The research question being “pre-determined” and “closed-ended”

This is an excellent methodological objection, but we need to distinguish narrow from loaded.

Question:

“How did nominal wages change between 1800 and 1850?”

is narrow, but it isn't necessarily loaded.

Why?

Because it does not contain the answer.

It does not say:

“How did wages improve between 1800 and 1850?”

That would be leading.

The original question allows:

wages increased;

wages decreased;

wages fluctuated;

different groups experienced different changes.

Is it “closed-ended”?

In one sense, yes: it defines a specific object of investigation.

But scholarly research questions often need boundaries.

The danger arises when the boundaries exclude evidence necessary to evaluate the broader claim.

For example:

Research question:

“How did nominal wages change?”

Conclusion:

“Therefore workers became better off.”

That conclusion goes beyond the question because nominal wages are not the same as overall living standards.

You would need to consider:

prices;

working hours;

unemployment;

housing;

health;

mortality;

working conditions.

So the concern is correct if someone takes a narrow question and then makes a broad conclusion.