Objectives That Are Too Vague to Be Useful
Why objectives are where proposals fall apart. When I mark research proposals, the objectives are where I see a lot of problems. I often see three problems in objectives: some are too vague to be useful. Some promise things the methodology can never deliver, and some fail to connect to the aim they should serve.
Research Objectives That Work
Here is where I will give you the process to formulate research objectives which can yield results. The process has four steps. I will start off by taking you through the important verbs, what they offer, and where they fit in. After that, I will walk you through a complete set of examples for research objectives.
Starting from the Verbs
Third, I will discuss two practices that I don’t approve of. The first one is the SMART criteria, also known as SMART research objectives. Lastly, here is a check for you to ascertain whether or not your objectives will accomplish your goal. Let us begin with the verbs.
Take the Verb “Explore”
Consider the use of the verb “explore”. When one says “to explore”, the reader knows that there is an open-minded approach to research and that the researcher does not have any idea about what he or she is going to discover. This is quite often a qualitative verb. It signals discovery, not confirmation, but researchers can also use it for exploratory surveys in quantitative studies
“Identify” Is Different
The word “identify” is an exception. This is because “to identify” means there is something definite, and your role is to identify it. You’re not wandering. You are searching for something in particular. “Identify” suggests more focus than “explore” and suggests that you would list whatever you find but not go into a lot of detail about them.
“To Understand” Goes a Lot Deeper
“To understand” goes a lot deeper. When you say “to understand,” you are not just finding or naming something. You are interpreting it. You are getting beneath the surface. This is a powerful qualitative verb; however, it is a huge commitment. To understand something, your analysis must provide a level of interpretation rather than merely a description of what is taking place or what you have observed.
“Describe” Is More Modest
Of course, “describe” is more humble, which is not at all an indictment. The phrase “to describe” tells the audience that you will provide a clear explanation of something without trying to say why something happens. Here comes the trouble when you apply the word “describe” where you actually intend to mean something else or when you apply something else where you simply intend to describe. Understand the distinction.
“Determine” Is a Very Decisive Verb
It is a very conclusive verb. When one says “to determine,” they mean to decide on something conclusively. This is more prevalent in quantitative research and implies that you will receive a definitive answer from your data rather than an impression of what is occurring. One needs to be very precise while using “determine” as well, since it usually comes hand in hand with hypothesis testing.
“Compare” Is Exactly Like What It Sounds
“Compare” is exactly what it sounds like. You are putting side-by-side the subjects to determine their similarities or dissimilarities. The power of “compare” lies in the fact that you must specify two things: what you are comparing and what you are comparing it against. This requirement is inherent in the very nature of the verb. It is impossible to say “to compare” without specifying both sides.
“Assess” or “Evaluate” Implies Some Level of Judging
It works across both qualitative and quantitative approaches. You can compare themes in interview data just as well as you can compare means in a data set. It is not only a search or a description process. It is comparing something against a certain criterion or criteria.
Not All Verbs Will Provide You with Useful Information for Your Objective
These standards or criteria are important because the verbs are about measuring the performance of something. You cannot arbitrarily assess or evaluate something. Use these when your research is designed to make a judgment call. Now, here’s the important bit. Certain verbs may be too generic for use in an objective, and some such verbs are found in the proposals that I grade.
“Investigate” Has the Same Problem
Verbs like “analyze,” “investigate,” “explain.” At the end of the day, all of your data is going to be analyzed. So why is there a need to say that you’re going to analyze something in an objective way? “Investigate” has the same problem. It is what your whole study does. It is not specific enough to be one objective, but it might work for a research aim instead.
“Explain” Is a Particularly Dangerous Verb
And “explain” is a particularly dangerous verb in research because it implies causation, that you will show why something happens. And for most small-scale studies, especially qualitative ones, you are not designed to demonstrate causation. You can explore why something might happen. You can identify factors, but “explain,” that is a pretty big claim.
Think of Your Research Objectives’ Verb as a Contract
Think of your research objectives’ verb as a contract. Each objective promises the reader one specific kind of output. The verb tells them what kind. As a marker, I will return to the objectives after reading the submission to see if they’ve indeed been achieved.
Imagine a Study About Asylum Seekers’ Access to the NHS
Let me illustrate it to you with the help of an example. Suppose there is a research project on access to the NHS by asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
Among the objectives that may have been set for the study would be an examination of the barriers to accessing NHS care by the asylum seekers.
Four Objectives, Each Using a Different Verb
In case I am writing objectives with regard to this goal, then I will have to deconstruct it and show how different verbs can make a difference in the promise that each one makes. Four objectives with the use of different verbs are: To explore asylum seekers’ perception about their right to the NHS healthcare services.
identifying the bureaucratic and documentary barriers which block asylum seekers from registering with a GP; describing the geographic and logistical obstacles which asylum seekers encounter when trying to reach NHS institutions; comparing registration procedures in various forms of NHS provision (GP surgeries, walk-in centres, A&E) from the point of view of asylum seekers.
Look at Those Four Verbs
Look at those four verbs. “Explore”: open-ended, discovery-oriented. We don’t exactly yet know what they understood about the entitlement. “Identify”: we are searching for something specific that exists, namely administrative barriers. “Describe”: characterizing the challenge clearly, not explaining why the challenge happens. And “compare”: looking at different types of provisions side by side.
Each Verb Is Doing Different Work
Each verb is doing different work, and each objective is promising a different kind of finding, and together they cover the aim above them. We’re just looking at structural and logistical barriers from different angles with different levels of specificity. And notice one more thing: every single objective still specifies the population and phenomenon, asylum seekers in everyone, not just “to identify administrative barriers” that could be about any stakeholder.
Population, Phenomenon, Context, Every Time
Population, phenomenon, context, every time. This is what gives your objectives their anchoring, and this is what tells a marker that you know exactly who your research is about and what you’re going to do with them, and there is a clear consistency across your objectives.
Two Things That I Personally Don’t Agree With
I want to address two things that you might have been told to do with your research objectives that I personally don’t agree with academically. Both of them come from well-meaning institutions, and I want to explain my reasoning. The first is SMART research objectives.
Organizations Need SMART Goal Setting Process
There are some universities that ask their students to use the SMART criteria when writing their research objectives, and this is an example of a SMART research objective. This model was originally created for setting organizational goals: setting the performance objectives within an organization, measuring whether or not a team is delivering what they promise to deliver on a certain date.
But Research Objectives Work Differently
In that context, it works very well. But research objectives work differently. Most research objectives simply do not carry elements like “measurable” or “achievable” within their phrasing. If not, they would be four or five lines long each. How measurable your findings are depends on your data collection and analysis methods.
Whether Your Research Is Achievable or Realistic
It is very difficult to glean measurability from just a verb that’s being used, and practically impossible when it comes to qualitative research. Whether your research is achievable or realistic depends on your methodology, your resources, your access to participants, ethical considerations, and these are going to be detailed in your methods anyway.
The Timeliness Is Automatically Assumed
The timeliness is automatically assumed. Your objectives will be completed by the end of the research. As simple as that. You do not exactly need to write “by the end of the research” into every single objective. I find it very repetitive. The only element of SMART that genuinely matters for research objectives is specificity, and that I can completely agree on.
A Business Framework Being Applied in a Research Context
Your research objectives should be specific enough that a reader knows exactly what you’re promising to do. But the rest of the acronym is a business framework being applied in a research context where it doesn’t really quite fit, and I think it’s causing more confusion than clarity for new researchers.
Embedding Research Methods into Your Objectives
The second thing, and this is related, is the practice of embedding research methods into your objectives. The research objectives are the specific steps the study will take to fulfill its aim. While some institutions encourage this, quite literally asking students to demonstrate the measurability of their objectives or the steps of the research, so instead of writing “to identify administrative and documentation barriers that prevent asylum seekers from registering for GP,” they would write an objective like “to interview five to eight GP practice managers or reception staff to identify institutional knowledge gaps, administrative bottlenecks, and gatekeeping friction points that occur during the registration process.”
You Have Just Put the Entirety of Your Methodology into Your Objective
Now, that is very specific, and I can see the appeal of that. It feels very thorough. But here’s the problem: you have just put the entirety of your methodology into your objective. “Interview five to eight GP practice managers.” Well, that’s a method, a sample size, a participant type.
Instead of Clarity, You’ve Created Repetition
And the rest of your proposal, specifically your methodology section, is going to cover all of that anyway, which means the reader encounters your methods in the objectives and then encounters the same methods again in your methodology section.
The How Belongs in the Methodology
A reader, and I mean a marker, should be able to glance at your objectives and understand what your study does, not how it does it. The how belongs in the methodology. Now, this brings me to the final piece, and this is less a framework and more of a quick quality check. Here are three things that I check when I’m marking.
The Same Thing Happens with the Phenomenon
Are you studying asylum seekers specifically or anyone that has migrated? Those are different populations and different experiences of the NHS. If you’re not consistent, the reader doesn’t know who your research is actually about. The same thing happens with the phenomenon.
Those Are Not All the Same Thing
Your aim mentions “experience,” your objective says “perception,” another one says “satisfaction.” And satisfaction is whether or not you like it.
Splintering Interest
My rule is to pick your terms and use them consistently. Check number three: splintering interest. This most often shows up in the objectives, and it is when your objectives start to pull the research in different directions that the aim did not signpost. Your aim is about structural barriers to NHS access, but one of your objectives suddenly wants to explore asylum seekers’ mental health statuses.
Collectively They Have Stopped Serving the Aim
Another wants to compare NHS usage across different regions in the UK, for example. Individually, each objective might be interesting and related, but collectively they have stopped serving the aim. The research is now doing three things when it promised to do one according to your research aim.
The Student Hasn’t Been Very Disciplined
And this tells me as a marker that the student hasn’t been very disciplined about the boundaries of their own study, or this study might potentially be bigger and more complicated than what the student is thinking. A load of your background and your literature review in your proposal should suggest why the research objectives are relevant to the aim of the research.
Establish the Connections Clearly in the Background
So, to prevent them from looking like they deviate from the aim, you need to establish the connections clearly in the background so that your interest in them in the objectives is more justified. Now, I want to zoom out for a moment, because making sure your objectives serve your aim, that’s important, but it is also part of a larger picture that I’ve shown you earlier.
Your Research Proposal Is a Chain
Your research proposal is a chain. The title should capture the research question while the methodology should support the objectives. Your sample needs to be consistent with your population. The ethics have to be coherent with the methodological approach as well. Should one of these connections break down, then the whole proposal will become incoherent.
It All Hangs Together as One Single Study
If you want to learn how to align the full research proposal from title all the way to its contribution and analysis, I’ve built an online course that walks you through exactly that. It covers every one of the elements of your proposal and how they connect so the whole thing holds together as one coherent study.
