In Mekrijärvi we have witnessed some clashes of two research traditions. On one side, there was a pressure for solid, answerable, and viable research questions, backed up with a literature review. On the other side, there were rather vague and general research directions, far from being directly answerable research questions.
I believe that these contrasts are caused by overall differences how a phd research is approached. In countries like Finland, the tradition dictates that the research proposal is a part of the phd-studentship application. Thus, the proposal is written at the very beginning of one’s phd research. It seems then understandable that at that moment the student does not have clear and specific ideas about what the actual research shall be, what methodologies shall be used. Based on these research questions, in their vague form, it is then rather difficult if not impossible, to select a proper research methodology that would help to answer the questions.
When our phd students are then faced with an experienced researcher coming from countries like USA, an apparent communication problem appears: to get a picture of what is going on, the researcher wants to know the background, relevant research, the specific research questions, and the methodology being used. Our students cannot answer with a rigor, simply because they are not yet ‘there’.
A phd student from e.g. USA, before writing a research proposal, conducts background mapping, does a literature review, passes methodological courses. We then cannot expect that the two proposals would be on the same level. Unfortunatelly, it seem to happen often that our students, once starting with vague proposal, they continue with the vague approach to research and might become unware (would not like to say ignorant) about methodological considerations completely. In more lucky cases, I hope, the proposal gets incrementally updated and becomes more specific.
Now, your turn.