The techniques discussed so far in this Exciting Factual Writing course — inductive and deductive reasoning, issue analysis and the formulation of hypotheses — enable the fact-based writer to develop a comprehensive research plan. When it comes to probing research sources, however, there is no substitute for direct questioning: our instinct is anyway to ask questions.

Arguably, we might conduct a productive and successful research project by going straight from project definition to questions. The benefit of the approach we have taken is that, having mapped out the project in all its breadth and depth, we are able to concentrate on the questions that matter without having to make the questions do the mapping. In other words, rather than asking questions whose answers might be as large and (initially) unstructured as the project itself, we are able to formulate smaller "big" questions, based on issues or hypotheses, that probe specific areas of needed information.

Open vs Closed Questions

We have seen how inductive reasoning is fundamentally a creative process, while deductive reasoning is an analytical one.

• Inductive reasoning opens up new domains of thought by feeding the mind with a few facts and inviting the imagination to run free.
• Deductive reasoning is aimed at channeling facts into a closed line of thinking that presents, ideally, an inalienable proof of one's argument.

A similar distinction may be drawn between "open questions" and "closed questions".

• Open questions, typically based on such words as why? and how?, are inductive in character. The domain of the question is unstructured and open to subjective answers of the sort that might reasonably begin with the words "In my opinion...". Nor will any respondent necessarily confine him/herself to a single answer, but may continue to extend the answer with new, relevant, unexpected information.
• Closed questions, for example beginning who? where? which? or when?, invite specific, factual answers, often simply yes or no.

A typical media interview tactic is to begin with open questions that allow the interviewee to set the scope of the discussion, and proceed to focus on specific areas of enquiry with closed questions. This approach works well in a research interview too. Good open questions invite the interviewee to point the way towards fruitful lines of enquiry that might have been overlooked in the (inductive) project planning phase. The closed questions are important too, because they are the only sure way to establish the facts.

The Limitless Inductive Potential of Open Questions

Open questions are inductive in the sense that they invite the respondent to make a creative leap, drawing one or more conclusions from a set of observations. The observations, in this case, exist primarily in the mind of the respondent. A simple open question such as Why did you drop out of university? requires the interviewee to catalogue some of the key moments of the story, as the basis for the inductive leap to the conclusions needed to answer the question why?

As far as the interviewee is concerned, the inductive thinking ends when the question is answered. From the perspective of the research, as we have seen, the inductive thinking continues as the researcher assembles the information gathered and uses it to leap to new hypotheses and conclusions.

Open questions are useful not only for providing food for inductive thought, but also for presenting it in an ordered form. For example, the answer to the question Why? might reasonably begin with the words "For a number of reasons, as follows..." The reasons, then, form a set that may usefully be kept together. If the research is impersonal, for example if the researcher wishes to understand the reasons why students in general, rather than this student in particular, dropped out of university, other interviewees' answers may be added and, ultimately, the list may be organised so that the reasons are listed in descending order of importance.

Strengthening Inductive Conclusions

This process of using open questions to elicit coherent sets of information is particularly useful when the writer wishes to "prove" an inductive conclusion. Inductive logic, as we have seen, is never wholly conclusive. The stronger the supporting information, however, the more credible the conclusion.

In generalised research studies (such as trying to explain a high drop-out rate from university), one's conclusions may be made forceful by recording the answers of an impressively large (or statistically significant) set of interviewees. In a biographical study, by contrast, the emphasis must be on obtaining corroborative information from the widest possible range of sources. In either case, the credibility of the results may be greatly assisted by deploying thought-provoking questions and subjecting the inductive answers to careful analysis.