A well-formulated research objective links a scientific knowledge gap to a societal problem. This blog explains how to structure a research objective using the formula “to contribute to X by exploring Y”, highlights common pitfalls students encounter, and provides practical tips to avoid them.

Research objectives Part 1: One goal, two connected parts

A well-formulated research objective does more than just describe what you are going to study. It explicitly connects science to a societal issue. A commonly used and strong formulation is:

To contribute to X by exploring Y

Here, X stands for the societal problem you want to address with your research, and Y for the scientific question: the knowledge gap you want to reduce in order to (indirectly) tackle the societal problem more effectively. It is thus a summary of your problem statement, in which you have argued that X is an urgent problem, little is known about Y, and insight into Y can help solve X. An example of a valid research objective is:

To contribute to improving access to mental health care for young adults by exploring how anticipated stigma shapes their decisions to seek professional help.

Why this formulation works

1. X is a recognizable societal problem: access to mental health care.
2. Y is a specific knowledge gap: the role of anticipated stigma in decision-making processes.
3. There is a link between X and Y: greater insight into anticipated stigma in decision-making processes (Y) can help improve access to mental health care (X).

In theory this sounds simple. In practice, however, I see that this is often one of the most challenging parts of a research report for students. In this blog, I show the pitfalls I see most frequently and how to overcome them.

X is formulated as a knowledge question

A common pitfall is that X is formulated as something like “to contribute to knowledge about…” or “to contribute to insight into…”. At first glance, this seems logical, but conceptually it is not correct. An example is:

To contribute to knowledge about patient experiences by exploring how people with chronic illness perceive stigma.

If both the first and second parts are formulated as knowledge or insight questions, there are effectively two scientific goals in one research objective, Y1 and Y2. The formula then becomes:

To contribute to insight Y1 by exploring Y2

This pushes the societal relevance (X) into the background, and the research objective no longer represents your full problem statement, in which both a societal and a scientific problem should be outlined.

Improved version

To contribute to reducing social exclusion of people with chronic illness by exploring how they perceive and negotiate stigma in everyday life.

Why this is better

• X is now societal (social exclusion).
• Y remains scientific (experiences and coping with stigma).

Y focuses on research methods

Another common mistake is filling Y with methods, for example “…by conducting interviews with group A and focus groups with group B about …” Consider this example:

a. To contribute to better communication in palliative care by conducting interviews with patients and family members.

The first part (X) is correct here. But Y should describe the scientific question, not the research approach. Methods (Z) belong in the methodology chapter, not in your research objective. In Y, it should be clear which aspect is still insufficiently understood in the existing literature. The formula here is:

To contribute to X by conducting research methods Z1 and Z2

Good Y formulations focus on concepts, relationships, perspectives, or mechanisms, not on data collection. This pitfall often occurs in combination with the previous category.

To contribute to insight about Y by conducting research methods Z1 and Z2

For example:

b. To contribute to insights on how patients and family members experience palliative care by interviewing patients and their caretakers about end-of-life conversations.

The solution here is a reformulation of the research objective, taking the first part (X) from example a and the first part (Y) from example b:

Improved version:

To contribute to more patient-centred communication in palliative care by exploring how patients and family members interpret and experience end-of-life conversations.

Multiple Ys

Another situation I often see is that Y consists of two or more parts, according to the formula:

To contribute to X by exploring Y1, Y2, …

This is not necessarily wrong; there may well be two parts. However, it becomes problematic when Y1 and Y2 actually require two separate studies. The research then becomes too large or simply unfeasible. For example:

a. To contribute to diabetes self-management by investigating how patients’ perceptions of diabetes influence their daily self-care practices and how healthcare professionals design, implement, and evaluate interventions aimed at patient self-management.

This results in two main research questions that could each constitute a full internship:

1. What are patients’ perceptions of diabetes influencing their daily self-care practices?
2. How do healthcare professionals design, implement, and evaluate interventions aimed at patient self-management?

In that case, you need to make a choice: what is the core problem that you want to address? Sometimes both Y1 and Y2 are relevant areas to contribute to X. Choosing is not always easy. Perhaps your supervisor wants both addressed. If both are relevant, the choice can also be pragmatic: which interests you more, patient perspectives or healthcare professional policy? Or, more pragmatically, if you already have a suitable theoretical model for one direction but not the other, choose the first—unless you want a challenge! Step two is convincing your supervisor.

Another situation can occur when the part after “by” is formulated at too low a level, turning it into a kind of shopping list:

b. To contribute to improved vaccination uptake by exploring trust in healthcare institutions (Y1), individual risk perceptions (Y2), sources of vaccine information (Y3), and attitudes toward pharmaceutical companies (Y4).

Y1 through Y4 are not separate research questions but fall under an overarching Y. By reformulating the research objective around a single coherent analytical question, for example “how vaccination decision-making is socially constructed,” the objective stays at the level of the scientific problem, while the listed elements can function later in the research design as empirical sub-questions or interview questions.

Stronger, overarching formulation

To contribute to improved vaccination uptake by exploring how vaccination decision-making is socially constructed.

Conclusion

A strong research objective:

• explicitly states the societal problem at its core (X);
• shows the knowledge gap being addressed (Y);
• contains no methods;
• and does not try to pack multiple studies into one sentence.

If X and Y each fulfill their own role, the research objective forms a clear compass for the rest of your research, for yourself and for the reader.

Next time: Part 2 on Research Objectives, focusing on how (not) to include recommendations in your research objective.