Aims vs. Objectives

Read this article for its distinction between aims and objectives. It also provides useful advice on "what not to do" with aims and objectives.

You are ready and aimed, and now you must fire off the objectives. But you are a bit confused. What is the difference between the two?

Confusion between aims and objectives may arise when writing a thesis proposal and the introductory thesis chapter. It is always an issue in research bids. The what-is-the-difference question can make you go around in ever-smaller, unproductive circles if you cannot figure out how to differentiate the two. I have recently been asked about the difference, so I have decided to post something of an answer.

Dictionaries are vaguely helpful when thinking about aims and objectives. My desk dictionary says the aim gives direction. An aim is "something intended or desired to be obtained by your efforts." On the other hand, an objective has to do with achieving an object; it is about actions "pertaining to that whose delineation is known."

Who speaks like this? The fact that these definitions are written in this formal language does not help clarify matters. But, once you have passed the antiquated expression, you may discern that the difference between the two is somehow related to a hope or ambition (aim) versus a material action (objective). Or we might say – and it is what is commonly said about aims and objectives – the aim is the what of the researchThe objective is the how.

So, taking this what-how as a kind of loose and sloppy differentiation between the two, the rough rule of thumb with aims and objectives is generally that:


(1) The aim is about what you hope to do or your overall intention in the project. It signals what and/or where you aspire to be. It is what you want to know. It is the point of doing the research. Therefore, the aim is generally broad. It is ambitious but not beyond possibility.

By convention, we use an infinitive verb for the aim – to + action. So, aims often start something like... "My aim in this project is … to map, develop, design, track, generate, theorize, build …"

In the humanities and social sciences, aims often try to acknowledge the inevitable partiality of what we do, so we aim "to investigate, understand, and explore…"

However, many project reviewers and supervisors prefer to see something less tentative—they want something much less ambivalent, something more like "to synthesize, catalog, challenge, or critically interrogate …."


(2) The objectives (there are usually more than one) are the specific steps you will take to achieve your aim. This is where you make the project tangible by describing how you will go about it.

Objectives are often expressed through active sentences. So, objectives often start like "To achieve this aim, I willcollect, construct, produce, test, trial, measure, document, pilot, deconstruct, analyze…"

Objectives are often presented as a (1) (2) (3) formatted list – this makes the sequence of big steps in the project visible. The list of objectives spells out what you will really do to get to the point of it all.

You have to make the objectives relatively precise. Having a bunch of vague statements is not very helpful. So, for example, "I will investigate…" or "I will explore…" are not useful ways to think about research objectives. How will you know when an investigation has ended? How will you draw boundaries around an exploration? When thinking about the answer to these questions, you will likely come up with the actual objectives.

Objectives have to be practical, doable, and achievable. Research reviewers generally look to see if the time and money available for the research will genuinely allow the researcher to achieve their objectives. They also look to see if the objectives are possible and actually researchable.

Because objectives also act as project milestones, it is helpful to express them as things that can be completed. So, for example, scoping an archive of materials will have an endpoint that may lead to the next stage/objective. Even if objectives are to occur simultaneously, rather than one after the other, it is important to be clear about what the endpoint of each step/objective will be and how it will help achieve the aim.

 

What Not To Do

It is helpful to consider what can go wrong with aims and objectives. You want to avoid predictable problems when writing them. These are some common aims-objectives issues:

  • There are too many aims. One or two is usually enough. (I might stretch to three for other people's projects if pushed, but I usually have only one for my projects.)

  • Aims and objectives waffle around. They do not get to the point and the reader does not have a clue what is actually intended and will be done. Aims and objectives need to be concise and economically expressed.

  • Aims and objectives do not connect. The steps do not match up with the overall intention.

  • The aims and objectives are not differentiated. They are the same things but said in different words.

  • The objectives are a detailed laundry list rather than a set of stages in the research. The objectives do not stack up with the research methods – in other words, they are either not doable, or what is to be done will not achieve the desired results.

Finally, aims and objectives cannot be rushed. Because they generate the research questions and underpin the research design, sorting the aims and objectives is crucial in the early stages of planning a research project. Aims and objectives are a foundation for the entire project, so they must be sturdy and durable.


Source: Pat Thomson, https://patthomson.net/2014/06/09/aims-and-objectives-whats-the-difference/
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

Last modified: Thursday, April 25, 2024, 1:08 PM