Defining the research focus: questions, constraints and ethical positioning
Following the identification of cognitive accessibility as a pedagogical and social justice concern in the previous blog post, the next stage of the action research project focused on developing research questions that were both purposeful and feasible within my teaching context. Moving from a broad professional concern to a structured enquiry required careful reflection on how research questions function within practice-based research.
Gray and Malins (2004) describe research questions as devices for focusing enquiry rather than statements of intent or prediction. They argue that effective questions should remain open, exploratory, and capable of evolving as understanding develops. This perspective was particularly relevant to my project, as my initial concerns about online learning environments were grounded in lived teaching experience rather than clearly bounded problems.
Engaging with this literature helped me recognise the need to narrow the enquiry without closing it down. Early iterations of my questions risked becoming either too broad (attempting to address accessibility at an institutional level) or too solution-focused, implying improvement before sufficient understanding had been developed. Gray and Malins caution against research questions that seek outcomes too early, instead advocating for enquiry that enables discovery rather than confirmation. This understanding was reinforced by White (2009), who frames research questioning as a form of disciplined curiosity. She argues that uncertainty plays a productive role in research, allowing understanding to emerge gradually rather than being fixed at the outset. This framing helped me recognise that refining the questions was part of the enquiry itself, not a preliminary task to be completed before learning could begin. Rather than seeking generalisable findings, the enquiry needed to support reflective learning about my own practice and inform future development of my teaching.
Figure 1: Visual representation of the iterative development of the research question, showing the progression from an initial broad enquiry toward more focused and cognitively accessible research questions, informed by tutor and peer feedback.
At the same time, the institutional context influenced what forms of enquiry were possible. While Unit 1 of the MA Graphic Design (Online) was live at the time of the project, access to the current student cohort was not available, and feedback on the VLE was discouraged from director level at this stage of delivery. This limited the scope of participant involvement and required careful reconsideration of the research design. In response, the project pivoted towards engaging colleagues as participants, recognising their role in shaping learning environments, platform structures, and pedagogical decisions. This adaptation reinforced Gray and Malins’ view of research as situated practice, shaped by real conditions rather than idealised models.
As a result, the enquiry was articulated through two related research questions. Together, these questions allowed my enquiry to address both elements which co-exists in the online teaching context (professional practice and digital design structures) while remaining open-ended and appropriate to an action research framework.
Pedagogical approach
How do educators understand and approach cognitive accessibility when designing online learning experiences?
Platform design
How do the design structures of Virtual Learning Environments and alternative platforms support or constrain clarity, navigation, and cognitive accessibility?
Despite this refinement, I remain aware that research questions continue to evolve as understanding develops (Gray and Malins, 2004; White, 2009). Approaching the enquiry in this way enabled flexibility, responsiveness, and critical reflection, establishing a strong foundation for the data collection stage that followed. Ethical guidance from BERA (2024) and Banks (2016) informed decisions around participation, consent, and anonymity, particularly given my position as an insider researcher. These considerations supported the transition from planning into action within the action research cycle and shaped the methodological choices that followed.
References
Banks, S. (2016) Everyday ethics in professional life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
BERA (2024) Ethical guidelines for educational research. 5th edn. London: BERA.
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) Visualizing research: a guide to the research process in art and design. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988) The action research planner. Geelong: Deakin University.
White, P. (2009) Developing research questions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.