Having a bunch of vague statements isn’t very helpful – so ‘I will investigate’ or ‘I will explore’ for example aren’t particularly useful ways to think about the research objectives. You have to make the objectives relatively precise. The list of objectives spells out what you actually and really will do to get to the point of it all. So, objectives often start something like In order to achieve this aim, I will… collect, construct, produce, test, trial, measure, document, pilot, deconstruct, analyse… Objectives are often presented as a (1) (2) (3) formatted list – this makes visible the sequence of big steps in the project. Objectives are often expressed through active sentences. This is where you make the project tangible by saying how you are going to go about it. (2) The objectives, and there are usually more than one, are the specific steps you will take to achieve your aim. My aim in this project is … to map, to develop, to design, to track, to generate, to theorise, to build … Sometimes in the humanities and social sciences we have aims which attempt to acknowledge the inevitable partiality of what we do, so we aim ‘to investigate, to understand, and to explore… ‘ But lots of project reviewers and supervisors prefer to see something less tentative than this – they want something much less ambivalent, something more like to synthesise, to catalogue, to challenge, to critically interrogate …. The convention is that an aim is usually written using an infinitive verb – that is, it’s a to + action. It is ambitious, but not beyond possibility. It signals what and/or where you aspire to be by the end. (1) The aim is about what you hope to do, your overall intention in the project. So taking this what-how as a kind of loose and sloppy differentiation between the two, the rough rule of thumb with aims and objectives is generally that: Or we might say – and it is what is commonly said about aims and objectives – the aim is the what of the research, and the objective is the how. But, once past the antiquated expression, you might discern that the difference between the two is somehow related to a hope or ambition (aim) versus a material action (objective). Now who actually speaks like this? The fact that these definitions are offered in this very formal language doesn’t help clarify matters. On the other hand an objective is to do with achieving an object, it’s about actions, “pertaining to that whose delineation is known”. An aim is “something intended or desired to be obtained by one’s efforts”. My desk dictionary says that an aim is to do with giving direction. And the difference is something I’ve recently been asked about, so I’ve decided to post something of an answer.ĭictionaries are only vaguely helpful when thinking about aims and objectives. The what’s-the-difference question can have you going around in ever smaller unproductive circles if you can’t figure out a way to differentiate between the two things. What”s the difference between the two?Īn aims-objectives confusion might arise when you are writing thesis proposal and the introductory thesis chapter. You’re ready, you’re aimed, and now you have to fire off the objectives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |