If a then b, if c then d doesn't answer any question, because a and c can be anything - the length of a string. Try as if you were answering to a robot to complete the task. Then, the question raises and aim and the aim raises objectives. The aim must be "crafted" to answer the question. Then, how you achieve the aim is "to-do list"ed by the objectives.

E.g. Columbus's thoughts in 1492 could have been like this...

Every time I sit on this shore, I see the mast of a ship first (observation). This could only mean (induction) that the {earth is round} (theory). So there is an unknown in the knowledge (knowledge gap). If the {earth is round} then I must be able to {circumnavigate the earth} (conceptual framework). This would be phrased as a (research question): Is the earth flat? To answer this question unambiguously, I need to show that (hypothesis): Ho {Earth is flat} and Ha {earth is not flat}. So that is my (theoretical framework). To prove my theory (hypothesis test) I need to show (aim) that one, anyone, (reproducible) can {circumnavigate the earth}. To travel round the earth (experiment), I will set sail. I will need three ships; Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria, (objective 1). I need 18 men for Nina (objective 2), 18 for Pinta (objective 3) and 52 for Santa Maria (objective 4), and a long list of other objectives, etc. And of course the blessing (sponsor) of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

As each objective is fulfilled I should be able to fulfil my aims. Since, every aim is linked to a (research question), I should be able to show that for each question, Ho is false - because it is all in the (research design) to do exactly that. When Ho is rejected then Ha is plausible. And, I would have made a (contribution to knowledge) by (closing a gap). If Ho is not rejected then my theory is not defended (thesis defense). By closing a gap, everyone now knows the earth is not flat (conclusion). I can now make (recommendations) to various stakeholders. Anything I am not happy on this voyage, I will incorporate in my next adventure (future research). To chronicle my research, I will write my (thesis) dossier and submit it to the queen (examiner). If my effort is rewarded I will be the awarded admiral of the seas (PhD).

There you have it. For more information please see https://sites.google.com/view/thesisonline

In my opinion either a qualitative or a quantitative research, research problem and research questions ( broadly)together with hypothesis ( if any) are more important and come before objectives.

As research question refers to the broader issues that you want to address , it has to appear first to lead/direct what the research is about. Based on this , you can formulate the specific objectives of the study.

Research questions are the first step to address the research objetives.

Science is all about critical thinking, about questening everything, even the things everyone consideres true. So in research questions come first, then you set up objectives to address the questions in various ways.

One way of framing this, is to look at the intent of the research. A typology could be set towards theory building (e.g. Eisenhardt 1989), theory testing (e.g. Yin 2012) or problem solving ( e.g. van De Vend 2007). Depending on your choice you can start with either. There are multiple books that try to look at how discoveries or new research is discovered or identified new questions are being asked (Bryman 2006, Flick 2012 are some of the auhtors that have respective book sections on this with very different perspectives).

Simply put, if you do not have a clue of what you might find by the end of research, you will have a research question. However, if you have an idea (at least one hypothesis) then you will have a research objective. Therefore, depending on where you stand in terms of how much you already know, you will either form a research question or a research objective.can form first

These are good insights. I like the logic of all comments. What if we skip one of these two...aren't they kind of same?

Interesting question Sub

Skipping is indeed an option in an article and I would be more inclined to skip objective if the question(s) is/are specific enough to be answered neatly using empirical data.You can easily observe many article focused on questions only.

I always thought that questions were more or less objectives with a question mark at the end...

I am keeping research questions and not research objectives in my doctoral thesis. As Robert said, it depends on typology. Since my doctoral research is about building theory using grounded theory, with an inductive logic (not deductive or abductive), and social constructionism and interpretivism as my research philosophy, my questions come first. And when I look at my questions, I do not find the need of research objectives, as I felt the same as Hugo feels about this dilemma.

Nice question Subhanjan Sengupta Please let me answer from the perspective of a supervisor of research.

For me the starting point is a topic. A topic defines the field and may include intentions/objectives of the research and probably some first ideas about potential questions. At this stage, I thin the topic (/objective) is more important than the question. In fact, I think it is not possible to formulate a good research question already, because we don't know enough about what has been on the topic already. So, I then encourage the students to start reading literature in order to get a better understanding of the topic and what would make a potentially relevant question. After some initial exploration of the literature, I ask the students to formulate three potential questions to get their ambition clear. After review and discussion we'll agree on ONE main research question (MRQ) to start with. This question than provides guidance for the structure and content of the literature review.

It is well possible that after a more thorough review of the literature, the MRQ is adapted or refined. (In fact, in some cases this even happens during the reporting of the research, when during the execution of the study the whole thing went slightly off-track... ).

Personally, in the report I don't care too much about the objective of the study anymore, because in that phase it is not about what you aimed for, but about what you did. For me the objective is most interesting at the start of the project.

OK? Good luck!

Nice question Subhanjan.

Why did you put this question? Perhaps, to get over your doubt. Thus, you had an objective to get some knowledge to remove your doubt. This objective led you to put this question. In this case objective led to the questions.

In research, whether qual or quant, it all depends upon your starting point. If you have specific question(s) to start with, no need to have objective. However, if you are still having a broad idea, you need to start with an objective. With more study on the subject as well as discussions with peers and supervisor, you develop your specific question(s). In this case the question follows the objective.

For me, from the (let's say) pragmatic angle the objective implies the social relevance of the scientific research question.

We can ask countless questions (this is one of the competences we get paid for) but there are obviosuly those which stand out for some reason that make us pursue them. I (wildly) guess it can be probable application, critical possibilities, self-reflective potential, revealing majorities of social life or issues that give a meaning to public deabte and social agenda as a whole. The essence of the questions standing out among others however seems to be the imagery that someone will care about us, answering them.

I haven't read it yet, but I can't wait to see how Mats Alvesson, Yiannis Gabriel and Roland Paulson tackle this question in "Return to meaning". Judging from some snippets they seem to argue that scientific detachment from particularistic interests doesn't justify detachment from contributing to the issues of the day.

Research Objectives comes first.

It is not necessary that you must start with an objective. Many a times, academic research is undertaken because some quetion is haunting the mind.

The purpose of any research is to generate new knowledge; it should be noted that researchers are seeking information about a variable (which keeps changing) as opposed to constants. The scientific inquiry is important; the probing may not start with a clear defined objective.

To me the topic, the objective and the research questions run in a spiral till the topic is solidified. Once that happens, the objective(s) become irrelevant. It is the research question that drives the research.

Stating the objective is important in guiding the researcher to the type of research design to solve the research problem or answering the research question.

The topic itself should be a mirror of the objective. The question which comes first - Objective or the Research Question is a chicken and egg situation.

If a then b, if c then d doesn't answer any question, because a and c can be anything - the length of a string. Try as if you were answering to a robot to complete the task. Then, the question raises and aim and the aim raises objectives. The aim must be "crafted" to answer the question. Then, how you achieve the aim is "to-do list"ed by the objectives.

E.g. Columbus's thoughts in 1492 could have been like this...

Every time I sit on this shore, I see the mast of a ship first (observation). This could only mean (induction) that the {earth is round} (theory). So there is an unknown in the knowledge (knowledge gap). If the {earth is round} then I must be able to {circumnavigate the earth} (conceptual framework). This would be phrased as a (research question): Is the earth flat? To answer this question unambiguously, I need to show that (hypothesis): Ho {Earth is flat} and Ha {earth is not flat}. So that is my (theoretical framework). To prove my theory (hypothesis test) I need to show (aim) that one, anyone, (reproducible) can {circumnavigate the earth}. To travel round the earth (experiment), I will set sail. I will need three ships; Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria, (objective 1). I need 18 men for Nina (objective 2), 18 for Pinta (objective 3) and 52 for Santa Maria (objective 4), and a long list of other objectives, etc. And of course the blessing (sponsor) of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

As each objective is fulfilled I should be able to fulfil my aims. Since, every aim is linked to a (research question), I should be able to show that for each question, Ho is false - because it is all in the (research design) to do exactly that. When Ho is rejected then Ha is plausible. And, I would have made a (contribution to knowledge) by (closing a gap). If Ho is not rejected then my theory is not defended (thesis defense). By closing a gap, everyone now knows the earth is not flat (conclusion). I can now make (recommendations) to various stakeholders. Anything I am not happy on this voyage, I will incorporate in my next adventure (future research). To chronicle my research, I will write my (thesis) dossier and submit it to the queen (examiner). If my effort is rewarded I will be the awarded admiral of the seas (PhD).

There you have it. For more information please see https://sites.google.com/view/thesisonline

Nicolo

What about research that is done without hypothesisi?

I think you can use both there are very useful questions for research purpose.

Research objectives (ROs) show a broader picture of the problem, whereas research questions (RQs) are bit specific. Therefore, to me, ROs come before RQs; though in Pakistan many people do the opposite.

Anything that you do has an objective. However, research objectives may remain implicit whereas research questions have to be explicit.

I agree with Professor Arunaditya Sahay.

One has to do a proper literature review to identify the research gaps; such identified gaps should help us in formalizing the objectives. Based on the objectives, one can design the pinpoint research questions to find the answers.

Objective need not come from research gap. In fact, even review of literature should be done with an objective. Of course, research questions emerge from the knowledge gap in the literature.

this is helpful and eye opening

To me, research objective come first then research questions

I think that the first thing that comes to the researcher is the questions, which may arise as a result of an investigation he is carrying out or the reading of other authors' works, for example. These questions can be the germ of a new investigation, and if the researcher decides to carry it out, it will be when the objectives are set.

i strongly believe that the objectives come before questions. in order for one to fulfil the objectives certain questions should be answered. One might have few objectives that can be fulfilled by many questions. That is my suubmission

In order to achieve a broader objective we have to fist answer a series of basic questions. The answers to the questions enables us to climb the logical tree leading to the final objective

I am of the opinion that one has to set the objective(s) to be achieved first (from the problem statement), then one has to formulate the series of research questions which will help in achieving the research objective(s). The answers to these research questions will then be tied up to the objective(s) in discussion of research findings.

Asking a research question comes first. Then, the identified research objectives become the potential responses/ expected findings of this question.

We do an investigation to get answers to questions. In light of that, research questions should come first, & if you decide to undertake the investigation, you can then derive objectives from the questions. One of the dangers of starting with objectives is the researcher may set objectives which they perceive to be easier to achieve and yet may not necessarily fully address the problem. My position is you state the problem, derive research questions from the problem statement, and then derive objectives from the research questions.

my dearest student Ido think that objectives should come first..,,,

correction; My dearest student,

That is how things should be

This seems to be another "Egg and Chick phenomenon" where you will continue going round and round, contradicting yourself

First, you have to write a problem statement and then derive some research questions from the problem statement and set some objectives to address these research questions. Research questions must snychronise research objectives.

I think it depends on the type of the research conducted and both research questions and research objectives are inseparable. When we formulate the problem statement we begin the preliminary literature survey to understand the study area / focus better. Then we have to answer the research questions, then we can formulate research objectives. But when you write the proposal or the thesis / Dissertation the objectives comes first and then the research questions.

I think now the order of application of questions and objectives of researches has become a matter of tradition. Many pure scientists raise many research questions and later use objectives to address them. However, some social scientists now have been habituated use research questions as instead of hypothesis.

I am not sure, but in my opinion as I convinced, research questions should be first and then objectives should be set based on those related questions. As research starts with problem or questions and conducted with the some objectives. One or more questions/problem may be accommodated by a objective.

Thank you for your question Subhanjan Sengupta Usually, we start by defining the problem, and the rationale of the study or why do we need the study? Then we come with the objectives which are summarising the focus of the study. Then we transfer the objectives into a research question or two questions. Then we state our hypothesis for each research question.

Also, we cannot place the objectives in the middle between the research questions and the hypotheses. But the logic sequence is study objectives > research questions > hypotheses.

I think there is a mix of objectives and study design. The study design should be the first part of METHODS, and it is different from objectives. However, it should translate how the objectives will necessitate the use of certain methods to answer the research questions.

If you need evidence, read high impact journals such as BMJ, NEJM, the Lancet, and Annals of Medicine. Do not rely on Mickey Mouse journals.

Dear Samy,

I usually also believe that Research Objectives should be defined right after the problem statement. Then the subsequent step is to convert the objective into SMART research questions. However, I just read the book from Saunders M. & Philips L. (2012). It stated that Research questions are often the forerunner of research objectives. The reason is research objectives are developed as a result of careful consideration of the literature.

I find this contradicts to my previous research and publication experiences. What a shock for me!

Ning

Yes, I would say that first you must formulate the research questions and then you must concretize those questions into concrete research objectives.

Good luck!

since formulation of research question starts during critical observation and thinking of the phenomena it comes first and then you will specify your interest to investigate by stating your specific research objective.

In my view most research begins with question(s). So I would go for the suggestion that research questions should precede research objectives.

I think that the first thing that comes to the researcher is the questions, which may arise as a result of an investigation he is carrying out or the reading of other authors' works, for example. These questions can be the germ of a new investigation, and if the researcher decides to carry it out, it will be when the objectives are set.

Research question.

usually it begins with a question or a p[problem