Emphasize RQs throughout documents

[samm82]

In #141, @JacquesCarette noted that I should "make it clearer (probably by labelling them RQ1, etc)" what my research questions are. The logical next feedback is that I should be referring to these questions throughout my documents. I noted that to make them "pop", I could put them in boxes, like in my seminar. Then it will be more obvious that RQ1 → Methodology, RQ2 → Results (currently "Flaws", probably renamed to "Observed Flaws"), and RQ3 → Recommendations. I could see how easy including these (ideally consistently formatted) RQ blocks in my thesis (+paper?) would be, but could also take the "label them RQ" approach if it's too much work.

[smiths]

I like the idea of relabelling Results as Observed Flaws. That gives the reader more information.

You might consider giving your RQs mnemonic names, rather than just 1, 2 and 3. Like RQ-TestsFromLit instead of RQ1, or something like that. 😄

[samm82]

Now that we've "demoted" Recommendations to an appendix in #262 (and rightfully so), I think I should revisit this. In the intro, I give a brief outline of our work and our RQs, implicitly giving a mapping between them. Now that RQ3 is essentially "out of scope", should I keep it as a research question? I'm thinking I could just add some context here like "While systemically resolving these flaws was our original intent, it is such a big task that we only partially attempt this, giving future researchers an idea of how to continue this process." - would that make sense to do in the intro?

[smiths]

@samm82 I think the presentation will be easier if you remove the RQ related to recommendations from your introduction. You can bring in this RQ as part of the future work.