{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012182741116751269, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.08641975308642, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coda. Research Design Scaffolding

A typical social science study begins by justifying the research question within the context of the existing academic literature. Yet there is minimal discussion on why one question is chosen over another. There is little reflection on the mistakes, uncertainties, wrong turns, and obstacles that are encountered on the way to formulating a particular research question. This chapter takes the opposite approach and shows that the detritus of our efforts to construct a research question is useful for unveiling how research is actually conducted. This chapter revisits the extralegal groups project to show how it was originally conceived and how different iterations of the research question evolved over time. It argues that research is inherently messy and that scholars should be more willing to adopt a reflective “Show Your Work” approach so that the reader can make sense of the methods used and the research design decisions that were taken.