A research question template for Notion that shows what to fix next

See inside the Research Question Lab

The problem it solves

"Your question is too broad." "What exactly are you asking?" "Is this even answerable?" Most students hear one of these before their proposal is approved, and most respond by rewriting the question.

The trouble is that a research question can fail in several ways at once. It can be too big to finish, too familiar to be worth asking, or worded so it can be answered with yes or no. A total score hides which of these is the problem: a question can look strong overall and still be one weak criterion away from rejection.

Then there is the design: a causal "why" question paired with an observational design is a mismatch a committee notices quickly.

And there is the history. When a committee asks why the question changed, "my supervisor suggested it" is weaker than a dated record of what changed, why, and whether it helped. This lab keeps that record as you go.

How it works: Draft → Score → Revise

1. Draft

   Write the question in one sentence and pick its type: descriptive, correlational, comparative, causal, mediation, moderation, exploratory or mixed. The lab suggests the design family and the framework it fits, and lists the components to fill in.

2. Score

   Rate it 1 to 5 on each FINER criterion, Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical and Relevant, and tick five wording checks. The Verdict says in plain words what to fix first.

3. Revise

   Make a new version linked to the old one, write what changed and why, and mark the old one superseded. You can see whether each revision raised the score.

What the studio checks for you

Each draft, and each question as it evolves, carries a plain-language status worked out by formulas from what you enter. These are the labels you will see.

Verdict, per draft

• ⚪ Not scored: at least one FINER score is blank.
• 🔴 Fix Feasible (or Novel, and so on): a criterion scores 2 or below. The Verdict names the first weak letter, because no total can make up for it.
• 🟡 Revise: no criterion is weak, but the total is below 20 or a wording check is not ticked.
• 🟢 Ready for supervisor: a FINER total of at least 20 out of 25 and all five wording checks ticked.

Design checks, per draft

• ✅ Complete / ⚠️ 1 missing: the Framework check counts the framework components still empty for this question type, such as a comparison for a causal question.
• ⚠️ Yes/no stem: rephrase as To what extent… or How…: the question opens with a word such as Is, Does or Can, so it may be answerable in a word.

Thread check, per question

• ✅ One current version: the question has exactly one version marked current.
• ⚠️ No current version / ⚠️ More than one current: the version history needs tidying before you take the question to your supervisor.

The 1 to 5 scale and the thresholds (a total of 20, no score of 2 or below) are GradSummit's teaching rule, not part of Hulley et al. (2013), and the method guide says so. The scores make your judgement visible; your supervisor and committee still decide.

The worked example

Fictional study

The lab opens with the fictional Brookfield study: whether timely instructor feedback is linked to course completion among first-generation students in online programmes. It has 4 question threads, 8 question versions and 5 logged decisions. The central question starts as "Why do so many students drop out of online courses?" and goes through four versions, scoring 18, 19, 21 and 22 out of 25, with Verdicts of 🔴 Fix Feasible, 🔴 Fix Novel, 🟡 Revise and finally 🟢 Ready for supervisor. Three sub-questions sit beside it, one recast as a mediation question with its timing written into the wording. Clearing the example takes about two minutes.

Method and sources

FINER comes from Hulley et al. (2013). The question types and the designs they imply follow Creswell & Creswell (2018), and the frameworks are PICO (Richardson et al., 1995), PECO (Morgan et al., 2018) and SPIDER (Cooke et al., 2012). Revision draws on Sandberg & Alvesson (2011): narrowing a topic into a question, or challenging an assumption rather than only spotting a gap.

The method guide warns that a mediation question is a causal claim. It needs the cause, the mediator and the outcome measured in time order and a plan for confounders, because cross-sectional mediation estimates can be badly biased (Maxwell & Cole, 2007).

What the studio does not do

• It does not approve your question. Your supervisor and committee do; the lab records your reasoning for them.
• It does not write or suggest questions. You write every draft yourself.
• The scores are your own ratings. A 🟢 means the question meets the lab's rule as you scored it, not that it is a good question.

What you get

• A one-page PDF with your link, sent by Gumroad when you click Get it free and enter your email. Click it, then Duplicate, and the studio is in your own Notion workspace, yours to keep.
• Simple mode: three steps, one small table each, with a plain instruction above every table. You can start in Notion for the first time today.
• The full lab: current questions, a draft workbench, how each question evolved, a version history and a decision log with the alternatives you rejected.
• Visual guides, and export views that give clean CSV tables for your proposal appendix.
• A Start here page, a method guide with full references, and a worked fictional example you can clear in a few minutes.
• Works on Notion's Free plan. No charts, no paid features and no Notion AI needed.

Related guides and templates

• Is my research question good?

  a free online check of one question

• Research Question & Problem Statement Kit

  fillable templates for your question and problem statement

• The Research Question & Problem Statement Workbook

  the Brookfield study from vague interest to approved question

• How to write a research hypothesis

  the next step for correlational and causal questions

Other research studios

• Methods Design Navigator

  Weigh candidate designs and draft the paragraph that defends yours. $12.

• Supervisor Meeting System

  Free. Plan, record and close every supervision meeting.

• Thesis Command Centre

  Plan milestones, track chapters and check whether you are on time. $12.