Including recommendations in research objectives can be very useful, especially in applied research. However, there are some common pitfalls. In Part 2 on research objectives I explain two frequent problems and how to prevent them. The first is placing recommendations in the societal problem part (X) of the research objective without specifying who they are for or what type of recommendation they are. The second is placing recommendations in the scientific part (Y) of the research objective , treating them as if they are the research question itself.

Research Objectives Part 2: How to Handle Recommendations

In many research proposals, recommendations are explicitly included in the research objective. This can be very useful, especially in applied research in the life and health sciences. However, it’s important to know how to position these recommendations within your objective. In practice, I often see two recurring patterns that are conceptually confusing.

Let’s start by revisiting the general formula for a research objective I discussed in Part 1:

To contribute to X by exploring Y

Here, X refers to the societal issue your research aims to address. Y refers to the scientific problem: the knowledge gap you want to reduce in order to better understand or indirectly address that societal issue.

This formula provides a concise summary of your problem statement, showing that:

• X is a pressing societal problem,
• knowledge about Y is limited, and
• understanding Y can help generate potential solutions for X.

The two pitfalls I frequently see are:

1. Including recommendations in X without specifying who they are for or what type of recommendations they are.
2. Including recommendations in Y, which treats them as if they were the research question itself, rather than a potential outcome of the research.

1. Recommendations in X, but without specification

Within To contribute to X by exploring Y, X should represent the societal problem. Sometimes, students include recommendations in X, which can be fine in principle, but often key details are missing. Here are some examples of research objectives where recommendations are included, but important elements are missing:

1) To formulate recommendations on public health by exploring how vaccination decision-making is socially constructed

2) To formulate policy recommendations on vaccination strategies by exploring how vaccination decision-making is socially constructed

3) To formulate recommendations for national authorities by exploring how vaccination decision-making is socially constructed

In all these examples, X shifts from a societal problem to a solution. In applied research this is acceptable, but it must be clear:

• Who are the recommendations for? (policymakers, doctors, patients, schools, etc.)
• What type of recommendations are they? (policy, clinical, behavioral, organizational?)

If these aren’t specified, X becomes vague and normative rather than analytical. In the first example, both elements are missing: it’s unclear who should use the recommendations and what type they are. In the second example, the recipient of the policy recommendations is unclear. In the third example, the type of recommendation is unclear. It doesn’t say whether it’s policy advice, clinical guidelines, organizational measures, or follow-up research.

So: recommendations always imply an addressee and a level of governance. Are they for instance:

• policy recommendations?
• guidance for healthcare professionals?
• implementation or design guidelines?
• or recommendations for follow-up research?

Let’s take policy recommendations as an example. These can be aimed at different governance levels:

• national policymakers
• public health agencies
• international organizations (non-profits, supranational)
• or local authorities, such as municipal governments

A stronger formulation makes this explicit, for example:

To contribute to policy recommendations for public health authorities on vaccination strategies by exploring how vaccination decision-making is socially constructed

Also make sure that your problem statement in the introduction explains why policy recommendations are relevant at this governance level, in this context, and at this moment.

2. Recommendations included in Y: a conceptual mistake

Just as common is the formulation:

To contribute to X by exploring Y and making recommendations on…

For example:

To contribute to improved care for people with diabetes by exploring how people experience continuity of care and make recommendations on improving patient adherence

This is conceptually problematic for several reasons:

1. It mixes research and output on the same analytical level. Exploring Y is a scientific activity; making recommendations is a derived result from analysis and interpretation.
2. Recommendations are usually not the object of research. Even if you ask participants for their opinions on what would improve care, you don’t include their input directly. Instead, you:

• analyze their perspectives;
• weigh them against existing literature and theory;
• and then formulate your own recommendations in the discussion chapter.

Anything that doesn’t belong in your results section also doesn’t belong in the Y part of your objective.

A proper structure would be, for example:

To contribute to practice-oriented recommendations for healthcare professionals by exploring how patients with chronic illness experience continuity of care

Summary

Recommendations do not belong in Y. If recommendations are mentioned, they should:

• be part of X, and
• clearly indicate who they are for as well as the type of recommendation.

Recommendations are generally a conclusion and translation of research findings, not a separate research goal.