined is a sufficient contribution; inventing a new theory is not expected.
Narrowing is achieved by adding constraints to the topic rather than by changing subject, which is the error candidates commonly make when told a topic is too broad. Beginning with quality management and performance, which is a field rather than a topic, the first constraint specifies the aspect of quality, giving the effect of ISO 9001 certification on organisational performance. The second specifies population and geography, giving the effect of certification on food processing firms in Nairobi County. The third specifies the dependent variable in measurable terms, since performance as stated cannot be measured, giving the effect of certification on customer complaint rates and rework costs among those firms. The fourth tests feasibility by asking how many such firms exist, how many are certified, whether they will release the data, and whether the candidate has access. A topic that fails at this last step fails however attractive it appears, and discovering it at the topic stage rather than after three months of literature review is the purpose of the exercise.
Proposal, project and the research process (8 marks).
A research proposal sets out what the candidate intends to investigate, why it matters and how it will be done. It is prepared and approved before fieldwork begins, and it comprises the introduction, the literature review and the methodology, being chapters one to three of the eventual project. A research project is the completed work, comprising those three chapters revised, together with the findings and their analysis, and the summary, conclusions and recommendations. The relationship between the two is that the proposal is not discarded but rewritten: the tense changes from what will be done to what was done, and the methodology chapter is amended to record what actually happened rather than what was planned, since departures from the plan are normal and concealing them is a defect.
The stages of the research process are as follows. Identify a problem area, producing a field of concern still too broad to research. Review preliminary literature, producing an understanding of what is already known and where gaps remain. Narrow to a researchable problem, producing a specific problem statement. Formulate general and specific objectives, research questions and, where the design requires them, hypotheses. Design the study, determining the research design, population, sampling approach, instruments and analysis plan. Write and defend the proposal, producing an approved document. Obtain authorisation, including institutional approval, any research permit required and the consent of organisations to be studied. Collect data using the approved instruments. Analyse and interpret the data, producing the findings that form chapter four. Draw conclusions and make recommendations, forming chapter five. Finally present and submit, comprising the bound project and the defence or workshop presentation. The sequence matters: work performed out of order, most commonly a literature review written before the objectives are settled, is generally wasted.