research is objective because

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What Are Research Objectives and How to Write Them (with Examples)

Table of Contents

Introduction

Research is at the center of everything researchers do, and setting clear, well-defined research objectives plays a pivotal role in guiding scholars toward their desired outcomes. Research papers are essential instruments for researchers to effectively communicate their work. Among the many sections that constitute a research paper, the introduction plays a key role in providing a background and setting the context. 1 Research objectives, which define the aims of the study, are usually stated in the introduction. Every study has a research question that the authors are trying to answer, and the objective is an active statement about how the study will answer this research question. These objectives help guide the development and design of the study and steer the research in the appropriate direction; if this is not clearly defined, a project can fail!

Research studies have a research question, research hypothesis, and one or more research objectives. A research question is what a study aims to answer, and a research hypothesis is a predictive statement about the relationship between two or more variables, which the study sets out to prove or disprove. Objectives are specific, measurable goals that the study aims to achieve. The difference between these three is illustrated by the following example:

• Research question : How does low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compare with a placebo device in managing the symptoms of skeletally mature patients with patellar tendinopathy?
• Research hypothesis : Pain levels are reduced in patients who receive daily active-LIPUS (treatment) for 12 weeks compared with individuals who receive inactive-LIPUS (placebo).
• Research objective : To investigate the clinical efficacy of LIPUS in the management of patellar tendinopathy symptoms.

This article discusses the importance of clear, well-thought out objectives and suggests methods to write them clearly.

What is the introduction in research papers?

Research objectives are usually included in the introduction section. This section is the first that the readers will read so it is essential that it conveys the subject matter appropriately and is well written to create a good first impression. A good introduction sets the tone of the paper and clearly outlines the contents so that the readers get a quick snapshot of what to expect.

A good introduction should aim to: 2,3

• Indicate the main subject area, its importance, and cite previous literature on the subject
• Define the gap(s) in existing research, ask a research question, and state the objectives
• Announce the present research and outline its novelty and significance
• Avoid repeating the Abstract, providing unnecessary information, and claiming novelty without accurate supporting information.

Why are research objectives important?

Objectives can help you stay focused and steer your research in the required direction. They help define and limit the scope of your research, which is important to efficiently manage your resources and time. The objectives help to create and maintain the overall structure, and specify two main things—the variables and the methods of quantifying the variables.

A good research objective:

• defines the scope of the study
• gives direction to the research
• helps maintain focus and avoid diversions from the topic
• minimizes wastage of resources like time, money, and energy

Types of research objectives

Research objectives can be broadly classified into general and specific objectives . 4 General objectives state what the research expects to achieve overall while specific objectives break this down into smaller, logically connected parts, each of which addresses various parts of the research problem. General objectives are the main goals of the study and are usually fewer in number while specific objectives are more in number because they address several aspects of the research problem.

Example (general objective): To investigate the factors influencing the financial performance of firms listed in the New York Stock Exchange market.

Example (specific objective): To assess the influence of firm size on the financial performance of firms listed in the New York Stock Exchange market.

In addition to this broad classification, research objectives can be grouped into several categories depending on the research problem, as given in Table 1.

Table 1: Types of research objectives

Characteristics of research objectives

Research objectives must start with the word “To” because this helps readers identify the objective in the absence of headings and appropriate sectioning in research papers. 5,6

• A good objective is SMART (mostly applicable to specific objectives):
• Specific—clear about the what, why, when, and how
• Measurable—identifies the main variables of the study and quantifies the targets
• Achievable—attainable using the available time and resources
• Realistic—accurately addresses the scope of the problem
• Time-bound—identifies the time in which each step will be completed
• Research objectives clarify the purpose of research.
• They help understand the relationship and dissimilarities between variables.
• They provide a direction that helps the research to reach a definite conclusion.

How to write research objectives?

Research objectives can be written using the following steps: 7

• State your main research question clearly and concisely.
• Describe the ultimate goal of your study, which is similar to the research question but states the intended outcomes more definitively.
• Divide this main goal into subcategories to develop your objectives.
• Limit the number of objectives (1-2 general; 3-4 specific)
• Assess each objective using the SMART
• Start each objective with an action verb like assess, compare, determine, evaluate, etc., which makes the research appear more actionable.
• Use specific language without making the sentence data heavy.
• The most common section to add the objectives is the introduction and after the problem statement.
• Add the objectives to the abstract (if there is one).
• State the general objective first, followed by the specific objectives.

Formulating research objectives

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.
• Identify the research gaps the current study should cover based on your literature review. These gaps could be theoretical, methodological, or conceptual.
• Define the research question(s) based on the gaps identified.
• Revise/relate the research problem based on the defined research question and the gaps identified. This is to confirm that there is an actual need for a study on the subject based on the gaps in literature.
• Identify and write the general and specific objectives.
• Incorporate the objectives into the study.

Advantages of research objectives

Adding clear research objectives has the following advantages: 4,8

• Maintains the focus and direction of the research
• Optimizes allocation of resources with minimal wastage
• Acts as a foundation for defining appropriate research questions and hypotheses
• Provides measurable outcomes that can help evaluate the success of the research
• Determines the feasibility of the research by helping to assess the availability of required resources
• Ensures relevance of the study to the subject and its contribution to existing literature

Disadvantages of research objectives

Research objectives also have few disadvantages, as listed below: 8

• Absence of clearly defined objectives can lead to ambiguity in the research process
• Unintentional bias could affect the validity and accuracy of the research findings

Key takeaways

• Research objectives are concise statements that describe what the research is aiming to achieve.
• They define the scope and direction of the research and maintain focus.
• The objectives should be SMART—specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound.
• Clear research objectives help avoid collection of data or resources not required for the study.
• Well-formulated specific objectives help develop the overall research methodology, including data collection, analysis, interpretation, and utilization.
• Research objectives should cover all aspects of the problem statement in a coherent way.
• They should be clearly stated using action verbs.

Frequently asked questions on research objectives

Q: what’s the difference between research objectives and aims 9.

A: Research aims are statements that reflect the broad goal(s) of the study and outline the general direction of the research. They are not specific but clearly define the focus of the study.

Example: This research aims to explore employee experiences of digital transformation in retail HR.

Research objectives focus on the action to be taken to achieve the aims. They make the aims more practical and should be specific and actionable.

Example: To observe the retail HR employees throughout the digital transformation.

Q: What are the examples of research objectives, both general and specific?

A: Here are a few examples of research objectives:

• To identify the antiviral chemical constituents in Mumbukura gitoniensis (general)
• To carry out solvent extraction of dried flowers of Mumbukura gitoniensis and isolate the constituents. (specific)
• To determine the antiviral activity of each of the isolated compounds. (specific)
• To examine the extent, range, and method of coral reef rehabilitation projects in five shallow reef areas adjacent to popular tourist destinations in the Philippines.
• To investigate species richness of mammal communities in five protected areas over the past 20 years.
• To evaluate the potential application of AI techniques for estimating best-corrected visual acuity from fundus photographs with and without ancillary information.
• To investigate whether sport influences psychological parameters in the personality of asthmatic children.

Q: How do I develop research objectives?

A: Developing research objectives begins with defining the problem statement clearly, as illustrated by Figure 1. Objectives specify how the research question will be answered and they determine what is to be measured to test the hypothesis.

Q: Are research objectives measurable?

A: The word “measurable” implies that something is quantifiable. In terms of research objectives, this means that the source and method of collecting data are identified and that all these aspects are feasible for the research. Some metrics can be created to measure your progress toward achieving your objectives.

Q: Can research objectives change during the study?

A: Revising research objectives during the study is acceptable in situations when the selected methodology is not progressing toward achieving the objective, or if there are challenges pertaining to resources, etc. One thing to keep in mind is the time and resources you would have to complete your research after revising the objectives. Thus, as long as your problem statement and hypotheses are unchanged, minor revisions to the research objectives are acceptable.

Q: What is the difference between research questions and research objectives? 10

Q: Are research objectives the same as hypotheses?

A: No, hypotheses are predictive theories that are expressed in general terms. Research objectives, which are more specific, are developed from hypotheses and aim to test them. A hypothesis can be tested using several methods and each method will have different objectives because the methodology to be used could be different. A hypothesis is developed based on observation and reasoning; it is a calculated prediction about why a particular phenomenon is occurring. To test this prediction, different research objectives are formulated. Here’s a simple example of both a research hypothesis and research objective.

Research hypothesis : Employees who arrive at work earlier are more productive.

Research objective : To assess whether employees who arrive at work earlier are more productive.

To summarize, research objectives are an important part of research studies and should be written clearly to effectively communicate your research. We hope this article has given you a brief insight into the importance of using clearly defined research objectives and how to formulate them.

• Farrugia P, Petrisor BA, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Practical tips for surgical research: Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Can J Surg. 2010 Aug;53(4):278-81.
• Abbadia J. How to write an introduction for a research paper. Mind the Graph website. Accessed June 14, 2023. https://mindthegraph.com/blog/how-to-write-an-introduction-for-a-research-paper/
• Writing a scientific paper: Introduction. UCI libraries website. Accessed June 15, 2023. https://guides.lib.uci.edu/c.php?g=334338&p=2249903
• Research objectives—Types, examples and writing guide. Researchmethod.net website. Accessed June 17, 2023. https://researchmethod.net/research-objectives/#:~:text=They%20provide%20a%20clear%20direction,track%20and%20achieve%20their%20goals .
• Bartle P. SMART Characteristics of good objectives. Community empowerment collective website. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://cec.vcn.bc.ca/cmp/modules/pd-smar.htm
• Research objectives. Studyprobe website. Accessed June 18, 2023. https://www.studyprobe.in/2022/08/research-objectives.html
• Corredor F. How to write objectives in a research paper. wikiHow website. Accessed June 18, 2023. https://www.wikihow.com/Write-Objectives-in-a-Research-Proposal
• Research objectives: Definition, types, characteristics, advantages. AccountingNest website. Accessed June 15, 2023. https://www.accountingnest.com/articles/research/research-objectives
• Phair D., Shaeffer A. Research aims, objectives & questions. GradCoach website. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://gradcoach.com/research-aims-objectives-questions/
• Understanding the difference between research questions and objectives. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://board.researchersjob.com/blog/research-questions-and-objectives

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Should you use ChatGPT for Literature Search?

Tips on Writing the Acknowledgments Section 

• Defining Research Objectives: How To  Write Them

Almost all industries use research for growth and development. Research objectives are how researchers ensure that their study has direction and makes a significant contribution to growing an industry or niche.

Research objectives provide a clear and concise statement of what the researcher wants to find out. As a researcher, you need to clearly outline and define research objectives to guide the research process and ensure that the study is relevant and generates the impact you want.

In this article, we will explore research objectives and how to leverage them to achieve successful research studies.

What Are Research Objectives?

Research objectives are what you want to achieve through your research study. They guide your research process and help you focus on the most important aspects of your topic.

You can also define the scope of your study and set realistic and attainable study goals with research objectives. For example, with clear research objectives, your study focuses on the specific goals you want to achieve and prevents you from spending time and resources collecting unnecessary data.

However, sticking to research objectives isn’t always easy, especially in broad or unconventional research. This is why most researchers follow the SMART criteria when defining their research objectives.

Understanding SMART Criteria in Research

Think of research objectives as a roadmap to achieving your research goals, with the SMART criteria as your navigator on the map.

SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. These criteria help you ensure that your research objectives are clear, specific, realistic, meaningful, and time-bound.

Here’s a breakdown of the SMART Criteria:

Specific : Your research objectives should be clear: what do you want to achieve, why do you want to achieve it, and how do you plan to achieve it? Avoid vague or broad statements that don’t provide enough direction for your research.

Measurable : Your research objectives should have metrics that help you track your progress and measure your results. Also, ensure the metrics are measurable with data to verify them.

Achievable : Your research objectives should be within your research scope, timeframe, and budget. Also, set goals that are challenging but not impossible.

Relevant: Your research objectives should be in line with the goal and significance of your study. Also, ensure that the objectives address a specific issue or knowledge gap that is interesting and relevant to your industry or niche.

Time-bound : Your research objectives should have a specific deadline or timeframe for completion. This will help you carefully set a schedule for your research activities and milestones and monitor your study progress.

Characteristics of Effective Research Objectives

Clarity : Your objectives should be clear and unambiguous so that anyone who reads them can understand what you intend to do. Avoid vague or general terms that could be taken out of context.

Specificity : Your objectives should be specific and address the research questions that you have formulated. Do not use broad or narrow objectives as they may restrict your field of research or make your research irrelevant.

Measurability : Define your metrics with indicators or metrics that help you determine if you’ve accomplished your goals or not. This will ensure you are tracking the research progress and making interventions when needed.

Also, do use objectives that are subjective or based on personal opinions, as they may be difficult to accurately verify and measure.

Achievability : Your objectives should be realistic and attainable, given the resources and time available for your research project. You should set objectives that match your skills and capabilities, they can be difficult but not so hard that they are realistically unachievable.

For example, setting very difficult make you lose confidence, and abandon your research. Also, setting very simple objectives could demotivate you and prevent you from closing the knowledge gap or making significant contributions to your field with your research.

Relevance : Your objectives should be relevant to your research topic and contribute to the existing knowledge in your field. Avoid objectives that are unrelated or insignificant, as they may waste your time or resources.

Time-bound : Your objectives should be time-bound and specify when you will complete them. Have a realistic and flexible timeframe for achieving your objectives, and track your progress with it. 

Steps to Writing Research Objectives

Identify the research questions.

The first step in writing effective research objectives is to identify the research questions that you are trying to answer. Research questions help you narrow down your topic and identify the gaps or problems that you want to address with your research.

For example, if you are interested in the impact of technology on children’s development, your research questions could be:

• What is the relationship between technology use and academic performance among children?
• Are children who use technology more likely to do better in school than those who do not?
• What is the social and psychological impact of technology use on children?

Brainstorm Objectives

Once you have your research questions, you can brainstorm possible objectives that relate to them. Objectives are more specific than research questions, and they tell you what you want to achieve or learn in your research.

You can use verbs such as analyze, compare, evaluate, explore, investigate, etc. to express your objectives. Also, try to generate as many objectives as possible, without worrying about their quality or feasibility at this stage.

Prioritize Objectives

Once you’ve brainstormed your objectives, you’ll need to prioritize them based on their relevance and feasibility. Relevance is how relevant the objective is to your research topic and how well it fits into your overall research objective.

Feasibility is how realistic and feasible the objective is compared to the time, money, and expertise you have. You can create a matrix or ranking system to organize your objectives and pick the ones that matter the most.

Refine Objectives

The next step is to refine and revise your objectives to ensure clarity and specificity. Start by ensuring that your objectives are consistent and coherent with each other and with your research questions. 

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.
• Achievable : realistic and within the scope of the research study.
• Relevant : They should be directly related to the research questions.
• Time-bound : specific timeframe for research completion.

Review and Finalize Objectives

The final step is to review your objectives for coherence and alignment with your research questions and aim. Ensure your objectives are logically connected and consistent with each other and with the purpose of your study.

You also need to check that your objectives are not too broad or too narrow, too easy or too hard, too many or too few. You can use a checklist or a rubric to evaluate your objectives and make modifications.

Examples of Well-Written Research Objectives

Example 1- Psychology

Research question: What are the effects of social media use on teenagers’ mental health?

Objective : To determine the relationship between the amount of time teenagers in the US spend on social media and their levels of anxiety and depression before and after using social media.

What Makes the Research Objective SMART?

The research objective is specific because it clearly states what the researcher hopes to achieve. It is measurable because it can be quantified by measuring the levels of anxiety and depression in teenagers. 

Also, the objective is achievable because the researcher can collect enough data to answer the research question. It is relevant because it is directly related to the research question. It is time-bound because it has a specific deadline for completion.

Example 2- Marketing

Research question : How can a company increase its brand awareness by 10%?

Objective : To develop a marketing strategy that will increase the company’s sales by 10% within the next quarter.

How Is this Research Objective SMART?

The research states what the researcher hopes to achieve ( Specific ). You can also measure the company’s reach before and after the marketing plan is implemented ( Measurable ).

The research objective is also achievable because you can develop a marketing plan that will increase awareness by 10% within the timeframe. The objective is directly related to the research question ( Relevant ). It is also time-bound because it has a specific deadline for completion.

Research objectives are a well-designed roadmap to completing and achieving your overall research goal. 

However, research goals are only effective if they are well-defined and backed up with the best practices such as the SMART criteria. Properly defining research objectives will help you plan and conduct your research project effectively and efficiently.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• research goals
• research objectives
• research roadmap
• smart goals
• SMART research objectives
• Moradeke Owa

You may also like:

Desk Research: Definition, Types, Application, Pros & Cons

If you are looking for a way to conduct a research study while optimizing your resources, desk research is a great option. Desk research...

Research Summary: What Is It & How To Write One

Introduction A research summary is a requirement during academic research and sometimes you might need to prepare a research summary...

Subgroup Analysis: What It Is + How to Conduct It

Introduction Clinical trials are an integral part of the drug development process. They aim to assess the safety and efficacy of a new...

Projective Techniques In Surveys: Definition, Types & Pros & Cons

Introduction When you’re conducting a survey, you need to find out what people think about things. But how do you get an accurate and...

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Research Aims, Objectives & Questions

The “Golden Thread” Explained Simply (+ Examples)

By: David Phair (PhD) and Alexandra Shaeffer (PhD) | June 2022

The research aims , objectives and research questions (collectively called the “golden thread”) are arguably the most important thing you need to get right when you’re crafting a research proposal , dissertation or thesis . We receive questions almost every day about this “holy trinity” of research and there’s certainly a lot of confusion out there, so we’ve crafted this post to help you navigate your way through the fog.

Overview: The Golden Thread

• What is the golden thread
• What are research aims ( examples )
• What are research objectives ( examples )
• What are research questions ( examples )
• The importance of alignment in the golden thread

What is the “golden thread”?  

The golden thread simply refers to the collective research aims , research objectives , and research questions for any given project (i.e., a dissertation, thesis, or research paper ). These three elements are bundled together because it’s extremely important that they align with each other, and that the entire research project aligns with them.

Importantly, the golden thread needs to weave its way through the entirety of any research project , from start to end. In other words, it needs to be very clearly defined right at the beginning of the project (the topic ideation and proposal stage) and it needs to inform almost every decision throughout the rest of the project. For example, your research design and methodology will be heavily influenced by the golden thread (we’ll explain this in more detail later), as well as your literature review.

The research aims, objectives and research questions (the golden thread) define the focus and scope ( the delimitations ) of your research project. In other words, they help ringfence your dissertation or thesis to a relatively narrow domain, so that you can “go deep” and really dig into a specific problem or opportunity. They also help keep you on track , as they act as a litmus test for relevance. In other words, if you’re ever unsure whether to include something in your document, simply ask yourself the question, “does this contribute toward my research aims, objectives or questions?”. If it doesn’t, chances are you can drop it.

Alright, enough of the fluffy, conceptual stuff. Let’s get down to business and look at what exactly the research aims, objectives and questions are and outline a few examples to bring these concepts to life.

Research Aims: What are they?

Simply put, the research aim(s) is a statement that reflects the broad overarching goal (s) of the research project. Research aims are fairly high-level (low resolution) as they outline the general direction of the research and what it’s trying to achieve .

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 support and self-care on well-being in engineering graduate students”  

As you can see, these research aims provide a high-level description of what the study is about and what it seeks to achieve. They’re not hyper-specific or action-oriented, but they’re clear about what the study’s focus is and what is being investigated.

Need a helping hand?

Research Objectives: What are they?

The research objectives take the research aims and make them more practical and actionable . In other words, the research objectives showcase the steps that the researcher will take to achieve the research aims.

The research objectives need to be far more specific (higher resolution) and actionable than the research aims. In fact, it’s always a good idea to craft your research objectives using the “SMART” criteria. In other words, they should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound”.

Research Objectives: Examples  

Let’s look at two examples of research objectives. We’ll stick with the topic and research aims we mentioned previously.  

For the digital transformation topic:

To observe the retail HR employees throughout the digital transformation. To assess employee perceptions of digital transformation in retail HR. To identify the barriers and facilitators of digital transformation in retail HR.

And for the student wellness topic:

To determine whether student self-care predicts the well-being score of engineering graduate students. To determine whether student support predicts the well-being score of engineering students. To assess the interaction between student self-care and student support when predicting well-being in engineering graduate students.

  As you can see, these research objectives clearly align with the previously mentioned research aims and effectively translate the low-resolution aims into (comparatively) higher-resolution objectives and action points . They give the research project a clear focus and present something that resembles a research-based “to-do” list.

Research Questions: What are they?

Finally, we arrive at the all-important research questions. The research questions are, as the name suggests, the key questions that your study will seek to answer . Simply put, they are the core purpose of your dissertation, thesis, or research project. You’ll present them at the beginning of your document (either in the introduction chapter or literature review chapter) and you’ll answer them at the end of your document (typically in the discussion and conclusion chapters).  

The research questions will be the driving force throughout the research process. For example, in the literature review chapter, you’ll assess the relevance of any given resource based on whether it helps you move towards answering your research questions. Similarly, your methodology and research design will be heavily influenced by the nature of your research questions. For instance, research questions that are exploratory in nature will usually make use of a qualitative approach, whereas questions that relate to measurement or relationship testing will make use of a quantitative approach.  

Let’s look at some examples of research questions to make this more tangible.

Research Questions: Examples  

Again, we’ll stick with the research aims and research objectives we mentioned previously.  

For the digital transformation topic (which would be qualitative in nature):

How do employees perceive digital transformation in retail HR? What are the barriers and facilitators of digital transformation in retail HR?  

And for the student wellness topic (which would be quantitative in nature):

Does student self-care predict the well-being scores of engineering graduate students? Does student support predict the well-being scores of engineering students? Do student self-care and student support interact when predicting well-being in engineering graduate students?  

You’ll probably notice that there’s quite a formulaic approach to this. In other words, the research questions are basically the research objectives “converted” into question format. While that is true most of the time, it’s not always the case. For example, the first research objective for the digital transformation topic was more or less a step on the path toward the other objectives, and as such, it didn’t warrant its own research question.  

So, don’t rush your research questions and sloppily reword your objectives as questions. Carefully think about what exactly you’re trying to achieve (i.e. your research aim) and the objectives you’ve set out, then craft a set of well-aligned research questions . Also, keep in mind that this can be a somewhat iterative process , where you go back and tweak research objectives and aims to ensure tight alignment throughout the golden thread.

The importance of strong alignment 

Alignment is the keyword here and we have to stress its importance . Simply put, you need to make sure that there is a very tight alignment between all three pieces of the golden thread. If your research aims and research questions don’t align, for example, your project will be pulling in different directions and will lack focus . This is a common problem students face and can cause many headaches (and tears), so be warned.

Take the time to carefully craft your research aims, objectives and research questions before you run off down the research path. Ideally, get your research supervisor/advisor to review and comment on your golden thread before you invest significant time into your project, and certainly before you start collecting data .  

Recap: The golden thread

In this post, we unpacked the golden thread of research, consisting of the research aims , research objectives and research questions . You can jump back to any section using the links below.

As always, feel free to leave a comment below – we always love to hear from you. Also, if you’re interested in 1-on-1 support, take a look at our private coaching service here.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

39 Comments

Thank you very much for your great effort put. As an Undergraduate taking Demographic Research & Methodology, I’ve been trying so hard to understand clearly what is a Research Question, Research Aim and the Objectives in a research and the relationship between them etc. But as for now I’m thankful that you’ve solved my problem.

Well appreciated. This has helped me greatly in doing my dissertation.

An so delighted with this wonderful information thank you a lot.

so impressive i have benefited a lot looking forward to learn more on research.

I am very happy to have carefully gone through this well researched article.

Infact,I used to be phobia about anything research, because of my poor understanding of the concepts.

Now,I get to know that my research question is the same as my research objective(s) rephrased in question format.

I please I would need a follow up on the subject,as I intends to join the team of researchers. Thanks once again.

Thanks so much. This was really helpful.

I know you pepole have tried to break things into more understandable and easy format. And God bless you. Keep it up

i found this document so useful towards my study in research methods. thanks so much.

This is my 2nd read topic in your course and I should commend the simplified explanations of each part. I’m beginning to understand and absorb the use of each part of a dissertation/thesis. I’ll keep on reading your free course and might be able to avail the training course! Kudos!

Thank you! Better put that my lecture and helped to easily understand the basics which I feel often get brushed over when beginning dissertation work.

This is quite helpful. I like how the Golden thread has been explained and the needed alignment.

This is quite helpful. I really appreciate!

The article made it simple for researcher students to differentiate between three concepts.

Very innovative and educational in approach to conducting research.

I am very impressed with all these terminology, as I am a fresh student for post graduate, I am highly guided and I promised to continue making consultation when the need arise. Thanks a lot.

A very helpful piece. thanks, I really appreciate it .

Very well explained, and it might be helpful to many people like me.

Wish i had found this (and other) resource(s) at the beginning of my PhD journey… not in my writing up year… 😩 Anyways… just a quick question as i’m having some issues ordering my “golden thread”…. does it matter in what order you mention them? i.e., is it always first aims, then objectives, and finally the questions? or can you first mention the research questions and then the aims and objectives?

Thank you for a very simple explanation that builds upon the concepts in a very logical manner. Just prior to this, I read the research hypothesis article, which was equally very good. This met my primary objective.

My secondary objective was to understand the difference between research questions and research hypothesis, and in which context to use which one. However, I am still not clear on this. Can you kindly please guide?

In research, a research question is a clear and specific inquiry that the researcher wants to answer, while a research hypothesis is a tentative statement or prediction about the relationship between variables or the expected outcome of the study. Research questions are broader and guide the overall study, while hypotheses are specific and testable statements used in quantitative research. Research questions identify the problem, while hypotheses provide a focus for testing in the study.

Exactly what I need in this research journey, I look forward to more of your coaching videos.

This helped a lot. Thanks so much for the effort put into explaining it.

What data source in writing dissertation/Thesis requires?

What is data source covers when writing dessertation/thesis

This is quite useful thanks

I’m excited and thankful. I got so much value which will help me progress in my thesis.

where are the locations of the reserch statement, research objective and research question in a reserach paper? Can you write an ouline that defines their places in the researh paper?

Very helpful and important tips on Aims, Objectives and Questions.

Thank you so much for making research aim, research objectives and research question so clear. This will be helpful to me as i continue with my thesis.

Thanks much for this content. I learned a lot. And I am inspired to learn more. I am still struggling with my preparation for dissertation outline/proposal. But I consistently follow contents and tutorials and the new FB of GRAD Coach. Hope to really become confident in writing my dissertation and successfully defend it.

As a researcher and lecturer, I find splitting research goals into research aims, objectives, and questions is unnecessarily bureaucratic and confusing for students. For most biomedical research projects, including ‘real research’, 1-3 research questions will suffice (numbers may differ by discipline).

Awesome! Very important resources and presented in an informative way to easily understand the golden thread. Indeed, thank you so much.

Well explained

The blog article on research aims, objectives, and questions by Grad Coach is a clear and insightful guide that aligns with my experiences in academic research. The article effectively breaks down the often complex concepts of research aims and objectives, providing a straightforward and accessible explanation. Drawing from my own research endeavors, I appreciate the practical tips offered, such as the need for specificity and clarity when formulating research questions. The article serves as a valuable resource for students and researchers, offering a concise roadmap for crafting well-defined research goals and objectives. Whether you’re a novice or an experienced researcher, this article provides practical insights that contribute to the foundational aspects of a successful research endeavor.

A great thanks for you. it is really amazing explanation. I grasp a lot and one step up to research knowledge.

I really found these tips helpful. Thank you very much Grad Coach.

I found this article helpful. Thanks for sharing this.

thank you so much, the explanation and examples are really helpful

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Scientific Objectivity

Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.

Many central debates in the philosophy of science have, in one way or another, to do with objectivity: confirmation and the problem of induction; theory choice and scientific change; realism; scientific explanation; experimentation; measurement and quantification; statistical evidence; reproducibility; evidence-based science; feminism and values in science. Understanding the role of objectivity in science is therefore integral to a full appreciation of these debates. As this article testifies, the reverse is true too: it is impossible to fully appreciate the notion of scientific objectivity without touching upon many of these debates.

The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability. This article focuses on the question of how scientific objectivity should be defined , whether the ideal of objectivity is desirable , and to what extent scientists can achieve it.

1. Introduction

2.1 the view from nowhere, 2.2 theory-ladenness and incommensurability, 2.3 underdetermination, values, and the experimenters’ regress, 3.1 epistemic and contextual values, 3.2 acceptance of scientific hypotheses and value neutrality, 3.3 science, policy and the value-free ideal, 4.1 measurement and quantification, 4.2.1 bayesian inference, 4.2.2 frequentist inference, 4.3 feyerabend: the tyranny of the rational method, 5.1 reproducibility and the meta-analytic perspective, 5.2 feminist and standpoint epistemology, 6.1 max weber and objectivity in the social sciences, 6.2 contemporary rational choice theory, 6.3 evidence-based medicine and social policy, 7. the unity and disunity of scientific objectivity, 8. conclusions, other internet resources, related entries.

Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it. Objectivity comes in degrees. Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better. Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it. The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry. Understanding scientific objectivity is therefore central to understanding the nature of science and the role it plays in society.

If what is so great about science is its objectivity, then objectivity should be worth defending. The close examinations of scientific practice that philosophers of science have undertaken in the past fifty years have shown, however, that several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable. The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example.

This article discusses several proposals to characterize the idea and ideal of objectivity in such a way that it is both strong enough to be valuable, and weak enough to be attainable and workable in practice. We begin with a natural conception of objectivity: faithfulness to facts . We motivate the intuitive appeal of this conception, discuss its relation to scientific method and discuss arguments challenging both its attainability as well as its desirability. We then move on to a second conception of objectivity as absence of normative commitments and value-freedom , and once more we contrast arguments in favor of such a conception with the challenges it faces. A third conception of objectivity which we discuss at length is the idea of absence of personal bias .

Finally there is the idea that objectivity is anchored in scientific communities and their practices . After discussing three case studies from economics, social science and medicine, we address the conceptual unity of scientific objectivity : Do the various conceptions have a common valid core, such as promoting trust in science or minimizing relevant epistemic risks? Or are they rivaling and only loosely related accounts? Finally we present some conjectures about what aspects of objectivity remain defensible and desirable in the light of the difficulties we have encountered.

2. Objectivity as Faithfulness to Facts

The basic idea of this first conception of objectivity is that scientific claims are objective in so far as they faithfully describe facts about the world. The philosophical rationale underlying this conception of objectivity is the view that there are facts “out there” in the world and that it is the task of scientists to discover, analyze, and systematize these facts. “Objective” then becomes a success word: if a claim is objective, it correctly describes some aspect of the world.

In this view, science is objective to the degree that it succeeds at discovering and generalizing facts, abstracting from the perspective of the individual scientist. Although few philosophers have fully endorsed such a conception of scientific objectivity, the idea figures recurrently in the work of prominent twentieth-century philosophers of science such as Carnap, Hempel, Popper, and Reichenbach.

Humans experience the world from a perspective. The contents of an individual’s experiences vary greatly with his perspective, which is affected by his personal situation, and the details of his perceptual apparatus, language and culture. While the experiences vary, there seems to be something that remains constant. The appearance of a tree will change as one approaches it but—according to common sense and most philosophers—the tree itself doesn’t. A room may feel hot or cold for different persons, but its temperature is independent of their experiences. The object in front of me does not disappear just because the lights are turned off.

These examples motivate a distinction between qualities that vary with one’s perspective, and qualities that remain constant through changes of perspective. The latter are the objective qualities. Thomas Nagel explains that we arrive at the idea of objective qualities in three steps (Nagel 1986: 14). The first step is to realize (or postulate) that our perceptions are caused by the actions of things around us, through their effects on our bodies. The second step is to realize (or postulate) that since the same qualities that cause perceptions in us also have effects on other things and can exist without causing any perceptions at all, their true nature must be detachable from their perspectival appearance and need not resemble it. The final step is to form a conception of that “true nature” independently of any perspective. Nagel calls that conception the “view from nowhere”, Bernard Williams the “absolute conception” (Williams 1985 [2011]). It represents the world as it is, unmediated by human minds and other “distortions”.

This absolute conception lies at the basis of scientific realism (for a detailed discussion, see the entry on scientific realism ) and it is attractive in so far as it provides a basis for arbitrating between conflicting viewpoints (e.g., two different observations). Moreover, the absolute conception provides a simple and unified account of the world. Theories of trees will be very hard to come by if they use predicates such as “height as seen by an observer” and a hodgepodge if their predicates track the habits of ordinary language users rather than the properties of the world. To the extent, then, that science aims to provide explanations for natural phenomena, casting them in terms of the absolute conception would help to realize this aim. A scientific account cast in the language of the absolute conception may not only be able to explain why a tree is as tall as it is but also why we see it in one way when viewed from one standpoint and in a different way when viewed from another. As Williams (1985 [2011: 139]) puts it,

[the absolute conception] nonvacuously explain[s] how it itself, and the various perspectival views of the world, are possible.

A third reason to find the view from nowhere attractive is that if the world came in structures as characterized by it and we did have access to it, we could use our knowledge of it to ground predictions (which, to the extent that our theories do track the absolute structures, will be borne out). A fourth and related reason is that attempts to manipulate and control phenomena can similarly be grounded in our knowledge of these structures. To attain any of the four purposes—settling disagreements, explaining the world, predicting phenomena, and manipulation and control—the absolute conception is at best sufficient but not necessary. We can, for instance, settle disagreements by imposing the rule that the person with higher social rank or greater experience is always right. We can explain the world and our image of it by means of theories that do not represent absolute structures and properties, and there is no need to get things (absolutely) right in order to predict successfully. Nevertheless, there is something appealing in the idea that factual disagreements can be settled by the very facts themselves, that explanations and predictions grounded in what’s really there rather than in a distorted image of it.

No matter how desirable, our ability to use scientific claims to represent facts about the world depends on whether these claims can unambiguously be established on the basis of evidence, and of evidence alone. Alas, the relation between evidence and scientific hypothesis is not straightforward. Subsection 2.2 and subsection 2.3 will look at two challenges of the idea that even the best scientific method will yield claims that describe an aperspectival view from nowhere. Section 5.2 will deal with socially motivated criticisms of the view from nowhere.

According to a popular picture, all scientific theories are false and imperfect. Yet, as we add true and eliminate false beliefs, our best scientific theories become more truthlike (e.g., Popper 1963, 1972). If this picture is correct, then scientific knowledge grows by gradually approaching the truth and it will become more objective over time, that is, more faithful to facts. However, scientific theories often change, and sometimes several theories compete for the place of the best scientific account of the world.

It is inherent in the above picture of scientific objectivity that observations can, at least in principle, decide between competing theories. If they did not, the conception of objectivity as faithfulness would be pointless to have as we would not be in a position to verify it. This position has been adopted by Karl R. Popper, Rudolf Carnap and other leading figures in (broadly) empiricist philosophy of science. Many philosophers have argued that the relation between observation and theory is way more complex and that influences can actually run both ways (e.g., Duhem 1906 [1954]; Wittgenstein 1953 [2001]). The most lasting criticism, however, was delivered by Thomas S. Kuhn (1962 [1970]) in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

Kuhn’s analysis is built on the assumption that scientists always view research problems through the lens of a paradigm, defined by set of relevant problems, axioms, methodological presuppositions, techniques, and so forth. Kuhn provided several historical examples in favor of this claim. Scientific progress—and the practice of normal, everyday science—happens within a paradigm that guides the individual scientists’ puzzle-solving work and that sets the community standards.

Can observations undermine such a paradigm, and speak for a different one? Here, Kuhn famously stresses that observations are “theory-laden” (cf. also Hanson 1958): they depend on a body of theoretical assumptions through which they are perceived and conceptualized. This hypothesis has two important aspects.

First, the meaning of observational concepts is influenced by theoretical assumptions and presuppositions. For example, the concepts “mass” and “length” have different meanings in Newtonian and relativistic mechanics; so does the concept “temperature” in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics (cf. Feyerabend 1962). In other words, Kuhn denies that there is a theory-independent observation language. The “faithfulness to reality” of an observation report is always mediated by a theoretical überbau , disabling the role of observation reports as an impartial, merely fact-dependent arbiter between different theories.

Second, not only the observational concepts, but also the perception of a scientist depends on the paradigm she is working in.

Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists [who work in different paradigms, J.R./J.S.] see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction. (Kuhn 1962 [1970: 150])

That is, our own sense data are shaped and structured by a theoretical framework, and may be fundamentally distinct from the sense data of scientists working in another one. Where a Ptolemaic astronomer like Tycho Brahe sees a sun setting behind the horizon, a Copernican astronomer like Johannes Kepler sees the horizon moving up to a stationary sun. If this picture is correct, then it is hard to assess which theory or paradigm is more faithful to the facts, that is, more objective.

The thesis of the theory-ladenness of observation has also been extended to the incommensurability of different paradigms or scientific theories , problematized independently by Thomas S. Kuhn (1962 [1970]) and Paul Feyerabend (1962). Literally, this concept means “having no measure in common”, and it figures prominently in arguments against a linear and standpoint-independent picture of scientific progress. For instance, the Special Theory of Relativity appears to be more faithful to the facts and therefore more objective than Newtonian mechanics because it reduces, for low speeds, to the latter, and it accounts for some additional facts that are not predicted correctly by Newtonian mechanics. This picture is undermined, however, by two central aspects of incommensurability. First, not only do the observational concepts in both theories differ, but the principles for specifying their meaning may be inconsistent with each other (Feyerabend 1975: 269–270). Second, scientific research methods and standards of evaluation change with the theories or paradigms. Not all puzzles that could be tackled in the old paradigm will be solved by the new one—this is the phenomenon of “Kuhn loss”.

A meaningful use of objectivity presupposes, according to Feyerabend, to perceive and to describe the world from a specific perspective, e.g., when we try to verify the referential claims of a scientific theory. Only within a peculiar scientific worldview, the concept of objectivity may be applied meaningfully. That is, scientific method cannot free itself from the particular scientific theory to which it is applied; the door to standpoint-independence is locked. As Feyerabend puts it:

our epistemic activities may have a decisive influence even upon the most solid piece of cosmological furniture—they make gods disappear and replace them by heaps of atoms in empty space. (1978: 70)

Kuhn and Feyerabend’s theses about theory-ladenness of observation, and their implications for the objectivity of scientific inquiry have been much debated afterwards, and have often been misunderstood in a social constructivist sense. Therefore Kuhn later returned to the topic of scientific objectivity, of which he gives his own characterization in terms of the shared cognitive values of a scientific community. We discuss Kuhn’s later view in section 3.1 . For a more thorough coverage, see the entries on theory and observation in science , the incommensurability of scientific theories and Thomas S. Kuhn .

Scientific theories are tested by comparing their implications with the results of observations and experiments. Unfortunately, neither positive results (when the theory’s predictions are borne out in the data) nor negative results (when they are not) allow unambiguous inferences about the theory. A positive result can obtain even though the theory is false, due to some alternative that makes the same predictions. Finding suspect Jones’ fingerprints on the murder weapon is consistent with his innocence because he might have used it as a kitchen knife. A negative result might be due not to the falsehood of the theory under test but due to the failing of one or more auxiliary assumptions needed to derive a prediction from the theory. Testing, let us say, the implications of Newton’s laws for movements in our planetary system against observations requires assumptions about the number of planets, the sun’s and the planets’ masses, the extent to which the earth’s atmosphere refracts light beams, how telescopes affect the results and so on. Any of these may be false, explaining an inconsistency. The locus classicus for these observations is Pierre Duhem’s The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (Duhem 1906 [1954]). Duhem concluded that there was no “crucial experiment”, an experiment that conclusively decides between two alternative theories, in physics (1906 [1954: 188ff.]), and that physicists had to employ their expert judgment or what Duhem called “good sense” to determine what an experimental result means for the truth or falsehood of a theory (1906 [1954: 216ff.]).

In other words, there is a gap between the evidence and the theory supported by it. It is important to note that the alleged gap is more profound than the gap between the premisses of any inductive argument and its conclusion, say, the gap between “All hitherto observed ravens have been black” and “All ravens are black”. The latter gap could be bridged by an agreed upon rule of inductive reasoning. Alas, all attempts to find an analogous rule for theory choice have failed (e.g., Norton 2003). Various philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science have responded that theory appraisal is “a complex form of value judgment” (McMullin 1982: 701; see also Kuhn 1977; Hesse 1980; Bloor 1982).

In section 3.1 below we will discuss the nature of the value judgments in more detail. For now the important lesson is that if these philosophers, historians, and sociologists are correct, the “faithfulness to facts” ideal is untenable. As the scientific image of the world is a joint product of the facts and scientists’ value judgments, that image cannot be said to be aperspectival. Science does not eschew the human perspective. There are of course ways to escape this conclusion. If, as John Norton (2003; ms.—see Other Internet Resources) has argued, it is material facts that power and justify inductive inferences, and not value judgments, we can avoid the negative conclusion regarding the view from nowhere. Unsurprisingly, Norton is also critical of the idea that evidence generally underdetermines theory (Norton 2008). However, there are good reasons to mistrust Norton’s optimism regarding the ineliminability of values and other non-factual elements in inductive inferences (Reiss 2020).

There is another, closely related concern. Most of the earlier critics of “objective” verification or falsification focused on the relation between evidence and scientific theories. There is a sense in which the claim that this relation is problematic is not so surprising. Scientific theories contain highly abstract claims that describe states of affairs far removed from the immediacy of sense experience. This is for a good reason: sense experience is necessarily perspectival, so to the extent to which scientific theories are to track the absolute conception, they must describe a world different from that of sense experience. But surely, one might think, the evidence itself is objective. So even if we do have reasons to doubt that abstract theories faithfully represent the world, we should stand on firmer grounds when it comes to the evidence against which we test abstract theories.

Theories are seldom tested against brute observations, however. Simple generalizations such as “all swans are white” are directly learned from observations (say, of the color of swans) but they do not represent the view from nowhere (for one thing, the view from nowhere doesn’t have colors). Genuine scientific theories are tested against experimental facts or phenomena, which are themselves unobservable to the unaided senses. Experimental facts or phenomena are instead established using intricate procedures of measurement and experimentation.

We therefore need to ask whether the results of scientific measurements and experiments can be aperspectival. In an important debate in the 1980s and 1990s some commentators answered that question with a resounding “no”, which was then rebutted by others. The debate concerns the so-called “experimenter’s regress” (Collins 1985). Collins, a prominent sociologist of science, claims that in order to know whether an experimental result is correct, one first needs to know whether the apparatus producing the result is reliable. But one doesn’t know whether the apparatus is reliable unless one knows that it produces correct results in the first place and so on and so on ad infinitum . Collins’ main case concerns attempts to detect gravitational waves, which were very controversially discussed among physicists in the 1970s.

Collins argues that the circle is eventually broken not by the “facts” themselves but rather by factors having to do with the scientist’s career, the social and cognitive interests of his community, and the expected fruitfulness for future work. It is important to note that in Collins’s view these factors do not necessarily make scientific results arbitrary. But what he does argue is that the experimental results do not represent the world according to the absolute conception. Rather, they are produced jointly by the world, scientific apparatuses, and the psychological and sociological factors mentioned above. The facts and phenomena of science are therefore necessarily perspectival.

In a series of contributions, Allan Franklin, a physicist-turned-philosopher of science, has tried to show that while there are indeed no algorithmic procedures for establishing experimental facts, disagreements can nevertheless be settled by reasoned judgment on the basis of bona fide epistemological criteria such as experimental checks and calibration, elimination of possible sources of error, using apparatuses based on well-corroborated theory and so on (Franklin 1994, 1997). Collins responds that “reasonableness” is a social category that is not drawn from physics (Collins 1994).

The main issue for us in this debate is whether there are any reasons to believe that experimental results provide an aperspectival view on the world. According to Collins, experimental results are co-determined by the facts as well as social and psychological factors. According to Franklin, whatever else influences experimental results other than facts is not arbitrary but instead based on reasoned judgment. What he has not shown is that reasoned judgment guarantees that experimental results reflect the facts alone and are therefore aperspectival in any interesting sense. Another important challenge for the aperspectival account comes from feminist epistemology and other accounts that stress the importance of the construction of scientific knowledge through epistemic communities. These accounts are reviewed in section 5 .

3. Objectivity as Absence of Normative Commitments and the Value-Free Ideal

In the previous section we have presented arguments against the view of objectivity as faithfulness to facts and an impersonal “view from nowhere”. An alternative view is that science is objective to the extent that it is value-free . Why would we identify objectivity with value-freedom or regard the latter as a prerequisite for the former? Part of the answer is empiricism. If science is in the business of producing empirical knowledge, and if differences about value judgments cannot be settled by empirical means, values should have no place in science. In the following we will try to make this intuition more precise.

Before addressing what we will call the “value-free ideal”, it will be helpful to distinguish four stages at which values may affect science. They are: (i) the choice of a scientific research problem; (ii) the gathering of evidence in relation to the problem; (iii) the acceptance of a scientific hypothesis or theory as an adequate answer to the problem on the basis of the evidence; (iv) the proliferation and application of scientific research results (Weber 1917 [1949]).

Most philosophers of science would agree that the role of values in science is contentious only with respect to dimensions (ii) and (iii): the gathering of evidence and the acceptance of scientific theories . It is almost universally accepted that the choice of a research problem is often influenced by interests of individual scientists, funding parties, and society as a whole. This influence may make science more shallow and slow down its long-run progress, but it has benefits, too: scientists will focus on providing solutions to those intellectual problems that are considered urgent by society and they may actually improve people’s lives. Similarly, the proliferation and application of scientific research results is evidently affected by the personal values of journal editors and end users, and little can be done about this. The real debate is about whether or not the “core” of scientific reasoning—the gathering of evidence and the assessment and acceptance scientific theories—is, and should be, value-free.

We have introduced the problem of the underdetermination of theory by evidence above. The problem does not stop, however, at values being required for filling the gap between theory and evidence. A further complication is that these values can conflict with each other. Consider the classical problem of fitting a mathematical function to a data set. The researcher often has the choice between using a complex function, which makes the relationship between the variables less simple but fits the data more accurately , or postulating a simpler relationship that is less accurate . Simplicity and accuracy are both important cognitive values, and trading them off requires a careful value judgment. However, philosophers of science tend to regard value-ladenness in this sense as benign. Cognitive values (sometimes also called “epistemic” or “constitutive” values) such as predictive accuracy, scope, unification, explanatory power, simplicity and coherence with other accepted theories are taken to be indicative of the truth of a theory and therefore provide reasons for preferring one theory over another (McMullin 1982, 2009; Laudan 1984; Steel 2010). Kuhn (1977) even claims that cognitive values define the shared commitments of science, that is, the standards of theory assessment that characterize the scientific approach as a whole. Note that not every philosopher entertains the same list of cognitive values: subjective differences in ranking and applying cognitive values do not vanish, a point Kuhn made emphatically.

In most views, the objectivity and authority of science is not threatened by cognitive values, but only by non-cognitive or contextual values . Contextual values are moral, personal, social, political and cultural values such as pleasure, justice and equality, conservation of the natural environment and diversity. The most notorious cases of improper uses of such values involve travesties of scientific reasoning, where the intrusion of contextual values led to an intolerant and oppressive scientific agenda with devastating epistemic and social consequences. In the Third Reich, a large part of contemporary physics, such as the theory of relativity, was condemned because its inventors were Jewish; in the Soviet Union, biologist Nikolai Vavilov was sentenced to death (and died in prison) because his theories of genetic inheritance did not match Marxist-Leninist ideology. Both states tried to foster a science that was motivated by political convictions (“Deutsche Physik” in Nazi Germany, Lysenko’s Lamarckian theory of inheritance and denial of genetics), leading to disastrous epistemic and institutional effects.

Less spectacular, but arguably more frequent are cases where research is biased toward the interests of the sponsors, such as tobacco companies, food manufacturers and large pharmaceutic firms (e.g., Resnik 2007; Reiss 2010). This preference bias , defined by Wilholt (2009) as the infringement of conventional standards of the research community with the aim of arriving at a particular result, is clearly epistemically harmful. Especially for sensitive high-stakes issues such as the admission of medical drugs or the consequences of anthropogenic global warming, it seems desirable that research scientists assess theories without being influenced by such considerations. This is the core idea of the

Value-Free Ideal (VFI): Scientists should strive to minimize the influence of contextual values on scientific reasoning, e.g., in gathering evidence and assessing/accepting scientific theories.

According to the VFI, scientific objectivity is characterized by absence of contextual values and by exclusive commitment to cognitive values in stages (ii) and (iii) of the scientific process. See Dorato (2004: 53–54), Ruphy (2006: 190) or Biddle (2013: 125) for alternative formulations.

For value-freedom to be a reasonable ideal, it must not be a goal beyond reach and be attainable at least to some degree. This claim is expressed by the

Value-Neutrality Thesis (VNT): Scientists can—at least in principle—gather evidence and assess/accept theories without making contextual value judgments.

Unlike the VFI, the VNT is not normative: its subject is whether the judgments that scientists make are, or could possibly be, free of contextual values. Similarly, Hugh Lacey (1999) distinguishes three principal components or aspects of value-free science: impartiality, neutrality and autonomy. Impartiality means that theories are solely accepted or appraised in virtue of their contribution to the cognitive values of science, such as truth, accuracy or explanatory power. This excludes the influence of contextual values, as stated above. Neutrality means that scientific theories make no value statements about the world: they are concerned with what there is, not with what there should be. Finally, scientific autonomy means that the scientific agenda is shaped by the desire to increase scientific knowledge, and that contextual values have no place in scientific method.

These three interpretations of value-free science can be combined with each other, or used individually. All of them, however, are subject to criticisms that we examine below. Denying the VNT, or the attainability of Lacey’s three criteria for value-free science, poses a challenge for scientific objectivity: one can either conclude that the ideal of objectivity should be rejected, or develop a conception of objectivity that differs from the VFI.

Lacey’s characterization of value-free science and the VNT were once mainstream positions in philosophy of science. Their widespread acceptance was closely connected to Reichenbach’s famous distinction between context of discovery and context of justification . Reichenbach first made this distinction with respect to the epistemology of mathematics:

the objective relation from the given entities to the solution, and the subjective way of finding it, are clearly separated for problems of a deductive character […] we must learn to make the same distinction for the problem of the inductive relation from facts to theories. (Reichenbach 1938: 36–37)

The standard interpretation of this statement marks contextual values, which may have contributed to the discovery of a theory, as irrelevant for justifying the acceptance of a theory, and for assessing how evidence bears on theory—the relation that is crucial for the objectivity of science. Contextual values are restricted to a matter of individual psychology that may influence the discovery, development and proliferation of a scientific theory, but not its epistemic status.

This distinction played a crucial role in post-World War II philosophy of science. It presupposes, however, a clear-cut distinction between cognitive values on the one hand and contextual values on the other. While this may be prima facie plausible for disciplines such as physics, there is an abundance of contextual values in the social sciences, for instance, in the conceptualization and measurement of a nation’s wealth, or in different ways to measure the inflation rate (cf. Dupré 2007; Reiss 2008). More generally, three major lines of criticism can be identified.

First, Helen Longino (1996) has argued that traditional cognitive values such as consistency, simplicity, breadth of scope and fruitfulness are not purely cognitive or epistemic after all, and that their use imports political and social values into contexts of scientific judgment. According to her, the use of cognitive values in scientific judgments is not always, not even normally, politically neutral. She proposes to juxtapose these values with feminist values such as novelty, ontological heterogeneity, mutuality of interaction, applicability to human needs and diffusion of power, and argues that the use of the traditional value instead of its alternative (e.g., simplicity instead of ontological heterogeneity) can lead to biases and adverse research results. Longino’s argument here is different from the one discussed in section 3.1 . It casts the very distinction between cognitive and contextual values into doubt.

The second argument against the possibility of value-free science is semantic and attacks the neutrality of scientific theories: fact and value are frequently entangled because of the use of so-called “thick” ethical concepts in science (Putnam 2002)—i.e., ethical concepts that have mixed descriptive and normative content. For example, a description such as “dangerous technology” involves a value judgment about the technology and the risks it implies, but it also has a descriptive content: it is uncertain and hard to predict whether using that technology will really trigger those risks. If the use of such terms, where facts and values are inextricably entangled, is inevitable in scientific reasoning, it is impossible to describe hypotheses and results in a value-free manner, undermining the value-neutrality thesis.

Indeed, John Dupré has argued that thick ethical terms are ineliminable from science, at least certain parts of it (Dupré 2007). Dupré’s point is essentially that scientific hypotheses and results concern us because they are relevant to human interests, and thus they will necessarily be couched in a language that uses thick ethical terms. While it will often be possible to translate ethically thick descriptions into neutral ones, the translation cannot be made without losses, and these losses obtain precisely because human interests are involved (see section 6.2 for a case study from social science). According to Dupré, then, many scientific statements are value-free only because their truth or falsity does not matter to us:

Whether electrons have a positive or a negative charge and whether there is a black hole in the middle of our galaxy are questions of absolutely no immediate importance to us. The only human interests they touch (and these they may indeed touch deeply) are cognitive ones, and so the only values that they implicate are cognitive values. (2007: 31)

A third challenge to the VNT, and perhaps the most influential one, was raised first by Richard Rudner in his influential article “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1953). Rudner disputes the core of the VNT and the context of discovery/justification distinction: the idea that the acceptance of a scientific theory can in principle be value-free. First, Rudner argues that

no analysis of what constitutes the method of science would be satisfactory unless it comprised some assertion to the effect that the scientist as scientist accepts or rejects hypotheses . (1953: 2)

This assumption stems from industrial quality control and other application-oriented research. In such contexts, it is often necessary to accept or to reject a hypothesis (e.g., the efficacy of a drug) in order to make effective decisions.

Second, he notes that no scientific hypothesis is ever confirmed beyond reasonable doubt—some probability of error always remains. When we accept or reject a hypothesis, there is always a chance that our decision is mistaken. Hence, our decision is also “a function of the importance , in the typically ethical sense, of making a mistake in accepting or rejecting a hypothesis” (1953: 2): we are balancing the seriousness of two possible errors (erroneous acceptance/rejection of the hypothesis) against each other. This corresponds to type I and type II error in statistical inference.

The decision to accept or reject a hypothesis involves a value judgment (at least implicitly) because scientists have to judge which of the consequences of an erroneous decision they deem more palatable: (1) some individuals die of the side effects of a drug erroneously judged to be safe; or (2) other individuals die of a condition because they did not have access to a treatment that was erroneously judged to be unsafe. Hence, ethical judgments and contextual values necessarily enter the scientist’s core activity of accepting and rejecting hypotheses, and the VNT stands refuted. Closely related arguments can be found in Churchman (1948) and Braithwaite (1953). Hempel (1965: 91–92) gives a modified account of Rudner’s argument by distinguishing between judgments of confirmation , which are free of contextual values, and judgments of acceptance . Since even strongly confirming evidence cannot fully prove a universal scientific law, we have to live with a residual “inductive risk” in inferring that law. Contextual values influence scientific methods by determining the acceptable amount of inductive risk (see also Douglas 2000).

But how general are Rudner’s objections? Apparently, his result holds true of applied science, but not necessarily of fundamental research. For the latter domain, two major lines of rebuttals have been proposed. First, Richard Jeffrey (1956) notes that lawlike hypotheses in theoretical science (e.g., the gravitational law in Newtonian mechanics) are characterized by their general scope and not confined to a particular application. Obviously, a scientist cannot fine-tune her decisions to their possible consequences in a wide variety of different contexts. So she should just refrain from the essentially pragmatic decision to accept or reject hypotheses. By restricting scientific reasoning to gathering and interpreting evidence, possibly supplemented by assessing the probability of a hypothesis, Jeffrey tries to save the VNT in fundamental scientific research, and the objectivity of scientific reasoning.

Second, Isaac Levi (1960) observes that scientists commit themselves to certain standards of inference when they become a member of the profession. This may, for example, lead to the statistical rejection of a hypothesis when the observed significance level is smaller than 5%. These community standards may eliminate any room for contextual ethical judgment on behalf of the scientist: they determine when she should accept a hypothesis as established. Value judgments may be implicit in how a scientific community sets standards of inference (compare section 5.1 ), but not in the daily work of an individual scientist (cf. Wilholt 2013).

Both defenses of the VNT focus on the impact of values in theory choice, either by denying that scientists actually choose theories (Jeffrey), or by referring to community standards and restricting the VNT to the individual scientist (Levi). Douglas (2000: 563–565) points out, however, that the “acceptance” of scientific theories is only one of several places for values to enter scientific reasoning, albeit an especially prominent and explicit one. Many decisions in the process of scientific inquiry may conceal implicit value judgments: the design of an experiment, the methodology for conducting it, the characterization of the data, the choice of a statistical method for processing and analyzing data, the interpretational process findings, etc. None of these methodological decisions could be made without consideration of the possible consequences that could occur. Douglas gives, as a case study, a series of experiments where carcinogenic effects of dioxin exposure on rats were probed. Contextual values such as safety and risk aversion affected the conducted research at various stages: first, in the classification of pathological samples as benign or cancerous (over which a lot of expert disagreement occurred), second, in the extrapolation from the high-dose experimental conditions to the more realistic low-dose conditions. In both cases, the choice of a conservative classification or model had to be weighed against the adverse consequences for society that could result from underestimating the risks (see also Biddle 2013).

These diagnoses cast a gloomy light on attempts to divide scientific labor between gathering evidence and determining the degree of confirmation (value-free) on the one hand and accepting scientific theories (value-laden) on the other. The entire process of conceptualizing, gathering and interpreting evidence is so entangled with contextual values that no neat division, as Jeffrey envisions, will work outside the narrow realm of statistical inference—and even there, doubts may be raised ( see section 4.2 ).

Philip Kitcher (2011a: 31–40; see also Kitcher 2011b) gives an alternative argument, based on his idea of “significant truths”. There are simply too many truths that are of no interest whatsoever, such as the total number of offside positions in a low-level football competition. Science, then, doesn’t aim at truth simpliciter but rather at something more narrow: truth worth pursuing from the point of view of our cognitive, practical and social goals. Any truth that is worth pursuing in this sense is what he calls a “significant truth”. Clearly, it is value judgments that help us decide whether or not any given truth is significant.

Kitcher goes on to observing that the process of scientific investigation cannot neatly be divided into a stage in which the research question is chosen, one in which the evidence is gathered and one in which a judgment about the question is made on the basis of the evidence. Rather, the sequence is multiply iterated, and at each stage, the researcher has to decide whether previous results warrant pursuit of the current line of research, or whether she should switch to another avenue. Such choices are laden with contextual values.

Values in science also interact, according to Kitcher, in a non-trivial way. Assume we endorse predictive accuracy as an important goal of science. However, there may not be a convincing strategy to reach this goal in some domain of science, for instance because that domain is characterized by strong non-linear dependencies. In this case, predictive accuracy might have to yield to achieving other values, such as consistency with theories in neighbor domains. Conversely, changing social goals lead to re-evaluations of scientific knowledge and research methods.

Science, then, cannot be value-free because no scientist ever works exclusively in the supposedly value-free zone of assessing and accepting hypotheses. Evidence is gathered and hypotheses are assessed and accepted in the light of their potential for application and fruitful research avenues. Both cognitive and contextual value judgments guide these choices and are themselves influenced by their results.

The discussion so far has focused on the VNT, the practical attainability of the VFI, but little has been said about whether a value-free science is desirable in the first place. This subsection discusses this topic with special attention to informing and advising public policy from a scientific perspective. While the VFI, and many arguments for and against it, can be applied to science as a whole, the interface of science and public policy is the place where the intrusion of values into science is especially salient, and where it is surrounded by the greatest controversy. In the 2009 “Climategate” affair, leaked emails from climate scientists raised suspicions that they were pursuing a particular socio-political agenda that affected their research in an improper way. Later inquiries and reports absolved them from charges of misconduct, but the suspicions alone did much to damage the authority of science in the public arena.

Indeed, many debates at the interface of science and public policy are characterized by disagreements on propositions that combine a factual basis with specific goals and values. Take, for instance, the view that growing transgenic crops carries too much risk in terms of biosecurity, or addressing global warming by phasing out fossil energies immediately. The critical question in such debates is whether there are theses \(T\) such that one side in the debate endorses \(T\), the other side rejects it, the evidence is shared, and both sides have good reasons for their respective positions.

According to the VFI, scientists should uncover an epistemic, value-free basis for resolving such disagreements and restrict the dissent to the realm of value judgments. Even if the VNT should turn out to be untenable, and a strict separation to be impossible, the VFI may have an important function for guiding scientific research and for minimizing the impact of values on an objective science. In the philosophy of science, one camp of scholars defends the VFI as a necessary antidote to individual and institutional interests, such as Hugh Lacey (1999, 2002), Ernan McMullin (1982) and Sandra Mitchell (2004), while others adopt a critical attitude, such as Helen Longino (1990, 1996), Philip Kitcher (2011a) and Heather Douglas (2009). These criticisms we discuss mainly refer to the desirability or the conceptual (un)clarity of the VFI.

First, it has been argued that the VFI is not desirable at all. Feminist philosophers (e.g., Harding 1991; Okruhlik 1994; Lloyd 2005) have argued that science often carries a heavy androcentric values, for instance in biological theories about sex, gender and rape. The charge against these values is not so much that they are contextual rather than cognitive, but that they are unjustified. Moreover, if scientists did follow the VFI rigidly, policy-makers would pay even less attention to them, with a detrimental effect on the decisions they take (Cranor 1993). Given these shortcomings, the VFI has to be rethought if it is supposed to play a useful role for guiding scientific research and leading to better policy decisions. Section 4.3 and section 5.2 elaborate on this line of criticism in the context of scientific community practices, and a science in the service of society.

Second, the autonomy of science often fails in practice due to the presence of external stakeholders, such as funding agencies and industry lobbies. To save the epistemic authority of science, Douglas (2009: 7–8) proposes to detach it from its autonomy by reformulating the VFI and distinguishing between direct and indirect roles of values in science . Contextual values may legitimately affect the assessment of evidence by indicating the appropriate standard of evidence, the representation of complex processes, the severity of consequences of a decision, the interpretation of noisy datasets, and so on (see also Winsberg 2012). This concerns, above all, policy-related disciplines such as climate science or economics that routinely perform scientific risk analyses for real-world problems (cf. also Shrader-Frechette 1991). Values should, however, not be “reasons in themselves”, that is, evidence or defeaters for evidence (direct role, illegitimate) and as “helping to decide what should count as a sufficient reason for a choice” (indirect role, legitimate). This prohibition for values to replace or dismiss scientific evidence is called detached objectivity by Douglas, but it is complemented by various other aspects that relate to a reflective balancing of various perspectives and the procedural, social aspects of science (2009: ch. 6).

That said, Douglas’ proposal is not very concrete when it comes to implementation, e.g., regarding the way diverse values should be balanced. Compromising in the middle cannot be the solution (Weber 1917 [1949]). First, no standpoint is, just in virtue of being in the middle, evidentially supported vis-à-vis more extreme positions. Second, these middle positions are also, from a practical point of view, the least functional when it comes to advising policy-makers.

Moreover, the distinction between direct and indirect roles of values in science may not be sufficiently clear-cut to police the legitimate use of values in science, and to draw the necessary borderlines. Assume that a scientist considers, for whatever reason, the consequences of erroneously accepting hypothesis \(H\) undesirable. Therefore he uses a statistical model whose results are likely to favor ¬\(H\) over \(H\). Is this a matter of reasonable conservativeness? Or doesn’t it amount to reasoning to a foregone conclusion, and to treating values as evidence (cf. Elliott 2011: 320–321)?

The most recent literature on values and evidence in science presents us with a broad spectrum of opinions. Steele (2012) and Winsberg (2012) agree that probabilistic assessments of uncertainty involve contextual value judgments. While Steele defends this point by analyzing the role of scientists as policy advisors, Winsberg points to the influence of contextual values in the selection and representation of physical processes in climate modeling. Betz (2013) argues, by contrast, that scientists can largely avoid making contextual value judgments if they carefully express the uncertainty involved with their evidential judgments, e.g., by using a scale ranging from purely qualitative evidence (such as expert judgment) to precise probabilistic assessments. The issue of value judgments at earlier stages of inquiry is not addressed by this proposal; however, disentangling evidential judgments and judgments involving contextual values at the stage of theory assessment may be a good thing in itself.

Thus, should we or should we not worried about values in scientific reasoning? While the interplay of values and evidential considerations need not be pernicious, it is unclear why it adds to the success or the authority of science. How are we going to ensure that the permissive attitude towards values in setting evidential standards etc. is not abused? In the absence of a general theory about which contextual values are beneficial and which are pernicious, the VFI might as well be as a first-order approximation to a sound, transparent and objective science.

4. Objectivity as Freedom from Personal Biases

This section deals with scientific objectivity as a form of intersubjectivity—as freedom from personal biases. According to this view, science is objective to the extent that personal biases are absent from scientific reasoning, or that they can be eliminated in a social process. Perhaps all science is necessarily perspectival. Perhaps we cannot sensibly draw scientific inferences without a host of background assumptions, which may include assumptions about values. Perhaps all scientists are biased in some way. But objective scientific results do not, or so the argument goes, depend on researchers’ personal preferences or experiences—they are the result of a process where individual biases are gradually filtered out and replaced by agreed upon evidence. That, among other things, is what distinguishes science from the arts and other human activities, and scientific knowledge from a fact-independent social construction (e.g., Haack 2003).

Paradigmatic ways to achieve objectivity in this sense are measurement and quantification. What has been measured and quantified has been verified relative to a standard. The truth, say, that the Eiffel Tower is 324 meters tall is relative to a standard unit and conventions about how to use certain instruments, so it is neither aperspectival nor free from assumptions, but it is independent of the person making the measurement.

We will begin with a discussion of objectivity, so conceived, in measurement, discuss the ideal of “mechanical objectivity” and then investigate to what extent freedom from personal biases can be implemented in statistical evidence and inductive inference—arguably the core of scientific reasoning, especially in quantitatively oriented sciences. Finally, we discuss Feyerabend’s radical criticism of a rational scientific method that can be mechanically applied, and his defense of the epistemic and social benefits of personal “bias” and idiosyncrasy.

Measurement is often thought to epitomize scientific objectivity, most famously captured in Lord Kelvin’s dictum

when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science , whatever the matter may be. (Kelvin 1883, 73)

Measurement can certainly achieve some independence of perspective. Yesterday’s weather in Durham UK may have been “really hot” to the average North Eastern Brit and “very cold” to the average Mexican, but they’ll both accept that it was 21°C. Clearly, however, measurement does not result in a “view from nowhere”, nor are typical measurement results free from presuppositions. Measurement instruments interact with the environment, and so results will always be a product of both the properties of the environment we aim to measure as well as the properties of the instrument. Instruments, thus, provide a perspectival view on the world (cf. Giere 2006).

Moreover, making sense of measurement results requires interpretation. Consider temperature measurement. Thermometers function by relating an unobservable quantity, temperature, to an observable quantity, expansion (or length) of a fluid or gas in a glass tube; that is, thermometers measure temperature by assuming that length is a function of temperature: length = \(f\)(temperature). The function \(f\) is not known a priori , and it cannot be tested either (because it could in principle only be tested using a veridical thermometer, and the veridicality of the thermometer is just what is at stake here). Making a specific assumption, for instance that \(f\) is linear, solves that problem by fiat. But this “solution” does not take us very far because different thermometric substances (e.g., mercury, air or water) yield different results for the points intermediate between the two fixed points 0°C and 100°C, and so they can’t all expand linearly.

According to Hasok Chang’s account of early thermometry (Chang 2004), the problem was eventually solved by using a “principle of minimalist overdetermination”, the goal of which was to find a reliable thermometer while making as few substantial assumptions (e.g., about the form for \(f\)) as possible. It was argued that if a thermometer was to be reliable, different tokens of the same thermometer type should agree with each other, and the results of air thermometers agreed the most. “Minimal” doesn’t mean zero, however, and indeed this procedure makes an important presupposition (in this case a metaphysical assumption about the one-valuedness of a physical quantity). Moreover, the procedure yielded at best a reliable instrument, not necessarily one that was best at tracking the uniquely real temperature (if there is such a thing).

What Chang argues about early thermometry is true of measurements more generally: they are always made against a backdrop of metaphysical presuppositions, theoretical expectations and other kinds of belief. Whether or not any given procedure is regarded as adequate depends to a large extent on the purposes pursued by the individual scientist or group of scientists making the measurements. Especially in the social sciences, this often means that measurement procedures are laden with normative assumptions, i.e., values.

Julian Reiss (2008, 2013) has argued that economic indicators such as consumer price inflation, gross domestic product and the unemployment rate are value-laden in this sense. Consumer-price indices, for instance, assume that if a consumer prefers a bundle \(x\) over an alternative \(y\), then \(x\) is better for her than \(y\), which is as ethically charged as it is controversial. National income measures assume that nations that exchange a larger share of goods and services on markets are richer than nations where the same goods and services are provided by the government or within households, which too is ethically charged and controversial.

While not free of assumptions and values, the goal of many measurement procedures remains to reduce the influence of personal biases and idiosyncrasies. The Nixon administration, famously, indexed social security payments to the consumer-price index in order to eliminate the dependence of security recipients on the flimsiest of party politics: to make increases automatic instead of a result of political negotiations (Nixon 1969). Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison refer to this as mechanical objectivity . They write:

Finally, we come to the full-fledged establishment of mechanical objectivity as the ideal of scientific representation. What we find is that the image, as standard bearer of is objectivity is tied to a relentless search to replace individual volition and discretion in depiction by the invariable routines of mechanical reproduction. (Daston and Galison 1992: 98)

Mechanical objectivity reduces the importance of human contributions to scientific results to a minimum, and therefore enables science to proceed on a large scale where bonds of trust between individuals can no longer hold (Daston 1992). Trust in mechanical procedures thus replaces trust in individual scientists.

In his book Trust in Numbers , Theodore Porter pursues this line of thought in great detail. In particular, on the basis of case studies involving British actuaries in the mid-nineteenth century, of French state engineers throughout the century, and of the US Army Corps of Engineers from 1920 to 1960, he argues for two causal claims. First, measurement instruments and quantitative procedures originate in commercial and administrative needs and affect the ways in which the natural and social sciences are practiced, not the other way around. The mushrooming of instruments such as chemical balances, barometers, chronometers was largely a result of social pressures and the demands of democratic societies. Administering large territories or controlling diverse people and processes is not always possible on the basis of personal trust and thus “objective procedures” (which do not require trust in persons) took the place of “subjective judgments” (which do). Second, he argues that quantification is a technology of distrust and weakness, and not of strength. It is weak administrators who do not have the social status, political support or professional solidarity to defend their experts’ judgments. They therefore subject decisions to public scrutiny, which means that they must be made in a publicly accessible form.

This is the situation in which scientists who work in areas where the science/policy boundary is fluid find themselves:

The National Academy of Sciences has accepted the principle that scientists should declare their conflicts of interest and financial holdings before offering policy advice, or even information to the government. And while police inspections of notebooks remain exceptional, the personal and financial interests of scientists and engineers are often considered material, especially in legal and regulatory contexts. Strategies of impersonality must be understood partly as defenses against such suspicions […]. Objectivity means knowledge that does not depend too much on the particular individuals who author it. (Porter 1995: 229)

Measurement and quantification help to reduce the influence of personal biases and idiosyncrasies and they reduce the need to trust the scientist or government official, but often at a cost. Standardizing scientific procedures becomes difficult when their subject matters are not homogeneous, and few domains outside fundamental physics are. Attempts to quantify procedures for treatment and policy decisions that we find in evidence-based practices are currently transferred to a variety of sciences such as medicine, nursing, psychology, education and social policy. However, they often lack a certain degree of responsiveness to the peculiarities of their subjects and the local conditions to which they are applied (see also section 5.3 ).

Moreover, the measurement and quantification of characteristics of scientific interest is only half of the story. We also want to describe relations between the quantities and make inferences using statistical analysis. Statistics thus helps to quantify further aspects of scientific work. We will now examine whether or not statistical analysis can proceed in a way free from personal biases and idiosyncrasies—for more detail, see the entry on philosophy of statistics .

4.2 Statistical Evidence

The appraisal of scientific evidence is traditionally regarded as a domain of scientific reasoning where the ideal of scientific objectivity has strong normative force, and where it is also well-entrenched in scientific practice. Episodes such as Galilei’s observations of the Jupiter moons, Lavoisier’s calcination experiments, and Eddington’s observation of the 1919 eclipse are found in all philosophy of science textbooks because they exemplify how evidence can be persuasive and compelling to scientists with different backgrounds. The crucial question is therefore: can we identify an “objective” concept of scientific evidence that is independent of the personal biases of the experimenter and interpreter?

Inferential statistics—the field that investigates the validity of inferences from data to theory—tries to answer this question. It is extremely influential in modern science, pervading experimental research as well as the assessment and acceptance of our most fundamental theories. For instance, a statistical argument helped to establish the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson. We now compare the main theories of statistical evidence with respect to the objectivity of the claims they produce. They mainly differ with respect to the role of an explicitly subjective interpretation of probability.

Bayesian inference quantifies scientific evidence by means of probabilities that are interpreted as a scientist’s subjective degrees of belief. The Bayesian thus leaves behind Carnap’s (1950) idea that probability is determined by a logical relation between sentences. For example, the prior degree of belief in hypothesis \(H\), written \(p(H)\), can in principle take any value in the interval \([0,1]\). Simultaneously held degrees of belief in different hypotheses are, however, constrained by the laws of probability. After learning evidence E, the degree of belief in \(H\) is changed from its prior probability \(p(H)\) to the conditional degree of belief \(p(H \mid E)\), commonly called the posterior probability of \(H\). Both quantities can be related to each other by means of Bayes’ Theorem .

These days, the Bayesian approach is extremely influential in philosophy and rapidly gaining ground across all scientific disciplines. For quantifying evidence for a hypothesis, Bayesian statisticians almost uniformly use the Bayes factor , that is, the ratio of prior to posterior odds in favor of a hypothesis. The Bayes factor in favor of hypothesis \(H\) against its negation \(\neg\)\(H\) in the light of evidence \(E\) can be written as

or in other words, as the likelihood ratio between \(H\) and \(\neg\)\(H\). The Bayes factor reduces to the likelihoodist conception of evidence (Royall 1997) for the case of two competing point hypotheses. For further discussion of Bayesian measures of evidence, see Good (1950), Sprenger and Hartmann (2019: ch. 1) and the entry on confirmation and evidential support .

Unsurprisingly, the idea to measure scientific evidence in terms of subjective probability has met resistance. For example, the statistician Ronald A. Fisher (1935: 6–7) has argued that measuring psychological tendencies cannot be relevant for scientific inquiry and sustain claims to objectivity. Indeed, how should scientific objectivity square with subjective degree of belief? Bayesians have responded to this challenge in various ways:

Howson (2000) and Howson and Urbach (2006) consider the objection misplaced. In the same way that deductive logic does not judge the correctness of the premises but just advises you what to infer from them, Bayesian inductive logic provides rational rules for representing uncertainty and making inductive inferences. Choosing the premises (e.g., the prior distributions) “objectively” falls outside the scope of Bayesian analysis.

Convergence or merging-of-opinion theorems guarantee that under certain circumstances, agents with very different initial attitudes who observe the same evidence will obtain similar posterior degrees of belief in the long run. However, they are asymptotic results without direct implications for inference with real-life datasets (see also Earman 1992: ch. 6). In such cases, the choice of the prior matters, and it may be beset with idiosyncratic bias and manifest social values.

Adopting a more modest stance, Sprenger (2018) accepts that Bayesian inference does not achieve the goal of objectivity in the sense of intersubjective agreement (concordant objectivity), or being free of personal values, bias and subjective judgment. However, he argues that competing schools of inference such as frequentist inference face this problem to the same degree, perhaps even worse. Moreover, some features of Bayesian inference (e.g., the transparency about prior assumptions) fit recent, socially oriented conceptions of objectivity that we discuss in section 5 .

A radical Bayesian solution to the problem of personal bias is to adopt a principle that radically constrains an agent’s rational degrees of belief, such as the Principle of Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt—Jaynes 1968; Williamson 2010). According to MaxEnt, degrees of belief must be probabilistic and in sync with empirical constraints, but conditional on these constraints, they must be equivocal, that is, as middling as possible. This latter constraint amounts to maximizing the entropy of the probability distribution in question. The MaxEnt approach eliminates various sources of subjective bias at the expense of narrowing down the range of rational degrees of belief. An alternative objective Bayesian solution consists in so-called “objective priors” : prior probabilities that do not represent an agent’s factual attitudes, but are determined by principles of symmetry, mathematical convenience or maximizing the influence of the data on the posterior (e.g., Jeffreys 1939 [1980]; Bernardo 2012).

Thus, Bayesian inference, which analyzes statistical evidence from the vantage point of rational belief, provides only a partial answer to securing scientific objectivity from personal idiosyncrasy.

The frequentist conception of evidence is based on the idea of the statistical test of a hypothesis . Under the influence of the statisticians Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, tests were often regarded as rational decision procedures that minimize the relative frequency of wrong decisions in a hypothetical series of repetitions of a test (hence the name “frequentism”). Rudner’s argument in section 3.2 has pointed out the limits of this conception of hypothesis tests: the choice of thresholds for acceptance and rejection (i.e., the acceptable type I and II error rates) may reflect contextual value judgments and personal bias. Moreover, the losses associated with erroneously accepting or rejecting that hypothesis depend on the context of application which may be unbeknownst to the experimenter.

Alternatively, scientists can restrict themselves to a purely evidential interpretation of hypothesis tests and leave decisions to policy-makers and regulatory agencies. The statistician and biologist R.A. Fisher (1935, 1956) proposed what later became the orthodox quantification of evidence in frequentist statistics. Suppose a “null” or default hypothesis \(H_0\) denotes that an intervention has zero effect. If the observed data are “extreme” under \(H_0\)—i.e., if it was highly likely to observe a result that agrees better with \(H_0\)—the data provide evidence against the null hypothesis and for the efficacy of the intervention. The epistemological rationale is connected to the idea of severe testing (Mayo 1996): if the intervention were ineffective, we would, in all likelihood, have found data that agree better with the null hypothesis. The strength of evidence against \(H_0\) is equal to the \(p\)-value : the lower it is, the stronger evidence \(E\) speaks against the null hypothesis \(H_0\).

Unlike Bayes factors, this concept of statistical evidence does not depend on personal degrees of belief. However, this does not necessarily mean that \(p\)-values are more objective. First, \(p\)-values are usually classified as “non-significant” (\(p > .05\)), “significant” (\(p < .05\)), “highly significant”, and so on. Not only that these thresholds and labels are largely arbitrary, they also promote publication bias : non-significant findings are often classified as “failed studies” (i.e., the efficacy of the intervention could not be shown), rarely published and end up in the proverbial “file drawer”. Much valuable research is suppressed. Conversely, significant findings may often occur when the null hypothesis is actually true, especially when researchers have been “hunting for significance”. In fact, researchers have an incentive to keep their \(p\)-values low: the stronger the evidence, the more convincing the narrative, the greater the impact—and the higher the chance for a good publication and career-relevant rewards. Moving the goalpost by “p-hacking” outcomes—for example by eliminating outliers, selective reporting or restricting the analysis to a subgroup—evidently biases the research results and compromises the objectivity of experimental research.

In particular, such questionable research practices (QRP) increase the type I error rate, which measures the rate at which false hypotheses are accepted, substantially over its nominal 5% level and contribute to publication bias (Bakker et al. 2012). Ioannidis (2005) concludes that “most published research findings are false”—they are the combined result of a low base rate of effective causal interventions, the file drawer effect and the widespread presence of questionable research practices. The frequentist logic of hypothesis testing aggravates the problem because it provides a framework where all these biases can easily enter (Ziliak and McCloskey 2008; Sprenger 2016). These radical conclusions are also confirmed by empirical findings: in many disciplines researchers fail to replicate findings by other scientific teams. See section 5.1 for more detail.

Summing up our findings, neither of the two major frameworks of statistical inference manages to eliminate all sources of personal bias and idiosyncrasy. The Bayesian considers subjective assumptions to be an irreducible part of scientific reasoning and sees no harm in making them explicit. The frequentist conception of evidence based on \(p\)-values avoids these explicitly subjective elements, but at the price of a misleading impression of objectivity and frequent abuse in practice. A defense of frequentist inference should, in our opinion, stress that the relatively rigid rules for interpreting statistical evidence facilitate communication and assessment of research results in the scientific community—something that is harder to achieve for a Bayesian. We now turn from specific methods for stating and interpreting evidence to a radical criticism of the idea that there is a rational scientific method.

In his writings of the 1970s, Paul Feyerabend launched a profound attack on the rationality and objectivity of scientific method. His position is exceptional in the philosophical literature since traditionally, the threat for objective and successful science is located in contextual rather than epistemic values. Feyerabend turns this view upside down: it is the “tyranny” of rational method, and the emphasis on epistemic rather than contextual values that prevents us from having a science in the service of society. Moreover, he welcomes a diversity of different personal, also idiosyncratic perspectives, thus denying the idea that freedom from personal “bias” is epistemically and socially beneficial.

The starting point of Feyerabend’s criticism of rational method is the thesis that strict epistemic rules such as those expressed by the VFI only suppress an open exchange of ideas, extinguish scientific creativity and prevent a free and truly democratic science. In his classic “Against Method” (1975: chs. 8–13), Feyerabend elaborates on this criticism by examining a famous episode in the history of science. When the Catholic Church objected to Galilean mechanics, it had the better arguments by the standards of seventeenth-century science. Their conservatism in their position was scientifically backed: Galilei’s telescopes were unreliable for celestial observations, and many well-established phenomena (no fixed star parallax, invariance of laws of motion) could not yet be explained in the heliocentric system. With hindsight, Galilei managed to achieve groundbreaking scientific progress just because he deliberately violated rules of scientific reasoning. Hence Feyerabend’s dictum “Anything goes”: no methodology whatsoever is able to capture the creative and often irrational ways by which science deepens our understanding of the world. Good scientific reasoning cannot be captured by rational method, as Carnap, Hempel and Popper postulated.

The drawbacks of an objective, value-free and method-bound view on science and scientific method are not only epistemic. Such a view narrows down our perspective and makes us less free, open-minded, creative, and ultimately, less human in our thinking (Feyerabend 1975: 154). It is therefore neither possible nor desirable to have an objective, value-free science (cf. Feyerabend 1978: 78–79). As a consequence, Feyerabend sees traditional forms of inquiry about our world (e.g., Chinese medicine) on a par with their Western competitors. He denounces appeals to “objective” standards as rhetorical tools for bolstering the epistemic authority of a small intellectual elite (=Western scientists), and as barely disguised statements of preference for one’s own worldview:

there is hardly any difference between the members of a “primitive” tribe who defend their laws because they are the laws of the gods […] and a rationalist who appeals to “objective” standards, except that the former know what they are doing while the latter does not. (1978: 82)

In particular, when discussing other traditions, we often project our own worldview and value judgments into them instead of making an impartial comparison (1978: 80–83). There is no purely rational justification for dismissing other perspectives in favor of the Western scientific worldview—the insistence on our Western approach may be as justified as insisting on absolute space and time after the Theory of Relativity.

The Galilei example also illustrates that personal perspective and idiosyncratic “bias” need not be bad for science. Feyerabend argues further that scientific research is accountable to society and should be kept in check by democratic institutions, and laymen in particular. Their particular perspectives can help to determine the funding agenda and to set ethical standards for scientific inquiry, but also be useful for traditionally value-free tasks such as choosing an appropriate research method and assessing scientific evidence. Feyerabend’s writings on this issue were much influenced by witnessing the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. and the increasing emancipation of minorities, such as Blacks, Asians and Hispanics.

All this is not meant to say that truth loses its function as a normative concept, nor that all scientific claims are equally acceptable. Rather, Feyerabend advocates an epistemic pluralism that accepts diverse approaches to acquiring knowledge. Rather than defending a narrow and misleading ideal of objectivity, science should respect the diversity of values and traditions that drive our inquiries about the world (1978: 106–107). This would put science back into the role it had during the scientific revolution or the Enlightenment: as a liberating force that fought intellectual and political oppression by the sovereign, the nobility or the clergy. Objections to this view are discussed at the end of section 5.2 .

5. Objectivity as a Feature of Scientific Communities and Their Practices

This section addresses various accounts that regard scientific objectivity essentially as a function of social practices in science and the social organization of the scientific community. All these accounts reject the characterization of scientific objectivity as a function of correspondence between theories and the world, as a feature of individual reasoning practices, or as pertaining to individual studies and experiments (see also Douglas 2011). Instead, they evaluate the objectivity of a collective of studies, as well as the methods and community practices that structure and guide scientific research. More precisely, they adopt a meta-analytic perspective for assessing the reliability of scientific results (section 5.1), and they construct objectivity from a feminist perspective: as an open interchange of mutual criticism, or as being anchored in the “situatedness” of our scientific practices and the knowledge we gain ( section 5.2 ).

The collectivist perspective is especially useful when an entire discipline enters a stage of crisis: its members become convinced that a significant proportion of findings are not trustworthy. A contemporary example of such a situation is the replication crisis , which was briefly mentioned in the previous section and concerns the reproducibility of scientific knowledge claims in a variety of different fields (most prominently: psychology, biology, medicine). Large-scale replication projects have noticed that many findings which we considered as an integral part of scientific knowledge failed to replicate in settings that were designed to mimic the original experiment as closely as possible (e.g., Open Science Collaboration 2015). Successful attempts at replicating an experimental result have long been argued to provide evidence of freedom from particular kinds of artefacts and thus the trustworthiness of the result. Compare the entry on experiment in physics . Likewise, failure to replicate indicates that either the original finding, the result of the replication attempt, or both, are biased—though see John Norton’s (ms., ch. 3—see Other Internet Resources) arguments that the evidential value of (failed) replications crucially depends on researchers’ material background assumptions.

When replication failures in a discipline are particularly significant, one may conclude that the published literature lacks objectivity—at a minimum the discipline fails to inspire trust that its findings are more than artefacts of the researchers’ efforts. Conversely, when observed effects can be replicated in follow-up experiments, a kind of objectivity is reached that goes beyond the ideas of freedom from personal bias, mechanical objectivity, and subject-independent measurement, discussed in section 4.1 .

Freese and Peterson (2018) call this idea statistical objectivity . It grounds in the view that even the most scrupulous and diligent researchers cannot achieve full objectivity all by themselves. The term “objectivity” instead applies to a collection or population of studies, with meta-analysis (a formal method for aggregating the results from ranges of studies) as the “apex of objectivity” (Freese and Peterson 2018, 304; see also Stegenga 2011, 2018). In particular, aggregating studies from different researchers may provide evidence of systematic bias and questionable research practices (QRP) in the published literature. This diagnostic function of meta-analysis for detecting violations of objectivity is enhanced by statistical techniques such as the funnel plot and the \(p\)-curve (Simonsohn et al. 2014).

Apart from this epistemic dimension, research on statistical objectivity also has an activist dimension: methodologists urge researchers to make publicly available essential parts of their research before the data analysis starts, and to make their methods and data sources more transparent. For example, it is conjectured that the replicability (and thus objectivity) of science will increase by making all data available online, by preregistering experiments, and by using the registered reports model for journal articles (i.e., the journal decides on publication before data collection on the basis of the significance of the proposed research as well as the experimental design). The idea is that transparency about the data set and the experimental design will make it easier to stage a replication of an experiment and to assess its methodological quality. Moreover, publicly committing to a data analysis plan beforehand will lower the rate of QRPs and of attempts to accommodate data to hypotheses rather than making proper predictions.

All in all, statistical objectivity moves the discussion of objectivity to the level of population of studies. There, it takes up and modifies several conceptions of objectivity that we have seen before: most prominently, freedom of subjective bias, which is replaced with collective bias and pernicious conventions, and the subject-independent measurement of a physical quantity, which is replaced by reproducibility of effects.

Traditional notions of objectivity as faithfulness to facts or freedom of contextual values have also been challenged from a feminist perspective. These critiques can be grouped in three major research programs: feminist epistemology, feminist standpoint theory and feminist postmodernism (Crasnow 2013). The program of feminist epistemology explores the impact of sex and gender on the production of scientific knowledge. More precisely, feminist epistemology highlights the epistemic risks resulting from the systematic exclusion of women from the ranks of scientists, and the neglect of women as objects of study. Prominent case studies are the neglect of female orgasm in biology, testing medical drugs on male participants only, focusing on male specimen when studying the social behavior of primates, and explaining human mating patterns by means of imaginary neolithic societies (e.g., Hrdy 1977; Lloyd 1993, 2005). See also the entry on feminist philosophy of biology .

Often but not always, feminist epistemologists go beyond pointing out what they regard as androcentric bias and reject the value-free ideal altogether—with an eye on the social and moral responsibility of scientific inquiry. They try to show that a value-laden science can also meet important criteria for being epistemically reliable and objective (e.g., Anderson 2004; Kourany 2010). A classical representative of such efforts is Longino’s (1990) contextual empiricism . She reinforces Popper’s insistence that “the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested” (1934 [2002]: 22), but unlike Popper, she conceives scientific knowledge essentially as a social product. Thus, our conception of scientific objectivity must directly engage with the social process that generates knowledge. Longino assigns a crucial function to social systems of criticism in securing the epistemic success of science. Specifically, she develops an epistemology which regards a method of inquiry as “objective to the degree that it permits transformative criticism ” (Longino 1990: 76). For an epistemic community to achieve transformative criticism, there must be:

avenues for criticism : criticism is an essential part of scientific institutions (e.g., peer review);

shared standards : the community must share a set of cognitive values for assessing theories (more on this in section 3.1 );

uptake of criticism : criticism must be able to transform scientific practice in the long run;

equality of intellectual authority : intellectual authority must be shared equally among qualified practitioners.

Longino’s contextual empiricism can be understood as a development of John Stuart Mill’s view that beliefs should never be suppressed, independently of whether they are true or false. Even the most implausible beliefs might be true, and even if they are false, they might contain a grain of truth which is worth preserving or helps to better articulate true beliefs (Mill 1859 [2003: 72]). The underlying intuition is supported by recent empirical research on the epistemic benefits of a diversity of opinions and perspectives (Page 2007). By stressing the social nature of scientific knowledge, and the importance of criticism (e.g., with respect to potential androcentric bias and inclusive practice), Longino’s account fits into the broader project of feminist epistemology.

Standpoint theory undertakes a more radical attack on traditional scientific objectivity. This view develops Marxist ideas to the effect that epistemic position is related to, and a product of, social position. Feminist standpoint theory builds on these ideas but focuses on gender, racial and other social relations. Feminist standpoint theorists and proponents of “situated knowledge” such as Donna Haraway (1988), Sandra Harding (1991, 2015a, 2015b) and Alison Wylie (2003) deny the internal coherence of a view from nowhere: all human knowledge is at base human knowledge and therefore necessarily perspectival. But they argue more than that. Not only is perspectivality the human condition, it is also a good thing to have. This is because perspectives, especially the perspectives of underprivileged classes and groups in society, come along with epistemic benefits. These ideas are controversial but they draw attention to the possibility that attempts to rid science of perspectives might not only be futile but also costly: they prevent scientists from having the epistemic benefits certain standpoints afford and from developing knowledge for marginalized groups in society. The perspectival stance can also explain why criteria for objectivity often vary with context: the relative importance of epistemic virtues is a matter of goals and interests—in other words, standpoint.

By endorsing a perspectival stance, feminist standpoint theory rejects classical elements of scientific objectivity such as neutrality and impartiality (see section 3.1 above). This is a notable difference to feminist epistemology, which is in principle (though not always in practice) compatible with traditional views of objectivity. Feminist standpoint theory is also a political project. For example, Harding (1991, 1993) demands that scientists, their communities and their practices—in other words, the ways through which knowledge is gained—be investigated as rigorously as the object of knowledge itself. This idea she refers to as “strong objectivity” replaces the “weak” conception of objectivity in the empiricist tradition: value-freedom, impartiality, rigorous adherence to methods of testing and inference. Like Feyerabend, Harding integrates a transformation of epistemic standards in science into a broader political project of rendering science more democratic and inclusive. On the other hand, she is exposed to similar objections (see also Haack 2003). Isn’t it grossly exaggerated to identify class, race and gender as important factors in the construction of physical theories? Doesn’t the feminist approach—like social constructivist approaches—lose sight of the particular epistemic qualities of science? Should non-scientists really have as much authority as trained scientists? To whom does the condition of equally shared intellectual authority apply? Nor is it clear—especially in times of fake news and filter bubbles—whether it is always a good idea to subject scientific results to democratic approval. There is no guarantee (arguably there are few good reasons to believe) that democratized or standpoint-based science leads to more reliable theories, or better decisions for society as a whole.

6. Issues in the Special Sciences

So far everything we discussed was meant to apply across all or at least most of the sciences. In this section we will look at a number of specific issues that arise in the social sciences, in economics, and in evidence-based medicine.

There is a long tradition in the philosophy of social science maintaining that there is a gulf in terms of both goals as well as methods between the natural and the social sciences. This tradition, associated with thinkers such as the neo-Kantians Heinrich Rickert and Wilhelm Windelband, the hermeneuticist Wilhelm Dilthey, the sociologist-economist Max Weber, and the twentieth-century hermeneuticists Hans-Georg Gadamer and Michael Oakeshott, holds that unlike the natural sciences whose aim it is to establish natural laws and which proceed by experimentation and causal analysis, the social sciences seek understanding (“ Verstehen ”) of social phenomena, the interpretive examination of the meanings individuals attribute to their actions (Weber 1904 [1949]; Weber 1917 [1949]; Dilthey 1910 [1986]; Windelband 1915; Rickert 1929; Oakeshott 1933; Gadamer 1960 [1989]). See also the entries on hermeneutics and Max Weber .

Understood this way, social science lacks objectivity in more than one sense. One of the more important debates concerning objectivity in the social sciences concerns the role value judgments play and, importantly, whether value-laden research entails claims about the desirability of actions. Max Weber held that the social sciences are necessarily value laden. However, they can achieve some degree of objectivity by keeping out the social researcher’s views about whether agents’ goals are commendable. In a similar vein, contemporary economics can be said to be value laden because it predicts and explains social phenomena on the basis of agents’ preferences. Nevertheless, economists are adamant that economists are not in the business of telling people what they ought to value. Modern economics is thus said to be objective in the Weberian sense of “absence of researchers’ values” —a conception that we discussed in detail in section 3 .

In his widely cited essay “‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy” (Weber 1904 [1949]), Weber argued that the idea of an aperspectival social science was meaningless:

There is no absolutely objective scientific analysis of […] “social phenomena” independent of special and “one-sided” viewpoints according to which expressly or tacitly, consciously or unconsciously they are selected, analyzed and organized for expository purposes. (1904 [1949: 72]) All knowledge of cultural reality, as may be seen, is always knowledge from particular points of view. (1904 [1949:. 81])

The reason for this is twofold. First, social reality is too complex to admit of full description and explanation. So we have to select. But, perhaps in contraposition to the natural sciences, we cannot just select those aspects of the phenomena that fall under universal natural laws and treat everything else as “unintegrated residues” (1904 [1949: 73]). This is because, second, in the social sciences we want to understand social phenomena in their individuality, that is, in their unique configurations that have significance for us.

Values solve a selection problem. They tell us what research questions we ought to address because they inform us about the cultural importance of social phenomena:

Only a small portion of existing concrete reality is colored by our value-conditioned interest and it alone is significant to us. It is significant because it reveals relationships which are important to use due to their connection with our values. (1904 [1949: 76])

It is important to note that Weber did not think that social and natural science were different in kind, as Dilthey and others did. Social science too examines the causes of phenomena of interest, and natural science too often seeks to explain natural phenomena in their individual constellations. The role of causal laws is different in the two fields, however. Whereas establishing a causal law is often an end in itself in the natural sciences, in the social sciences laws play an attenuated and accompanying role as mere means to explain cultural phenomena in their uniqueness.

Nevertheless, for Weber social science remains objective in at least two ways. First, once research questions of interest have been settled, answers about the causes of culturally significant phenomena do not depend on the idiosyncrasies of an individual researcher:

But it obviously does not follow from this that research in the cultural sciences can only have results which are “subjective” in the sense that they are valid for one person and not for others. […] For scientific truth is precisely what is valid for all who seek the truth. (Weber 1904 [1949: 84], emphasis original)

The claims of social science can therefore be objective in our third sense ( see section 4 ). Moreover, by determining that a given phenomenon is “culturally significant” a researcher reflects on whether or not a practice is “meaningful” or “important”, and not whether or not it is commendable: “Prostitution is a cultural phenomenon just as much as religion or money” (1904 [1949: 81]). An important implication of this view came to the fore in the so-called “ Werturteilsstreit ” (quarrel concerning value judgments) of the early 1900s. In this debate, Weber maintained against the “socialists of the lectern” around Gustav Schmoller the position that social scientists qua scientists should not be directly involved in policy debates because it was not the aim of science to examine the appropriateness of ends. Given a policy goal, a social scientist could make recommendations about effective strategies to reach the goal; but social science was to be value-free in the sense of not taking a stance on the desirability of the goals themselves. This leads us to our conception of objectivity as freedom from value judgments.

Contemporary mainstream economists hold a view concerning objectivity that mirrors Max Weber’s (see above). On the one hand, it is clear that value judgments are at the heart of economic theorizing. “Preferences” are a key concept of rational choice theory, the main theory in contemporary mainstream economics. Preferences are evaluations. If an individual prefers \(A\) to \(B\), she values \(A\) higher than \(B\) (Hausman 2012). Thus, to the extent that economists predict and explain market behavior in terms of rational choice theory, they predict and explain market behavior in a way laden with value judgments.

However, economists are not themselves supposed to take a stance about whether or not whatever individuals value is also “objectively” good in a stronger sense:

[…] that an agent is rational from [rational choice theory]’s point of view does not mean that the course of action she will choose is objectively optimal. Desires do not have to align with any objective measure of “goodness”: I may want to risk swimming in a crocodile-infested lake; I may desire to smoke or drink even though I know it harms me. Optimality is determined by the agent’s desires, not the converse. (Paternotte 2011: 307–8)

In a similar vein, Gul and Pesendorfer write:

However, standard economics has no therapeutic ambition, i.e., it does not try to evaluate or improve the individual’s objectives. Economics cannot distinguish between choices that maximize happiness, choices that reflect a sense of duty, or choices that are the response to some impulse. Moreover, standard economics takes no position on the question of which of those objectives the agent should pursue. (Gul and Pesendorfer 2008: 8)

According to the standard view, all that rational choice theory demands is that people’s preferences are (internally) consistent; it has no business in telling people what they ought to prefer, whether their preferences are consistent with external norms or values. Economics is thus value-laden, but laden with the values of the agents whose behavior it seeks to predict and explain and not with the values of those who seek to predict and explain this behavior.

Whether or not social science, and economics in particular, can be objective in this—Weber’s and the contemporary economists’—sense is controversial. On the one hand, there are some reasons to believe that rational choice theory (which is at work not only in economics but also in political science and other social sciences) cannot be applied to empirical phenomena without referring to external norms or values (Sen 1993; Reiss 2013).

On the other hand, it is not clear that economists and other social scientists qua social scientists shouldn’t participate in a debate about social goals. For one thing, trying to do welfare analysis in the standard Weberian way tends to obscure rather than to eliminate normative commitments (Putnam and Walsh 2007). Obscuring value judgments can be detrimental to the social scientist as policy adviser because it will hamper rather than promote trust in social science. For another, economists are in a prime position to contribute to ethical debates, for a variety of reasons, and should therefore take this responsibility seriously (Atkinson 2001).

The same demands calling for “mechanical objectivity” in the natural sciences and quantification in the social and policy sciences in the nineteenth century and mid-twentieth century are responsible for a recent movement in biomedical research, which, even more recently, have swept to contemporary social science and policy. Early proponents of so-called “evidence-based medicine” made their pursuit of a downplay of the “human element” in medicine plain:

Evidence-based medicine de-emphasizes intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiological rationale as sufficient grounds for clinical decision making and stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research. (Guyatt et al. 1992: 2420)

To call the new movement “evidence-based” is a misnomer strictly speaking, as intuition, clinical experience and pathophysiological rationale can certainly constitute evidence. But proponents of evidence-based practices have a much narrower concept of evidence in mind: analyses of the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This movement is now very strong in biomedical research, development economics and a number of areas of social science, especially psychology, education and social policy, and especially in the English speaking world.

The goal is to replace subjective (biased, error-prone, idiosyncratic) judgments by mechanically objective methods. But, as in other areas, attempting to mechanize inquiry can lead to reduced accuracy and utility of the results.

Causal relations in the social and biomedical sciences hold on account of highly complex arrangements of factors and conditions. Whether for instance a substance is toxic depends on details of the metabolic system of the population ingesting it, and whether an educational policy is effective on the constellation of factors that affect the students’ learning progress. If an RCT was conducted successfully, the conclusion about the effectiveness of the treatment (or toxicity of a substance) under test is certain for the particular arrangement of factors and conditions of the trial (Cartwright 2007). But unlike the RCT itself, many of whose aspects can be (relatively) mechanically implemented, applying the result to a new setting (recommending a treatment to a patient, for instance) always involves subjective judgments of the kind proponents of evidence-based practices seek to avoid—such as judgments about the similarity of the test to the target or policy population.

On the other hand, RCTs can be regarded as “debiasing procedure” because they prevent researchers from allocating treatments to patients according to their personal interests, so that the healthiest (or smartest or…) subjects get the researcher’s favorite therapy. While unbalanced allocations can certainly happen by chance, randomization still provides some warrant that the allocation was not done on purpose with a view to promoting somebody’s interests. A priori , the experimental procedure is thus more impartial with respect to the interests at stake. It has thus been argued that RCTs in medicine, while no guarantor of the best outcomes, were adopted by the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to different degrees during the 1960s and 1970s in order to regain public trust in its decisions about treatments, which it had lost due to the thalidomide and other scandals (Teira and Reiss 2013; Teira 2010). It is important to notice, however, that randomization is at best effective with respect to one kind of bias, viz. selection bias. Important other epistemic concerns are not addressed by the procedure but should not be ignored (Worrall 2002).

In sections 2–5, we have encountered various concepts of scientific objectivity and their limitations. This prompts the question of how unified (or disunified) scientific objectivity is as a concept: Is there something substantive shared by all of these analyses? Or is objectivity, as Heather Douglas (2004) puts it, an “irreducibly complex” concept?

Douglas defends pluralism about scientific objectivity and distinguishes three areas of application of the concept: (1) interaction of humans with the world, (2) individual reasoning processes, (3) social processes in science. Within each area, there are various distinct senses which are again irreducible to each other and do not have a common core meaning. This does not mean that the senses are unrelated; they share a complex web of relationships and can also support each other—for example, eliminating values from reasoning may help to achieve procedural objectivity. For Douglas, reducing objectivity to a single core meaning would be a simplification without benefits; instead of a complex web of relations between different senses of objectivity we would obtain an impoverished concept out of touch with scientific practice. Similar arguments and pluralist accounts can be found in Megill (1994), Janack (2002) and Padovani et al. (2015)—see also Axtell (2016).

It has been argued, however, that pluralist approaches give up too quickly on the idea that the different senses of objectivity share one or several important common elements. As we have seen in section 4.1 and 5.1 , scientific objectivity and trust in science are closely connected. Scientific objectivity is desirable because to the extent that science is objective we have reasons trust scientists, their results and recommendations (cf. Fine 1998: 18). Thus, perhaps what is unifying among the difference senses of objectivity is that each sense describes a feature of scientific practice that is able to inspire trust in science.

Building on this idea, Inkeri Koskinen has recently argued that it is in fact not trust but reliance that we are after (Koskinen forthcoming). Trust is something that can be betrayed, but only individuals can betray whereas objectivity pertains to institutions, practices, results, etc. We call scientific institutions, practices, results, etc. objective to the extent that we have reasons to rely on them. The analysis does not stop here, however. There is a distinct view about objectivity that is behind Daston and Galison’s historical epistemology of the concept and has been defended by Ian Hacking: that objectivity is not a—positive—virtue but rather the absence of this or that vice (Hacking 2015: 26). Speaking of objectivity in imaging, for instance, Daston and Galison write that the goal is to

let the specimen appear without that distortion characteristic of the observer’s personal tastes, commitments, or ambitions. (Daston and Galison 2007: 121)

Koskinen picks up this idea of objectivity as absence of vice and argues that it is specifically the aversion of epistemic risks for which the term is reserved. Epistemic risks comprise “any risk of epistemic error that arises anywhere during knowledge practices’ (Biddle and Kukla 2017: 218) such as the risk of having mistaken beliefs, the risk of errors in reasoning and risks related to operationalization, concept formation, and model choice. Koskinen argues that only those epistemic risks that relate to failings of scientists as human beings are relevant to objectivity (Koskinen forthcoming: 13):

For instance, when the results of an experiment are incorrect because of malfunctioning equipment, we do not worry about objectivity—we just say that the results should not be taken into account. [...] So it is only when the epistemic risk is related to our own failings, and is hard to avert, that we start talking about objectivity. Illusions, subjectivity, idiosyncrasies, and collective biases are important epistemic risks arising from our imperfections as epistemic agents.

Koskinen understands her account as a response to Hacking’s (2015) criticism that we should stop talking about objectivity altogether. According to Hacking, “objectivity” is an “elevator” or second-level word, similar to “true” or “real”—“Instead of saying that the cat is on the mat, we move up one story and and say that it is true that the cat is on the mat” (2015: 20). He recommends to stick to ground-level questions and worry about whether specific sources of error have been controlled. (A similar elimination request with respect to the labels “objective” and “subjective” in statistical inference has been advanced by Gelman and Hennig (2017).) In focussing on averting specific epistemic risks, Koskinen’s account does precisely that. Koskinen argues that a unified account of objectivity as averting epistemic risks takes into account Hacking’s negative stance and explains at the same time important features of the concept—for example, why objectivity does not imply certainty and why it varies with context.

The strong point of this account is that none of the threats to a peculiar analysis puts scientific objectivity at risk. We can (and in fact, we do) rely on scientific practices that represent the world from a perspective and where non-epistemic values affect outcomes and decisions. What is left open by Koskinen’s account is the normative question of what a scientist who cares about her experiments and inferences being objective should actually do. That is, the philosophical ideas we have reviewed in this section stay mainly on the descriptive level and do not give an actual guideline for working scientists. Connecting the abstract philosophical analysis to day-to-day work in science remains an open problem.

So is scientific objectivity desirable? Is it attainable? That, as we have seen, depends crucially on how the term is understood. We have looked in detail at four different conceptions of scientific objectivity: faithfulness to facts, value-freedom, freedom from personal biases, and features of community practices. In each case, there are at least some reasons to believe that either science cannot deliver full objectivity in this sense, or that it would not be a good thing to try to do so, or both. Does this mean we should give up the idea of objectivity in science?

We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere, value freedom, or freedom from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter. Perhaps it is related to a thorough critical attitude concerning claims and findings, as Popper thought. Perhaps it is the fact that many voices are heard, equally respected and subjected to accepted standards, as Longino defends. Perhaps it is something else altogether, or a combination of several factors discussed in this article.

However, one should not (as yet) throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like those who defend a particular explication of scientific objectivity, the critics struggle to explain what makes science objective, trustworthy and special. For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although entirely “unbiased” scientific procedures may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference, being transparent about different stages of the research process and avoiding certain questionable research practices.

Whatever it is, it should come as no surprise that finding a positive characterization of what makes science objective is hard. If we knew an answer, we would have done no less than solve the problem of induction (because we would know what procedures or forms of organization are responsible for the success of science). Work on this problem is an ongoing project, and so is the quest for understanding scientific objectivity.

• Anderson, Elizabeth, 2004, “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce”, Hypatia , 19(1): 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01266.x
• Atkinson, Anthony B., 2001, “The Strange Disappearance of Welfare Economics”, Kyklos , 54(2‐3): 193–206. doi:10.1111/1467-6435.00148
• Axtell, Guy, 2016, Objectivity , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Bakker, Marjan, Annette van Dijk, and Jelte M. Wicherts, 2012, “The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science”, Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7(6): 543–554. doi:10.1177/1745691612459060
• Bernardo, J.M., 2012, “Integrated Objective Bayesian Estimation and Hypothesis Testing”, in Bayesian Statistics 9: Proceedings of the Ninth Valencia Meeting , J.M. Bernardo et al. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–68.
• Betz, Gregor, 2013, “In Defence of the Value Free Ideal”, European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 3(2): 207–220. doi:10.1007/s13194-012-0062-x
• Biddle, Justin B., 2013, “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 44(1): 124–133. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.09.003
• Biddle, Justin B. and Rebecca Kukla, 2017, “The Geography of Epistemic Risk”, in Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science , Kevin C. Elliott and Ted Richards (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 215–238.
• Bloor, David, 1982, “Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 13(4): 267–297. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(82)90012-7
• Braithwaite, R. B., 1953, Scientific Explanation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Carnap, Rudolf, 1950 [1962], Logical Foundations of Probability , second edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Cartwright, Nancy, 2007, “Are RCTs the Gold Standard?”, BioSocieties , 2(1): 11–20. doi:10.1017/S1745855207005029
• Chang, Hasok, 2004, Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195171276.001.0001
• Churchman, C. West, 1948, Theory of Experimental Inference , New York: Macmillan.
• Collins, H. M., 1985, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1994, “A Strong Confirmation of the Experimenters’ Regress”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 25(3): 493–503. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(94)90063-9
• Cranor, Carl F., 1993, Regulating Toxic Substances: A Philosophy of Science and the Law , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Crasnow, Sharon, 2013, “Feminist Philosophy of Science: Values and Objectivity: Feminist Philosophy of Science”, Philosophy Compass , 8(4): 413–423. doi:10.1111/phc3.12023
• Daston, Lorraine, 1992, “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective”, Social Studies of Science , 22(4): 597–618. doi:10.1177/030631292022004002
• Daston, Lorraine and Peter Galison, 1992, “The Image of Objectivity”, Representations , 40(special issue: Seeing Science): 81–128. doi:10.2307/2928741
• –––, 2007, Objectivity , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Dilthey, Wilhelm, 1910 [1981], Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
• Dorato, Mauro, 2004, “Epistemic and Nonepistemic Values in Science”, in Machamer and Wolters 2004: 52–77.
• Douglas, Heather E., 2000, “Inductive Risk and Values in Science”, Philosophy of Science , 67(4): 559–579. doi:10.1086/392855
• –––, 2004, “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity”, Synthese , 138(3): 453–473. doi:10.1023/B:SYNT.0000016451.18182.91
• –––, 2009, Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal , Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• –––, 2011, “Facts, Values, and Objectivity”, Jarvie and Zamora Bonilla 2011: 513–529.
• Duhem, Pierre Maurice Marie, 1906 [1954], La théorie physique. Son objet et sa structure , Paris: Chevalier et Riviere; translated by Philip P. Wiener, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954.
• Dupré, John, 2007, “Fact and Value”, in Kincaid, Dupré, and Wylie 2007: 24–71.
• Earman, John, 1992, Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory , Cambridge/MA: The MIT Press. 
• Elliott, Kevin C., 2011, “Direct and Indirect Roles for Values in Science”, Philosophy of Science , 78(2): 303–324. doi:10.1086/659222
• Feyerabend, Paul K., 1962, “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism”, in H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (ed.), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time , (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 3), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 28–97.
• –––, 1975, Against Method , London: Verso.
• –––, 1978, Science in a Free Society , London: New Left Books.
• Fine, Arthur, 1998, “The Viewpoint of No-One in Particular”, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association , 72(2): 7. doi:10.2307/3130879
• Fisher, Ronald Aylmer, 1935, The Design of Experiments , Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
• –––, 1956, Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference , New York: Hafner.
• Franklin, Allan, 1994, “How to Avoid the Experimenters’ Regress”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 25(3): 463–491. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(94)90062-0
• –––, 1997, “Calibration”, Perspectives on Science , 5(1): 31–80.
• Freese, Jeremy and David Peterson, 2018, “The Emergence of Statistical Objectivity: Changing Ideas of Epistemic Vice and Virtue in Science”, Sociological Theory , 36(3): 289–313. doi:10.1177/0735275118794987
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 1960 [1989], Wahrheit und Methode , Tübingen : Mohr. Translated as Truth and Method , 2 nd edition, Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall (trans), New York, NY: Crossroad, 1989.
• Gelman, Andrew and Christian Hennig, 2017, “Beyond Subjective and Objective in Statistics”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) , 180(4): 967–1033. doi:10.1111/rssa.12276
• Giere, Ronald N., 2006, Scientific Perspectivism , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Good, Irving John, 1950, Probability and the Weighing of Evidence , London: Charles Griffin.
• Gul, Faruk and Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2008, “The Case for Mindless Economics”, in The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics: a Handbook , Andrew Caplin and Andrew Schotter (eds), New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–39.
• Guyatt, Gordon, John Cairns, David Churchill, Deborah Cook, Brian Haynes, Jack Hirsh, Jan Irvine, Mark Levine, Mitchell Levine, Jim Nishikawa, et al., 1992, “Evidence-Based Medicine: A New Approach to Teaching the Practice of Medicine”, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association , 268(17): 2420–2425. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032
• Haack, Susan, 2003, Defending Science—Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Hacking, Ian, 1965, Logic of Statistical Inference , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316534960
• –––, 2015, “Let’s Not Talk About Objectivity”, in Padovani, Richardson, and Tsou 2015: 19–33. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_2
• Hanson, Norwood Russell, 1958, Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Haraway, Donna, 1988, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies , 14(3): 575–599. doi:10.2307/3178066
• Harding, Sandra, 1991, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1993, “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is Strong Objectivity?”, in Feminist Epistemologies , Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter (ed.), New York, NY: Routledge, 49–82.
• –––, 2015a, Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2015b, “After Mr. Nowhere: What Kind of Proper Self for a Scientist?”, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly , 1(1): 1–22. doi:10.5206/fpq/2015.1.2
• Hausman, Daniel M., 2012, Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139058537
• Hempel, Carl G., 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation , New York: The Free Press.
• Hesse, Mary B., 1980, Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science , Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.
• Howson, Colin, 2000, Hume’s Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Howson, Colin and Peter Urbach, 1993, Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach , second edition, La Salle, IL: Open Court.
• Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer, 1977, The Langurs of Abu: Female and Male Strategies of Reproduction , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Ioannidis, John P. A., 2005, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, PLoS Medicine , 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
• Janack, Marianne, 2002, “Dilemmas of Objectivity”, Social Epistemology , 16(3): 267–281. doi:10.1080/0269172022000025624
• Jarvie, Ian C. and Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla (eds.), 2011, The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Sciences , London: SAGE.
• Jaynes, Edwin T., 1968, “Prior Probabilities”, IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics , 4(3): 227–241. doi:10.1109/TSSC.1968.300117
• Jeffrey, Richard C., 1956, “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses”, Philosophy of Science , 23(3): 237–246. doi:10.1086/287489
• Jeffreys, Harold, 1939 [1980], Theory of Probability , third edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson), 1883, “Electrical Units of Measurement”, Lecture to the Institution of Civil Engineers on 3 May 1883, reprinted in 1889, Popular Lectures and Addresses , Vol. I, London: MacMillan and Co., p. 73.
• Kincaid, Harold, John Dupré, and Alison Wylie (eds.), 2007, Value-Free Science?: Ideals and Illusions , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308969.001.0001
• Kitcher, Philip, 2011a, Science in a Democratic Society , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• –––, 2011b, The Ethical Project , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Koskinen, Inkeri, forthcoming, “Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , first online: 3 August 2018. doi:10.1093/bjps/axy053
• Kourany, Janet A., 2010, Philosophy of Science after Feminism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kuhn, Thomas S., 1962 [1970], The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , second edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1977, “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, in his The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change , Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 320–39.
• Lacey, Hugh, 1999, Is Science Value-Free? Values and Scientific Understanding , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2002, “The Ways in Which the Sciences Are and Are Not Value Free”, in In the Scope of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Volume Two of the 11th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Cracow, August 1999 , Peter Gärdenfors, Jan Woleński, and Katarzyna Kijania-Placek (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 519–532. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0475-5_9
• Laudan, Larry, 1984, Science and Values: An Essay on the Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate , Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Levi, Isaac, 1960, “Must the Scientist Make Value Judgments?”, The Journal of Philosophy , 57(11): 345–357. doi:10.2307/2023504
• Lloyd, Elisabeth A., 1993, “Pre-Theoretical Assumptions in Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality”, Philosophical Studies , 69(2–3): 139–153. doi:10.1007/BF00990080
• –––, 2005, The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Longino, Helen E., 1990, Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry , Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1996, “Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy”, in Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science , Lynn Hankinson Nelson and Jack Nelson (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 39–58. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1742-2_3
• Machamer, Peter and Gereon Wolters (eds.), 2004, Science, Values and Objectivity , Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
• Mayo, Deborah G., 1996, Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge , Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
• McMullin, Ernan, 1982, “Values in Science”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982 , 3–28.
• –––, 2009, “The Virtues of a Good Theory”, in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science , Martin Curd and Stathis Psillos (eds), London: Routledge.
• Megill, Allan, 1994, “Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity”, in Rethinking Objectivity , Allan Megill (ed.), Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1–20.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1859 [2003], On Liberty , New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
• Mitchell, Sandra D., 2004, “The Prescribed and Proscribed Values in Science Policy”, in Machamer and Wolters 2004: 245–255.
• Nagel, Thomas, 1986, The View From Nowhere , New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Nixon, Richard, 1969, “Special Message to the Congress on Social Security”, 25 September 1969. [ Nixon 1969 available online ]
• Norton, John D., 2003, “A Material Theory of Induction”, Philosophy of Science , 70(4): 647–670. doi:10.1086/378858
• –––, 2008, “Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory?”, in The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice , Martin Carrier, Don Howard and Janet Kourany (eds), Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press: 17–44.
• Oakeshott, Michael, 1933, Experience and Its Modes , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Okruhlik, Kathleen, 1994, “Gender and the Biological Sciences”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , 20: 21–42. doi:10.1080/00455091.1994.10717393
• Open Science Collaboration, 2015, “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science”, Science , 349(6251): aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
• Padovani, Flavia, Alan Richardson, and Jonathan Y. Tsou (eds.), 2015, Objectivity in Science: New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies , (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 310), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1
• Page, Scott E., 2007, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Paternotte, Cédric, 2011, “Rational Choice Theory”, in The SAGE Handbook of The Philosophy of Social Sciences , Jarvie and Zamora Bonilla 2011: 307–321.
• Popper, Karl. R., 1934 [2002], Logik der Forschung , Vienna: Julius Springer. Translated as Logic of Scientific Discovery , London: Routledge.
• –––, 1963, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge , New York: Harper.
• –––, 1972, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Porter, Theodore M., 1995, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life , Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
• Putnam, Hilary, 2002, The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Putnam, Hilary and Vivian Walsh, 2007, “A Response to Dasgupta”, Economics and Philosophy , 23(3): 359–364. doi:10.1017/S026626710700154X
• Reichenbach, Hans, 1938, “On Probability and Induction”, Philosophy of Science , 5(1): 21–45. doi:10.1086/286483
• Reiss, Julian, 2008, Error in Economics: The Methodology of Evidence-Based Economics , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, “In Favour of a Millian Proposal to Reform Biomedical Research”, Synthese , 177(3): 427–447. doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9790-7
• –––, 2013, Philosophy of Economics: A Contemporary Introduction , New York, NY: Routledge.
• –––, 2020, “What Are the Drivers of Induction? Towards a Material Theory+”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 83: 8–16.
• Resnik, David B., 2007, The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rickert, Heinrich, 1929, Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung. Eine logische Einleitung in die historischen Wissenschaften , 6th edition, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. First edition published in 1902.
• Royall, Richard, 1997, Scientific Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm , London: Chapman & Hall.
• Rudner, Richard, 1953, “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments”, Philosophy of Science , 20(1): 1–6. doi:10.1086/287231
• Ruphy, Stéphanie, 2006, “‘Empiricism All the Way down’: A Defense of the Value-Neutrality of Science in Response to Helen Longino’s Contextual Empiricism”, Perspectives on Science , 14(2): 189–214. doi:10.1162/posc.2006.14.2.189
• Sen, Amartya, 1993, “Internal Consistency of Choice”, Econometrica , 61(3): 495–521.
• Shrader-Frechette, K. S., 1991, Risk and Rationality , Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Simonsohn, Uri, Leif D. Nelson, and Joseph P. Simmons, 2014, “P-Curve: A Key to the File-Drawer.”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 143(2): 534–547. doi:10.1037/a0033242
• Sprenger, Jan, 2016, “Bayesianism vs. Frequentism in Statistical Inference”, in Oxford Handbook on Philosophy of Probability , Alan Hájek and Christopher Hitchcock (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2018, “The Objectivity of Subjective Bayesianism”, European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 8(3): 539–558. doi:10.1007/s13194-018-0200-1
• Sprenger, Jan and Stephan Hartmann, 2019, Bayesian Philosophy of Science , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199672110.001.0001
• Steel, Daniel, 2010, “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk”, Philosophy of Science , 77(1): 14–34. doi:10.1086/650206
• Steele, Katie, 2012, “The Scientist qua Policy Advisor Makes Value Judgments”, Philosophy of Science, 79(5): 893–904. doi:10.1086/667842
• Stegenga, Jacob, 2011, “Is Meta-Analysis the Platinum Standard of Evidence?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences , 42(4): 497–507. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.003
• –––, 2018, Medical Nihilism , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198747048.001.0001
• Teira, David, 2010, “Frequentist versus Bayesian Clinical Trials”, in Philosophy of Medicine , Fred Gifford (ed.), (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science 16), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 255–297. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-51787-6.50010-6
• Teira, David and Julian Reiss, 2013, “Causality, Impartiality and Evidence-Based Policy”, in Mechanism and Causality in Biology and Economics , Hsiang-Ke Chao, Szu-Ting Chen, and Roberta L. Millstein (eds.), (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences 3), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 207–224. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2454-9_11
• Weber, Max, 1904 [1949], “Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis”, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik , 19(1): 22–87. Translated as “‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy”, in Weber 1949: 50–112.
• –––, 1917 [1949], “Der Sinn der ‘Wertfreiheit’ der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften”. Reprinted in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre , Tübingen: UTB, 1988, 451–502. Translated as “The Meaning of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in Sociology and Economics” in Weber 1949: 1–49.
• –––, 1949, The Methodology of the Social Sciences , Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch (trans/eds), New York, NY: Free Press.
• Wilholt, Torsten, 2009, “Bias and Values in Scientific Research”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 40(1): 92–101. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.12.005
• –––, 2013, “Epistemic Trust in Science”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 64(2): 233–253. doi:10.1093/bjps/axs007
• Williams, Bernard, 1985 [2011], Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reprinted London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2011.
• Williamson, Jon, 2010, In Defence of Objective Bayesianism , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228003.001.0001
• Windelband, Wilhelm, 1915, Präludien. Aufsätze und Reden zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte , fifth edition, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
• Winsberg, Eric, 2012, “Values and Uncertainties in the Predictions of Global Climate Models”, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 22(2): 111–137. doi:10.1353/ken.2012.0008
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1953 [2001], Philosophical Investigations , G. Anscombe (trans.), London: Blackwell.
• Worrall, John, 2002, “ What Evidence in Evidence‐Based Medicine?”, Philosophy of Science , 69(S3): S316–S330. doi:10.1086/341855
• Wylie, Alison, 2003, “Why Standpoint Matters”, in Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology , Robert Figueroa and Sandra Harding (eds), New York, NY and London: Routledge, pp. 26–48.
• Ziliak, Stephen Thomas and Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2008, The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice and Lives , Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Norton, John, manuscript, The Material Theory of Induction , retrieved on 9 January 2020.
• Objectivity , entry by Dwayne H. Mulder in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

Bayes’ Theorem | confirmation | feminist philosophy, interventions: epistemology and philosophy of science | feminist philosophy, interventions: philosophy of biology | Feyerabend, Paul | hermeneutics | incommensurability: of scientific theories | Kuhn, Thomas | logic: inductive | physics: experiment in | science: theory and observation in | scientific realism | statistics, philosophy of | underdetermination, of scientific theories | Weber, Max

Copyright © 2020 by Julian Reiss < reissj @ me . com > Jan Sprenger < jan . sprenger @ unito . it >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
• - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
• “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
• EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
• “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
• Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
• EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
• - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
• “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
• STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
• EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
• - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
• “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
• EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
• “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
• “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
• “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
• EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
• - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
• “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
• “Conclusion
• Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
• EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
• “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
• Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
• EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
• “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
• “Statistical Analysis
• ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

• EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
• “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
• “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
• EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
• “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
• EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
• “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
• “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
• “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Objectives – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

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.

Types of Research Objectives

Here are the different types of research objectives in research:

• Exploratory Objectives: These objectives are used to explore a topic, issue, or phenomenon that has not been studied in-depth before. The aim of exploratory research is to gain a better understanding of the subject matter and generate new ideas and hypotheses .
• Descriptive Objectives: These objectives aim to describe the characteristics, features, or attributes of a particular population, group, or phenomenon. Descriptive research answers the “what” questions and provides a snapshot of the subject matter.
• Explanatory Objectives : These objectives aim to explain the relationships between variables or factors. Explanatory research seeks to identify the cause-and-effect relationships between different phenomena.
• Predictive Objectives: These objectives aim to predict future events or outcomes based on existing data or trends. Predictive research uses statistical models to forecast future trends or outcomes.
• Evaluative Objectives : These objectives aim to evaluate the effectiveness or impact of a program, intervention, or policy. Evaluative research seeks to assess the outcomes or results of a particular intervention or program.
• Prescriptive Objectives: These objectives aim to provide recommendations or solutions to a particular problem or issue. Prescriptive research identifies the best course of action based on the results of the study.
• Diagnostic Objectives : These objectives aim to identify the causes or factors contributing to a particular problem or issue. Diagnostic research seeks to uncover the underlying reasons for a particular phenomenon.
• Comparative Objectives: These objectives aim to compare two or more groups, populations, or phenomena to identify similarities and differences. Comparative research is used to determine which group or approach is more effective or has better outcomes.
• Historical Objectives: These objectives aim to examine past events, trends, or phenomena to gain a better understanding of their significance and impact. Historical research uses archival data, documents, and records to study past events.
• Ethnographic Objectives : These objectives aim to understand the culture, beliefs, and practices of a particular group or community. Ethnographic research involves immersive fieldwork and observation to gain an insider’s perspective of the group being studied.
• Action-oriented Objectives: These objectives aim to bring about social or organizational change. Action-oriented research seeks to identify practical solutions to social problems and to promote positive change in society.
• Conceptual Objectives: These objectives aim to develop new theories, models, or frameworks to explain a particular phenomenon or set of phenomena. Conceptual research seeks to provide a deeper understanding of the subject matter by developing new theoretical perspectives.
• Methodological Objectives: These objectives aim to develop and improve research methods and techniques. Methodological research seeks to advance the field of research by improving the validity, reliability, and accuracy of research methods and tools.
• Theoretical Objectives : These objectives aim to test and refine existing theories or to develop new theoretical perspectives. Theoretical research seeks to advance the field of knowledge by testing and refining existing theories or by developing new theoretical frameworks.
• Measurement Objectives : These objectives aim to develop and validate measurement instruments, such as surveys, questionnaires, and tests. Measurement research seeks to improve the quality and reliability of data collection and analysis by developing and testing new measurement tools.
• Design Objectives : These objectives aim to develop and refine research designs, such as experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational designs. Design research seeks to improve the quality and validity of research by developing and testing new research designs.
• Sampling Objectives: These objectives aim to develop and refine sampling techniques, such as probability and non-probability sampling methods. Sampling research seeks to improve the representativeness and generalizability of research findings by developing and testing new sampling techniques.

How to Write Research Objectives

Writing clear and concise research objectives is an important part of any research project, as it helps to guide the study and ensure that it is focused and relevant. Here are some steps to follow when writing research objectives:

• Identify the research problem : Before you can write research objectives, you need to identify the research problem you are trying to address. This should be a clear and specific problem that can be addressed through research.
• Define the research questions : Based on the research problem, define the research questions you want to answer. These questions should be specific and should guide the research process.
• Identify the variables : Identify the key variables that you will be studying in your research. These are the factors that you will be measuring, manipulating, or analyzing to answer your research questions.
• Write specific objectives: Write specific, measurable objectives that will help you answer your research questions. These objectives should be clear and concise and should indicate what you hope to achieve through your research.
• Use the SMART criteria: To ensure that your research objectives are well-defined and achievable, use the SMART criteria. This means that your objectives should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
• Revise and refine: Once you have written your research objectives, revise and refine them to ensure that they are clear, concise, and achievable. Make sure that they align with your research questions and variables, and that they will help you answer your research problem.

Example of Research Objectives

Examples of research objectives Could be:

Research Objectives for the topic of “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Employment”:

• To investigate the effects of the adoption of AI on employment trends across various industries and occupations.
• To explore the potential for AI to create new job opportunities and transform existing roles in the workforce.
• To examine the social and economic implications of the widespread use of AI for employment, including issues such as income inequality and access to education and training.
• To identify the skills and competencies that will be required for individuals to thrive in an AI-driven workplace, and to explore the role of education and training in developing these skills.
• To evaluate the ethical and legal considerations surrounding the use of AI for employment, including issues such as bias, privacy, and the responsibility of employers and policymakers to protect workers’ rights.

When to Write Research Objectives

• At the beginning of a research project : Research objectives should be identified and written down before starting a research project. This helps to ensure that the project is focused and that data collection and analysis efforts are aligned with the intended purpose of the research.
• When refining research questions: Writing research objectives can help to clarify and refine research questions. Objectives provide a more concrete and specific framework for addressing research questions, which can improve the overall quality and direction of a research project.
• After conducting a literature review : Conducting a literature review can help to identify gaps in knowledge and areas that require further research. Writing research objectives can help to define and focus the research effort in these areas.
• When developing a research proposal: Research objectives are an important component of a research proposal. They help to articulate the purpose and scope of the research, and provide a clear and concise summary of the expected outcomes and contributions of the research.
• When seeking funding for research: Funding agencies often require a detailed description of research objectives as part of a funding proposal. Writing clear and specific research objectives can help to demonstrate the significance and potential impact of a research project, and increase the chances of securing funding.
• When designing a research study : Research objectives guide the design and implementation of a research study. They help to identify the appropriate research methods, sampling strategies, data collection and analysis techniques, and other relevant aspects of the study design.
• When communicating research findings: Research objectives provide a clear and concise summary of the main research questions and outcomes. They are often included in research reports and publications, and can help to ensure that the research findings are communicated effectively and accurately to a wide range of audiences.
• When evaluating research outcomes : Research objectives provide a basis for evaluating the success of a research project. They help to measure the degree to which research questions have been answered and the extent to which research outcomes have been achieved.
• When conducting research in a team : Writing research objectives can facilitate communication and collaboration within a research team. Objectives provide a shared understanding of the research purpose and goals, and can help to ensure that team members are working towards a common objective.

Purpose of Research Objectives

Some of the main purposes of research objectives include:

• To clarify the research question or problem : Research objectives help to define the specific aspects of the research question or problem that the study aims to address. This makes it easier to design a study that is focused and relevant.
• To guide the research design: Research objectives help to determine the research design, including the research methods, data collection techniques, and sampling strategy. This ensures that the study is structured and efficient.
• To measure progress : Research objectives provide a way to measure progress throughout the research process. They help the researcher to evaluate whether they are on track and meeting their goals.
• To communicate the research goals : Research objectives provide a clear and concise description of the research goals. This helps to communicate the purpose of the study to other researchers, stakeholders, and the general public.

Advantages of Research Objectives

Here are some advantages of having well-defined research objectives:

• Focus : Research objectives help to focus the research effort on specific areas of inquiry. By identifying clear research questions, the researcher can narrow down the scope of the study and avoid getting sidetracked by irrelevant information.
• Clarity : Clearly stated research objectives provide a roadmap for the research study. They provide a clear direction for the research, making it easier for the researcher to stay on track and achieve their goals.
• Measurability : Well-defined research objectives provide measurable outcomes that can be used to evaluate the success of the research project. This helps to ensure that the research is effective and that the research goals are achieved.
• Feasibility : Research objectives help to ensure that the research project is feasible. By clearly defining the research goals, the researcher can identify the resources required to achieve those goals and determine whether those resources are available.
• Relevance : Research objectives help to ensure that the research study is relevant and meaningful. By identifying specific research questions, the researcher can ensure that the study addresses important issues and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Data Analysis – Process, Methods and Types

Thesis Statement – Examples, Writing Guide

• The Open University
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

About this free course

Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course.

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

1 Objective and subjective research perspectives

Research in social science requires the collection of data in order to understand a phenomenon. This can be done in a number of ways, and will depend on the state of existing knowledge of the topic area. The researcher can:

• Explore a little known issue. The researcher has an idea or has observed something and seeks to understand more about it (exploratory research).
• Connect ideas to understand the relationships between the different aspects of an issue, i.e. explain what is going on (explanatory research).
• Describe what is happening in more detail and expand the initial understanding (explicatory or descriptive research).

Exploratory research is often done through observation and other methods such as interviews or surveys that allow the researcher to gather preliminary information.

Explanatory research, on the other hand, generally tests hypotheses about cause and effect relationships. Hypotheses are statements developed by the researcher that will be tested during the research. The distinction between exploratory and explanatory research is linked to the distinction between inductive and deductive research. Explanatory research tends to be deductive and exploratory research tends to be inductive. This is not always the case but, for simplicity, we shall not explore the exceptions here.

Descriptive research may support an explanatory or exploratory study. On its own, descriptive research is not sufficient for an academic project. Academic research is aimed at progressing current knowledge.

The perspective taken by the researcher also depends on whether the researcher believes that there is an objective world out there that can be objectively known; for example, profit can be viewed as an objective measure of business performance. Alternatively the researcher may believe that concepts such as ‘culture’, ‘motivation’, ‘leadership’, ‘performance’ result from human categorisation of the world and that their ‘meaning’ can change depending on the circumstances. For example, performance can mean different things to different people. For one it may refer to a hard measure such as levels of sales. For another it may include good relationships with customers. According to this latter view, a researcher can only take a subjective perspective because the nature of these concepts is the result of human processes. Subjective research generally refers to the subjective experiences of research participants and to the fact that the researcher’s perspective is embedded within the research process, rather than seen as fully detached from it.

On the other hand, objective research claims to describe a true and correct reality, which is independent of those involved in the research process. Although this is a simplified view of the way in which research can be approached, it is an important distinction to think about. Whether you think about your research topic in objective or subjective terms will determine the development of the research questions, the type of data collected, the methods of data collection and analysis you adopt and the conclusions that you draw. This is why it is important to consider your own perspective when planning your project.

Subjective research is generally referred to as phenomenological research. This is because it is concerned with the study of experiences from the perspective of an individual, and emphasises the importance of personal perspectives and interpretations. Subjective research is generally based on data derived from observations of events as they take place or from unstructured or semi-structured interviews. In unstructured interviews the questions emerged from the discussion between the interviewer and the interviewee. In semi-structured interviews the interviewer prepares an outline of the interview topics or general questions, adding more as needs emerged during the interview. Structured interviews include the full list of questions. Interviewers do not deviate from this list. Subjective research can also be based on examinations of documents. The researcher will attribute personal interpretations of the experiences and phenomena during the process of both collecting and analysing data. This approach is also referred to as interpretivist research. Interpretivists believe that in order to understand and explain specific management and HR situations, one needs to focus on the viewpoints, experiences, feelings and interpretations of the people involved in the specific situation.

Conversely, objective research tends to be modelled on the methods of the natural sciences such as experiments or large scale surveys. Objective research seeks to establish law-like generalisations which can be applied to the same phenomenon in different contexts. This perspective, which privileges objectivity, is called positivism and is based on data that can be subject to statistical analysis and generalisation. Positivist researchers use quantitative methodologies, which are based on measurement and numbers, to collect and analyse data. Interpretivists are more concerned with language and other forms of qualitative data, which are based on words or images. Having said that, researchers using objectivist and positivist assumptions sometimes use qualitative data while interpretivists sometimes use quantitative data. (Quantitative and qualitative methodologies will be discussed in more detail in the final part of this course.) The key is to understand the perspective you intend to adopt and realise the limitations and opportunities it offers. Table 1 compares and contrasts the perspectives of positivism and interpretivism.

Some textbooks include the realist perspective or discuss constructivism, but, for the purpose of your work-based project, you do not need to engage with these other perspectives. This course keeps the discussion of research perspectives to a basic level.

Search and identify two articles that are based on your research topic. Ideally you may want to identify one article based on quantitative and one based on qualitative methodologies.

Now answer the following questions:

• In what ways are the two studies different (excluding the research focus)?
• Which research perspective do the author/s in article 1 take in their study (i.e. subjective or objective or in other words, phenomenological/interpretivist or positivist)?
• What elements (e.g. specific words, sentences, research questions) in the introduction reveal the approach taken by the authors?
• Which research perspective do the author/s in article 2 take in their study (i.e. subjective or objective, phenomenological/interpretivist or positivist)?
• What elements (e.g. specific words, sentences, research questions) in the introduction and research questions sections reveal the approach taken by the authors?

This activity has helped you to distinguish between objective and subjective research by recognising the type of language and the different ways in which objectivists/positivists and subjectivists/interpretivists may formulate their research aims. It should also support the development of your personal preference on objective or subjective research.

• Aims and Objectives – A Guide for Academic Writing
• Doing a PhD

One of the most important aspects of a thesis, dissertation or research paper is the correct formulation of the aims and objectives. This is because your aims and objectives will establish the scope, depth and direction that your research will ultimately take. An effective set of aims and objectives will give your research focus and your reader clarity, with your aims indicating what is to be achieved, and your objectives indicating how it will be achieved.

Introduction

There is no getting away from the importance of the aims and objectives in determining the success of your research project. Unfortunately, however, it is an aspect that many students struggle with, and ultimately end up doing poorly. Given their importance, if you suspect that there is even the smallest possibility that you belong to this group of students, we strongly recommend you read this page in full.

This page describes what research aims and objectives are, how they differ from each other, how to write them correctly, and the common mistakes students make and how to avoid them. An example of a good aim and objectives from a past thesis has also been deconstructed to help your understanding.

What Are Aims and Objectives?

Research aims.

A research aim describes the main goal or the overarching purpose of your research project.

In doing so, it acts as a focal point for your research and provides your readers with clarity as to what your study is all about. Because of this, research aims are almost always located within its own subsection under the introduction section of a research document, regardless of whether it’s a thesis , a dissertation, or a research paper .

A research aim is usually formulated as a broad statement of the main goal of the research and can range in length from a single sentence to a short paragraph. Although the exact format may vary according to preference, they should all describe why your research is needed (i.e. the context), what it sets out to accomplish (the actual aim) and, briefly, how it intends to accomplish it (overview of your objectives).

To give an example, we have extracted the following research aim from a real PhD thesis:

Example of a Research Aim

The role of diametrical cup deformation as a factor to unsatisfactory implant performance has not been widely reported. The aim of this thesis was to gain an understanding of the diametrical deformation behaviour of acetabular cups and shells following impaction into the reamed acetabulum. The influence of a range of factors on deformation was investigated to ascertain if cup and shell deformation may be high enough to potentially contribute to early failure and high wear rates in metal-on-metal implants.

Note: Extracted with permission from thesis titled “T he Impact And Deformation Of Press-Fit Metal Acetabular Components ” produced by Dr H Hothi of previously Queen Mary University of London.

Research Objectives

Where a research aim specifies what your study will answer, research objectives specify how your study will answer it.

They divide your research aim into several smaller parts, each of which represents a key section of your research project. As a result, almost all research objectives take the form of a numbered list, with each item usually receiving its own chapter in a dissertation or thesis.

Following the example of the research aim shared above, here are it’s real research objectives as an example:

Example of a Research Objective

• 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.
• Investigate the number, velocity and position of impacts needed to insert a cup.
• Determine the relationship between the size of interference between the cup and cavity and deformation for different cup types.
• Investigate the influence of non-uniform cup support and varying the orientation of the component in the cavity on deformation.
• Examine the influence of errors during reaming of the acetabulum which introduce ovality to the cavity.
• Determine the relationship between changes in the geometry of the component and deformation for different cup designs.
• Develop three dimensional pelvis models with non-uniform bone material properties from a range of patients with varying bone quality.
• Use the key parameters that influence deformation, as identified in the foam models to determine the range of deformations that may occur clinically using the anatomic models and if these deformations are clinically significant.

It’s worth noting that researchers sometimes use research questions instead of research objectives, or in other cases both. From a high-level perspective, research questions and research objectives make the same statements, but just in different formats.

Taking the first three research objectives as an example, they can be restructured into research questions as follows:

Restructuring Research Objectives as Research Questions

• Can finite element models using simplified experimentally validated foam models to represent the acetabulum together with explicit dynamics be used to mimic mallet blows during cup/shell insertion?
• What is the number, velocity and position of impacts needed to insert a cup?
• What is the relationship between the size of interference between the cup and cavity and deformation for different cup types?

Difference Between Aims and Objectives

Hopefully the above explanations make clear the differences between aims and objectives, but to clarify:

• The research aim focus on what the research project is intended to achieve; research objectives focus on how the aim will be achieved.
• 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 Objectives

Before we discuss how to write a clear set of research aims and objectives, we should make it clear that there is no single way they must be written. Each researcher will approach their aims and objectives slightly differently, and often your supervisor will influence the formulation of yours on the basis of their own preferences.

Regardless, there are some basic principles that you should observe for good practice; these principles are described below.

Your aim should be made up of three parts that answer the below questions:

• Why is this research required?
• What is this research about?
• How are you going to do it?

The easiest way to achieve this would be to address each question in its own sentence, although it does not matter whether you combine them or write multiple sentences for each, the key is to address each one.

The first question, why , provides context to your research project, the second question, what , describes the aim of your research, and the last question, how , acts as an introduction to your objectives which will immediately follow.

Scroll through the image set below to see the ‘why, what and how’ associated with our research aim example.

Note: Your research aims need not be limited to one. Some individuals per to define one broad ‘overarching aim’ of a project and then adopt two or three specific research aims for their thesis or dissertation. Remember, however, that in order for your assessors to consider your research project complete, you will need to prove you have fulfilled all of the aims you set out to achieve. Therefore, while having more than one research aim is not necessarily disadvantageous, consider whether a single overarching one will do.

Research Objectives

Each of your research objectives should be SMART :

• Specific – is there any ambiguity in the action you are going to undertake, or is it focused and well-defined?
• Measurable – how will you measure progress and determine when you have achieved the action?
• Achievable – do you have the support, resources and facilities required to carry out the action?
• Relevant – is the action essential to the achievement of your research aim?
• Timebound – can you realistically complete the action in the available time alongside your other research tasks?

In addition to being SMART, your research objectives should start with a verb that helps communicate your intent. Common research verbs include:

Table of Research Verbs to Use in Aims and Objectives

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:

Checking Research Objective Example Against Recommended Approach

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.

Mistakes in Writing Research Aims and Objectives

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.

2. Making Your Research Objectives Too Ambitious

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.

3. Formulating Repetitive Research Objectives

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.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Quantitative Methods
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques . Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon.

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010; Muijs, Daniel. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS . 2nd edition. London: SAGE Publications, 2010.

Need Help Locating Statistics?

Resources for locating data and statistics can be found here:

Statistics & Data Research Guide

Characteristics of Quantitative Research

Your goal in conducting quantitative research study is to determine the relationship between one thing [an independent variable] and another [a dependent or outcome variable] within a population. Quantitative research designs are either descriptive [subjects usually measured once] or experimental [subjects measured before and after a treatment]. A descriptive study establishes only associations between variables; an experimental study establishes causality.

Quantitative research deals in numbers, logic, and an objective stance. Quantitative research focuses on numeric and unchanging data and detailed, convergent reasoning rather than divergent reasoning [i.e., the generation of a variety of ideas about a research problem in a spontaneous, free-flowing manner].

Its main characteristics are :

• The data is usually gathered using structured research instruments.
• The results are based on larger sample sizes that are representative of the population.
• The research study can usually be replicated or repeated, given its high reliability.
• Researcher has a clearly defined research question to which objective answers are sought.
• All aspects of the study are carefully designed before data is collected.
• Data are in the form of numbers and statistics, often arranged in tables, charts, figures, or other non-textual forms.
• Project can be used to generalize concepts more widely, predict future results, or investigate causal relationships.
• Researcher uses tools, such as questionnaires or computer software, to collect numerical data.

The overarching aim of a quantitative research study is to classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed.

  Things to keep in mind when reporting the results of a study using quantitative methods :

• Explain the data collected and their statistical treatment as well as all relevant results in relation to the research problem you are investigating. Interpretation of results is not appropriate in this section.
• Report unanticipated events that occurred during your data collection. Explain how the actual analysis differs from the planned analysis. Explain your handling of missing data and why any missing data does not undermine the validity of your analysis.
• Explain the techniques you used to "clean" your data set.
• Choose a minimally sufficient statistical procedure ; provide a rationale for its use and a reference for it. Specify any computer programs used.
• Describe the assumptions for each procedure and the steps you took to ensure that they were not violated.
• When using inferential statistics , provide the descriptive statistics, confidence intervals, and sample sizes for each variable as well as the value of the test statistic, its direction, the degrees of freedom, and the significance level [report the actual p value].
• Avoid inferring causality , particularly in nonrandomized designs or without further experimentation.
• Use tables to provide exact values ; use figures to convey global effects. Keep figures small in size; include graphic representations of confidence intervals whenever possible.
• Always tell the reader what to look for in tables and figures .

NOTE:   When using pre-existing statistical data gathered and made available by anyone other than yourself [e.g., government agency], you still must report on the methods that were used to gather the data and describe any missing data that exists and, if there is any, provide a clear explanation why the missing data does not undermine the validity of your final analysis.

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010; Brians, Craig Leonard et al. Empirical Political Analysis: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods . 8th ed. Boston, MA: Longman, 2011; McNabb, David E. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches . 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2008; Quantitative Research Methods. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Singh, Kultar. Quantitative Social Research Methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2007.

Basic Research Design for Quantitative Studies

Before designing a quantitative research study, you must decide whether it will be descriptive or experimental because this will dictate how you gather, analyze, and interpret the results. A descriptive study is governed by the following rules: subjects are generally measured once; the intention is to only establish associations between variables; and, the study may include a sample population of hundreds or thousands of subjects to ensure that a valid estimate of a generalized relationship between variables has been obtained. An experimental design includes subjects measured before and after a particular treatment, the sample population may be very small and purposefully chosen, and it is intended to establish causality between variables. Introduction The introduction to a quantitative study is usually written in the present tense and from the third person point of view. It covers the following information:

• Identifies the research problem -- as with any academic study, you must state clearly and concisely the research problem being investigated.
• Reviews the literature -- review scholarship on the topic, synthesizing key themes and, if necessary, noting studies that have used similar methods of inquiry and analysis. Note where key gaps exist and how your study helps to fill these gaps or clarifies existing knowledge.
• Describes the theoretical framework -- provide an outline of the theory or hypothesis underpinning your study. If necessary, define unfamiliar or complex terms, concepts, or ideas and provide the appropriate background information to place the research problem in proper context [e.g., historical, cultural, economic, etc.].

Methodology The methods section of a quantitative study should describe how each objective of your study will be achieved. Be sure to provide enough detail to enable the reader can make an informed assessment of the methods being used to obtain results associated with the research problem. The methods section should be presented in the past tense.

• Study population and sampling -- where did the data come from; how robust is it; note where gaps exist or what was excluded. Note the procedures used for their selection;
• Data collection – describe the tools and methods used to collect information and identify the variables being measured; describe the methods used to obtain the data; and, note if the data was pre-existing [i.e., government data] or you gathered it yourself. If you gathered it yourself, describe what type of instrument you used and why. Note that no data set is perfect--describe any limitations in methods of gathering data.
• Data analysis -- describe the procedures for processing and analyzing the data. If appropriate, describe the specific instruments of analysis used to study each research objective, including mathematical techniques and the type of computer software used to manipulate the data.

Results The finding of your study should be written objectively and in a succinct and precise format. In quantitative studies, it is common to use graphs, tables, charts, and other non-textual elements to help the reader understand the data. Make sure that non-textual elements do not stand in isolation from the text but are being used to supplement the overall description of the results and to help clarify key points being made. Further information about how to effectively present data using charts and graphs can be found here .

• Statistical analysis -- how did you analyze the data? What were the key findings from the data? The findings should be present in a logical, sequential order. Describe but do not interpret these trends or negative results; save that for the discussion section. The results should be presented in the past tense.

Discussion Discussions should be analytic, logical, and comprehensive. The discussion should meld together your findings in relation to those identified in the literature review, and placed within the context of the theoretical framework underpinning the study. The discussion should be presented in the present tense.

• Interpretation of results -- reiterate the research problem being investigated and compare and contrast the findings with the research questions underlying the study. Did they affirm predicted outcomes or did the data refute it?
• Description of trends, comparison of groups, or relationships among variables -- describe any trends that emerged from your analysis and explain all unanticipated and statistical insignificant findings.
• Discussion of implications – what is the meaning of your results? Highlight key findings based on the overall results and note findings that you believe are important. How have the results helped fill gaps in understanding the research problem?
• Limitations -- describe any limitations or unavoidable bias in your study and, if necessary, note why these limitations did not inhibit effective interpretation of the results.

Conclusion End your study by to summarizing the topic and provide a final comment and assessment of the study.

• Summary of findings – synthesize the answers to your research questions. Do not report any statistical data here; just provide a narrative summary of the key findings and describe what was learned that you did not know before conducting the study.
• Recommendations – if appropriate to the aim of the assignment, tie key findings with policy recommendations or actions to be taken in practice.
• Future research – note the need for future research linked to your study’s limitations or to any remaining gaps in the literature that were not addressed in your study.

Black, Thomas R. Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics . London: Sage, 1999; Gay,L. R. and Peter Airasain. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications . 7th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Prentice Hall, 2003; Hector, Anestine. An Overview of Quantitative Research in Composition and TESOL . Department of English, Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Hopkins, Will G. “Quantitative Research Design.” Sportscience 4, 1 (2000); "A Strategy for Writing Up Research Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper." Department of Biology. Bates College; Nenty, H. Johnson. "Writing a Quantitative Research Thesis." International Journal of Educational Science 1 (2009): 19-32; Ouyang, Ronghua (John). Basic Inquiry of Quantitative Research . Kennesaw State University.

Strengths of Using Quantitative Methods

Quantitative researchers try to recognize and isolate specific variables contained within the study framework, seek correlation, relationships and causality, and attempt to control the environment in which the data is collected to avoid the risk of variables, other than the one being studied, accounting for the relationships identified.

Among the specific strengths of using quantitative methods to study social science research problems:

• Allows for a broader study, involving a greater number of subjects, and enhancing the generalization of the results;
• Allows for greater objectivity and accuracy of results. Generally, quantitative methods are designed to provide summaries of data that support generalizations about the phenomenon under study. In order to accomplish this, quantitative research usually involves few variables and many cases, and employs prescribed procedures to ensure validity and reliability;
• Applying well established standards means that the research can be replicated, and then analyzed and compared with similar studies;
• You can summarize vast sources of information and make comparisons across categories and over time; and,
• Personal bias can be avoided by keeping a 'distance' from participating subjects and using accepted computational techniques .

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010; Brians, Craig Leonard et al. Empirical Political Analysis: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods . 8th ed. Boston, MA: Longman, 2011; McNabb, David E. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches . 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2008; Singh, Kultar. Quantitative Social Research Methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2007.

Limitations of Using Quantitative Methods

Quantitative methods presume to have an objective approach to studying research problems, where data is controlled and measured, to address the accumulation of facts, and to determine the causes of behavior. As a consequence, the results of quantitative research may be statistically significant but are often humanly insignificant.

Some specific limitations associated with using quantitative methods to study research problems in the social sciences include:

• Quantitative data is more efficient and able to test hypotheses, but may miss contextual detail;
• Uses a static and rigid approach and so employs an inflexible process of discovery;
• The development of standard questions by researchers can lead to "structural bias" and false representation, where the data actually reflects the view of the researcher instead of the participating subject;
• Results provide less detail on behavior, attitudes, and motivation;
• Researcher may collect a much narrower and sometimes superficial dataset;
• Results are limited as they provide numerical descriptions rather than detailed narrative and generally provide less elaborate accounts of human perception;
• The research is often carried out in an unnatural, artificial environment so that a level of control can be applied to the exercise. This level of control might not normally be in place in the real world thus yielding "laboratory results" as opposed to "real world results"; and,
• Preset answers will not necessarily reflect how people really feel about a subject and, in some cases, might just be the closest match to the preconceived hypothesis.

Research Tip

Finding Examples of How to Apply Different Types of Research Methods

SAGE publications is a major publisher of studies about how to design and conduct research in the social and behavioral sciences. Their SAGE Research Methods Online and Cases database includes contents from books, articles, encyclopedias, handbooks, and videos covering social science research design and methods including the complete Little Green Book Series of Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences and the Little Blue Book Series of Qualitative Research techniques. The database also includes case studies outlining the research methods used in real research projects. This is an excellent source for finding definitions of key terms and descriptions of research design and practice, techniques of data gathering, analysis, and reporting, and information about theories of research [e.g., grounded theory]. The database covers both qualitative and quantitative research methods as well as mixed methods approaches to conducting research.

SAGE Research Methods Online and Cases

• << Previous: Qualitative Methods
• Next: Insiderness >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Formulating Research Aims and Objectives

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.

Research aim emphasizes what needs to be achieved within the scope of the research, by the end of the research process. Achievement of research aim provides answer to the research question.

Research objectives divide research aim into several parts and address each part separately. Research aim specifies WHAT needs to be studied and research objectives comprise a number of steps that address HOW research aim will be achieved.

As a rule of dumb, there would be one research aim and several research objectives. Achievement of each research objective will lead to the achievement of the research aim.

Consider the following as an example:

Research title: Effects of organizational culture on business profitability: a case study of Virgin Atlantic

Research aim: To assess the effects of Virgin Atlantic organizational culture on business profitability

Following research objectives would facilitate the achievement of this aim:

• Analyzing the nature of organizational culture at Virgin Atlantic by September 1, 2022
• Identifying factors impacting Virgin Atlantic organizational culture by September 16, 2022
• Analyzing impacts of Virgin Atlantic organizational culture on employee performances by September 30, 2022
• Providing recommendations to Virgin Atlantic strategic level management in terms of increasing the level of effectiveness of organizational culture by October 5, 2022

Figure below illustrates additional examples in formulating research aims and objectives:

Formulation of research question, aim and objectives

Common mistakes in the formulation of research aim relate to the following:

1. Choosing the topic too broadly . This is the most common mistake. For example, a research title of “an analysis of leadership practices” can be classified as too broad because the title fails to answer the following questions:

a) Which aspects of leadership practices? Leadership has many aspects such as employee motivation, ethical behaviour, strategic planning, change management etc. An attempt to cover all of these aspects of organizational leadership within a single research will result in an unfocused and poor work.

b) An analysis of leadership practices in which country? Leadership practices tend to be different in various countries due to cross-cultural differences, legislations and a range of other region-specific factors. Therefore, a study of leadership practices needs to be country-specific.

c) Analysis of leadership practices in which company or industry? Similar to the point above, analysis of leadership practices needs to take into account industry-specific and/or company-specific differences, and there is no way to conduct a leadership research that relates to all industries and organizations in an equal manner.

Accordingly, as an example “a study into the impacts of ethical behaviour of a leader on the level of employee motivation in US healthcare sector” would be a more appropriate title than simply “An analysis of leadership practices”.

2. Setting an unrealistic aim . Formulation of a research aim that involves in-depth interviews with Apple strategic level management by an undergraduate level student can be specified as a bit over-ambitious. This is because securing an interview with Apple CEO Tim Cook or members of Apple Board of Directors might not be easy. This is an extreme example of course, but you got the idea. Instead, you may aim to interview the manager of your local Apple store and adopt a more feasible strategy to get your dissertation completed.

3. Choosing research methods incompatible with the timeframe available . Conducting interviews with 20 sample group members and collecting primary data through 2 focus groups when only three months left until submission of your dissertation can be very difficult, if not impossible. Accordingly, timeframe available need to be taken into account when formulating research aims and objectives and selecting research methods.

Moreover, research objectives need to be formulated according to SMART principle,

 where the abbreviation stands for specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound.

Examples of SMART research objectives

At the conclusion part of your research project you will need to reflect on the level of achievement of research aims and objectives. In case your research aims and objectives are not fully achieved by the end of the study, you will need to discuss the reasons. These may include initial inappropriate formulation of research aims and objectives, effects of other variables that were not considered at the beginning of the research or changes in some circumstances during the research process.

John Dudovskiy

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Sociological Research: Objectivity and Subjectivity

Last updated 13 Jun 2020

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

To be objective, a researcher must not allow their values, their bias or their views to impact on their research, analysis or findings. For research to be reliable and to be considered scientific, objectivity is paramount.

However, some question whether sociology can ever be entirely objective, as researchers' views and values are likely to affect their choice of topic.

Weber argued that while sociologists should be interested in the subjective views of their subjects, they should remain objective in their research; others (such as postmodernists) argue that objectivity is impossible at all stages of research.

Many sociologists – not just those who consider their activities to be scientific – argue that sociological research needs to be objective; that their biases and values should never influence their research design, interpretation or analysis.

But interpretivist sociologists are interested in the subjective views and interpretations of their subjects, believing that it is impossible to objectively establish social facts. Nonetheless, most would still urge sociologists to be objective in their research, even though postmodernists argue that all research is inevitably subjective.

Reflexivity is the act of a researcher constantly reflecting on the extent to which they themselves are impacting on their research and their findings. Some interpretivists and particularly postmodernists note that the researcher is not able to be genuinely objective because they are as much a part of the society being studied as the subjects of the research. As such the researcher needs to consider and acknowledge their own bias and the values that might inform their interpretations and analysis.

• Science (Theory)
• Subjectivity
• Interpretivism

You might also like

Research methods - "card drop" activity.

Quizzes & Activities

Research Methods: Interpretivism

Topic Videos

Objectivity and Subjectivity in Sociological Research

Is sociology a science paradigms - a third way, the nature of knowledge, is bad data killing women.

5th October 2020

The Sociology Show: An Introduction to Functionalism (1 October 2020)

13th October 2020

Sociological Perspectives | Classroom Posters / Student Handout

Poster / Student Handout

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

21 Research Objectives Examples (Copy and Paste)

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 Objectives vs Research Aims

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.

How to Write Research Objectives

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:

• Specific : We need to avoid ambiguity in our objectives. They need to be clear and precise (Doran, 1981). For instance, rather than stating the objective as “to study the effects of social media,” a more focused detail would be “to examine the effects of social media use (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) on the academic performance of college students.”
• Measurable: The measurable attribute provides a clear criterion to determine if the objective has been met (Locke & Latham, 2013). A quantifiable element, such as a percentage or a number, adds a measurable quality. For example, “to increase response rate to the annual customer survey by 10%,” makes it easier to ascertain achievement.
• Achievable: The achievable aspect encourages researchers to craft realistic objectives, resembling a self-check mechanism to ensure the objectives align with the scope and resources at disposal (Doran, 1981). For example, “to interview 25 participants selected randomly from a population of 100” is an attainable objective as long as the researcher has access to these participants.
• Relevance : Relevance, the fourth element, compels the researcher to tailor the objectives in alignment with overarching goals of the study (Locke & Latham, 2013). This is extremely important – each objective must help you meet your overall one-sentence ‘aim’ in your study.
• Time-Bound: Lastly, the time-bound element fosters a sense of urgency and prioritization, preventing procrastination and enhancing productivity (Doran, 1981). “To analyze the effect of laptop use in lectures on student engagement over the course of two semesters this year” expresses a clear deadline, thus serving as a motivator for timely completion.

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.

Research Objectives Examples

1. Field: Psychology

Aim: To explore the impact of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance in college students.

• Objective 1: To compare cognitive test scores of students with less than six hours of sleep and those with 8 or more hours of sleep.
• Objective 2: To investigate the relationship between class grades and reported sleep duration.
• Objective 3: To survey student perceptions and experiences on how sleep deprivation affects their cognitive capabilities.

2. Field: Environmental Science

Aim: To understand the effects of urban green spaces on human well-being in a metropolitan city.

• Objective 1: To assess the physical and mental health benefits of regular exposure to urban green spaces.
• Objective 2: To evaluate the social impacts of urban green spaces on community interactions.
• Objective 3: To examine patterns of use for different types of urban green spaces. 

3. Field: Technology

Aim: To investigate the influence of using social media on productivity in the workplace.

• Objective 1: To measure the amount of time spent on social media during work hours.
• Objective 2: To evaluate the perceived impact of social media use on task completion and work efficiency.
• Objective 3: To explore whether company policies on social media usage correlate with different patterns of productivity.

4. Field: Education

Aim: To examine the effectiveness of online vs traditional face-to-face learning on student engagement and achievement.

• Objective 1: To compare student grades between the groups exposed to online and traditional face-to-face learning.
• Objective 2: To assess student engagement levels in both learning environments.
• Objective 3: To collate student perceptions and preferences regarding both learning methods.

5. Field: Health

Aim: To determine the impact of a Mediterranean diet on cardiac health among adults over 50.

• Objective 1: To assess changes in cardiovascular health metrics after following a Mediterranean diet for six months.
• Objective 2: To compare these health metrics with a similar group who follow their regular diet.
• Objective 3: To document participants’ experiences and adherence to the Mediterranean diet.

6. Field: Environmental Science

Aim: To analyze the impact of urban farming on community sustainability.

• Objective 1: To document the types and quantity of food produced through urban farming initiatives.
• Objective 2: To assess the effect of urban farming on local communities’ access to fresh produce.
• Objective 3: To examine the social dynamics and cooperative relationships in the creating and maintaining of urban farms.

7. Field: Sociology

Aim: To investigate the influence of home offices on work-life balance during remote work.

• Objective 1: To survey remote workers on their perceptions of work-life balance since setting up home offices.
• Objective 2: To conduct an observational study of daily work routines and family interactions in a home office setting.
• Objective 3: To assess the correlation, if any, between physical boundaries of workspaces and mental boundaries for work in the home setting.

8. Field: Economics

Aim: To evaluate the effects of minimum wage increases on small businesses.

• Objective 1: To analyze cost structures, pricing changes, and profitability of small businesses before and after minimum wage increases.
• Objective 2: To survey small business owners on the strategies they employ to navigate minimum wage increases.
• Objective 3: To examine employment trends in small businesses in response to wage increase legislation.

9. Field: Education

Aim: To explore the role of extracurricular activities in promoting soft skills among high school students.

• Objective 1: To assess the variety of soft skills developed through different types of extracurricular activities.
• Objective 2: To compare self-reported soft skills between students who participate in extracurricular activities and those who do not.
• Objective 3: To investigate the teachers’ perspectives on the contribution of extracurricular activities to students’ skill development.

10. Field: Technology

Aim: To assess the impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on the tourism industry.

• Objective 1: To document the types and popularity of VR experiences available in the tourism market.
• Objective 2: To survey tourists on their interest levels and satisfaction rates with VR tourism experiences.
• Objective 3: To determine whether VR tourism experiences correlate with increased interest in real-life travel to the simulated destinations.

11. Field: Biochemistry

Aim: To examine the role of antioxidants in preventing cellular damage.

• Objective 1: To identify the types and quantities of antioxidants in common fruits and vegetables.
• Objective 2: To determine the effects of various antioxidants on free radical neutralization in controlled lab tests.
• Objective 3: To investigate potential beneficial impacts of antioxidant-rich diets on long-term cellular health.

12. Field: Linguistics

Aim: To determine the influence of early exposure to multiple languages on cognitive development in children.

• Objective 1: To assess cognitive development milestones in monolingual and multilingual children.
• Objective 2: To document the number and intensity of language exposures for each group in the study.
• Objective 3: To investigate the specific cognitive advantages, if any, enjoyed by multilingual children.

13. Field: Art History

Aim: To explore the impact of the Renaissance period on modern-day art trends.

• Objective 1: To identify key characteristics and styles of Renaissance art.
• Objective 2: To analyze modern art pieces for the influence of the Renaissance style.
• Objective 3: To survey modern-day artists for their inspirations and the influence of historical art movements on their work.

14. Field: Cybersecurity

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of two-factor authentication (2FA) in preventing unauthorized system access.

• Objective 1: To measure the frequency of unauthorized access attempts before and after the introduction of 2FA.
• Objective 2: To survey users about their experiences and challenges with 2FA implementation.
• Objective 3: To evaluate the efficacy of different types of 2FA (SMS-based, authenticator apps, biometrics, etc.).

15. Field: Cultural Studies

Aim: To analyze the role of music in cultural identity formation among ethnic minorities.

• Objective 1: To document the types and frequency of traditional music practices within selected ethnic minority communities.
• Objective 2: To survey community members on the role of music in their personal and communal identity.
• Objective 3: To explore the resilience and transmission of traditional music practices in contemporary society.

16. Field: Astronomy

Aim: To explore the impact of solar activity on satellite communication.

• Objective 1: To categorize different types of solar activities and their frequencies of occurrence.
• Objective 2: To ascertain how variations in solar activity may influence satellite communication.
• Objective 3: To investigate preventative and damage-control measures currently in place during periods of high solar activity.

17. Field: Literature

Aim: To examine narrative techniques in contemporary graphic novels.

• Objective 1: To identify a range of narrative techniques employed in this genre.
• Objective 2: To analyze the ways in which these narrative techniques engage readers and affect story interpretation.
• Objective 3: To compare narrative techniques in graphic novels to those found in traditional printed novels.

18. Field: Renewable Energy

Aim: To investigate the feasibility of solar energy as a primary renewable resource within urban areas.

• Objective 1: To quantify the average sunlight hours across urban areas in different climatic zones. 
• Objective 2: To calculate the potential solar energy that could be harnessed within these areas.
• Objective 3: To identify barriers or challenges to widespread solar energy implementation in urban settings and potential solutions.

19. Field: Sports Science

Aim: To evaluate the role of pre-game rituals in athlete performance.

• Objective 1: To identify the variety and frequency of pre-game rituals among professional athletes in several sports.
• Objective 2: To measure the impact of pre-game rituals on individual athletes’ performance metrics.
• Objective 3: To examine the psychological mechanisms that might explain the effects (if any) of pre-game ritual on performance.

20. Field: Ecology

Aim: To investigate the effects of urban noise pollution on bird populations.

• Objective 1: To record and quantify urban noise levels in various bird habitats.
• Objective 2: To measure bird population densities in relation to noise levels.
• Objective 3: To determine any changes in bird behavior or vocalization linked to noise levels.

21. Field: Food Science

Aim: To examine the influence of cooking methods on the nutritional value of vegetables.

• Objective 1: To identify the nutrient content of various vegetables both raw and after different cooking processes.
• Objective 2: To compare the effect of various cooking methods on the nutrient retention of these vegetables.
• Objective 3: To propose cooking strategies that optimize nutrient retention.

The Importance of Research Objectives

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.

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]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Self-Actualization Examples (Maslow's Hierarchy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Forest Schools Philosophy & Curriculum, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori's 4 Planes of Development, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori vs Reggio Emilia vs Steiner-Waldorf vs Froebel

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Published on October 26, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research question pinpoints exactly what you want to find out in your work. A good research question is essential to guide your research paper , dissertation , or thesis .

All research questions should be:

• Focused on a single problem or issue
• Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
• Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
• Specific enough to answer thoroughly
• Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
• Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly

Table of contents

How to write a research question, what makes a strong research question, using sub-questions to strengthen your main research question, research questions quiz, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research questions.

You can follow these steps to develop a strong research question:

• Choose your topic
• Do some preliminary reading about the current state of the field
• Narrow your focus to a specific niche
• Identify the research problem that you will address

The way you frame your question depends on what your research aims to achieve. The table below shows some examples of how you might formulate questions for different purposes.

Using your research problem to develop your research question

Note that while most research questions can be answered with various types of research , the way you frame your question should help determine your choices.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them. The criteria below can help you evaluate the strength of your research question.

Focused and researchable

Feasible and specific

Complex and arguable

Relevant and original

Chances are that your main research question likely can’t be answered all at once. That’s why sub-questions are important: they allow you to answer your main question in a step-by-step manner.

Good sub-questions should be:

• Less complex than the main question
• Focused only on 1 type of research
• Presented in a logical order

Here are a few examples of descriptive and framing questions:

• Descriptive: According to current government arguments, how should a European bank tax be implemented?
• Descriptive: Which countries have a bank tax/levy on financial transactions?
• Framing: How should a bank tax/levy on financial transactions look at a European level?

Keep in mind that sub-questions are by no means mandatory. They should only be asked if you need the findings to answer your main question. If your main question is simple enough to stand on its own, it’s okay to skip the sub-question part. As a rule of thumb, the more complex your subject, the more sub-questions you’ll need.

Try to limit yourself to 4 or 5 sub-questions, maximum. If you feel you need more than this, it may be indication that your main research question is not sufficiently specific. In this case, it’s is better to revisit your problem statement and try to tighten your main question up.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

As you cannot possibly read every source related to your topic, it’s important to evaluate sources to assess their relevance. Use preliminary evaluation to determine whether a source is worth examining in more depth.

This involves:

• Reading abstracts , prefaces, introductions , and conclusions
• Looking at the table of contents to determine the scope of the work
• Consulting the index for key terms or the names of important scholars

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (“ x affects y because …”).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses . In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

• Researchability
• Feasibility and specificity
• Relevance and originality

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 21). Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-questions/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to define a research problem | ideas & examples, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, 10 research question examples to guide your research project, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

https://www.nist.gov/chips

CHIPS for America

About CHIPS for America

Semiconductors, or chips, are tiny electronic devices that are integral to America’s economic and national security. These devices power tools as simple as a light switch and as complex as a fighter jet or a smartphone. Semiconductors power our consumer electronics, automobiles, data centers, critical infrastructure, and virtually all military systems. They are also essential building blocks of the technologies that will shape our future, including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and clean energy.

While the United States remains a global leader in semiconductor design and research and development, it has fallen behind in manufacturing and now accounts for only about 10 percent of global commercial production. Today, none of the most advanced logic and memory chips—the chips that power PCs, smartphones, and supercomputers—are manufactured at commercial scale in the United States. In addition, many elements of the semiconductor supply chain are geographically concentrated, leaving them vulnerable to disruption and endangering the global economy and U.S. national security.

That’s why President Biden signed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 into law. The law provides the Department of Commerce with $50 billion for a suite of programs to strengthen and revitalize the U.S. position in semiconductor research, development, and manufacturing—while also investing in American workers. CHIPS for America encompasses two offices responsible for implementing the law: The CHIPS Research and Development Office is investing $11 billion into developing a robust domestic R&D ecosystem, while the CHIPS Program Office is dedicating $39 billion to provide incentives for investment in facilities and equipment in the United States. Learn more about CHIPS for America from this video message from the Secretary of Commerce . 

News and Press Releases

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Preliminary Terms with Absolics to Support Development of Glass Substrate Technology for Semiconductor Advanced Packaging

Biden-harris administration announces preliminary terms with polar semiconductor to establish an independent american foundry, chips for america announces $285 million funding opportunity for a digital twin and semiconductor chips manufacturing usa institute, u.s. department of commerce launches chips women in construction framework with initial voluntary commitments from intel and micron.

Marla Dowell Recognized as a Distinguished Executive with 2023 Presidential Rank Award

For general inquiries about CHIPS for America, contact askchips [at] chips.gov (askchips[at]chips[dot]gov) .

For inquiries about the CHIPS Incentives Program, contact apply [at] chips.gov .

For Congressional inquiries about CHIPS for America, contact legislativeaffairs [at] chips.gov (legislativeaffairs[at]chips[dot]gov) .

To request a meeting with a CHIPS staff member or an appearance at an event, visit https://askchips.chips.gov .

The CHIPS Incentives Program Portal can be found at https://applications.chips.gov .

How the YouTube Algorithm Works in 2024

Looking to increase your YouTube video views? Step one: find out what’s new with the YouTube algorithm and how it ranks your content.

Table of Contents

If you believe in free will, we have terrible news — well, at least when it comes to YouTube. Because YouTube’s algorithm for recommendations drives 70% of what people watch on the platform .

That is some seriously staggering influence!

So it’s no surprise that marketers, influencers, and creators are obsessed with unlocking the secret of the Youtube algorithm. How does it work? What makes it tick? And, most importantly, how can we take advantage of this mysterious formula?

Well, wonder no more, because in this blog post, we’ll cover everything about the YouTube algorithm that you’ve been dying to know.

Bonus: Download the free 30-day plan to grow your YouTube following fast , a daily workbook of challenges that will help you kickstart your Youtube channel growth and track your success. Get real results after one month.

A brief history of the YouTube algorithm

What is the YouTube algorithm? To answer that question, let’s do a quick overview of how YouTube’s Algorithm has changed over the years. And how it works today.

2005-2011: Optimizing for clicks & views

According to founder Jawed Karim (a.k.a. the star of Me at the Zoo ), YouTube was created in 2005 in order to crowdsource the video of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake’s notorious Superbowl performance . So it makes sense that YouTube’s algorithm started off by recommending videos that attracted the most views or clicks.

Of course, this led to an increase in misleading titles and thumbnails (a.k.a. clickbait). User experience plummeted as videos left people feeling tricked, unsatisfied, or plain old annoyed.

2012: Optimizing for watch time

In 2012, YouTube adjusted its recommendation system to support time spent watching each video. It also included time spent on the platform overall. When people find videos valuable and interesting, they watch them for longer. Or, so the theory goes.

This shift to reward watch time was a game changer. According to Mark Bergan , author of Like, Comment, Subscribe: Inside YouTube’s Chaotic Rise to World Domination, “[Watch time] had an immediate impact. Early YouTubers were basically making TikTok videos… but watch time created gaming, beauty vlogging, alt-right podcasts… all these verticals we now associate with YouTube.”

Accounts that were big performers previously (like videos from eHow, or MysteryGuitarMan) dropped off almost immediately.

YouTube’s algorithm change led some creators to try to make their videos shorter in order to make it more likely viewers would watch to completion. Others made their videos longer in order to increase watch time overall. YouTube didn’t comment on either of these tactics and maintained the party line: make videos your audience wants to watch, and the algorithm will reward you.

That said, as anyone who has ever spent any time on the internet knows, time spent is not necessarily equivalent to quality time spent. Soon, YouTube changed tack again.

2015-2016: Optimizing for satisfaction

In 2015, YouTube began measuring viewer satisfaction directly with user surveys. It also prioritized direct response metrics like Shares, Likes, and Dislikes (and, of course, the especially brutal “not interested” button).

In 2016, YouTube released a whitepaper describing some of the inner workings of its AI: Deep Neural Networks for YouTube Recommendations.

In short, the algorithm had gotten way more personal. The goal was to find the video each particular viewer wants to watch, not just the video that lots of other people have perhaps watched in the past.

As a result, in 2018, YouTube’s Chief product officer mentioned on a panel that 70% of watch time on YouTube is spent watching videos the algorithm recommends.

Create. Schedule. Publish. Engage. Measure. Win.

2016-present: Dangerous content, demonetization, and brand safety

Over the years, YouTube’s size and popularity have resulted in an increasing number of content moderation issues. And what the algorithm recommends has become a concerning topic not just for creators and advertisers but for journalists and the government as well.

YouTube has said it is serious about its responsibility to support a diverse range of opinions while reducing the spread of harmful misinformation. Algorithm changes enacted in early 2019, for example, have reduced consumption of borderline content by 70% . (YouTube defines borderline content as content that doesn’t quite violate community guidelines but is harmful or misleading. Violative content, on the other hand, is immediately removed .)

This issue affects creators, who fear accidentally violating ever-changing community guidelines. Or being punished with strikes, demonetization, or worse.

(Former CEO Susan Wojcicki said one of YouTube’s priorities in 2021 was increasing transparency for community guidelines for creators).

It also affects brands and advertisers, who don’t want their name and logo running alongside white supremacists.

Meanwhile, American politicians are increasingly concerned with the societal role of social media algorithms. YouTube (and other platforms) have been summoned to account for their algorithms at Senate hearings. And in early 2021 Democrats introduced a ”Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act.”

In recent years, researchers have found the new YouTube algorithm has made strides to reduce the amount of harmful content its algorithm serves up. Though, the recent 2024 Finnish election found evidence of YouTube promoting alt-right content — despite purported changes to the algorithm.

It seems we’re not out of the harmful-YouTube-content woods, just yet.

How does the YouTube algorithm work in 2024?

Next, let’s talk about what we know about how the YouTube algorithm works.

Currently, the YouTube algorithm delivers distinct recommendations to each user. These recommendations are tailored to users’ interests and watch history and weighted based on factors like the videos’ performance and quality.

When deciding what to recommend to each user, the YouTube algorithm takes into account the following:

• What videos have they enjoyed in the past? If you’ve watched a 40-minute video essay about the flags of the world or gave it a like or comment, it’s probably safe to say you found it interesting. Expect more flag content coming your way.
• What topics or channels have they watched previously? If you subscribe to the Food Network’s YouTube channel, the algorithm will likely show you more cooking content.
• What videos are typically watched together? If you watch “How to change a monster truck tire,” and most people who watch that also watch “Monster truck repair 101,” YouTube might recommend that as follow up viewing.

That’s why a Millennial music-lover beauty-queen has a homepage that looks like this:

Of course, YouTube wants to recommend relevant, quality videos to each of its precious users. It’s not exactly a positive experience to follow a suggestion to watch “The World’s 36 Most Stylish Cats” and find it boring, low-quality or weirdly racist.

So how does YouTube evaluate if a video is worthy of recommendation?

I t’s not about the content. The actual content of your video is not evaluated by the YouTube algorithm at all. Videos about how great YouTube is aren’t more likely to go viral than a video about how to knit a beret for your hamster.

“Our algorithm doesn’t pay attention to videos; it pays attention to viewers. So, rather than trying to make videos that’ll make an algorithm happy, focus on making videos that make your viewers happy,” says YouTube .

Instead, YouTube looks at the following metrics for its recommendation algorithm:

• Do people actually watch it? When a video is recommended, do people actually watch it, ignore it, or click “not interested”?
• How long do people watch it? The YouTube algorithm looks at both the view duration and the average percentage viewed to inform the ranking.
• Did viewers like it? Likes and dislikes are evaluated, as are engagement rates and post-watch survey results.
• What is your regional context? The time of day and the language you speak also influence the YouTube algorithm.

How YouTube determines the algorithm

More than 500 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube every single minute. Imagine a world without the YouTube algorithm trying to help you find the most relevant content. One word comes to mind: chaos.

That’s why it’s important to understand that the goal of YouTube’s algorithm isn’t to bring you the most popular or the most recent video on your search term. The goal is to bring you the video that you specifically will find the most useful.

That’s why two different YouTube users searching for the same term may see a totally different list of results .

YouTube’s search algorithm prioritizes the following elements :

• Relevance: The YouTube algorithm tries to match factors like title, tags, content, and description to your search query.
• Engagement: Signals include watch time and watch percentage, as well as likes, comments, and shares.
• Quality: To evaluate quality, the algorithm looks at signals to determine the channel’s authority and trustworthiness on a given topic.
• User search and watch history: What have you enjoyed or viewed in the past? This will impact which search results the YouTube algorithm will assume will be helpful.

These factors are combined in slightly different ways, depending on where on YouTube you are receiving recommendations.

YouTube recommends videos in three different places on the platform.

This is what you see when you open up the YouTube app or visit the YouTube website. It’s personalized to each viewer. The recommendation engine selects videos for the Home screen based on:

• Performance of the video
• Watch and search history of the user

Suggested videos

These are the videos recommended alongside the video you’re already watching. The algorithm suggests videos here based on:

• The topic of the current video
• The viewer’s watch history

Each user’s search results will be slightly different thanks to the personalized signals the algorithm takes into account. These signals include:

• The relevance of the title, description, and video content to the search term
• Performance and engagement of video

What is the YouTube Shorts algorithm?

One of the newest formats to enter the YouTube ecosystem is YouTube Shorts . These short, vertical videos created using a smartphone and uploaded directly to YouTube from the YouTube app, like Stories or TikTok videos.

YouTube Shorts have taken the content world by storm. In fact, nearly 70 billion YouTube viewers are watching Shorts daily. So, don’t sleep on this new format.

Now that you know Shorts are great, the question is: how do you get your Shorts discovered?

Well, according to Todd Sherman, the product lead for Shorts, the algorithm for Shorts is different from regular YouTube. Instead of users picking videos to watch, they swipe through content, so the algorithm focuses on showing a variety of videos to keep everyone interested.

Unlike some platforms where just looking at the first frame counts as a view, Shorts requires viewers to actually want to watch, although they won’t say exactly how much. They’re keeping this threshold secret to prevent people from trying to manipulate the system.

Creators are advised to focus on storytelling rather than sticking to a specific video length , even though most Shorts are still kept under a minute. Custom thumbnails are discouraged for Shorts, and while hashtags can be helpful, their impact can vary.

Timing your uploads and the quantity of Shorts you post aren’t crucial factors for optimization , according to YouTube. It’s more about putting out quality content. Shorts might initially get a lot of attention, but their popularity can taper off based on audience reception. YouTube discourages deleting and reposting Shorts repeatedly, as it could be seen as spammy behavior.

Hot tip: You can schedule your YouTube videos via the Hootsuite Dashboard so you have time to focus on more spontaneous YouTube Shorts on the go.

In the future, YouTube intends to introduce features allowing Shorts creators to link to longer videos, showing their commitment to integrating rather than replacing long-form content. Additionally, they’re testing a feature to group uploads from prolific channels, making it easier for viewers to explore content without overwhelming their feed.

Here’s a quick breakdown of what the YouTube Shorts algorithm takes into account:

• Relevance: Do the title, tags, content, and description match the search term?
• Engagement: Do other people like and comment on this video?
• User watch history: What have you enjoyed or viewed in the past?
• Similar content: What other Shorts do similar audiences like to watch?
• Watch time: Less important than for classic videos. But if someone can’t even sit through a 15-second video, that’s probably not a good sign.

Paige Cooper is the Hootsuite Inbound YouTube Lead. She runs Hootsuite Labs , our Youtube channel and she sees Shorts as an opportunity ripe for the taking.

“The rise of vertical video hasn’t changed the main algorithm per se, but YouTube Shorts are creating a big new opportunity for creators,” she says. “If you’re already running an Instagram Reels or TikTok strategy , publishing on YouTube Shorts seems to be an easy win.”

16 tips to improve your organic reach on YouTube

While there are no YouTube algorithm instructions, remember that the algorithm follows the audience. If you already have a YouTube marketing plan in place, these tips will help you grow your channel’s views.

Cue: Eye of the Tiger. This is your YouTube algorithm training.

1. Do your keyword research

There’s no human being sitting at YouTube headquarters watching your video and ranking it.

Instead, the algorithm looks at your metadata as it decides what the video is about, which videos or categories it’s related to, and who might want to watch it.

When it comes to describing your video for the algorithm, you want to use accurate, concise language that people are already using when they search.

For example, if you were uploading a comedy sketch, you should probably include the words “comedy” and “funny” in the title and description and be crystal clear about the topics or subject of the video.

Because YouTube is a search engine as much as a video platform, you can conduct your keyword research in the same way you would for a blog post or web copy : using free tools like Google Keyword Planner or SEMrush.

Once you’ve identified your primary keywords, you’ll want to use them in four places:

• In the video’s file name (i.e., comedy-dad-jokes.mov)
• In the video’s title (using catchy natural language like “Real life dad does stand up comedy for first time”)
• In the YouTube video description (especially within the first two lines, above the fold)
• In the video’s script (and therefore in the video’s subtitles and closed captions—which means uploading an SRT file).

But there’s one place you don’t need to put your keywords:

• In the video’s tags. According to Youtube, tags “play a minimal role in video discovery” and are most helpful if your keyword or channel name is often misspelled. (i.e., standup, stand up, comedy, comedie, etc.) Adding excessive tags to your video description could even harm your video. It’s against YouTube’s policies on spam, deceptive practices, and scams .

Read more about social SEO and YouTube SEO to keep your knowledge brewing.

2. Make your thumbnails click-worthy

But without being clickbaity, obviously.

“Appeal” is the word YouTube uses to describe how a video entices a person to take a risk (albeit a minor one) and watch something new. While YouTube itself doesn’t care what your thumbnail looks like visually, it is keeping track of whether or not people actually click through .

YouTuber Joshua Weissman uses a consistent style for his thumbnails that usually feature his face, a succinct title, and intriguing imagery.

To maximize your video’s appeal:

• Upload a custom thumbnail (and keep the visual style consistent across all your thumbnails)
• Write an intriguing, catchy title—the kind you can’t not click on
• Remember the first sentence or so of the description will show up in search, so make it interesting and relevant.

Feeling like you need a YouTube algorithm tutorial? Check out more tactics to promote your YouTube channel .

3. Keep people watching your video, and all your videos

Once you have a viewer watching one video, make it easy for them to keep watching your content and stay within your channel’s ecosystem.

For instance, the end of Taskmaster episodes feature a card that links to more videos and a prompt to subscribe to the channel.

To keep viewers in your ecosystem, use:

• Cards: Flag relevant other videos in your video
• End screens: End with a CTA to watch another relevant video
• Playlists: Promote a list of topically similar videos
• Subscription watermarks: Allow users to subscribe to your channel within the video itself.

For more on converting viewers to subscribers, read our guide to getting more YouTube subscribers .

Pro Tip: Making a video series is a great way to capitalize on a recent spike in viewers. Using a scheduling tool like Hootsuite can make it easy to pre-plan your monthly factory tour or interview sessions in advance.

4. Attract views from other sources

Views that don’t come from the YouTube algorithm can still inform your success with the algorithm.

For example, you can attract views from YouTube ads , external sites, cross-promoting on social media , and partnerships with other channels or brands can all help you earn views and subscribers, depending on your strategy.

For instance, on the Murphy Beds Canada website, the support section links to a selection of videos that open in YouTube.

The algorithm won’t punish your video for having a lot of traffic from off-site (e.g., a blog post). This is important because click-through-rates and view duration often tank when the bulk of a video’s traffic is from ads or an external site.

According to YouTube’s product team, the algorithm only pays attention to how a video performs in context. So, a video that performs well on the homepage will be surfaced to more people on the homepage, no matter what its metrics from blog views look like.

Pro Tip: Embedding a YouTube video in your blog or website is great for both your blog’s Google SEO as well as your video’s view counts on YouTube.

5. Engage with comments and other channels

In order for your audience to grow , you need to nurture your relationships with your viewers. For many viewers, part of YouTube’s appeal is feeling closer to creators than they do to traditional celebrities.

Use Hootsuite Streams to stay on top of untagged mentions, and stay up to date about every conversation that effects your industry.

6. Don’t stoop to creating clickbait

Racking up views for the sake of views is a lose-lose situation. Maybe you’ve crafted the most titillating thumbnail-title combo of all time and are capturing an outsized amount of attention… but viewers will quickly figure out you’ve tricked them and bounce.

So what did that really gain you?

Not only will you have sullied your brand reputation with a bait-and-switch, you’ll also be punished by the YouTube algorithm. There’s no chance clickbait is going to impress the recommendation engine.

Stick to accurate, quality content, and create titles and thumbnails that properly represent what viewers are going to see.

The challenge is, as YouTuber Alec Wilcock says, “to make sure your videos are actually valuable for your audience. You can’t just want them to be valuable.”

“Viewers can see fluff or filler a mile away, so there’s no phoning it in, or you will see a drop in your watch time,” advises Hootsuite’s Paige Cooper. “It’s a cliche at this point, but every time you say ‘algorithm’ replace that word with ‘audience.’ We aren’t making videos for robots, we’re making them for smart, discerning people who have infinite other ways to spend their time. ” Ask yourself, “Would I watch this?” as much as possible.

7. Keep your eye on the conversation

Your YouTube channel can be a great way to hop on the bandwagon for trending topics. But it’s tough to make a clever response video or weigh in on an issue if you’re not paying attention to what’s going on.

Hootsuite’s keyword search streams are super helpful for social listening . Plug in an industry term or relevant hashtag to keep in the know about conversations in your community.

Creating compelling, relevant content is one of the best ways to impress that YouTube algorithm. One recent video that is doing super well for Hootsuite is our video on The fastest Hootsuite demo EVER (how to manage social media with Hootsuite) .

Hootsuite Streams and keyword research helped inform the strategy that led to this video being created. “We did the research to find a workaround for a common problem people have, and that paid off with a 78% percent retention rate,” Cooper explains.

Google Trends is another great source for keeping in the loop. If you notice a problem people are looking to solve, be the one to solve that problem.

8. Evolve by experimenting

The only way to know what really captures an audience’s attention and gets you that precious watch time is to try, try, try. You’ll never find that secret recipe for success without a little experimentation… and probably a few failures (a.k.a. learning opps) along the way.

Mr. Beast didn’t become the world’s richest YouTuber overnight. By trial and error, he discovered that the wilder and more extravagant his stunts were, the better his views and engagement did. And now he’s, uh, curing blindness. What a time to be alive!

“It’s the little changes and course corrections that add up over time!” says Cooper. “ As a small channel, obviously the dream is to create a piece of gold that goes viral. But as a small educational channel, focusing on practical, valuable videos that we know people already want is important.”

Two tactics that have paid off for Hootsuite Labs are 1) getting more specific (a.k.a. “niching down”) with a topic (i.e., rather than “Instagram vs. TikTok” going after “Instagram vs. TikTok for business”; and 2) being the first to make a video on a topic. “But really both of those mean knowing your audience: what they care about, what they’re problems are, what they’re curious about, and what they want to know,” says Cooper.

Take courage from the fact that if an experiment really bombs, that low-performing video won’t down-rank your channel or future videos in any way. (Unless you have truly alienated your audience to the point where they don’t want to watch you anymore.) Your videos all have an equal chance to earn viewers, according to YouTube’s product team .

9. Get to know your audience

It’s almost impossible to wow your audience if you don’t know who they are. That’s why understanding your target audience and their behavior is so important.

Get to know your YouTube audience by digging into your analytics, either via YouTube directly or using Hootsuite’s audience insights tool.

Understanding their location, their gender, and their age can help inform your content strategy . Watching how they actually interact with your videos—engagement, watch time, and all of those important social media metrics—also will point you in the right direction.

Knowledge! Is! Power!

10. Post at the best time

The YouTube algorithm doesn’t directly base its recommendations on what time or day you post. But the algorithm does take stock of a video’s popularity and engagement. And one surefire way to get more views on YouTube is to post your video when your audience is online.

Prep your videos in advance and then use a scheduling tool for maximum reach . The Hootsuite scheduler, for instance, provides custom recommendations for the best posting time for your audience. Here’s how it works:

11. Don’t just make long videos: make good videos

While the YouTube algorithm rewards watch time, it’s all relative. “Our discovery system uses absolute and relative watch time as signals when deciding audience engagement, and we encourage you to do the same,” says YouTube . “Broadly speaking, relative watch time is more important for short videos and absolute watch time is more important for longer videos.”

So think less about total length when you’re creating a video and more about creating compelling content that keeps the viewer watching through to the end , no matter how long or short your video is.

If they’re dropping off 25% of the way through, that’s not great, whether your video is 6 minutes or 60 minutes.

Pro tip: Check out your audience retention metric to help understand how long your unique viewers like to watch. Then you can adjust your content accordingly.

“You’re constantly learning about your audience, and every win and every loss will tell you something about what they value (or don’t value), which you can apply to your next video,” notes Cooper.

“If you’re losing fifty percent of your audience in the first 30 seconds, try cutting that content. If your average view time is two minutes out of 10, see what happens if you make a five-minute video. Each video is evaluated on its own merits, which means that each video is a new chance to succeed… or fail. (Sorry!)”

Mastering the YouTube algorithm is just one way to get your YouTube channel the attention it deserves , of course. For more on thriving on YouTube, check out our guide to building a custom YouTube marketing strategy . And, ahem, while you’re over there… maybe you’d like to give our channel a little like and subscribe ?

12. Get on the Shorts train

Short form video isn’t going away. In fact, many platforms, including Instagram and YouTube, are paying special attention to short videos — especially as TikTok continues its upward climb.

YouTube has made it clear that YouTube Shorts are its, “ number one area of focus .” In fact, the platform is seeing ad engagement on Shorts rising rapidly, while YouTube’s overall ad revenue is steadily declining — so it’s no big secret where YouTube executive heads are turning.

If you want to stand out on YouTube in 2024, you’re going to want to start posting YouTube Shorts.

Simple, short, and engaging, these quick videos can diversify your content stack on YouTube, and give the platform even more opportunities to rank and promote your channel.

Tired of posting your YouTube Shorts one by one? Quit stalling and start scheduling your YouTube Shorts with Hootsuite . Available on both desktop and mobile apps, Hootsuite makes it easy to plan, post, and analyze your YouTube content from a single dashboard.

Looking to make more money on your Shorts? Check out our YouTube monetization guide .

14. Make your videos accessible to everyone

Social media is used by a diverse and global audience. Your viewers likely come from different countries, backgrounds, and abilities — and you want your content to be easy to access no matter who they are.

Social media accessibility is the process of designing social media content to be inclusive to everyone, including those with disabilities.

On YouTube, this might look like including closed captioning in your videos, adding alt text to your YouTube thumbnails, or using descriptive captions that are easily read by screen readers.

Ignoring social media accessibility will close your content off to a wide range of viewers, which will lead to lower views, less engagement, and overall less boost from the YouTube algorithm.

15. Keep an eye on your best competitors

Sometimes, the best way to get inspiration is by checking out what your competitors are doing right… and wrong.

Does your primary competitor create similar content but get way more views? Maybe this is a sign to analyze their thumbnails, video descriptions, or dive deeper into their cross-promotion strategy.

Similarly, if you notice your videos consistently out-performing the competition, take note of what you’ve done differently lately, as well as what they are failing to do.

The more you know, the more you grow.

16. Analyze, analyze, analyze

As with everything on social media, data is your best friend. If your strategy is stuck, stunted, or stalled, it’s probably time to take a look at your analytics.

Were you performing better this time last year? Do you usually see a slump around the holidays? Maybe you stopped adding closed captions to your videos and are losing viewers because of this.

Without detailed analytics and data tracking, you’re only speculating. Tools like Hootsuite collect intricate data points about your YouTube analytics performance , and make them easy to view and understand in a simple dashboard.

Get clear charts, graphs, and numbers that you can then generate into reports to share with your wider team. Then, use the information gathered to better inform your YouTube videos going forward.

Let Hootsuite make growing your YouTube channel easier. Get scheduling, promotion, and marketing tools all in one place for your entire team. Sign up free today.

Grow your YouTube channel faster with Hootsuite . Easily moderate comments, schedule video, and publish to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

Become a better social marketer.

Get expert social media advice delivered straight to your inbox.

Hannah Macready is a freelance writer with 12 years of experience in social media and digital marketing. Her work has appeared in publications such as Fast Company and The Globe & Mail, and has been used in global social media campaigns for brands like Grosvenor Americas and Intuit Mailchimp. In her spare time, Hannah likes exploring the outdoors with her two dogs, Soup and Salad.

Paige Cooper is a lapsed librarian turned copywriter turned inbound marketing strategist who spends her days growing the Hootsuite Labs YouTube channel.

Related Articles

How to Get Free YouTube Subscribers (the Real Way)

Getting more free YouTube subscribers is the best way to maximize your organic reach on the second-largest website in the world.

How to Get More Views on YouTube [REAL Ones]

If you want to get more views on YouTube, you need to respond to viewer comments, create video playlists, design attention-grabbing thumbnails and more.

[SOLVED] Instagram Algorithm Tips for 2024

The Instagram algorithm affects everyone who uses the platform. Learn the latest ranking factors and make sure your content gets seen.

Brand Safety on Social Media: Manage Risk and Build Trust

Protecting your brand’s online reputation means getting proactive about brand safety, especially when it comes to social media.