Identify
Explore
Discover
Discuss
Summarise
Describe
Last, format your objectives into a numbered list. This is because when you write your thesis or dissertation, you will at times need to make reference to a specific research objective; structuring your research objectives in a numbered list will provide a clear way of doing this.
To bring all this together, let’s compare the first research objective in the previous example with the above guidance:
Research Objective:
1. Develop finite element models using explicit dynamics to mimic mallet blows during cup/shell insertion, initially using simplified experimentally validated foam models to represent the acetabulum.
Checking Against Recommended Approach:
Q: Is it specific? A: Yes, it is clear what the student intends to do (produce a finite element model), why they intend to do it (mimic cup/shell blows) and their parameters have been well-defined ( using simplified experimentally validated foam models to represent the acetabulum ).
Q: Is it measurable? A: Yes, it is clear that the research objective will be achieved once the finite element model is complete.
Q: Is it achievable? A: Yes, provided the student has access to a computer lab, modelling software and laboratory data.
Q: Is it relevant? A: Yes, mimicking impacts to a cup/shell is fundamental to the overall aim of understanding how they deform when impacted upon.
Q: Is it timebound? A: Yes, it is possible to create a limited-scope finite element model in a relatively short time, especially if you already have experience in modelling.
Q: Does it start with a verb? A: Yes, it starts with ‘develop’, which makes the intent of the objective immediately clear.
Q: Is it a numbered list? A: Yes, it is the first research objective in a list of eight.
1. making your research aim too broad.
Having a research aim too broad becomes very difficult to achieve. Normally, this occurs when a student develops their research aim before they have a good understanding of what they want to research. Remember that at the end of your project and during your viva defence , you will have to prove that you have achieved your research aims; if they are too broad, this will be an almost impossible task. In the early stages of your research project, your priority should be to narrow your study to a specific area. A good way to do this is to take the time to study existing literature, question their current approaches, findings and limitations, and consider whether there are any recurring gaps that could be investigated .
Note: Achieving a set of aims does not necessarily mean proving or disproving a theory or hypothesis, even if your research aim was to, but having done enough work to provide a useful and original insight into the principles that underlie your research aim.
Be realistic about what you can achieve in the time you have available. It is natural to want to set ambitious research objectives that require sophisticated data collection and analysis, but only completing this with six months before the end of your PhD registration period is not a worthwhile trade-off.
Each research objective should have its own purpose and distinct measurable outcome. To this effect, a common mistake is to form research objectives which have large amounts of overlap. This makes it difficult to determine when an objective is truly complete, and also presents challenges in estimating the duration of objectives when creating your project timeline. It also makes it difficult to structure your thesis into unique chapters, making it more challenging for you to write and for your audience to read.
Fortunately, this oversight can be easily avoided by using SMART objectives.
Hopefully, you now have a good idea of how to create an effective set of aims and objectives for your research project, whether it be a thesis, dissertation or research paper. While it may be tempting to dive directly into your research, spending time on getting your aims and objectives right will give your research clear direction. This won’t only reduce the likelihood of problems arising later down the line, but will also lead to a more thorough and coherent research project.
Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.
Join thousands of students.
Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.
Struggling to write research objectives? Follow our easy steps to learn how to craft effective and compelling objectives in research papers.
Are you struggling to define the goals and direction of your research ? Are you losing yourself while doing research and tend to go astray from the intended research topic? Fear not, as many face the same problem and it is quite understandable to overcome this, a concept called research objective comes into play here.
In this article, we’ll delve into the world of the objectives in research papers and why they are essential for a successful study. We will be studying what they are and how they are used in research.
A research objective is a clear and specific goal that a researcher aims to achieve through a research study. It serves as a roadmap for the research, providing direction and focus. Research objectives are formulated based on the research questions or hypotheses, and they help in defining the scope of the study and guiding the research design and methodology . They also assist in evaluating the success and outcomes of the research.
There are typically three main types of objectives in a research paper:
Also Read: What are the types of research?
1. identify the research topic:.
Clearly define the subject or topic of your research. This will provide a broad context for developing specific research objectives.
Review existing literature and research related to your topic. This will help you understand the current state of knowledge, identify any research gaps, and refine your research objectives accordingly.
Formulate specific research questions or hypotheses that you want to address in your study. These questions should be directly related to your research topic and guide the development of your research objectives.
Break down the broader research questions or hypothesis into specific goals or objectives. Each objective should focus on a particular aspect of your research topic and be achievable within the scope of your study.
Write your research objectives using clear and precise language. Avoid vague terms and use specific and measurable terms that can be observed, analyzed, or measured.
Ensure that your research objectives are feasible within the available resources, time constraints, and ethical considerations. They should be realistic and attainable given the limitations of your study.
If you have multiple research objectives, prioritize them based on their importance and relevance to your overall research goals. This will help you allocate resources and focus your efforts accordingly.
Review your research objectives to ensure they align with your research questions or hypotheses, and revise them if necessary. Seek feedback from peers or advisors to ensure clarity and coherence.
1. be clear and specific.
Clearly state what you intend to achieve with your research. Use specific language that leaves no room for ambiguity or confusion. This ensures that your objectives are well-defined and focused.
Begin each research objective with an action verb that describes a measurable action or outcome. This helps make your objectives more actionable and measurable.
Your research objectives should directly address the research questions or hypotheses you have formulated. Ensure there is a clear connection between them to maintain coherence in your study.
Set research objectives that are attainable within the constraints of your study, including available resources, time, and ethical considerations. Unrealistic objectives may undermine the validity and reliability of your research.
Your research objectives should be relevant to your research topic and contribute to the broader field of study. Consider the potential impact and significance of achieving the objectives.
To ensure that your research objectives are well-defined and effectively guide your study, you can apply the SMART framework. SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Here’s how you can make your research objectives SMART:
Here are some examples of research objectives from various fields of study:
Research objectives play a crucial role in the research process and hold significant importance for several reasons:
When writing research objectives, it’s important to be aware of common mistakes and pitfalls that can undermine the effectiveness and clarity of your objectives. Here are some common mistakes to avoid:
In conclusion, research objectives are integral to the success and effectiveness of any research study. They provide a clear direction, focus, and purpose, guiding the entire research process from start to finish. By formulating specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives, researchers can define the scope of their study, guide data collection and analysis, and evaluate the outcomes of their research.
When you wish to explain any complex data, it’s always advised to break it down into simpler visuals or stories. This is where Mind the Graph comes in. It is a platform that helps researchers and scientists to turn their data into easy-to-understand and dynamic stories, helping the audience understand the concepts better. Sign Up now to explore the library of scientific infographics.
Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.
Sign Up for Free
Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures
no credit card required
Sowjanya is a passionate writer and an avid reader. She holds MBA in Agribusiness Management and now is working as a content writer. She loves to play with words and hopes to make a difference in the world through her writings. Apart from writing, she is interested in reading fiction novels and doing craftwork. She also loves to travel and explore different cuisines and spend time with her family and friends.
3-minute read
Writing a research paper, thesis, or dissertation ? If so, you’ll want to state your research objectives in the introduction of your paper to make it clear to your readers what you’re trying to accomplish. But how do you write effective research objectives? In this post, we’ll look at two key topics to help you do this:
For more advice on how to write strong research objectives, see below.
There is an important difference between research aims and research objectives:
For instance, an example research aim could be:
This study will investigate the link between dehydration and the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in intensive care patients in Australia.
To develop a set of research objectives, you would then break down the various steps involved in meeting said aim. For example:
This study will investigate the link between dehydration and the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in intensive care patients in Australia. To achieve this, the study objectives w ill include:
Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.
Note that the objectives don’t go into any great detail here. The key is to briefly summarize each component of your study. You can save details for how you will conduct the research for the methodology section of your paper.
A great way to refine your research objectives is to use SMART criteria . Borrowed from the world of project management, there are many versions of this system. However, we’re going to focus on developing specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound objectives.
In other words, a good research objective should be all of the following:
If you follow this system, your research objectives will be much stronger.
Whatever your research aims and objectives, make sure to have your academic writing proofread by the experts!
Our academic editors can help you with research papers and proposals , as well as any other scholarly document you need checking. And this will help to ensure that your academic writing is always clear, concise, and precise.
Submit a free sample document today to trial our services and find out more.
Post A New Comment
9-minute read
Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...
8-minute read
Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...
7-minute read
Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...
4-minute read
Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...
Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....
Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...
Table of contents
Embarking on a research journey without clear objectives is like navigating the sea without a compass. This article delves into the essence of establishing precise research objectives, serving as the guiding star for your scholarly exploration.
We will unfold the layers of how the objective of study not only defines the scope of your research but also directs every phase of the research process, from formulating research questions to interpreting research findings. By bridging theory with practical examples, we aim to illuminate the path to crafting effective research objectives that are both ambitious and attainable. Let’s chart the course to a successful research voyage, exploring the significance, types, and formulation of research paper objectives.
Defining the research objectives includes which two tasks? Research objectives are clear and concise statements that outline what you aim to achieve through your study. They are the foundation for determining your research scope, guiding your data collection methods, and shaping your analysis. The purpose of research proposal and setting clear objectives in it is to ensure that your research efforts are focused and efficient, and to provide a roadmap that keeps your study aligned with its intended outcomes.
To define the research objective at the outset, researchers can avoid the pitfalls of scope creep, where the study’s focus gradually broadens beyond its initial boundaries, leading to wasted resources and time. Clear objectives facilitate communication with stakeholders, such as funding bodies, academic supervisors, and the broader academic community, by succinctly conveying the study’s goals and significance. Furthermore, they help in the formulation of precise research questions and hypotheses, making the research process more systematic and organized. Yet, it is not always easy. For this reason, PapersOwl is always ready to help. Lastly, clear research objectives enable the researcher to critically assess the study’s progress and outcomes against predefined benchmarks, ensuring the research stays on track and delivers meaningful results.
Research objectives are integral to the research framework as the nexus between the research problem, questions, and hypotheses. They translate the broad goals of your study into actionable steps, ensuring every aspect of your research is purposefully aligned towards addressing the research problem. This alignment helps in structuring the research design and methodology, ensuring that each component of the study is geared towards answering the core questions derived from the objectives. Creating such a difficult piece may take a lot of time. If you need it to be accurate yet fast delivered, consider getting professional research paper writing help whenever the time comes. It also aids in the identification and justification of the research methods and tools used for data collection and analysis, aligning them with the objectives to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings.
Furthermore, by setting clear objectives, researchers can more effectively evaluate the impact and significance of their work in contributing to existing knowledge. Additionally, research objectives guide literature review, enabling researchers to focus their examination on relevant studies and theoretical frameworks that directly inform their research goals.
In the landscape of research, setting objectives is akin to laying down the tracks for a train’s journey, guiding it towards its destination. Constructing these tracks involves defining two main types of objectives: general and specific. Each serves a unique purpose in guiding the research towards its ultimate goals, with general objectives providing the broad vision and specific objectives outlining the concrete steps needed to fulfill that vision. Together, they form a cohesive blueprint that directs the focus of the study, ensuring that every effort contributes meaningfully to the overarching research aims.
To illustrate, consider a research project on the impact of digital marketing on consumer behavior. A general objective might be “to explore the influence of digital marketing on consumer purchasing decisions.” Specific objectives could include “to assess the effectiveness of social media advertising in enhancing brand awareness” and “to evaluate the impact of email marketing on customer loyalty.”
The harmony between what research objectives should be, questions, and hypotheses is critical. Objectives define what you aim to achieve; research questions specify what you seek to understand, and hypotheses predict the expected outcomes.
This alignment ensures a coherent and focused research endeavor. Achieving it necessitates a thoughtful consideration of how each component interrelates, ensuring that the objectives are not only ambitious but also directly answerable through the research questions and testable via the hypotheses. This interconnectedness facilitates a streamlined approach to the research process, enabling researchers to systematically address each aspect of their study in a logical sequence. Moreover, it enhances the clarity and precision of the research, making it easier for peers and stakeholders to grasp the study’s direction and potential contributions.
Throughout the research process, objectives guide your choices and strategies – from selecting the appropriate research design and methods to analyzing data and interpreting results. They are the criteria against which you measure the success of your study. In the initial stages, research objectives inform the selection of a topic, helping to narrow down a broad area of interest into a focused question that can be explored in depth. During the methodology phase, they dictate the type of data needed and the best methods for obtaining that data, ensuring that every step taken is purposeful and aligned with the study’s goals. As the research progresses, objectives provide a framework for analyzing the collected data, guiding the researcher in identifying patterns, drawing conclusions, and making informed decisions.
The effective objective of research is pivotal in laying the groundwork for a successful investigation. These objectives clarify the focus of your study and determine its direction and scope. Ensuring that your objectives are well-defined and aligned with the SMART criteria is crucial for setting a strong foundation for your research.
Well-defined research objectives are characterized by the SMART criteria – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Specific objectives clearly define what you plan to achieve, eliminating any ambiguity. Measurable objectives allow you to track progress and assess the outcome. Achievable objectives are realistic, considering the research sources and time available. Relevant objectives align with the broader goals of your field or research question. Finally, Time-bound objectives have a clear timeline for completion, adding urgency and a schedule to your work.
So lets get to the part, how to write research objectives properly?
Your objectives of research may require refinement if they lack clarity, feasibility, or alignment with the research problem. If you find yourself struggling to design experiments or methods that directly address your objectives, or if the objectives seem too broad or not directly related to your research question, it’s likely time for refinement. Additionally, objectives in research proposal that do not facilitate a clear measurement of success indicate a need for a more precise definition. Refinement involves ensuring that each objective is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, enhancing your research’s overall focus and impact.
The application of research objectives spans various academic disciplines, each with its unique focus and methodologies. To illustrate how the objectives of the study guide a research paper across different fields, here are some research objective examples:
These examples of research objectives describe the versatility and significance of research objectives in guiding scholarly inquiry across different domains. By setting clear, well-defined objectives, researchers can ensure their studies are focused and impactful and contribute valuable knowledge to their respective fields.
Defining research studies objectives and problem statement is not just a preliminary step, but a continuous guiding force throughout the research journey. These goals of research illuminate the path forward and ensure that every stride taken is meaningful and aligned with the ultimate goals of the inquiry. Whether through the meticulous application of the SMART criteria or the strategic alignment with research questions and hypotheses, the rigor in crafting and refining these objectives underscores the integrity and relevance of the research. As scholars venture into the vast terrains of knowledge, the clarity, and precision of their objectives serve as beacons of light, steering their explorations toward discoveries that advance academic discourse and resonate with the broader societal needs.
Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.
Chris Drew (PhD)
Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]
Learn about our Editorial Process
Research objectives refer to the definitive statements made by researchers at the beginning of a research project detailing exactly what a research project aims to achieve.
These objectives are explicit goals clearly and concisely projected by the researcher to present a clear intention or course of action for his or her qualitative or quantitative study.
Research objectives are typically nested under one overarching research aim. The objectives are the steps you’ll need to take in order to achieve the aim (see the examples below, for example, which demonstrate an aim followed by 3 objectives, which is what I recommend to my research students).
Research aim and research objectives are fundamental constituents of any study, fitting together like two pieces of the same puzzle.
The ‘research aim’ describes the overarching goal or purpose of the study (Kumar, 2019). This is usually a broad, high-level purpose statement, summing up the central question that the research intends to answer.
Example of an Overarching Research Aim:
“The aim of this study is to explore the impact of climate change on crop productivity.”
Comparatively, ‘research objectives’ are concrete goals that underpin the research aim, providing stepwise actions to achieve the aim.
Objectives break the primary aim into manageable, focused pieces, and are usually characterized as being more specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
Examples of Specific Research Objectives:
1. “To examine the effects of rising temperatures on the yield of rice crops during the upcoming growth season.” 2. “To assess changes in rainfall patterns in major agricultural regions over the first decade of the twenty-first century (2000-2010).” 3. “To analyze the impact of changing weather patterns on crop diseases within the same timeframe.”
The distinction between these two terms, though subtle, is significant for successfully conducting a study. The research aim provides the study with direction, while the research objectives set the path to achieving this aim, thereby ensuring the study’s efficiency and effectiveness.
I usually recommend to my students that they use the SMART framework to create their research objectives.
SMART is an acronym standing for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. It provides a clear method of defining solid research objectives and helps students know where to start in writing their objectives (Locke & Latham, 2013).
Each element of this acronym adds a distinct dimension to the framework, aiding in the creation of comprehensive, well-delineated objectives.
Here is each step:
You’re not expected to fit every single element of the SMART framework in one objective, but across your objectives, try to touch on each of the five components.
1. Field: Psychology
Aim: To explore the impact of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance in college students.
2. Field: Environmental Science
Aim: To understand the effects of urban green spaces on human well-being in a metropolitan city.
3. Field: Technology
Aim: To investigate the influence of using social media on productivity in the workplace.
4. Field: Education
Aim: To examine the effectiveness of online vs traditional face-to-face learning on student engagement and achievement.
5. Field: Health
Aim: To determine the impact of a Mediterranean diet on cardiac health among adults over 50.
6. Field: Environmental Science
Aim: To analyze the impact of urban farming on community sustainability.
7. Field: Sociology
Aim: To investigate the influence of home offices on work-life balance during remote work.
8. Field: Economics
Aim: To evaluate the effects of minimum wage increases on small businesses.
9. Field: Education
Aim: To explore the role of extracurricular activities in promoting soft skills among high school students.
10. Field: Technology
Aim: To assess the impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on the tourism industry.
11. Field: Biochemistry
Aim: To examine the role of antioxidants in preventing cellular damage.
12. Field: Linguistics
Aim: To determine the influence of early exposure to multiple languages on cognitive development in children.
13. Field: Art History
Aim: To explore the impact of the Renaissance period on modern-day art trends.
14. Field: Cybersecurity
Aim: To assess the effectiveness of two-factor authentication (2FA) in preventing unauthorized system access.
15. Field: Cultural Studies
Aim: To analyze the role of music in cultural identity formation among ethnic minorities.
16. Field: Astronomy
Aim: To explore the impact of solar activity on satellite communication.
17. Field: Literature
Aim: To examine narrative techniques in contemporary graphic novels.
18. Field: Renewable Energy
Aim: To investigate the feasibility of solar energy as a primary renewable resource within urban areas.
19. Field: Sports Science
Aim: To evaluate the role of pre-game rituals in athlete performance.
20. Field: Ecology
Aim: To investigate the effects of urban noise pollution on bird populations.
21. Field: Food Science
Aim: To examine the influence of cooking methods on the nutritional value of vegetables.
The importance of research objectives cannot be overstated. In essence, these guideposts articulate what the researcher aims to discover, understand, or examine (Kothari, 2014).
When drafting research objectives, it’s essential to make them simple and comprehensible, specific to the point of being quantifiable where possible, achievable in a practical sense, relevant to the chosen research question, and time-constrained to ensure efficient progress (Kumar, 2019).
Remember that a good research objective is integral to the success of your project, offering a clear path forward for setting out a research design , and serving as the bedrock of your study plan. Each objective must distinctly address a different dimension of your research question or problem (Kothari, 2014). Always bear in mind that the ultimate purpose of your research objectives is to succinctly encapsulate your aims in the clearest way possible, facilitating a coherent, comprehensive and rational approach to your planned study, and furnishing a scientific roadmap for your journey into the depths of knowledge and research (Kumar, 2019).
Kothari, C.R (2014). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques . New Delhi: New Age International.
Kumar, R. (2019). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners .New York: SAGE Publications.
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management review, 70 (11), 35-36.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2013). New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance . New York: Routledge.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy
Step-by-step research objectives writing guide, step 1: provide the major background of your research, step 2: mention several objectives from the most to least important aspects, step 3: follow your resources and do not promise too much, step 4: keep your objectives and limitations mentioned, step 5: provide action verbs and tone, helpful tips for writing research objectives.
Research objective 1: The study aims to explore the origins and evolution of the youth movements in the Flemish provinces in Belgium, namely Chiro and KSA. This research evaluates the major differences during the post-WW2 period and the social factors that created differences between the movements.
Research objective 2: This paper implements surveys and personal interviews to determine first-hand feedback from the youth members and the team leaders.
Research objective 3: Aiming to compare and contrast, this study determines the positive outcomes of the unity project work between the branches of the youth movement in Belgium, aiming for statistical data to support it.
Receive paper in 3 Hours!
Number of Pages
550 words (double spaced)
Deadline: 10 days left
By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
Sign Up for your FREE account
Introduction.
Research objectives play a crucial role in any research study. They provide a clear direction and purpose for the research, guiding the researcher in their investigation. Understanding research objectives is essential for conducting a successful study and achieving meaningful results.
In this comprehensive review, we will delve into the definition of research objectives, exploring their characteristics, types, and examples. We will also discuss the relationship between research objectives and research questions, as well as provide insights into how to write effective research objectives. Additionally, we will examine the role of research objectives in research methodology and highlight the importance of them in a study. By the end of this review, you will have a comprehensive understanding of research objectives and their significance in the research process.
A research objective is defined as a clear and concise statement that outlines the specific goals and aims of a research study. These objectives are designed to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART), ensuring they provide a structured pathway to accomplishing the intended outcomes of the project. Each objective serves as a foundational element that summarizes the purpose of your study, guiding the research activities and helping to measure progress toward the study’s goals. Additionally, research objectives are integral components of the research framework , establishing a clear direction that aligns with the overall research questions and hypotheses. This alignment helps to ensure that the study remains focused and relevant, facilitating the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.
Characteristics of research objectives include:
By incorporating these characteristics into research objectives, researchers can ensure that their study is focused, achievable, and contributes to the body of knowledge in their field.
Research objective can be broadly classified into general and specific objectives. General objectives are broad statements that define the overall purpose of the research. They provide a broad direction for the study and help in setting the context. Specific objectives, on the other hand, are detailed objectives that describe what will be researched during the study. They are more focused and provide specific outcomes that the researcher aims to achieve. Specific objectives are derived from the general objectives and help in breaking down the research into smaller, manageable parts. The specific objectives should be clear, measurable, and achievable. They should be designed in a way that allows the researcher to answer the research questions and address the research problem.
In addition to general and specific objectives, research objective can also be categorized as descriptive or analytical objectives. Descriptive objectives focus on describing the characteristics or phenomena of a particular subject or population. They involve surveys, observations, and data collection to provide a detailed understanding of the subject. Analytical objectives, on the other hand, aim to analyze the relationships between variables or factors. They involve data analysis and interpretation to gain insights and draw conclusions.
Both descriptive and analytical objectives are important in research as they serve different purposes and contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the research topic.
Here are some examples of research objectives in different fields:
1. Objective: To identify key characteristics and styles of Renaissance art.
This objective focuses on exploring the characteristics and styles of art during the Renaissance period. The research may involve analyzing various artworks, studying historical documents, and interviewing experts in the field.
2. Objective: To analyze modern art trends and their impact on society.
This objective aims to examine the current trends in modern art and understand how they influence society. The research may involve analyzing artworks, conducting surveys or interviews with artists and art enthusiasts, and studying the social and cultural implications of modern art.
3. Objective: To investigate the effects of exercise on mental health.
This objective focuses on studying the relationship between exercise and mental health. The research may involve conducting experiments or surveys to assess the impact of exercise on factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression.
4. Objective: To explore the factors influencing consumer purchasing decisions in the fashion industry.
This objective aims to understand the various factors that influence consumers’ purchasing decisions in the fashion industry. The research may involve conducting surveys, analyzing consumer behavior data, and studying the impact of marketing strategies on consumer choices.
5. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of a new drug in treating a specific medical condition.
This objective focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of a newly developed drug in treating a particular medical condition. The research may involve conducting clinical trials, analyzing patient data, and comparing the outcomes of the new drug with existing treatment options.
These examples demonstrate the diversity of research objectives across different disciplines. Each objective is specific, measurable, and achievable, providing a clear direction for the research study.
Research objectives and research questions are essential components of a research project. Research objective describe what you intend your research project to accomplish. They summarize the approach and purpose of the project and provide a clear direction for the research. Research questions, on the other hand, are the starting point of any good research. They guide the overall direction of the research and help identify and focus on the research gaps .
The main difference between research questions and objectives is their form. Research questions are stated in a question form, while objectives are specific, measurable, and achievable goals that you aim to accomplish within a specified timeframe. Research questions are broad statements that provide a roadmap for the research, while objectives break down the research aim into smaller, actionable steps.
Research objectives and research questions work together to form the ‘golden thread’ of a research project. The research aim specifies what the study will answer, while the objectives and questions specify how the study will answer it. They provide a clear focus and scope for the research project, helping researchers stay on track and ensure that their study is meaningful and relevant.
When writing research objectives and questions, it is important to be clear, concise, and specific. Each objective or question should address a specific aspect of the research and contribute to the overall goal of the study. They should also be measurable, meaning that their achievement can be assessed and evaluated. Additionally, research objectives and questions should be achievable within the given timeframe and resources of the research project. By clearly defining the objectives and questions, researchers can effectively plan and execute their research, leading to valuable insights and contributions to the field.
Writing research objective is a crucial step in any research project. The objectives provide a clear direction and purpose for the study, guiding the researcher in their data collection and analysis. Here are some tips on how to write effective research objective:
1. Be clear and specific
Research objective should be written in a clear and specific manner. Avoid vague or ambiguous language that can lead to confusion. Clearly state what you intend to achieve through your research.
2. Use action verbs
Start your research objective with action verbs that describe the desired outcome. Action verbs such as ‘investigate’, ‘analyze’, ‘compare’, ‘evaluate’, or ‘identify’ help to convey the purpose of the study.
3. Align with research questions or hypotheses
Ensure that your research objectives are aligned with your research questions or hypotheses. The objectives should address the main goals of your study and provide a framework for answering your research questions or testing your hypotheses.
4. Be realistic and achievable
Set research objectives that are realistic and achievable within the scope of your study. Consider the available resources, time constraints, and feasibility of your objectives. Unrealistic objectives can lead to frustration and hinder the progress of your research.
5. Consider the significance and relevance
Reflect on the significance and relevance of your research objectives. How will achieving these objectives contribute to the existing knowledge or address a gap in the literature? Ensure that your objectives have a clear purpose and value.
6. Seek feedback
It is beneficial to seek feedback on your research objectives from colleagues, mentors, or experts in your field. They can provide valuable insights and suggestions for improving the clarity and effectiveness of your objectives.
7. Revise and refine
Research objectives are not set in stone. As you progress in your research, you may need to revise and refine your objectives to align with new findings or changes in the research context. Regularly review and update your objectives to ensure they remain relevant and focused.
By following these tips, you can write research objectives that are clear, focused, and aligned with your research goals. Well-defined objectives will guide your research process and help you achieve meaningful outcomes.
Research objectives play a crucial role in the research methodology . In research methodology, research objectives are formulated based on the research questions or problem statement. These objectives help in defining the scope and focus of the study, ensuring that the research is conducted in a systematic and organized manner.
The research objectives in research methodology act as a roadmap for the research project. They help in identifying the key variables to be studied, determining the research design and methodology, and selecting the appropriate data collection methods .
Furthermore, research objectives in research methodology assist in evaluating the success of the study. By setting clear objectives, researchers can assess whether the desired outcomes have been achieved and determine the effectiveness of the research methods employed. It is important to note that research objectives in research methodology should be aligned with the overall research aim. They should address the specific aspects or components of the research aim and provide a framework for achieving the desired outcomes.
The research objectives of a study play a crucial role in guiding the research process, ensuring that the study is focused, purposeful, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field. It is important to note that the research objectives may evolve or change as the study progresses. As new information is gathered and analyzed, the researcher may need to revise the objectives to ensure that they remain relevant and achievable.
In summary, research objectives are essential components in writing an effective research paper . They provide a roadmap for the research process, guiding the researcher in their investigation and helping to ensure that the study is purposeful and meaningful. By understanding and effectively utilizing research objectives, researchers can enhance the quality and impact of their research endeavors.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Writing engaging introduction in research papers : tips and tricks.
By charlesworth author services.
Well-developed and focused research objectives go a long way in ensuring the success of a research project. The objectives even steer and shape the way the resulting research paper is structured . This article explains how to develop and frame your research objectives. Before that, let’s clarify the difference between research aims and objectives.
Let’s look at how you should move from the problem statement to the objectives. (See figure below.)
First, you come up with a problem statement describing the problem that needs solving (a controversy, knowledge gap , aspect that can be improved/enhanced, etc.), along with the rationale , which justifies the study.
You then formulate the central question of the study that is to be answered based on the study findings.
The research hypothesis is the formal prediction that is to be tested.
So, where do the objectives fit in?
The research objectives specify how the research question will be answered; in other words, the objectives determine what is to be measured to test the hypothesis .
Progression from a problem statement in a broad area of study to the development of the research objectives
Here is an example containing multiple research objectives, beginning with a problem statement.
Biodiversity losses are accelerating in the forests of northeast India. While measures are being taken by diverse players to stem these losses, there has been no formal study to quantify or compare the effects of the steps taken.
How do interventions by government research institutes compare with actions by indigenous people in managing plant biodiversity loss in the forests of Meghalaya, India?
Actions and interventions by indigenous people and local communities are more effective than interventions by government research institutes in plant genetic resource conservation in the forests of Meghalaya.
To investigate and compare the impact of the effectiveness of plant genetic resource conservation measures by research institutes and those by indigenous people and local communities in the forests of Meghalaya. To examine the ecological outcomes of specific conservation practices followed by local communities in Meghalaya. To identify specific plant species rescued by local communities in Meghalaya in the last few years.
Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.
Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.
To know more about our services, visit: Our Services
Sign up – stay updated.
We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
In the dynamic realm of academia, research problems serve as crucial stepping stones for groundbreaking discoveries and advancements. Research problems lay the groundwork for inquiry and exploration that happens when conducting research. They direct the path toward knowledge expansion.
In this blog post, we will discuss the different ways you can identify and formulate a research problem. We will also highlight how you can write a research problem, its significance in guiding your research journey, and how it contributes to knowledge advancement.
A research problem is defined as the focal point of any academic inquiry. It is a concise and well-defined statement that outlines the specific issue or question that the research aims to address. This research problem usually sets the tone for the entire study and provides you, the researcher, with a clear purpose and a clear direction on how to go about conducting your research.
There are two ways you can consider what the purpose of your research problem is. The first way is that the research problem helps you define the scope of your study and break down what you should focus on in the research. The essence of this is to ensure that you embark on a relevant study and also easily manage it.
The second way is that having a research problem helps you develop a step-by-step guide in your research exploration and execution. It directs your efforts and determines the type of data you need to collect and analyze. Furthermore, a well-developed research problem is really important because it contributes to the credibility and validity of your study.
It also demonstrates the significance of your research and its potential to contribute new knowledge to the existing body of literature in the world. A compelling research problem not only captivates the attention of your peers but also lays the foundation for impactful and meaningful research outcomes.
To identify a research problem, you need a systematic approach and a deep understanding of the subject area. Below are some steps to guide you in this process:
Once you have identified the general area of interest and specific research objectives, you can then formulate your research problem. Things to consider when formulating a research problem:
Steps to consider in writing a Research Problem:
Related: How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research
Research Problem: The research problem is a broad statement that outlines the overarching issue or gap in knowledge that your research aims to address. It provides the context and motivation for your study and helps establish its significance and relevance. The research problem is typically stated in the introduction section of your research proposal or thesis.
Research Questions: Research questions are specific inquiries that you seek to answer through your research. These questions are derived from the research problem and help guide the focus of your study. They are often more detailed and narrow in scope compared to the research problem. Research questions are usually listed in the methodology section of your research proposal or thesis.
Research Problem: A research problem is a specific issue, gap, or question that requires investigation and can be addressed through research. It is a clearly defined and focused problem that the researcher aims to solve or explore. The research problem provides the context and rationale for the study and guides the research process. It is usually stated as a question or a statement in the introduction section of a research proposal or thesis.
Example of a Research Problem: “ What are the factors influencing consumer purchasing decisions in the online retail industry ?”
Research Topic: A research topic, on the other hand, is a broader subject or area of interest within a particular field of study. It is a general idea or subject that the researcher wants to explore in their research. The research topic is more general and does not yet specify a specific problem or question to be addressed. It serves as the starting point for the research, and the researcher further refines it to formulate a specific research problem.
Example of a Research Topic: “ Consumer behavior in the online retail industry.”
In summary, a research topic is a general area of interest, while a research problem is a specific issue or question within that area that the researcher aims to investigate.
Research Problem: As explained earlier, a research problem is a specific issue, gap, or question that you as a researcher aim to address through your research. It is a clear and concise statement that defines the focus of the study and provides a rationale for why it is worth investigating.
Example of a Research Problem: “What is the impact of social media usage on the mental health and well-being of adolescents?”
Problem Statement: The problem statement, on the other hand, is a brief and clear description of the problem that you want to solve or investigate. It is more focused and specific than the research problem and provides a snapshot of the main issue being addressed.
Example of a Problem Statement: “ The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between social media usage and the mental health outcomes of adolescents, with a focus on depression, anxiety, and self-esteem.”
In summary, a research problem is the broader issue or question guiding the study, while the problem statement is a concise description of the specific problem being addressed in the research. The problem statement is usually found in the introduction section of a research proposal or thesis.
Formulating a research problem involves several challenges and considerations that researchers should carefully address:
In conclusion, understanding how to formulate a research problem is fundamental for you to have meaningful research and intellectual growth. Remember that a well-crafted research problem serves as the foundation for groundbreaking discoveries and advancements in various fields. It not only enhances the credibility and relevance of your study but also contributes to the expansion of knowledge and the betterment of society.
Therefore, put more effort into the process of identifying and formulating research problems with enthusiasm and curiosity. Engage in comprehensive literature reviews, observe your surroundings, and reflect on the gaps in existing knowledge. Lastly, don’t forget to be mindful of the challenges and considerations, and ensure your research problem aligns with clear objectives and ethical principles.
Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!
You may also like:
Almost all industries use research for growth and development. Research objectives are how researchers ensure that their study has...
Introduction In research studies, naive and non-naive participant information alludes to the degree of commonality and understanding...
Learn how to write problem statements before commencing any research effort. Learn about its structure and explore examples
Introduction In the age of information, data has become the driving force behind decision-making and innovation. Whether in business,...
Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..
You have full access to this open access article
235 Accesses
Explore all metrics
With the higher education reform putting forward the professionalization of doctoral students, doctoral education has been strongly focused on generic transferable skills to ensure employability. However, doctoral training should not forget core skills of research and especially the ability to formulate research questions, which are the key to original research and difficult to develop at the same time. Learning how to develop a research question is traditionally seen as a one-to-one learning process and an informal daily transmission between a novice and a senior researcher. The objective of this paper is to offer a framework to design doctoral programs aimed at supporting the process of development of research questions for doctoral candidates guided by their supervisors. We base our proposal on two doctoral training programs designed with a pedagogical strategy based on dialogs with peers, whether they be students, supervisors, or trainers from a diversity of scientific backgrounds. The resulting framework combines three learning challenges faced by doctoral students and their supervisors when developing their research question, as well as training objectives corresponding to what they should learn and that are illustrated by the scaffolds we have used in our training programs. Finally, we discuss the conditions and originality of our pedagogical strategy based on the acquisition of argumentation skills, taking both the subjective dimensions of PhD work and the added value of interactions with a diversity and heterogeneity of peers into account.
Promoting the asking of research questions in a high-school biotechnology inquiry-oriented program.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
With the higher education reform ongoing in the Western world, doctoral education has undergone “a shift from the master–apprentice model to the professional model” (Poyatos Matas, 2012 ), focusing doctoral education on doctoral graduate employability (Cardoso et al., 2022 ) and thus on generic transferable skills (Christensen, 2005 ). However, Poyatos Matas ( 2012 ) warns doctoral educators of the danger of reducing doctoral education to a business or team skills approach, arguing the “importan[ce of maintaining] an adequate balance between skill-based and knowledge-based approaches to doctoral education.” Along the same line, Christensen ( 2005 ) argues that training in transferable skills “should not be overemphasised with respect to original research.” Nevertheless, Poyatos Matas ( 2012 ) does not explicitly explain what the core skills of research, grouped into a broad category referred to as “research skills,” are among seven other skills listed by the European Universities Association’s Salzburg principles.
Among research skills, the way the research question is formulated is critical. As Einstein and Infeld expressed it in 1971 , “the formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution […]. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old questions from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.” In this article, we consider the development of a research question as a process that consists of determining and reducing the identified problems, whether scientific or socio-economic, and translating them into a relevant and treatable question (Callon, 1984 ). We assume that it is a key process for research activities and a skill that PhD students have to acquire during their PhD experience. However, learning how to develop a research question is far from being easy, as revealed by the multiplication of methodological guides and tutorials on this topic. As researchers and human resource advisors working in a multidisciplinary research institute (INRAE) Footnote 1 , we have also observed many PhD students struggling to formulate their research question, which may seriously inhibit the writing of the final manuscript, whether it be a thesis by publication or not. Some authors have pointed out that the current graduate school education system has largely focused on producing better learners and problem solvers, thus neglecting problem-finding or creativity development in doctoral education (Whitelock et al., 2008 ). Preparing a “research proposal” and developing a researchable question is even recognized as a critical step for doctoral students (Zuber-Skerrit & Knight, 1986 ), becoming a “threshold to cross” during the PhD journey (Chatterjee-Padmanabhan & Nielsen, 2018 ). It thus appears essential to explore the challenges of research question development and how doctoral training programs can contribute to its learning.
The objective of our article is to offer a framework to think about and design doctoral training programs that support the development of research questions for doctoral candidates guided by their supervisors. Our proposal is grounded in two doctoral training programs designed with a pedagogical strategy based on dialogs with peers, whether they be other students, supervisors, or trainers from a diversity of scientific backgrounds. This article is structured into four sections. We present our theoretical background in order to explore the diversity of approaches to develop a research question, laying out our vision of doctoral experience and education, and the way in which the concept of scaffolding has been used in the learning processes that underlie the development of research questions (“ Theoretical background ” section). We then present our methodology, combining an analysis of the literature, our experience in conducting research, supervising and training doctoral students and their supervisors, and our case studies (“ Materials and methods ” section). Our results consist of a framework that combines three learning challenges and the corresponding training objectives, illustrated by scaffoldings we have used in our training programs (“ Results: scaffolding learning challenges for the development of the research question within a thesis ” section). Finally, we discuss the conditions and originality of our proposal based on the acquisition of argumentation skills, with the consideration of the subjective dimensions of PhD work and the added value of interactions with a diversity and heterogeneity of peers (“ Discussion: Enriching peer-learning scaffolding to support the development of a research question as a dialogical process ” section).
Opening up the process of research question development: a diversity of approaches.
According to the literature about the development of research questions, it is a task that is difficult to formalize and for which several approaches coexist. It may differ according to the disciplines (Xypas & Robin, 2010 ) as well as according to the practical context of the doctoral thesis (i.e., participative research, methodological or fundamental research, financial support). We identified four approaches to research question development:
Gap-spotting (e.g., Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997 ), the more classical approach, which consists in identifying gaps in existing literature that need to be filled.
Challenging the assumptions underlying existing theory in order to develop and evaluate alternative assumptions. Such an approach aims at coming up “with novel research questions through a dialectical interrogation of one’s own familiar position, other stances, and the domain of literature targeted for assumption challenging” (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013 ). These authors explicitly adopt a critical perspective of gap-spotting, which they consider as a form of “underproblematization.”
Expressing a contrastive stance to create dialogical space, presented as critical in order to develop a convincing research question (Mei, 2006 ). This approach has addressed the research question formulation by focusing on the writing process.
Problem-solving study based on a negotiation about the “problem framing” involving scientists and stakeholders, and which focuses on practical problem-solving (Archbald, 2008 ).
The literature and our experience show that these different approaches coexist, but do not fall within the same temporality. For example, gap-spotting can be an operation that takes place at the beginning of the research process and which is limited in time, whereas the negotiation of problems between scientists and stakeholders can be much longer and can arise at different stages of the research process. In the same way, challenging existing theories can be a long and incremental process that evolves as the doctoral student acquires new knowledge from scientific literature along the doctoral path or due to an unexpected observation in the field. Trafford and Leshem ( 2009 ) also explain how research begins with a gap in knowledge or professional practices and how research questions evolve with new inputs from the literature, fieldwork, and the progressive establishment of a conceptual framework and theoretical perspectives, to finally end up by proposing a “justifiable contribution to knowledge”. In this perspective, the formulation of a research question can be considered as an incremental path that continues during the doctoral journey.
The knowledge and know-how involved in research question development are thus of a very specific nature (metacognition, implicit, diversity of thinking, etc.), rendering it impossible to design doctoral training programs focused on this complex task as a simple “knowledge transfer”. Moreover, beyond the cognitive learning required, it also refers to more developmental challenges, both for doctoral students and their supervisors, since it is embedded in their specific epistemological and social working situation.
We consider research and, thus, doctoral experience as an activity involving affects, interests, and social networks (Shapin, 2010 ). In line with other scholars (Lonka et al., 2019 ; Sun & Cheng, 2022 ; Xypas & Robin, 2010 ), we argue that doctoral education should rely on a person-centered approach. This means paying attention to doctoral students’ profiles, their perceptions of the academic environment and their professional aims, i.e., the individual contexts of each PhD thesis and the diversity of PhD researchers’ needs and goals (Inouye, 2023 ), as well as their conceptions of research or epistemological backgrounds (Charmillot, 2023 ). We thus consider the PhD process as a professional experience with its multidimensional nature and the distinct quests of PhD students (quest for the self; intellectual quest; professional quest) when navigating their doctoral paths (Skakni, 2018 ).
This type of view leads to a developmental approach of the PhD journey, with doubts, uncertainties, and paradoxes in becoming doctoral researchers, and a “transformation of understanding and of self” (Rennie & Kinsella, 2020 ). Influenced by their personal trajectories and post-PhD goals, doctoral students may thus adopt various approaches in the yearly phase of the PhD process when developing their research projects, whether writing a research proposal constitutes or not a formal step to becoming a full doctoral candidate Footnote 2 . We also consider the PhD experience as a transformative process of a bidirectional nature, for both doctoral students and their supervisors (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ; Kobayashi, 2014 ).
When it comes to doctoral education, this point of view implies the necessity to combine both generic support and individual guidance, to tailor training and to take each of the doctoral student’s stage of development into account. It also requires that trainers take on the role of facilitators more than those “who know”, in a socio-constructivist approach to learning. Nevertheless, designing doctoral training dedicated to research question development throughout the doctoral journey opens up questions on how to promote such learning in the workplace.
In line with Vygotsky’s approach to learning, we consider that the concept of scaffolding can be beneficial to understanding how PhD supervisors can assist their doctoral students in learning how to develop their research question. Firstly defined by Wood et al. ( 1976 ) as a process similar to parents helping infants to solve a problem, this concept has proven to be an efficient pedagogical strategy to support learning in science (Lin et al., 2012 ). It can then be connected to Vygotski’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) ( 1978 ), consisting of tasks that students cannot yet carry out on their own, but which they can accomplish with assistance. Scaffolding has been specified by Belland ( 2014 ) in instructional settings as a “just-in-time support provided by a teacher/parent (tutor) that allows students (tutees) to meaningfully participate in and gain skill at problem solving”. Beyond this use within formal instruction, it has been put forward as “a central educational arrangement in workplace learning”, considered as a “socially-shared situation between master and apprentice” (Nielsen, 2008 ). Scholars argued that scaffolding could also be used to improve higher-order thinking abilities through social interaction, such as argumentation when solving ill-structured problems or when building dialectical arguments.
Three critical features are central to successful scaffolding:
Firstly, the notion of a shared understanding of the goal of the activity is crucial (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005 ), requiring an “intersubjectivity” between the tutor and the tutee (Belland, 2014 ), which is reached when they collaboratively redefine the task. The stake here is to make sure that learners are invested in the task, as well as to help sustain this motivation, encouraging them to be informed participants who understand the point of the activity, the value and use of the strategies and “making it worthwhile for the learner to risk the next step” (Wood et al., 1976 ).
Secondly, the tutor should provide the tutee with a graduated assistance based on an ongoing diagnosis of the tutee’s current level of skill, which Belland ( 2014 ) sums up by “providing just the right amount of support at just the right time, and backing off as students gained skill”. Therefore, scaffolding is highly contingent on both the task and the learner’s characteristics, thus being “dynamically adjusted according to tutee ability” (Belland, 2014 ) and requiring the tutor to manage a careful calibration of support (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005 ).
Thirdly, scaffolding is successful when the learner controls and takes responsibility for the task, thus moving towards autonomous activity. Scaffolding should then promote this transfer of responsibility, as well as including its own fadeout as internalization progresses.
First focused on the interactions between individuals, the scaffolding concept is now being more broadly applied to artifacts, resources, and environments designed as scaffolds (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005 ), with three main “scaffolding modalities”:
One-to-one scaffolding, which “consists of a teacher’s contingent support of students within their respective ZPDs”, considered as the ideal modality with a tailored scaffolding;
Peer scaffolding, which goes beyond the original idea of assistance by a more capable individual (Wood et al., 1976 ) and which hypothesizes that peers can also provide such support;
Computer/paper/artifact-based scaffolding, which emerged as a solution to the dilemma that teachers cannot provide adequate one-to-one scaffolding to all students in a classroom.
Beyond the advantages and limitations of each scaffolding modality, various scholars have discussed the challenges of designing scaffolding in complex environments. It can be a question of taking the heterogeneity of learners into consideration when designing tools (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005 ), of building dynamic assessments and fading into the whole environment (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005 ; Belland, 2014 ), or of considering the learning environment by combining tools and agents (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005 ) in a system of “distributed scaffolding” (Tabak, 2004 ). Lastly, beyond the dyadic relationship between the master and the apprentice, many authors have shown the distributed and collective nature of scaffolding at the workplace (Filliettaz, 2011 ), pointing out the role of “the entire work community” in workplace learning. This enlargement of the concept of scaffolding appears to be especially relevant for the learning of research question development, which is a long process that results from a diversity of interactions, as shown in the previous sub-section.
In her report of the Bologna seminar on Doctoral Programs for the European Knowledge Society, Christensen ( 2005 ) argues that only training by doing research can provide doctoral candidates with core skills such as “problem solving, innovative, creative and critical thinking”. Until now, the traditional model of doctoral education was based on a supervisor-centered model and a transmission model “where the apprenticeship learns from the master by observation” (Poyatos Matas, 2012 ). Such informal learning thus takes place in private spaces, pointing out the lack of explicit knowledge on “what the academic career involves, the norms, values, and ethics embedded in their disciplines, and the expectations of work habits that they would be expected to meet” (Austin, 2009 ).
Even if this master-apprenticeship model was previously adequate, it turns out to be outdated because of the evolution of doctoral conditions. The increasing control and limitation of PhD duration and the obligation of regular reporting about the progress of the PhD leave less room and time for mimetic and trial-and-error learning. This is especially true in the case of specific doctoral education models such as the PhD by publication, the professional doctorate, the practice-based doctorate (Poyatos Matas, 2012 ), and the case of traditional PhDs. However, most of the time, doctoral students remain “without fully learning how to frame their own questions and design and conduct their own studies” (Austin, 2009 ). It is thus not surprising that the offer of learning supports for PhD students has greatly increased, with a wide diversity of options (handbooks, YouTube channels, writing courses or groups, etc.). Among the diverse training programs offered to doctoral students and sometimes supervisors, some doctoral schools and universities have also created specific training programs to support research question development, while some authors like Inouye ( 2020 ) put forward that training and supervision should include explicit training on the Research Proposal as a “threshold to cross” (see footnote n°2). On the basis of this diversity of offers, we identified three main scaffoldings corresponding to the three main modalities identified in the previous section: artifacts, peer-learning groups (e.g., Chatterjee-Padmanabhan & Nielsen, 2018 ; Poyatos Matas, 2012 ; Zuber-Skerritt & Knight, 1986 ), and supervisors (e.g., Manathunga et al., 2006 ; Whitelock et al., 2008 ).
Following a developmental approach to the PhD process, the present study aims at offering a generic framework to think about and design doctoral programs that scaffold the learning of the development of research questions.
Building a framework by combining our experiences with the literature.
This research was based on two distinct doctoral training programs that we designed and independently ran over a period of 10 years. Having reflected together on our department’s doctoral training policy, we then progressively formalized the issues at stake in doctoral training and analyzed how our programs responded to them. The importance and difficulties of learning how to develop research questions during doctoral studies then became crucial, leading us to formalize what we had learned from our two programs. In this article, these programs are our case studies, i.e., the situation where we conducted an empirical inquiry to investigate the scaffolding of research question development and from which we can expand and generalize theories on doctoral training (Yin, 2018 ).
For each case study, we combined several methods to collect data:
We used ethnographic techniques (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ) with a participant observer stance. As researchers conducting research and supervising doctoral students, as HR advisors supporting doctoral students and researchers at INRAE, and as trainers and coordinators in two doctoral training programs, we are involved in prolonged and repeated periods of observation. We thus documented detailed field notes that were revisited as research data.
We built a corpus of pre-existing documents presenting the two doctoral programs (brochures, Website contents, scientific articles, time schedules and targeted objectives at each sequence). For each document, we carried out an open-coding operation to identify the narratives about research question development.
We gathered feedback spontaneously expressed by the trainees during the training courses, the hot debriefs occurring at the end of each course, and training assessments one month after the course, as well as in the course of our activity (in individual HR interventions or in reading the acknowledgements of a PhD thesis).
In parallel with data collection, we carried out a review of the literature on the evolution of doctoral education and the emerging learning challenges for doctoral students and their supervisors, some epistemological articles on research question development and the process of doctoral experience, empirical articles describing training for research question development and seminal articles, and reviews on scaffolding in education sciences. We undertook a cross-reading of this literature to build a conceptual framework identifying the key concepts to study training for research question development: scaffolds, scaffolding objectives, learning challenges, and scaffolding practices. We then analyzed our data to identify the scaffolds mobilized in each case study, the objectives of this scaffolding, and the learning challenges of research question development considered as a scaffolding system. Finally, we characterized our scaffolding practices, i.e., the way in which we, as trainers, concretely support the learning required to achieve the challenges of research question development. Both training programs result from a continuous improvement process based on the feedback of the trainees: with such feedback and our own observations, we were thus able to identify and select the most effective teaching methods in line with our objectives to support the learning of research question development. Behind the classical scaffolding modalities identified in the literature, we chose to identify the diversity of very contextual scaffolding practices and devices used, which we then linked to our training objectives. For each program, we also detailed how these objectives relate to the larger learning challenges of research question development. This led us to formalize a generic grid, which was tested and improved by using it to describe each of our programs.
As a public research institute, the main goals of INRAE are to produce and disseminate scientific knowledge, with a specific focus on the contribution to education and training. Given the broad field of competences within INRAE devoted to the development of agriculture, food and the environment, and its inherent multidisciplinary nature, the thesis defended may draw from extremely various disciplines, ranging from molecular biology to sociology, with a dominance of life and environmental sciences. Moreover, INRAE is a targeted research institute that works with and for various partners in higher education and research, industry, and the agricultural sector and regional governments. This means that many research projects, including doctoral research, are designed and carried out within partnerships with these various stakeholders. INRAE doctoral students are supervised by INRAE researchers, mainly within complex multidisciplinary supervision teams together with French or international academic partners.
In this context, we have developed our vision of research activity and doctoral experience (see the “ Our vision of the PhD experience and doctoral education ” section) and have been designing, improving, and leading two doctoral training programs for more than 10 years (Table 1 ), which share common postulates such as the following:
Considering the PhD process as a part of the professional trajectory.
Aiming at supporting autonomy of doctoral students through the enhancement of their capacity to defend the choices they have made to build research questions, thus also aiming at helping supervisors to adopt a companionship stance.
Considering research question development as an activity, which implies the choice of pedagogical principles based on action learning rather than knowledge transfer.
Considering diversity as an asset, we base our training programs on multidisciplinary workshops.
Nevertheless, they differ in terms of the training audience and times of training in the PhD process:
Course A is only open to doctoral students of the ACT Footnote 3 division of INRAE, whereas course B trains both doctoral students and their supervisors belonging to the different divisions of INRAE.
Doctoral students may attend course A three times during their thesis, whereas course B is designed to train doctoral students once during their thesis, at the end of the first year.
In this section, we present a generic framework to think about and design doctoral training programs with the aim of scaffolding the learning of research question development. It combines learning challenges (LC) faced by doctoral students and their supervisors when formulating their research question and training objectives (TO) corresponding to what the participants should learn. We also illustrate how each of these TO can be scaffolded, drawing on some examples from our training programs.
As a professionalization period, the PhD process is considered as a peer-learning process (Boud & Lee, 2005 ) that relies on a mentoring relationship that aims at developing the autonomy of the young researcher (Willison and O’Regan, 2007 ). Developing doctoral agency (Inouye, 2023 ) and, more specifically, promoting a subject-centered approach (Sun & Cheng, 2022 ) to research question development is the first learning challenge that we identified. We then consider that the doctoral student is the one who makes the subject evolve, who reflects and chooses the components of the research question. We divide this first learning challenge into three training objectives and various sub-objectives (see Fig. 1 ), one focused on the doctoral student, one on the supervisor, and one on their relative roles.
Training objectives set out for the challenge: “to empower doctoral students in their research question development”
First, the doctoral student needs to understand the expectations, nature, and difficulties of PhD research and, specifically, of research question development (TO1). This encompasses the sub-objective of understanding the iterative and unplanned nature of the research process as well as making it clear with their supervisor(s) how their creativity can be expressed regarding institutional or financial constraints. For many authors, problem finding or identifying and describing a research question is part of doctoral subjective creativity and a key for an original contribution to knowledge. At the same time, we observe, as other scholars (Brodin, 2018 ; Frick, 2011 ; Whitelock et al., 2008 ) have, that there is a lack of explicit expectations on creativity in doctoral education, which is then limited by scholarly traditions and institutional requirements. During research question development, “standing at the border between the known and the unknown” Footnote 4 can put doctoral students in a situation of uncertainty about their identity and purpose (Trafford & Leshem, 2009 ). For Frick ( 2011 ), doctoral becoming requires an alignment between “how students view themselves in relation to the research process of becoming a scholar (ontology), how they relate to different forms of knowledge (epistemology), how they know to obtain and create such knowledge (methodology), and how they frame their interests in terms of their values and ethics within the discipline (axiology)”. At the crossroads between these four dimensions, research question development is thus a key process that stimulates doctoral student becoming and that requires the support of supervisors so that their students can understand what is expected of them. Knowing that this can be a source of stress for doctoral students, we put the subject of “what is a research process” up for discussion between supervisors and students in course B. After discussing with other students on their perception of creativity in their thesis, students are invited to watch, together with their supervisors, a video calling for scientists to stop thinking of research as a linear process from question to answer but, instead, as a creative and eventually sinuous path (see footnote n°4). Students often express a sense of relief later on when they work with their supervisors on the second reformulation of the thesis subject. In this way, doctoral students become aware that a formulation is likely to evolve during the thesis and feel more comfortable about formulating one that is in no way definitive at the end of the course. In the same way, in course A, we invite the second-year PhD students to work on the transformation of their research subject in order to illustrate its evolution. We ask them to write the formulation of their subject as worded in the PhD offer or initial PhD contract and the formulation that they would use today to describe it. We then collectively work with the other PhD students at various stages in their thesis to identify the differences between the two formulations, so that the concerned second-year PhD students may explain their choices, eventualities, or constraints that led to the transformation of the subject. During debriefs, trainees express that this exercise helped them to understand that this transformation is an integral part of the research process.
This learning challenge also implies that doctoral students and their supervisors clarify their respective roles regarding research question development (TO2). The degree to which supervisors encourage doctoral students to think and act autonomously has been shown to be associated with students’ supervision satisfaction and greater research self-efficacy (Overall et al., 2011 ). This can be done firstly by clarifying the distinction between the supervisor(s)’s research project, professional career issues and those of the PhD. In course B, asking the doctoral students and their supervisors to describe and discuss the thesis supervision ecosystem has been observed as one of the crucial steps in this clarification of their respective roles in research question development. For doctoral students, research question development also implies that they take ownership of the subject, whereas it was often initially written by the supervisors. In course B, the rule “letting the student speak first” has been expressed by doctoral students as very useful for taking on the role, especially during the three workshops focused on the formulation of the thesis subject. In course A, we ask the doctoral students to present the professional context of their PhD (research project, subsidy, disciplines of the supervisors, proximity of the supervisors to the subject, etc.). This presentation helps the trainees to clarify the contextual framing of the PhD students’ theses, as well as the margin of freedom. For their part, supervisors need to let the PhD students develop their research question by themselves and find the right stance, with a careful balance between “hands-off” and “hands-on” (Gruzdev et al., 2020 ). In course B, supervisors first exchange between themselves about what it means to supervise a thesis and their role in the PhD process. The three reformulation workshops are then practical opportunities to take on this role: experiencing this role of being a support and not the leader of the PhD project is sometimes seen as difficult by supervisors who are used to being research project leaders, but they also admit that it is a necessary step to experience the supervision stance.
Supervisors also need to understand the challenges faced by PhD candidates in the development of research questions (TO3) by first abandoning the assumption of the already autonomous student (Manathunga & Goozée, 2007 ). According to Halse and Malfroy ( 2010 ), the supervisor is “responsible for recognizing and responding to the needs of different students”, within a “learning alliance” with the student. When it comes to formulating their research question, it becomes important to be able to situate their own role with their values and desires in the research process, in general, and, in particular, in the development of the research question, which is not just made up of rational intellectual choices. For this objective, supervisors have to be able to clearly identify the doctoral student’s state of progress in the development of the research question within the thesis and, more broadly, the doctoral student’s values and desires in doing research (Skakni, 2018 ). In course B, we ask them to step back and remain silent (even stolid!) when their doctoral students present their subject. While listening and writing down their observations, they foster their understanding of the states of progress and the orientations chosen by the students. With this rule, we then observe that most of them are able to adopt the correct stance for later workshops when they are asked to work with students on their research question.
The second learning challenge focuses on making the PhD students (and their supervisors) aware of the diversity of ways of doing research and especially various forms and processes of research question development (see the “ Opening up the process of research question development: a diversity of approaches ” section) and situating oneself in this diversity. Many authors argue that doctoral education should highlight scientific pluralism (Pallas, 2001 ), opening the epistemological doctoral experience in order to question the implicit norm of neutrality of the positivist ideal (Charmillot, 2023 ). This is particularly true when it comes to the development of research questions for “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973 ), i.e., economic, political, and environmental issues involving many stakeholders with different values and priorities. In this context, developing research questions often requires analysis at the crossroads between several disciplines (Bosque-Perez et al., 2016 ) and between different social stakes (Manathunga et al., 2006 ). It requires reinforcing a scientific culture favorable to this practice of multi-/inter-/transdisciplinarity (Kemp & Nurius, 2015 ), then making interdisciplinary research skills a part of graduate education (Pallas, 2001 ; Bosque-Perez et al., 2016 ). Doctoral students then have to develop their awareness about the diversity of forms and processes of research question development, requiring that they are able to understand this diversity, to know how they themselves relate to different forms of knowledge (Frick, 2011 ), and to acknowledge their performativity in the world.
Within this second learning challenge, we distinguish four training objectives (Fig. 2 ), all concerning doctoral students and their supervisors.
Training objectives for the challenge: “to be aware of the diversity of ways of doing research, to be able to situate oneself in this diversity”
Both of them need to understand and respect the diversity of research stances (TO4). In both of our case studies, we ensure that a diversity of disciplines is represented in each working group, and we guarantee the mutual respect among them. We facilitate the expression of all doctoral students about how they are developing their research question, thus illustrating the diversity of research stances. During the hot debrief of course A, trainees regularly point out the discovery of this diversity as a positive outcome, which helps them to situate their own work. Moreover, discussing research question development within small and heterogeneous groups in terms of disciplines is experienced by participants as a strength “to take a step back and clarify key points” (student, course B, 2017), acknowledging that “working with other disciplines, it helped us to refocus and clarify the subject” (supervisor, course B, 2023).
Doctoral students and their supervisors also need to be able to formulate questions and clearly explain the doctoral research project, especially the way they develop their research question, whatever their discipline may be (TO5). This is why active participation is required in the workshops in both case studies, putting doctoral students and supervisors in the position of an active learner, not a passive trainee. Since such workshops may be very demanding for the PhD student and might be emotionally intense, it is of utmost importance that the trainers carefully manage the collective discussion, guaranteeing trust, mutual respect, and achieving balance in speaking. In particular, doctoral students and their supervisors are the ones who know the scientific community(ies) to which they will contribute and are the only ones who can assess the relevance of the subject. Participants are then asked to question the PhD students without calling the relevance of their theses into question. When aiming at promoting the expression of PhD students as human subjects , trainers have to pay particular attention to the fact that participants do not reformulate the subject for the students but, on the contrary, help them to open up the possibilities, to sort out, and to clarify the status of the elements presented. Trainers also use expression modes such as the questioning forms (open/closed questions), the subject pronouns used (I/we), and the origin of the arguments or events expressed by the PhD student as points of vigilance for managing the group discussion and as levers to go deeper into the questioning and analysis of the PhD students’ thinking about their research questions.
They both have to examine (in their own research and that of others) the place of stakeholders in the development of the research question (TO6). In course A, we use the conceptual framework of translation from Callon ( 1984 ) to analyze how a social problem can be translated into a research question. In course B, the framework given to trainees to develop their research question specifically points out the distinction to be made between the academic research stakes and the stakes for society. They also have to understand how the diversity of ways of scientific knowledge production perform or do not perform in problematic situations (TO7).
The third learning challenge concerns the staggered process of formulation of the research question throughout the PhD process. For many authors, the formulation of a “researchable question” or “research conceptualization” (Badenhorst, 2021 ) by the doctoral student is the first step in the doctoral research process with the writing, and sometimes formal presentation, of a “research proposal”. It is often seen as a threshold in the doctoral journey (Chatterjee-Padmanabhan & Nielsen, 2018 ) and a key feature of “doctorateness”, combining gaps in knowledge, contributions to knowledge, research questions, conceptual frameworks, and research design (Trafford & Leshem, 2009 ). For Frick ( 2011 ), the preparation of a proposal requires background reading and “demarcation of the research question”. It consists in knowing to which scientific issues the thesis will contribute and in identifying the relevant disciplinary concepts. Mastering the various modes of communication in the development of a research question is of utmost importance for PhD students, enabling them to accurately formulate their research question (Lim, 2014 ), as well as to take most of their supervisors’ or other researchers’ (colleagues, reviewers) feedback into consideration (Carter & Kumar, 2017 ). More widely, knowing how to formulate their research question is not sufficient without being able to step back from their own formulation. Boch ( 2023 ) expresses it as a necessary reflexivity in research writing, which means becoming aware of oneself in research and integrating this experience into the writing in an argumentative and convincing way. Stepping back from their research question also puts forward the need for doctoral students to be clear about the translations and reductions made (Callon, 1984 ), their research strategies (Inouye, 2023 ), or research stances (Hazard et al., 2020 ).
This learning challenge includes three training objectives (Fig. 3 ), two of them concerning the doctoral student and the third one concerning the students and their supervisors.
Training objectives for the challenge: “to know how to express their research question throughout the research process”
Doctoral students must clearly lay out the research stakes (both academic and for society) throughout their thesis process (TO8). In course B, we give learners a framework to think about and discuss research question development as a combination of three main ingredients (operational and scientific stakes, research question, strategy), requiring that students make the difference between the scientific stakes and the thesis objective clear, while defining the scope of the thesis within broader issues (European project, lab project). In course A, the conceptual framework of the translation from Callon is useful to recognize the driving forces of the reductions and translations in order to identify them and their consequences on the formulation of the research question. It helps clarify their research practices and understand how they contribute to the development of the research strategy, beyond what has been done so far. In course A, we use a trajectory to identify the consistency and the sense of the various research practices of the 3 rd year PhD students. In course B, the “research strategy,” viewed both as a “realized” and “planned” one (Mintzberg, 1987 ), is useful as both a hindsight (what have been my choices so far?) and planning tool (how to reach my research objective as I can express it today?), allowing students to put the weight of their thesis schedule into perspective.
In order to progress in their reflection, the doctoral students need to understand the importance of different oral and written (scientific or not) communications for making the formulation of their research question evolve (TO9). In course A, when designing the trajectory of the 3 rd year PhD students, we question them about their scientific communications or articles and about the consequences they had on the evolution of the formulation of their research question. We also ask them about the impact of the different feedback they had at the time of these communications and articles (from peers, from supervisors and other researchers, and from stakeholders) on the development of their research question. In course B, there are three exercises focused on the research question. While being considered as difficult, these exercises are also seen by trainees as effective for training themselves in expressing (orally and then on a written basis) their own subject and receiving feedback and questions from other students and their supervisors. We can observe that research questions and soundness of argumentation deeply evolve throughout the week, to the great satisfaction of students and their supervisors.
Doctoral students, as well as their supervisors for the research carried out under their responsibility, have to understand and explain the consequences of research question choices on the ways knowledge produced in the thesis could be used in the real world (TO10). In course A, we use a heuristic tool to help PhD students to understand the relevance for action of the knowledge they generate (Hazard et al., 2020 ).
Learning how to build a research question is traditionally seen as a one-to-one learning process based on informal and daily transmission between a novice and a senior researcher. In order to open up this informal process, we have grounded our pedagogical strategy in multiple opportunities for dialog with peers, whether it be other students, supervisors, or trainers. Taken as a whole, it thus combines interdisciplinarity, peer-learning, and dialogical principles that result in the construction of an “overall distributed scaffolding strategy” (Belland, 2014 ) and that create synergy between peer scaffolding, one-to-one and media scaffolding (Belland, 2014 ).
Firstly, our case studies emphasize speaking and argumentation skills rather than writing competencies. Many research works like Zuber-Skerritt and Knight ( 1986 ), Maher et al. ( 2013 ), Kumar and Aitchison ( 2018 ), and Badenhorst ( 2021 ) have explored the needs and modalities of doctoral education in terms of writing, even from the supervisor’s perspective (González-Ocampo & Castelló, 2018 ). Our pedagogical choice contrasts with this focus on doctoral writing since we give trainees many dialogical opportunities to train themselves to orally express and defend their intellectual autonomy. Doing so, we join Cahusac de Caux et al. ( 2017 ) who argue, “peer feedback and discussion benefits students by helping them verbalise their internal reflective thinking, fostering reflective practice skills development”. Even if we use some media-based scaffoldings, tools are not at the core of our case studies: our objective is instead to help trainees to put their thoughts into words, in line with the cognitive apprenticeship of Austin ( 2009 ), referring to a specific kind of apprenticeship for the less easily observed processes of thinking.
Secondly, our training programs make the most of the diversity and heterogeneity of peers, whether they be more or less experienced in supervision, from various disciplines, or at different stages of their thesis, thus enriching peer-learning scaffolding. All the participants, in their capacity as scientists, are considered as peers who are able to understand the work of other researchers, regardless of the discipline and the thesis subject. It is also by striving to understand and question subjects that are sometimes far from their field of research that researchers acquire the capacity for analysis, synthesis, and hindsight that is necessary in research work. By setting up dialogical spaces to help inexperienced researchers hone their argumentation skills, our training programs implement our view of research in practical terms as a collective process and of doctoral education as a professional socialization process, thus requiring that research organizations facilitate collective practices in the workplace (Malfroy, 2005 ). Moreover, with the inherent heterogeneity of participants, these workshops also constitute places where the multidisciplinarity and plurality of the sciences are experienced firsthand, convergent with Manathunga et al. ( 2006 ) or Bosque-Perez et al. ( 2016 ). Doing so, we are taking part in the debate of whether scaffolds need to contain domain-specific knowledge (Belland, 2014 ) by saying that there is no need for discipline or domain-specific scaffolds. Moreover, being active on one’s own case as well as on others’ situations is an efficient training strategy to move away from the objects and routines of a discipline or community when expressing ideas between specialists. Such collective reflexivity, sometimes turning into an analysis of professional practices, is a classic vocational training principle known to enhance the development of professionalization in the long term. What we add in our training sessions is the heterogeneity of participants, which is a resource for reflexivity, but that has to be carefully managed.
Thirdly, trainees are considered as human subjects engaged in their PhD with their various motivations and professional projects, which can strongly impact the way they see their thesis and envision their research work (Skakni, 2018 ), as well as their affinities and values, their doubts, and fears. Thanks to our focus on oral exchanges, we are then able to reveal and deal with these subjective dimensions of PhD work, which are often hidden when training PhD students in scientific writing. More precisely, expressing one’s doctoral experience and professional situations experienced is known as an efficient scaffolding practice within the collaborative reflective writing of “learning journals” with peer feedback (Boldrini & Cattaneo, 2014 ). We have shown how to implement such scaffolding in small groups of doctoral students with the facilitation of experienced researchers.
However, our proposal requires that some binding conditions be met:
Learning to formulate a research question through dialog with peers requires spending time, in our case, 4 full days, within small groups to ensure that everyone can take part in it and take advantage of the feedback of others.
This dialog is made possible and emphasized by the diversity of participants (either in terms of discipline, stage of the thesis, experience, etc.).
Managing both the human and scientific conditions of this dialog requires reflexive and open-minded trainers that adopt a facilitating stance.
As a result, our perspective on scaffolding is not merely an issue of training technique but, on the contrary, a situated perspective that echoes the view of Nielsen ( 2008 ) on training “both as part of a social practice and as part of the learner’s trajectory of participation”, within an expansive process inspired by Engeström’s work. With this developmental view on doctoral experience, we acknowledge that research question development is a process that goes beyond the limited time of a 4-day training program. Trainee feedback collected after their participation in course A or B revealed that they continue the work begun during the training programs, on the basis of the given scaffolding (e.g., “I feel that we familiarized ourselves with these tools [referring to the concepts of translation and reduction] because we work on them and I started to think. […] I know these tools will remain in my head until I write my thesis and that I really learned a lot” Hot debrief, course A, 2016). It is also not rare that trainees mention their participation in course A or B to their PhD steering committees as having helped to frame/define their research question. Course A or B is also frequently mentioned as an essential support in acknowledgement of their PhD thesis. Although limited in time, the training programs studied in this article act as an accelerator in research question development (e.g. course B “we saved several months”, supervisor, 2017, “In just 2 days, everything became much clearer and more focused”, student, 2021). We thus assume that they contribute to awareness and reflexivity on research activity and to the professional development of trainees, which is particularly crucial in France with the pressure put on thesis duration and the absence of formal recognition of the research proposal stage.
Our experience puts forward two avenues for future research. Firstly, bringing together doctoral students at different stages of their thesis and then offering them the opportunity to participate each year of their PhD process opens a window on to their intellectual trajectory and a situated adjustment of our scaffolding practices. Secondly, training doctoral supervisors—and trainers involved in these doctoral programs—remains of utmost importance to make scaffolding last and be adapted throughout the next months and years.
This study examined the learning challenges and objectives required for the task of research question development throughout the PhD process, both for doctoral students and their supervisors. We have drawn some lessons for the scaffolding of these challenges and objectives from two different doctoral training programs that we have been designing and leading for more than 10 years.
Considering the development of a research question as a dialogical process, we suggest three conditions to scaffold these learnings: firstly, offering many dialogical opportunities is an effective way for students to train themselves to express their intellectual autonomy and to defend their research project; secondly, making the most of the diversity and heterogeneity of peers, whether they be more or less experienced in supervision, from various disciplines, or at different stages of their thesis, thus enriching peer-learning scaffolding, proved to be beneficial when the multidisciplinarity and plurality of the sciences are experienced firsthand; and finally, giving priority to oral communication allows trainers and trainees to reveal and deal with the subjective dimensions of PhD work and their various motivations and professional projects that always underlie the development of a research question. Taken as a whole, our work seriously rises to the challenge of training reflexive researchers with an acute awareness of the collective nature of research and an intellectual openness to the plurality of sciences.
INRAE, the French public research institute devoted to the development of agriculture, food and the environment ( https://www.inrae.fr/en ), continuously hosts some 2000 PhD students.
For example, in the UK, writing and defending a research proposal allows a Transfer of Status from an initial probationary status to that of a full doctoral candidate (Inouye, 2020 ), whereas in France, there is no such formal assessment.
The ACT research division of INRAE aims at understanding and supporting transformative changes in socio-ecosystems and agrifood systems, which take actors’ practices and strategies into account in order to promote sustainable innovations and transitions, particularly at the territorial level.
As Uri Alon puts it in his TED video: “Why science demands a leap into the unknown” https://www.ted.com/talks/uri_alon_why_science_demands_a_leap_into_the_unknown .
Alvesson M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Constructing research questions: Doing interesting research . (1st ed). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 704–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07313288
Article Google Scholar
Austin, A. E. (2009). Cognitive apprenticeship theory and its implications for doctoral education: A case example from a doctoral program in higher and adult education. International Journal for Academic Development, 14 (3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440903106494
Badenhorst, C. (2021). Research conceptualization in doctoral and master’s research writing. Writing & Pedagogy, 12 (2–3), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.19542
Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Éds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed., pp. 505–518). Springer-Verlag.
Boch, F. (2023). Quelles conceptions de la réflexivité dans l’écriture de recherche? Savoir de quel je on parle. Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur, 39(1). https://journals.openedition.org/ripes/4552
Boldrini, E., & Cattaneo, A. (2014). Scaffolding collaborative reflective writing in a VET curriculum. Vocations and Learning, 7 (2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-014-9110-3
Bosque-Pérez, N. A., Klos, P. Z., Force, J. E., Waits, L. P., Cleary, K., Rhoades, P., Galbraith, S. M., Brymer, A. L. B., O’Rourke, M., Eigenbrode, S. D., Finegan, B., Wulfhorst, J. D., Sibelet, N., & Holbrook, J. D. (2016). A pedagogical model for team-based, problem-focused interdisciplinary doctoral education. BioScience, 66 (6), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw042
Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (5), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249138
Brodin, E. M. (2018). The stifling silence around scholarly creativity in doctoral education: Experiences of students and supervisors in four disciplines. Higher Education, 75 (4), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0168-3
Cahusac de Caux, B. K. C. D., Lam, C. K. C., Lau, R., Hoang, C. H., & Pretorius, L. (2017). Reflection for learning in doctoral training: Writing groups, academic writing proficiency and reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 18 (4), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2017.1307725
Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32 (1), 196–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
Cardoso, S., Santos, S., Diogo, S., Soares, D., & Carvalho, T. (2022). The transformation of doctoral education : A systematic literature review. Higher Education, 84 (4), 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5
Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54 (1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
Charmillot, M. (2023). Les implications éthiques de l’accompagnement doctoral. Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur, 39(1). https://journals.openedition.org/ripes/4454
Chatterjee-Padmanabhan, M., & Nielsen, W. (2018). Preparing to cross the research proposal threshold: A case study of two international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55 (4), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1251331
Christensen, K. K. (2005). Bologna seminar doctoral programmes for the European Knowledge Society . Salzburg, 3–5 February 2005, General Rapporteur’s Report, pp. 10. https://www.ehea.info/cid102053/doctoral-degree-salzburg-2005.html
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1971). The evolution of physics . Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Filliettaz, L. (2011). Collective guidance at work : A resource for apprentices? Journal of Vocational Education & Training., 63 (3), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2011.580359
Frick, L. (2011). Facilitating creativity in doctoral education : A resource for supervisors. In V. Kumar & A. Lee (Eds.), Doctoral Education in International Context : Connecting Local, Regional, and Global Perspectives (pp. 123–137). Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
González-Ocampo, G., & Castelló, M. (2018). Writing in doctoral programs: Examining supervisors’ perspectives. Higher Education, 76 (3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0214-1
Gruzdev, I., Terentev, E., & Dzhafarova, Z. (2020). Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities. Higher Education, 79 (5), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w
Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798
Hazard, L., Cerf, M., Lamine, C., Magda, D., & Steyaert, P. (2020). A tool for reflecting on research stances to support sustainability transitions. Nature Sustainability, 3 , 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0440-x
Inouye, K. (2020). Becoming a scholar : Feedback, writing, and the doctoral research proposal . University of Oxford.
Inouye, K. (2023). Developing the PhD thesis project in relation to individual contexts A multiple case study of five doctoral researchers. Higher Education, 85, 1143–1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00882-0
Kemp, S. P., & Nurius, P. S. (2015). Preparing emerging doctoral scholars for transdisciplinary research : A developmental approach. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35 (1–2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.980929
Kobayashi, S. (2014). Learning dynamics in doctoral supervision . Doctoral thesis, Copenhague, Faculty of Science, Department of Science Education. https://www.ind.ku.dk/publikationer/inds_skriftserie/2014-38/SofieKobayashi_Thesis.pdf
Kumar, V., & Aitchison, C. (2018). Peer facilitated writing groups: A programmatic approach to doctoral student writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 23 (3), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1391200
Lim, J. (2014). Formulating research questions in experimental doctoral dissertations on Applied Linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 35 , 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.02.003
Lin, T.-C., Hsu, Y.-S., Lin, S.-S., Changlai, M.-L., Yang, K.-Y., & Lai, T.-L. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10 (2), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in organizational studies. The Academy of Management Journal, 40 (5), 1023–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/256926
Lonka, K., Ketonen, E., Vekkaila, J., Cerrato Lara, M., & Pyhältö, K. (2019). Doctoral students’ writing profiles and their relations to well-being and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 77 (4), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0290-x
Maher, M., Fallucca, A., & MulhernHalasz, H. (2013). Write on! Through to the PhD: Using writing groups to facilitate doctoral degree progress. Studies in Continuing Education, 35 (2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.736381
Malfroy, J. (2005). Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research & Development, 24 (2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500062961
Manathunga, C., & Goozée, J. (2007). Challenging the dual assumption of the ‘always/already’ autonomous student and effective supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education, 12 (3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701278658
Manathunga, C., Lant, P., & Mellick, G. (2006). Imagining an interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680954
Mei, W. S. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal, 37 (3), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071316
Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept I: Fives Ps for strategy. California Management Journal, 30 (1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165263
Nielsen, K. (2008). Scaffold instruction at the workplace from a situated perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 30 (3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370802439888
Overall, N. C., Deane, K. L., & Peterson, E. R. (2011). Promoting doctoral students’ research self-efficacy: Combining academic guidance with autonomy support. Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (6), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.535508
Pallas, A. M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. Educational researcher, 30 (5), 1–6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3594455 .
Parker-Jenkins, M. (2018). Problematising ethnography and case study: Reflections on using ethnographic techniques and researcher positioning. Ethnography and Education, 13 (1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2016.1253028
PoyatosMatas, C. (2012). Doctoral education and skills development An international perspective. REDU Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 10 (2), 163–191. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2012.6102
Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment : What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
Rennie, K., & Kinsella, N. (2020). Supporting transformational learning processes for person-centred healthcare research in doctoral education A critical creative reflection. International Practice Development Journal, 10 (1), 10. https://doi.org/10.19043/ipdj.101.010
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 , 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Shapin, S. (2010). Never pure: Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority . Johns Hopkins University Press.
Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD : A typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9 (2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-18-00004
Sun, X., & Cheng, M. W. T. (2022). Conceptualising manifestations and shapers of doctoral student agency : A subject-centered approach. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46 (7), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.2020222
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy : A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3), 305–335. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1466940 .
Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2009). Doctorateness as a threshold concept. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46 (3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903069027
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.
Whitelock, D., Faulkner, D., & Miell, D. (2008). Promoting creativity in PhD supervision : Tensions and dilemmas. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3 (2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.04.001
Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown : A framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 26 (4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658609
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17 , 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Xypas, C., & Robin, J.-Y. (2010). La dimension existentielle dans la construction du problème en recherche doctorale. Recherches en éducation, 9. https://doi.org/10.4000/ree.4670
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods. (6th ed). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Knight, N. (1986). Problem definition and thesis writing. Higher Education, 15 (1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138094
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
ACT Department, INRAE, UMR AGIR, Chemin de Borde Rouge, Castanet-Tolosan, 31326, France
Nathalie Girard
ACT Department, INRAE, UR Ecodéveloppement, Avignon, France
Aurélie Cardona
ACT Department, INRAE, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Cécile Fiorelli
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Nathalie Girard .
Conflict of interest.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Girard, N., Cardona, A. & Fiorelli, C. Learning how to develop a research question throughout the PhD process: training challenges, objectives, and scaffolds drawn from doctoral programs for students and their supervisors. High Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01258-2
Download citation
Accepted : 24 June 2024
Published : 15 July 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01258-2
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .
Writing learning objectives.
Last revised: 07/15/2024 by JAP
Objectives explain the destination of the learning experience to students. When written well and aligned with other course elements, objectives help students make cognitive connections between materials, learning activities and assessments. This alignment increases the possibility of learning success and enables both the students and the instructor to stay focused and monitor learning.
UConn subscribes to the research-based course design standards of Quality Matters which defines an objective as “a statement of the specific and measurable knowledge, skills, attributes, and habits learners are expected to achieve and demonstrate as a result of their educational experiences in a program, course, or module.” (p.69) To summarize the key characteristics, objectives should be:
Instructional designers are taught the formal objective writing method ABCD. This stands for Audience, Behavior, Condition and Degree. An objective written in this format reads:
Given three current research articles, the nutrition science student should be able to discuss trends in plant-based diets that meet at least the “B” level grading rubric criteria.
However, most faculty communicate to students using informal or instructional objectives on their syllabi and in their courses. This is because the condition and degree are communicated, or integrated, elsewhere in the course. Informal objectives are also simpler and easier for the learner to read. For example:
Discuss the current trends of plant-based diets.
There are also different levels of learning objectives. In training and professional environments, you may hear the terms terminal and enabling objectives ; however, in higher education, we tend to use the terms course and module objectives to distinguish levels. Since course and module objectives are also used by Quality Matters, we will use those terms going forward. To clarify the distinction between the levels:
If you are involved in academic program planning, you will engage with program level objectives. These would be broader than course objectives and reflect what students should be able do after earning a degree or certificate.
Lastly, learning objectives can be categorized into different domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor .
In higher education, we primarily focus learning within the cognitive domain. Therefore, we will focus on writing objectives in the cognitive domain next.
Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist who created a classification of learning domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. For each of the domains, Bloom created a taxonomy of objectives with the cognitive domain starting at knowledge and building up to the more complex skill of evaluation. Bloom’s colleagues, Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl, revised the taxonomy in 2001 as pictured above, switching the top two levels of the pyramid and placing “create” at the top.
Instructional designers use Bloom’s Taxonomy to help craft measurable learning objectives at the correct level. Course level objectives should be at the same level or above on the taxonomy than their corresponding module level objectives. Module level objectives should incrementally build the students’ knowledge that is necessary to achieve the course level objectives. When writing objectives:
Using our nutrition science course example from earlier, let’s go through steps 1-4:
Writing learning objectives well is not an easy task, but it’s important to clearly communicate your instructional intentions to students. It may take numerous iterations to get objectives targeted correctly, clear, measurable and specific. If you have trouble getting started, try one or all these strategies:
References
Related Resources
Related Posts
Protect your data
This site uses cookies and related technologies for site operation, and analytics as described in our Privacy Policy . You may choose to consent to our use of these technologies, reject non-essential technologies, or further manage your preferences.
20 min read · Updated on June 03, 2024
Your resume summary is the first impression you make on potential employers, so it's crucial to get it right
When it comes to job applications, your resume is often the first point of contact with prospective employers. It's essential to make a good impression right from the start and that's where your resume summary comes in. Your summary is a brief statement at the top of your resume that highlights your skills , experiences , and achievements , making it a key part of your job application.
In this article, you'll learn how to write the ultimate resume summary that will grab the attention of recruiters and hiring managers. You'll discover what makes a good summary and what to avoid, as well as how to sell yourself effectively to potential employers.
You may be wondering: what exactly is a resume summary and how do I write one? We'll answer these questions and provide examples of professional summaries for various industries.
By the end of this article, you'll have a comprehensive understanding of what it takes to create a standout resume summary that will help you to land your dream job.
To understand a resume summary, it's important to understand the challenge that good summaries are designed to overcome. Employers who are looking for new hires often need to compare many dozens or even hundreds of resumes to find the best candidates for the job. Few hiring personnel have the time needed to thoroughly examine every single resume that they receive.
Instead, employers typically spend no more than five or six seconds scanning any given resume. If a resume manages to capture their interest in those few seconds, they'll take the time to read it in greater detail.
However, if your resume doesn't grab their attention, it's likely to be rejected without any further examination. So, the challenge is to find a way to quickly earn the reader's interest and inspire them to read the rest of the document.
That's where your resume summary comes into play. As you'll see from our resume summary examples, a good summary is the resume equivalent of a salesperson's elevator pitch.
This brief statement should highlight your experience and job title, one or two key skills, and a couple of your most prominent achievements. When your summary is crafted well, it will provide the employer with a quick overview of your potential value as a new hire.
Once you've written your summary, you should place it right after your contact information and resume headline , so that it's the first thing employers see. If you've done your job properly, that summary will be compelling enough to make the reader want to learn more about the type of value you can bring to the job.
After your headline, you should include a brief opening statement that summarizes who you are. This statement should be concise and compelling, and it should clearly communicate your unique value proposition. Here are some examples of strong opening statements:
Innovative Marketing Manager with over five years of experience in developing and executing successful campaigns for Fortune 500 companies
Results-driven Sales Executive with a proven track record of exceeding revenue targets and building strong client relationships
Skilled Customer Service Representative with expertise in problem-solving, conflict resolution, and communication
To make sure you get your summary spot on, follow our top tips:
When writing a resume summary, it's essential to be specific and quantify your achievements wherever possible. Instead of saying, "Experienced marketing professional," try saying, "Experienced marketing professional with expertise in managing successful social media campaigns, resulting in increases of up to 30% in website traffic."
This provides concrete evidence of your skills and demonstrates your value to potential employers.
When it comes to writing a strong resume summary, you should engage in some self-reflection. Before putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard), take some time to think about your key skills, experiences, and achievements. This will help you to identify the most important information to include in your summary. Review your past roles, responsibilities, and accomplishments, and think about how they relate to the job you're applying for. Ask yourself:
What have I achieved in my career?
What skills have I developed?
What makes me stand out from other applicants?
One of the most important things to include in your resume summary is your key skills. These are the abilities that set you apart from other candidates and demonstrate your value to potential employers. Begin by making a list of your top skills, then prioritize them based on relevance to the job you're applying for.
Next, think about relevant experiences that you can include in your summary. This includes any previous jobs or internships, volunteer work, or extracurricular activities that have given you valuable experience. Consider what you've learned and achieved in each role and how that relates to the job you're applying for.
You should focus on what is most relevant to your target job. Here are some examples:
Proven ability to increase sales revenue by 20% year on year
Expertise in project management and team leadership
Proficient in Adobe Creative Cloud and Microsoft 365
Confident working with a diverse range of clients and stakeholders
Remember, your resume summary should be concise and to the point. Stick to the most important information and avoid filler words or irrelevant details. A good rule of thumb is to keep your summary to 3-5 sentences.
When describing your experiences and achievements, use strong action verbs and adverbs to convey a sense of accomplishment and momentum. For example, instead of saying, "Responsible for managing social media accounts," say, "Successfully manages social media accounts."
Wherever possible, use numbers and statistics to quantify your achievements. This provides concrete evidence of your skills and demonstrates your value to potential employers. For example, instead of saying, "Helped to increase sales," say, "Helped to increase sales by 20% in the first year."
Make sure your resume summary is tailored to the job you're applying for. This means highlighting the skills and experiences that are most relevant to the role. Look at the job description and identify the key requirements, and then make sure your summary addresses these points.
Since there's nothing quite like seeing an example of a great summary, we've compiled twenty-seven great resume summary examples that you can use as inspirational templates for your own perfect resume . Below, you'll find summary examples for a variety of different job roles, including:
Customer Service Representative
Sales Representative
Marketing Manager
Project Manager
Software Developer
Human Resources Manager
Graphic Designer
Registered Nurse
Financial Analyst
Administrative Assistant
Data Entry Clerk
Business Analyst
Operations Manager
Mental Health Counselor
High School Teacher
Event Manager
Digital Marketing Manager
Content Marketer
SEO Specialist
Bank Teller
Software Support Specialist
Data Scientist
Dental Assistant
"Highly motivated Customer Service Representative with 5 years of experience in delivering service excellence. Skilled in conflict resolution and problem-solving, resulting in a 95% customer satisfaction rate. Proven ability to multitask in fast-paced environments while maintaining accuracy and attention to detail."
Why it works : This summary highlights the candidate's experience and skills while also showcasing their relevant achievements in ensuring customer satisfaction. It mentions how much experience they have and calls out a measurable success.
"Dynamic Sales Representative with a track record of exceeding sales quotas by 20%+. Proficient in consultative sales techniques and relationship building. Exceptional communication and negotiation skills with the ability to close deals."
Why it works : This summary provides a quantifiable achievement to show the candidate's success in their previous sales roles while also highlighting their key skills in relationship building and communication.
"Strategic Marketing Manager with 7+ years of experience in developing and executing successful marketing campaigns across multiple channels. Skilled in market research and analysis, campaign optimization, and team leadership. Proven track record of driving revenue growth and increasing brand awareness."
Why it works : This summary emphasizes the candidate's experience and leadership skills while also showcasing their ability to drive results through successful marketing campaigns. The candidate has also demonstrated their ability to grow revenues and raise brand awareness.
"Accomplished Project Manager, with confidence in leading cross-functional teams and managing project timelines, budgets, and resources. Strong communication and collaboration skills, with the ability to build relationships with stakeholders. Proven track record of delivering projects on time and within budget."
Why it works : This summary highlights the candidate's extensive project management experience and emphasizes their ability to successfully deliver projects while working with multiple stakeholders.
"Innovative Software Developer with 5+ years of experience in designing, developing, and implementing complex software applications. Skilled in programming languages including Java, Python, and C++. Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively in Agile environments to deliver high-quality code on time."
Why it works : This job seeker has taken the time to highlight some of the technical skills they possess, while emphasizing their ability to work in Agile environments. They also call attention to the fact that they can take a software development project from design to implementation.
"Experienced Human Resources Manager specializing in talent acquisition, employee relations, and performance management. Skilled in developing and implementing HR policies and procedures that align with business objectives and values. Proven track record of building and managing high-performing teams."
Why it works : This summary highlights the candidate's experience in various HR functions and emphasizes their ability to build and manage teams. It also shows that they can perform managerial functions like developing policies and procedures.
"Creative Graphic Designer with particular expertise in developing and executing visually stunning designs for print and digital media. Proficient in Adobe Creative Cloud, with a focus on typography and layout. Strong communication and collaboration skills, with the ability to work on multiple projects simultaneously."
Why it works : This summary works well because it showcases their technical skills and experience while also emphasizing creativity and an ability to work collaboratively.
"Compassionate Registered Nurse with over 10 years' experience in providing high-quality patient care. Skilled at patient assessment, medication administration, and treatment plan development. Strong communication and interpersonal skills with the ability to build rapport with patients and their families."
Why it works : This summary emphasizes the candidate's clinical and patient care experience and highlights their key nursing and interpersonal skills.
“Detail-oriented Financial Analyst with a strong background in financial modeling, data analysis, and forecasting. Combines advanced Excel skills with the ability to create and manage financial reports. Able to work collaboratively with cross-functional teams.”
Why it works : This summary showcases the applicant's specific skills and experience in financial analysis and highlights their proficiency in Excel, a crucial tool for the role.
“Skilled Administrative Assistant with 8 years of experience in administrative support and office administration. Resilient, detail-oriented, and able to work under extreme pressure in a team environment. Excellent interpersonal, client management, and interdepartmental liaison skills. Committed to successful management of multiple simultaneous projects, strict adherence to deadline requirements, and accurate maintenance of schedules, meeting obligations, and records.”
Why it works : An Administrative Assistant wears many hats and experiences many challenges. This resume summary covers a lot of ground to demonstrate that the candidate understands those obstacles and knows how to overcome them.
“Task-driven and results-oriented professional with more than 10 years of experience in data entry, project coordination, and customer service. Uses interpersonal skills including effective communication to build rapport and positive relations with customers, gather vital information, and ensure rapid and accurate entry of data into designated software programs.”
Why it works : This resume summary is effective because it gets right to the heart of the job: dealing with customers and entering data into databases. The candidate also emphasizes their results-focused mindset, project skills, and key soft skills.
“Results-driven Business Analyst with a proven record in expanding profitability by 55% in the retail industry. Confident carrying out data-focused analysis that provides key insights and recommendations for growth strategies. Strong interpersonal and team building skills, innovative approach to problem-solving , and resolute commitment to efficiency and productivity.”
Why it works : Business analysis is all about using data and research to deliver key insights that result in improved operations and greater business success. This summary hits all the right notes as it focuses on key skills, a solutions-oriented mindset, and notable achievements that reflect real value for employers.
“Results-oriented Operations Manager with more than 10 years of supervisory experience in high-level operational environments. Adept at coordinating both large and small teams, outside consultants, and mid-level management personnel. Successfully introduced Lean manufacturing principles that reduced costs by 32% via waste elimination and process revitalization.”
Why it works : This candidate's summary emphasizes key skills that the employer wants to see in any managerial candidate, while also showcasing their knowledge of best operational practices and a commitment to cost reduction.
“Compassionate Mental Health Counselor with more than a decade of experience addressing mental health issues and behavioral concerns. Proven success in both individual and group counseling environments, assisting clients in gaining insight and understanding of their unique conditions. Specialized focus on working with young adults and families, with an emphasis on addressing substance abuse root causes and other social factors involved in mental health.”
Why it works : This resume summary is notable for citing important skills like empathy and compassion. It also focuses attention on the candidate's experience in dealing with common mental health concerns and hints at their preferred approach to assisting patients.
“Dynamic high school teacher with 12 years of experience developing approved curricula for more than 500 students in grades 9-12. Proven track record of helping students to achieve a 98% passing rate in both Western Civilization and World History instruction. Actively engaged in every aspect of education, at the district, local, and parent-teacher level.”
Why it works : This candidate's resume summary highlights their vast experience, while illustrating their success in ensuring that their students learn what they need to know to pass the class. They also demonstrate their commitment to the educational process by highlighting their involvement in every area of education.
“Diligent and detail-oriented CPA with seven years of experience in accounting, process improvement, and problem-solving. Skilled at identifying inefficiencies and using reporting to offer insights that can guide employers to better practices and greater profitability. At XYZ Corp., identified labor usage inefficiency that motivated management to introduce new scheduling that eliminated $300,000 in labor waste.”
Why it works : In addition to highlighting a wide range of valuable skills, this candidate also focused on a quantifiable achievement that illustrates real value. This type of summary would certainly capture a hiring manager's attention and make them want to read more!
“Resilient and creative Event Manager with 6 years of corporate experience. Detail-oriented perfectionist with experience in project management, team leadership, and customer relations. Successfully organized and executed more than 40 major business conferences, hosting thousands of guests. Major clients have included three Fortune 500 firms with multi-million-dollar event budgets.
Why it works : As Event Managers go, this one has certainly made the rounds. That summary of achievements highlights their ability to manage even large-scale events, dealing with every aspect of the project. How could a serious hiring manager not want to learn more about this candidate?
“Dedicated IT Manager with significant experience in an innovative and growing tech firm. Skilled leader with experience in systems analysis, database architecture, problem-solving, and troubleshooting. Superior client satisfaction rate of more than 99%. Created and implemented IT troubleshooting process that reduced internal client service time by 30%.”
Why it works : This IT professional focuses attention on their key leadership skills , while also mentioning the hard skills that any hiring manager is likely to be looking for. There's also a nice nod to their history of satisfying clients, as well as a notable and measurable achievement.
“Innovative Design Engineer with 5 years of experience in the development of products and packages. Skilled in market research, brand development and alignment, and design elements. Led team of seventeen Designers in the creation of industrial products that yielded $20 million in sales in the first month after launch.”
Why it works : This resume summary uses some important keywords, action verbs, and descriptive language to describe the candidate's key skills and experiences. It also cites an impressive product design achievement, along with real numbers that showcase value.
“Creative marketing professional with 7 years' experience as a Content Marketer. Skilled writer who understands how written communication empowers business growth and expansion. Expertise in development of compelling content that drives activities across multiple media channels. Adaptable , detail-oriented, and focused on a brand-building approach to content strategy that drives real results. Developed a cross-platform content strategy that boosted sales conversion rates by 37%.
Why it works : This Content Marketer focuses on their key skills and keen insights into how content impacts business profitability. They even included a measurable result that demonstrates their focus on adding value to their employer's bottom line.
“Results-focused SEO expert with 6 years of experience in keyword mastery, the promotion of sustainable content, and growing organic website search engine rankings. Proven track record of SEO success, using content development and link outreach to expand website traffic activity from 10,000 daily visitors to more than 2,000,000 per year.”
Why it works : Many hiring managers may not fully understand SEO, but they will understand the need to get more eyes on their digital content. This candidate speaks to that need by focusing on website rankings, content, and overall web traffic - while including a quantifiable achievement that demonstrates their ability to make things happen.
“Website Copywriter with 5 years of experience in developing content that creates real conversions. Cross-channel expertise including website content, advertising, newsletters, press releases, email, and podcast / video scripts. Proven track record of increasing social traffic by 36% and driving a 22% boost in landing page conversions.”
Why it works : This candidate's summary is focused not only on the type of things they write, but how those content pieces directly contribute to the company's online presence and sales conversion rate. This illustrates the writer's understanding of how their work aligns with their employer's business needs and goals.
“Empathetic and personable Bank Teller with more than 4 years of experience in client interactions at First Bank. Detail-oriented customer management approach, focused on superior customer experiences and client retention. Strict adherence to bank policy, including safety deposit guidelines, customer account security, and due diligence. Efficiently and effectively processed more than 200 client account interactions each day.”
Why it works : For a Bank Teller, much of the role's value lies in the employee's ability to serve as the face of the branch. This summary is effective because it showcases the Teller's knowledge of bank procedures, while also highlighting their commitment to creating an excellent customer experience.
“Problem-solving Software Support Specialist with 8 years of experience in customer-facing user assistance. Provided key problem resolution services for hundreds of customers, with a focus on maximizing their satisfaction with the company to increase loyalty and retention. Experienced in both customer and B2B interactions, with a specialized talent for explaining technical problems in language that is easily understood by the average layperson.”
Why it works : This resume summary focuses not only on the candidate's specialized skills in solving computer issues, but also highlights their ability to simplify their explanations to customers.
“Committed Data Scientist focused on analytical insights that can drive company growth and development. More than eight years of experience providing data-driven analysis to Fortune 500 executives, based on comprehensive statistical models and detailed historical data patterns. Successfully provided insights and recommendations used to increase company profits by 32% over a two-year period.”
Why it works : Data science may not seem like the most exciting field, but hiring managers are always on the hunt for candidates who understand why data matters. This candidate's focus on providing insights that can translate into real value for the employer is something that is likely to earn a hiring manager's interest.
“Dental Assistant with 5 years of experience with patient preparation, processing, and administrative support. Keen attention to detail and a commitment to dental health and aesthetics. Skilled in dental impressions, hands-on assistance during procedures, x-rays, and record maintenance. Fully committed to developing rapport with patients that creates a welcoming environment and a joyful experience.”
Why it works : This candidate's resume summary not only highlights key Dental Assistant requirements, but also conveys their personal approach to teamwork and patient care.
“Creative Architect experienced in high-end architectural design and development oversight. Ten years of proven success in creating sustainable designs that earn rave reviews and commendations from clients. Skilled in adapting to new challenges and working under pressure to achieve every client's vision. Consistently produces designs and project plans that come in on time and under budget, at 10%-30% less cost than industry competitors.”
Why it works : In this summary, the candidate highlights key skills that employers will want to see, while also emphasizing quantifiable results that demonstrate competitive value for the employer. They also showcase their ability to not only design architectural structures but to do so with a conscious awareness of critical factors like budgetary concerns, deadlines, sustainability and market competition.
Of course, it's also important to know how to write a resume summary if you have no experience. Here's a quick resume summary example that you can adapt if you are just entering the job market:
“Recent Marketing graduate, seeking an entry-level position to kickstart a career in the field. Demonstrated strong leadership and teamwork skills gained through involvement in various extracurricular activities, including volunteering at local events and leading group projects. Proficient in Microsoft 365 and Adobe Creative Cloud. Passionate about using marketing strategies to create engaging content and drive brand awareness.”
Why it works: This summary works because it highlights the candidate's relevant hard and soft skills and qualifications, even though they don't have direct career experience. The use of action words such as "demonstrated" and "proficient" shows the candidate's confidence in their abilities, which can be attractive to potential employers, showcasing the candidate's potential for success in an entry-level marketing role.
A well-written resume summary can make a significant impact on a job application. A good summary should highlight relevant skills and experiences, use clear and concise language, and avoid unnecessary information. Feel free to customize any of the resume summary examples we've provided to help ensure that your resume captures the attention of potential employers.
We know it can be difficult to condense a whole career full of skills and achievements into a paragraph of only a few sentences. If you're unsure about the document you've crafted, why not send it for a free resume review by our team of expert resume writers?
Ask Amanda: How Are a Resume Objective and a Resume Summary Different?
How to Write a Standout Career Summary
Business Acumen: What It Is and How You Can Showcase It On Your Resume
Do Hiring Managers Actually Read Cover Letters?
How to Create a Resume With No Education
Why You Lose When You Lie on Your Resume: Learning From Mina Chang
See how your resume stacks up.
Our experts gather the best career & resume tips weekly. Delivered weekly, always free.
Thanks! Career advice is on its way.
Share this article:
Let's stay in touch.
Subscribe today to get job tips and career advice that will come in handy.
Your information is secure. Please read our privacy policy for more information.
HSR Global Symposium on Health Systems Research
18-22 November, Nagasaki, Japan
Building Just and Sustainable Health Systems Centring People and Protecting the Planet
Secure your place today to be part of HSR2024
Program and speakers
Sponsors and exhibitors
Travel and visa details
Health Systems Global (HSG) organizes a Symposium every two years to bring together its members with the full range of players involved in health systems, policy and research. There is no other international gathering that serves the needs of this community.
Share new state-of-the-art evidence and review the progress and challenges towards faced in improving health systems Globally.
Identify and discuss the approaches to strengthen the scientific rigor of health systems research including concepts, frameworks, measures and methods.
Facilitate greater research collaboration and learning communities across disciplines, sectors, initiatives and countries. Network with your peers.
The 7th Global Symposium held in Bogota, Columbia was a huge success. Take a look through the highlights as well as our previous events to get a flavor for what to expect in 2024.
The selected bid was presented by Nagasaki University in consortium with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) .
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) announced $40 million in funding to develop cutting-edge technologies to enable the transmutation of used nuclear fuel (UNF) into less radioactive substances. This new initiative would address one of ARPA-E’s core goals as outlined by Congress, to provide transformative solutions to improve the management, clean-up, and disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. In turn, it could revolutionize the nuclear power industry, allowing for additional emissions-free nuclear power generation that is critical to achieving President Biden’s net-zero goals for America.
“Safe, clean nuclear power will play a critical role in helping the United States and the world reduce and eliminate energy-related emissions,” said ARPA-E Director Evelyn N. Wang. “Transmutation could shorten the timeline for UNF disposal by thousands of years, which represents a transformational solution for generations to come.”
The Nuclear Energy Waste Transmutation Optimized Now (NEWTON) program seeks to develop technologies that enable transmutation, the process in which an isotope is converted to a different isotope or element through a nuclear reaction. NEWTON aims to enable the economic viability of transmutation at a scale that will significantly reduce the mass, volume, activity, and effective half-life of the existing stockpile of commercial UNF.
The NEWTON program focuses on three key objectives:
Visit the ARPA-E eXCHANGE website for more information about NEWTON, including key guidelines and dates for applicants, and download the NEWTON program description here .
NEWTON continues ARPA-E’s work to develop a variety of ways to address UNF. These efforts include its CURIE and ONWARDS programs which focus on recycling UNF into fuel for advanced reactors, which would increase fuel efficiency and reduce the volume of waste requiring permanent disposal.
ARPA-E advances high-potential, high-impact energy technologies across a wide range of technical areas that are too early for private-sector investment. Learn more about these efforts and ARPA-E's commitment to ensuring the United States continues to lead the world in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Example: Research objectives. To assess the relationship between sedentary habits and muscle atrophy among the participants. To determine the impact of dietary factors, particularly protein consumption, on the muscular health of the participants. To determine the effect of physical activity on the participants' muscular health.
Formulating research objectives has the following five steps, which could help researchers develop a clear objective: 8. Identify the research problem. Review past studies on subjects similar to your problem statement, that is, studies that use similar methods, variables, etc.
Research Objectives. Research objectives refer to the specific goals or aims of a research study. They provide a clear and concise description of what the researcher hopes to achieve by conducting the research.The objectives are typically based on the research questions and hypotheses formulated at the beginning of the study and are used to guide the research process.
Research Aims: Examples. True to the name, research aims usually start with the wording "this research aims to…", "this research seeks to…", and so on. For example: "This research aims to explore employee experiences of digital transformation in retail HR.". "This study sets out to assess the interaction between student ...
Formulating research aim and objectives in an appropriate manner is one of the most important aspects of your thesis. This is because research aim and objectives determine the scope, depth and the overall direction of the research. Research question is the central question of the study that has to be answered on the basis of research findings.
Summary. The importance of research aims and objectives cannot be over-stressed. It is vital to have a very clear understanding of what the research is about and what you are actually trying to achieve. You need to know this. And you need to be able to communicate it to others. Carrying out a research project is rather like going on a journey.
In order to write effective research aims and objectives, researchers should consider all aspects of their proposed work. For example, the sample(s) to be approached for participation in the primary data collection. Identifying research objectives that are SMART is key to ensuring key aspects of the work are considered prior to any data collection.
Research aims are relatively broad; research objectives are specific. Research aims focus on a project's long-term outcomes; research objectives focus on its immediate, short-term outcomes. A research aim can be written in a single sentence or short paragraph; research objectives should be written as a numbered list. How to Write Aims and ...
Write your research objectives using clear and precise language. Avoid vague terms and use specific and measurable terms that can be observed, analyzed, or measured. 6. Consider Feasibility. Ensure that your research objectives are feasible within the available resources, time constraints, and ethical considerations.
To develop a set of research objectives, you would then break down the various steps involved in meeting said aim. For example: This study will investigate the link between dehydration and the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in intensive care patients in Australia. To achieve this, the study objectives w ill include:
Specificity: Objectives should be specific and narrowly focused on the aspects of the research topic that the study intends to investigate. They should answer the question of "what" or "which" rather than "how" or "why.". Measurability: Research objectives should be formulated in a way that allows for measurement and evaluation.
Well-defined research objectives are characterized by the SMART criteria - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Specific objectives clearly define what you plan to achieve, eliminating any ambiguity. Measurable objectives allow you to track progress and assess the outcome.
Examples of Specific Research Objectives: 1. "To examine the effects of rising temperatures on the yield of rice crops during the upcoming growth season.". 2. "To assess changes in rainfall patterns in major agricultural regions over the first decade of the twenty-first century (2000-2010).". 3.
Step 2: Mention several objectives from the most to least important aspects. It is important to provide your main goals and arguments from the strongest to the weakest argument. Keep your objectives clear and add several examples if and when necessary to outline the purpose.
Make Objectives SMART. A useful way to refine your objectives is to make them SMART, which stands for specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Specific: Objectives should clearly state what you hope to achieve. Measurable: They should be able to be quantified or evaluated.
The objectives provide a clear direction and purpose for the study, guiding the researcher in their data collection and analysis. Here are some tips on how to write effective research objective: 1. Be clear and specific. Research objective should be written in a clear and specific manner. Avoid vague or ambiguous language that can lead to ...
Answer: Research objectives summarize the accomplishments a researcher wishes to achieve through the project and provides direction to the study. Before forming a research objective, you should read about all the developments in your area of research and find gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. You may use these gaps in literature to ...
Here are three simple steps that you can follow to identify and write your research objectives: 1. Pinpoint the major focus of your research. The first step to writing your research objectives is to pinpoint the major focus of your research project. In this step, make sure to clearly describe what you aim to achieve through your research.
Research objective vs. research aim. Focus: A research aim describes the central goal or purpose of the study, broadly indicating what is to be achieved. Objectives specify how it will be achieved. Thus, research objectives divide the main aim into parts and address each part separately. While drafting a dissertation or thesis, the objectives ...
The aim of the research is the overall purpose of conducting the research. It could be to add to the knowledge in the area, to address an existing gap in the knowledge, to devise and test a solution to an existing problem, and so on. Objectives are the specific outcomes you expect to achieve through your research and that will enable you to ...
You don't want to be too deep into your research plan before realizing the set of participants you recruited aren't the right people for answering the questions you want to answer with your research. I highly recommend writing your qualitative research objective first, and socializing it before beginning any study. Here's a quick guide:
Ensure Feasibility: Consider the resources and constraints available to you when formulating the research problem. Ensure that it is feasible to address the problem within the scope of your study. Align your Research Goals: The research problem should align with the overall goals and objectives of your study.
Learning how to develop a research question is traditionally seen as a one-to-one learning process and an informal daily transmission between a novice and a senior researcher. The objective of this paper is to offer a framework to design doctoral programs aimed at supporting the process of development of research questions for doctoral ...
pic 4: Formulating Study Objectives, Research Questions, Hypothesis Intro. uctionStudy objectives are formulated to direct implementation of research study. Objectives. irectly emanates from the problem statement of the identified researchable issues. The objectives reflect the cause-effect identified in the problem tree and t.
Learning Objectives. UConn subscribes to the research-based course design standards of Quality Matters which defines an objective as "a statement of the specific and measurable knowledge, skills, attributes, and habits learners are expected to achieve and demonstrate as a result of their educational experiences in a program, course, or module ...
Your main formatting objective is to make your CV as appealing and as easy to read as you can. Don't make the recruiter's job difficult. The quicker and easier it is to scan your CV for your main selling points, the easier it is for them to gain a solid overview of your skills and achievements and progress your application to the next stage. FAQs
Symposium objectives. ... Identify and develop. ... Facilitate greater research collaboration and learning communities across disciplines, sectors, initiatives and countries. Network with your peers. Take a look back at HSR 2022. The 7th Global Symposium held in Bogota, Columbia was a huge success. Take a look through the highlights as well as ...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) announced $40 million in funding to develop cutting-edge technologies to enable the transmutation of used nuclear fuel (UNF) into less radioactive substances. This new initiative would address one of ARPA-E's core goals as outlined by Congress, to provide transformative solutions to improve the management ...