Formulating my Research Hypothesis

 

1. Please describe the inquiry question you began this research project with and the inquiry question that is now guiding your research and your thinking.  Why has your inquiry questions changed or not changed?

 

I began this research process with the research question: Why/How is it that the US military uses the protection of democracy as justification for the torture of Iraqi prisoners of war?  That may not be the exact question but it is very similar in that the topic of inquiry is the torture of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Americans in Iraq.  I wanted to investigate the fact that those doing the torturing are justifying their behavior by saying they are stamping out terrorism and making the world a more democratic, and consequently a safer, place.  I wanted to have an original insight or argument having to do with why that is and hopefully exposing something to make a point that this is wrong, but I am having a tough time with that because the idea that the torture is wrong is such a broad topic and not a very original idea.  Through some of the research I have conducted I found really interesting information about the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to the War in Iraq.  The Geneva Conventions basically lay out the international rules of conduct in times of war and it is essential the rules be followed to preserve human dignity and humanity in general.  I want to investigate the loopholes in the Geneva Conventions documents that perhaps allowed for the conduct of soldiers at Abu Ghraib to get out of control and violent.  I think my topic of inquiry has changed because my stance before was really vague and rather obvious so it was too hard to come up with an original idea.  I think if I examine this international agreement (the Geneva Conventions) and how it correlates with what has been happening in the war on terror I will be able to generate some original ideas.  The two inquiries are connected because the US justifying its stance as an enemy of terrorism is a main reason why it violated the Geneva Conventions.

 

2. What you now know about your topic that you did not know before?  How has this new knowledge shaped your understanding of your topic of inquiry?  What research has provided you with this new knowledge?

 

I know more about the topic of the treatment of prisoners of war in a broader sense now.  After reading the Geneva Conventions, I have a better sense, more of a historical context, of the standards soldiers are expected to uphold when dealing with prisoners of war.  I can put the War in Iraq into better perspective now and in doing so, I have started to generate ideas about why the US is justifying the fact that it heinously violated the rules laid out in the Third Geneva Convention.  I think I can really generate some interesting insights if I use the Geneva Conventions as a lens through which I will pick apart such topics as prison torture, the War in Iraq, and international relations.

 

3. What do I want to know more about?  Be specific here.  Why is this information that you want to find out important?  What kind of research do you plan to conduct to locate this new information?  What sources will you consult?

 

I want to know more about the context of the Geneva Conventions.  More specifically I want to find out how seriously the countries of the world take these documents when they are engaging in a war.  I want to know more about how serious the punishments have been in the past for violating the rules in the Geneva Conventions.  I need to know this information because if these documents are just a formality and no one really follows them or cares enough to follow them, then I do not want to base a lot of my research on it as an international code of ethics.  My research will be more relevant and more powerful if the Geneva Conventions are something that is taken very seriously and abided by as much as possible by nations involved in wars.  I will try to find reactions to the Conventions by political figures, journalists, authors, and anyone else I can find out from.  I will search online databases more for scholarly articles.

 

4. What specific gaps are you noticing in your research, which could potentially create space for an original idea to emerge?   For instance, are there incongruities in what secondary sources are saying about your topic?  Are there connections missing in other sources analyses of your topic?  Is there a disconnect between what you believe to be true or what your primary research subjects believe to be true and what the media or other sources are saying about your topic?  Is there a gap in certainty about the answers to your question of inquiry that you could fill in with a plausible explanation?  Etc.

 

As stated above, a possible gap in my research could be that the Geneva Conventions are not really followed by the nations who recognize it.  They could just be a formality and could not really matter if they are violated and this would mean my research is pretty unnecessary.  Another gap in my research is that I am basing my argument at the moment on the assumption that the soldiers and commanders at Abu Ghraib were aware of the Geneva Conventions when they decided to torture the prisoners, meaning they knew what they were getting themselves into.  I did read one article that said many of those accused of torturing Iraqi prisoners were reservists who were not ever made aware of the Geneva Conventions.  If they did not know about the Conventions it is hard to sound valid when making connections between the documents and the soldiers’ actions.

 

5. What original ideas are brewing in your head at this point?  If you had to make an argument about your topic of inquiry today, what would it be????  What are your justifications for this working hypothesis?  Please, explain……

 

I really liked the idea of using an official international document as a moral compass for what is right and what is wrong in wartime.  So far, the best document I have is the Third Geneva Convention.  When I selected quotations and paragraphs from the document I found what I think are some loopholes in the document or maybe ambiguity that could allow the US to justify not following it in certain circumstances.  I would argue that A, B, and C are loopholes (or rules that can be justifiably broken in certain cases…so the US military thinks) in the Geneva Conventions that are why Iraqi prisoners have been tortured in the recent past.  I would also examine the justifications the US makes and argue that they are absurd.  I have a basis of knowledge through research but more is definitely required to formulate a completely original thesis. 

 

Advertisement