When the General and Specific Objectives Tell Different Stories
How to Build Coherence Between What You Want to Investigate and What You Actually Do
By Vilma María Pérez Viñas | TEXTUM. International Academic Mentoring
In a thesis or research project, objectives may seem appropriate when considered individually yet fail to fit together coherently. The general objective may aim to explain a phenomenon, while the specific objectives focus only on describing it. Similarly, a study may set out to design a proposal, yet its specific objectives may be limited to diagnosing the situation the proposal is intended to address.
In these cases, the problem does not necessarily lie in the wording of the objectives, but in the relationship between the decisions they represent. Methodological coherence depends not only on whether each objective is well formulated, but also on whether the objectives collectively contribute to the knowledge the study seeks to develop.
How, then, can we determine whether the objectives genuinely address the research question rather than becoming a list of intentions or tasks?
1. Before Formulating the Objectives, Revisit the Research Question
Objectives are not constructed in isolation. Their formulation depends on what needs to be known and on how the research problem has been delimited. Before reviewing the objectives, it is therefore worth examining the question that gives them meaning.
Consider a study on how university lecturers use generative artificial intelligence tools. The following question could guide the research:
How do university lecturers use generative artificial intelligence tools to support the planning of learning activities, and what criteria do they use to evaluate the results?
Although the two issues are related, the question incorporates two dimensions that may require different methodological decisions: identifying how these tools are used and examining the criteria applied to evaluate their results. If the study does not address both dimensions in a justified way, the initial formulation may extend its scope beyond what is necessary.
A more focused formulation would be:
How do university lecturers use generative artificial intelligence tools to support the planning of learning activities?
This question makes the intended focus clearer. It does not mean that every research question must address only one dimension. Rather, the dimensions included must respond to a genuine need for knowledge and be capable of being investigated coherently.
The research question establishes what needs to be understood; the objectives express what the study proposes to do to address it.
2. The General Objective Establishes the Direction of the Study
Once the research question has been delimited, the general objective should express the research action needed to address it. Simply repeating the terms used in the question or choosing a verb that appears academically appropriate is not enough.
In the example above, the general objective could be formulated as follows:
To analyze how university lecturers use generative artificial intelligence tools to support the planning of learning activities.
The relationship between the question and the objective is clear: the question identifies what needs to be known, while the objective states what the research will do to investigate it.
This correspondence does not require every question to follow a fixed linguistic pattern or every objective to use a prescribed verb. What matters is the relationship of meaning between them. If the question seeks to understand an experience but the objective focuses only on identifying isolated elements, the proposed research action may not be sufficient to address the question.
When reviewing the general objective, therefore, ask whether it expresses the actual purpose of the study and whether its scope corresponds to the research problem. This examination can reveal inconsistencies before they affect the specific objectives and the methodological decisions that depend on them.
3. Specific Objectives Must Contribute to Addressing the Research Question
Specific objectives give concrete expression to the general objective by identifying the research actions needed to address its relevant dimensions. They are not simply the steps the researcher will follow to complete the project.
Reviewing the literature, administering a questionnaire, organizing a database and processing information may all be necessary research activities. However, listing these activities does not, by itself, explain what knowledge the study seeks to develop through them.
The distinction matters. An activity indicates what the researcher will do; an objective expresses what the research seeks to establish, analyze, understand or explain.
Returning to the example of generative artificial intelligence, if the purpose is to analyze how university lecturers use these tools to plan learning activities, the specific objectives should address the dimensions that need to be investigated to fulfil that purpose. It would not be enough to include objectives concerning any aspect of artificial intelligence simply because it is related to the topic or appears interesting.
Each objective must serve a function within the study. Some may focus on characterizing particular practices, while others may analyze the forms of use identified. The choice depends on the research question, the knowledge the study needs to develop and the nature of the investigation.
Nor is there a universal number of specific objectives that guarantees a sound research design. Adding more objectives does not necessarily make a study more complete. What matters is whether the proposed objectives are necessary and justified.
A useful question to ask about each objective is: If I removed this objective, would the answer I intend to develop through the general objective be incomplete? If its contribution cannot be explained, its function should be reconsidered.
The relationship between the research question, the objectives, and the answer can be represented as follows:
Figure 1. Relationship between the research question, objectives, procedures, evidence and the answer developed.
4. How Can You Check the Coherence of Your Objectives?
Methodological coherence cannot be achieved simply by applying a fixed sequence of verbs or arranging specific objectives in an order that appears logical at first glance. Some studies require objectives to build on one another; others address complementary dimensions of the same problem.
The review should therefore focus on the relationships between the decisions that structure the research. Four aspects are particularly useful:
Alignment: Does the general objective address the research question?
Contribution: Does each specific objective make a necessary contribution to the overall purpose?
Feasibility: Will the planned procedures allow the researcher to obtain the evidence needed to address the objectives?
Closure: Will the conclusions be able to address the original research question on the basis of the findings?
These questions help reveal problems that a purely formal review may overlook. An objective, for example, may be clearly worded but require information that the research design cannot provide. Several objectives may also overlap, or one may introduce a dimension that does not contribute to addressing the original question.
In such cases, changing the verb will not necessarily solve the problem. It may be necessary to reconsider the scope of the research question, redefine the general objective or review the role of the specific objectives.
5. Formulas Cannot Replace Methodological Reasoning
Guidelines for formulating objectives can be useful, particularly during the early stages of a research project. However, no list of verbs or predetermined structure can guarantee methodological coherence on its own.
The choice between analyzing, describing, interpreting, comparing, explaining or designing must reflect what the study seeks to understand and the nature of the research problem. The task is not to find the most academic-sounding verb, but to specify the research action needed to develop a well-founded answer.
Reviewing objectives should therefore not begin by asking whether they follow a formula. It should begin by asking whether they adequately express the decisions required by the research.
From this perspective, methodology is not a matter of completing the sections of a research proposal independently. It involves establishing justified relationships between the problem, the research question, the objectives, the procedures and the evidence needed to develop an answer.
The TEXTUM Perspective
At TEXTUM, we understand research as an architecture of interconnected decisions. The research question delimits what needs to be known; the general objective establishes the direction of the study; the specific objectives identify the research actions needed to pursue that purpose; and the procedures must make it possible to obtain the evidence required to address them.
From TEXTUM’s perspective, these relationships form part of a broader methodological architecture in which each decision has a distinct function and connects with the others:
Figure 2. The methodological architecture of research: relationships among the need for knowledge, research question, research direction, objectives, procedures, evidence and answer.
Coherence emerges from the relationships between these decisions, not from the formal correctness of each one considered separately. When the objectives do not appear to fit together, it is worth examining the logic of the research before changing their wording.
Do Your Objectives Really Address Your Research Question?
You may have formulated your objectives in accordance with conventional guidelines and still have doubts about how they relate to one another. The difficulty may lie in the way the research question has been delimited, in the scope of the general objective or in the contribution made by the specific objectives.
At TEXTUM, we can help you examine these relationships, identify possible inconsistencies and determine which methodological decisions need to be reconsidered so that your research can progress with greater clarity and coherence.
REVIEW THE COHERENCE OF MY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Continue the Journey
Once the direction of the study has been established, another important question arises: how can the available knowledge be organized to provide a foundation for the research without merely accumulating previous studies?
Our next article explores this issue: The State of the Art Is Not a List of Previous Studies.