object and subject of research

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What is the difference between "subject" and "object" of study/research?

Let's say that I collected data on a person: his favourites, character, attributes, behaviour, etc. Was he the subject or object of my study/research?

Next, I collect data on an ethnic community: their culture. Is this ethnic community the subject or the object of my study/research?

Finally, I will collect data on a mountain (non-living): it's height, it's history, etc. Will this mountain be the subject or the object of my study/research?

I looked up the two words in an Oxford dictionary and I found similar meanings:

• Subject : a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with. "I've said all there is to be said on the subject"
• Object : a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed. "disease became the object of investigation"

• They are more or less interchangable, but subject is more common in my experience. –  Justin Commented Nov 10, 2020 at 12:48

I had the same question. It's a strange shift of meanings, and it doesn't end with scientific research. "Subject" also means "a person ruled over by another, especially a monarch or state authority" ( Wiktionary ), but since it is ruled over we can say it's actually an object.

I couldn't find any research on this point. But I figured out some arguments myself:

Use "subject" when you passively observe it. Use "object" when you actively affect it and change its behavior.

Yes, an object is "a person or thing to which a specified action is directed". But just an observation is hardly counts as an action. If a person continues to act by his own will and you just register its behavior then he is still a subject. He continues to do it regardless of your presence and observation.

The same argument applies to communities. And it can be extended to a mountain too. Until you perform some actions to change the natural order of things (e.g. you detonate explosions in order to observe an avalanche), it's still a subject.

Sure, ideal passive observation is impossible (see e.g. observer effect ), But you should at least clarify your intentions.

Use "subject" for persons and high-developed animals. Or define "object" more precisely.

"Object" has a negative connotation since you objectivize it. Yes, as a researcher you strive towards objectivity. But "object" sounds unethical. So, I'd use "subject" for persons and animals regardless of the distinction made in #1.

On the other hand, generally you don't research a subject as the whole. In your example, you actually study a person's favorites, character, attributes and behavior. So you can say that favorites, character etc. are objects of your research. And then you don't need to talk about the subject at all.

This answer also proposes to use "agent" for a person taking an active role in an experiment.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged meaning word-usage ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• Why is completeness (as in Gödel completeness theorem) a desirable feature?
• Why are there no Goldstone modes in superconductor?
• what is the difference between prayer (προσευχῇ) and prayer also translated as supplication (δέησις) in Philippians 4:6?
• Should I accept an offer of being a teacher assistant without pay?
• Can a planet have a warm, tropical climate both at the poles and at the equator?
• Co-authors with little contribution
• Do IDE data lines need pull-up resistors?
• Why was William Tyndale executed but nothing happened to Miles Coverdale?
• What is the translation of misgendering in French?
• Why depreciation is considered a cost to own a car?
• Is it consistent with ZFC that the real line is approachable by sets with no accumulation points?
• Could a transparent frequency-altering material be possible?
• In an interview how to ask about access to internal job postings?
• How to join two PCBs with a very small separation?
• Weird behavior by car insurance - is this legit?
• Why is polling data for Northern Ireland so differently displayed on national polling sites?
• Old book about a man who finds an abandoned house with a portal to another world
• Less ridiculous way to prove that an Ascii character compares equal with itself in Coq
• Am I doing a forcing argument here?
• QGIS Labeling expression to format a values list in a series of 2 columns of 2 records
• What actual purpose do accent characters in ISO-8859-1 and Windows 1252 serve?
• Cleaning chain a few links at a time
• Drawing waves using tikz in latex
• Sets of algebraic integers whose differences are units

Module 1: Introduction: What is Research?

Learning Objectives

By the end of this module, you will be able to:

• Explain how the scientific method is used to develop new knowledge
• Describe why it is important to follow a research plan

The Scientific Method consists of observing the world around you and creating a  hypothesis  about relationships in the world. A hypothesis is an informed and educated prediction or explanation about something. Part of the research process involves testing the  hypothesis , and then examining the results of these tests as they relate to both the hypothesis and the world around you. When a researcher forms a hypothesis, this acts like a map through the research study. It tells the researcher which factors are important to study and how they might be related to each other or caused by a  manipulation  that the researcher introduces (e.g. a program, treatment or change in the environment). With this map, the researcher can interpret the information he/she collects and can make sound conclusions about the results.

Research can be done with human beings, animals, plants, other organisms and inorganic matter. When research is done with human beings and animals, it must follow specific rules about the treatment of humans and animals that have been created by the U.S. Federal Government. This ensures that humans and animals are treated with dignity and respect, and that the research causes minimal harm.

No matter what topic is being studied, the value of the research depends on how well it is designed and done. Therefore, one of the most important considerations in doing good research is to follow the design or plan that is developed by an experienced researcher who is called the  Principal Investigator  (PI). The PI is in charge of all aspects of the research and creates what is called a  protocol  (the research plan) that all people doing the research must follow. By doing so, the PI and the public can be sure that the results of the research are real and useful to other scientists.

Module 1: Discussion Questions

• How is a hypothesis like a road map?
• Who is ultimately responsible for the design and conduct of a research study?
• How does following the research protocol contribute to informing public health practices?

Email Updates

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
• Taylor & Francis Open Select

Beyond categorisation: refining the relationship between subjects and objects in health research regulation

Catriona mcmillan.

School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Edward Dove

Graeme laurie, emily postan, nayha sethi, annie sorbie.

In this article, we argue that the relationship between ‘subject’ and ‘object’ is poorly understood in health research regulation (HRR), and that it is a fallacy to suppose that they can operate in separate, fixed silos. By seeking to perpetuate this fallacy, HRR risks, among other things, objectifying persons by paying insufficient attention to human subjectivity, and the experiences and interests related to being involved in research. We deploy the anthropological concept of liminality – concerned with processes of transformation and change over time – to emphasise the enduring connectedness between subject and object in these contexts. By these means, we posit that regulatory frameworks based on processual regulation can better recognise and encompass the fluidity and significance of these relationships, and so ground more securely the moral legitimacy and social licence for human health research.

1. Introduction

It is a near-universal legal truism that almost all regulated entities are held to fall into one of two categories: subject or object (classically: ‘person’ or ‘thing’). Within these two broad legal realms, but particularly with respect to ‘objects’, further ontological and moral demarcation usually occurs, conferring differing degrees of legal protection in accordance with the relative value that society places on the object in question. For example, we place different social, monetary and moral value on different ‘objects’, from pet animals, to historical artefacts, to ideas. It is no different within the field of health research regulation (HRR). The objects of HRR are myriad; they include ‘personal data’, DNA and RNA, cell lines, ‘human tissue’, ‘gametes’, and a range of legally prescribed embryos’, and all are bounded in law by their own definitions, frameworks, and rules of production, storage and use in health research. 1 As a technocratic domain that is fundamentally concerned with managing risks to humans, HRR regimes are understandably focussed on the definition and categorisation of suitable objects of regulatory capture – such as what counts as ‘personal data’ 2 or which kinds of embryo can be created for research purposes 3 – but there is often a deep irony that also arises, viz., the focus is then lost from the person(s) to whom these objects relate or from whom they have been derived, or who have contributed materially to the creation of these objects. 4

From the annals of medico-legal lore, we have the infamous Moore case in which it was held that the cell line derived from Mr Moore’s spleen was ‘factually and legally distinct’ and on this basis, his claim to some legal interest in the cell line was refused by the Supreme Court of California; 5 equally, in the Source Informatics case in the UK, it was held to be no breach of confidence when identifiers were stripped from patient data to allow those data to be passed on to third parties for statistical analysis purposes, despite the lack of consent to this from the subjects concerned. 6 Indeed, the role of such anonymisation techniques in ‘breaking’ the connection between subject and object also finds considerable support in many statutory regimes of HRR, such as using personal data or human tissue for research purposes. 7 In stark contrast, extensive social science literature shows that citizens continue to experience connection with the objects that they donate to health research or which are produced from their data or tissue to promote new scientific research, even if they are anonymised. 8 A crucial question therefore arises: in legally fixing these ‘objects’ in pre-determined categories, does current HRR sufficiently capture the subjective, experiential dimensions of health research processes and the persons necessarily involved?

To better understand the nature of the relationship between human research participants (conceived of as subjects in more than one sense) and objects within the research process (a process that we suggest is fluid rather than fixed), we employ the concept of liminality: this is the anthropological concept coined in the early twentieth century by Arnold van Gennep: ‘ … [d]eveloped to make sense of ritual, structure, and agency, the notion of liminality refers to a threshold phase characterised by uncertainty, possibility, marginality, and transformation.’ 9 Given that health research is precisely concerned with uncertainty and transforming materials to produce new human understandings, this conceptual lens helps to reveal – as we will argue – that the relationship between the legal categories of ‘subject’ and ‘object’ is poorly understood, and that existing categorisations within HRR are inflexible and insufficient by obscuring the important transformations that take place between subjects and objects.

As we have shown elsewhere, 10 liminality focuses attention on process and transition as experienced by human beings at times of change in their lives. In particular, the important change that occurs is to the status of persons, 11 and the classic transitions are those from childhood to adulthood, from singledom to state/religious-sanctioned union, from wellness to illness, and from illness to death. The processes in question – when designed correctly – ought to support those persons and lead them through and out of the liminal phase. It is important to do so because liminality can represent the breakdown of order and pre-existing norms and social structures; liminality, therefore, is inherently uncertain, and can be chaotic and disruptive if not recognised and managed well. For present purposes, we posit that the processes of conducting human health research can usefully be subjected to the lens of liminality. This is so for two reasons: first, the nature of research itself is inherently transformative and uncertain, as suggested above. 12 Second, the act of taking part in research is neither morally nor socially neutral. While this is self-evident in the case of clinical trials participation, we suggest that even the act of donating tissue or giving permission to use personal data in research involves a change of social status for the persons involved: they are transformed from everyday citizens into research participants. 13 As we propose in Part 3 of this article, it may also transform them in broader and more fundamental ways. A liminal framing further suggests that we must follow all of this process through because the research endeavour is, in fact, comprised of a series of thresholds and phases, each with different implications and actors (such as recruitment of participants, and/or legitimate obtaining and use of data and tissues; involvement of research nurses and clinicians, and compliance with a host of regulatory approvals). Manifestly, ethical and socially responsible research does not begin and end with a successful ethical review. The social value of the research must also be realised (or at least there must be a reasonable prospect of this). Seen in this light, the entire research endeavour is inherently a liminal experience from the perspective of the individual who becomes a research participant . We are transformed by this process of being involved in research. This change of status in itself need not be great, nor necessarily significant to the lives of particular individuals. Nonetheless, we are confronted by the fact that it is a reality and a product of these biomedical practices. This, then, leads us to ask: what can and should be done to lead people through and out of the liminality of human health research?

It is our position that by binding objects of health research in their various regulatory silos, the law does not adequately capture the relationships between human research participants and the regulatory objects deriving from them , nor does it pay adequate attention to the experience of participants who may at times be both subject and object. In other words, by binding ‘objects’ within these silos, HRR does not capture persons’ (or subjects’) potential on-going interest(s) in objects relating to them and used in health research; moreover, these are interests that can persist even once any physical connection or de facto control has ceased.

This article proceeds as follows. In Part 2, we argue that while the law requires categorisation to provide a degree of certainty, doing so in HRR can deflect us from attending appropriately to the important subjective and experiential aspects of research. Part 3 explores three case studies that illustrate the most common subject-object transitions experienced in health research: (1) from object to subject (viz. research participation); (2) from subject to object (viz. data use); and (3) ‘subject/objects’, where something does not fit easily within this legal binary (viz. embryos in vitro ). Finally, Part 4 draws from these case studies to offer a new framework – grounded in the idea of processual regulation 14 – that provides a more nuanced way of capturing these three transitions. We argue that by employing processual regulation, it is possible to better reveal the subjective, experiential and fluid nature of the relation between subjects and objects in HRR and so ground more robustly the legitimacy of research.

2. Object categorisation in law and regulation: risks and realities

A core function of law and regulation is to prescribe and proscribe certain behaviours among human actors to achieve certain desired outcomes. A common thread that runs through this core function, no matter the law or regulation in question, is the steering of human behaviour through the mechanism of object categorisation . That is to say, law and regulation affect human behaviour by connecting desired conduct to an underlying object of regulatory attention, and this object (or set of objects) will often fall within one or more larger overarching legal categories. To categorise and ‘object-ify’ is the modus operandi of law. How things are sorted and grouped carries significant weight for the ways in which the force of law may be felt. As Sarat and colleagues put it:

In its basic operation, law attempts to create, police, and occasionally transgress social, spatial and temporal boundaries. […] Within law’s spatio-temporal grid, complex classifications are established, creating boundaries that define individuals, communities, acts and norms … . 15

This is exemplified in much of the civil law legal system, where civil codes promulgated by legislatures lay out a corpus of general principles organised in a systematic way, such as the Napoleonic Code’s tripartite organisation into the law of persons, property law and commercial law. But it is equally reflected in the Common Law tradition, where statutes, regulations and judge-made law alike shape actions and identities of individuals and groups by creating boundaries around objects (broadly defined), be they personal data, embryos, organs, medical devices, investigational medicinal products, and so on. For example, the function of data protection law in Europe 16 is to protect the fundamental rights of ‘data subjects’ – those whose personal data is processed by another person or entity – and to promote the smooth flow of personal data across systems and countries for economic and social benefit. It accomplishes this two-pronged function by making ‘personal data’ the object of the law. Behaviours of key actors – specifically ‘data controllers’ and ‘data processors’ – are steered through rules governing how they may use the personal data of data subjects. Once the actions of the persons in question generate, process, or in any way interact with the category of ‘personal data’, they are immediately brought within the purview of data protection law and the said persons must discharge a range of associated responsibilities to ensure that their actions are lawful. Conversely, if those actors are not dealing with ‘personal data’, then their actions are not subject to this legal regime. Thus, much of the discussion in the field of data protection is concerned not only with what constitutes ‘personal data’ but also when does personal data exist. The obvious example is the technique of adequately anonymised data which renders it non-personal for the purposes of this law.

To take another example, the function of clinical trials law in Europe 17 is to protect the rights, safety, dignity and well-being of research participants (research subjects) in ways that – at the same time – generate reliable and robust data and avoid unnecessary administrative delays for starting a clinical trial, thus making Europe a relatively attractive place to conduct research. Here, desirable human behaviour of key actors – specifically clinical trial sponsors and investigators – is steered through rules governing how they may set up and run a clinical trial. The object of the law is the ‘clinical trial’, specifically to test medicinal products for human use. Both data protection law and clinical trials law fall within the larger category of the law governing scientific research involving humans, though of course each of these laws may fall also within other larger categories (e.g. the law governing commercial entities, the law governing the marketing of pharmaceuticals).

While we might accept prima facie that law and regulation need to ‘object-ify’ and categorise to fulfil their core functions, in the context of health research, we must also recognise that this can yield problematic outcomes in certain areas of law. Through its object categorisation, the law can inadvertently spur an overly technocratic view of the world that pays insufficient attention to human subjectivity and experience. Arguably, this is most pronounced in the health research sphere precisely because the human serves here as both subject and object. Because the human is at the centre of health research – as an investigator, participant, and ultimate beneficiary of the research – it is not enough for law and regulation merely to steer the behaviour of those who interact directly with those human ‘subjects’ to do so in ethically and socially desirable ways (whatever that might entail). That is, the focus of law ought not to be simply at the locus of the researcher-participant interaction, e.g. when recruiting someone to a clinical trial; nor should it only be at the interface of clinician/researcher and her patient/research participant; nor only on the biobanker and the responsible management of her cohort of participants. This is not to deny that these are crucially important foci of legal attention: the inter-subjective relationships involved are vital to the entire research enterprise, and they are founded on the human value of trust. But, it is precisely the entire research enterprise that is at stake and that should be under scrutiny. Trust must be maintained throughout the totality of the research process, i.e. from design and approval of the research protocol to the realisation and delivery of social value from the research itself. Yet, from a legal standpoint, as the research participant becomes less physically proximate to the research – that is, as the human subject becomes reduced to research ‘objects’ such as ‘personal data’ or ‘human tissue’ – the focus of law shifts, and some important human interests are overlooked as a result.

Human ‘subjects’ all too easily become the diced and deconstructed ‘objects’ of the law by having their component parts stripped down and gridded within artificial boundaries and categories that do not necessarily reflect the expectations or experiences of participants who take part in research. Personal data, embryos, cells, DNA, blood, and organs are both physically and legally excised from the body and slotted within silos or sections of rules. This observation in no way denies that protections do occur across this process, but they appear in isolation and at disparate junctures under diverse legal regimes. For example, there are no legal mechanisms to trace how far and how well research participants’ interests are protected across the entire research trajectory. The ‘promise’ of research made to the research ethics committee (which, we note, is before the research even begins) is not always adequately monitored over time; 18 trust remains fragile throughout these processes, and can be broken for want of a clear social licence; 19 downstream uses of research data and materials remain a legitimate concern of citizens, notably commercial access and use, even when core privacy and physical interests have been well-protected. 20 All of this suggests that the siloed approach of law provides an incomplete picture, at least from the perspective of the human experience of being involved in research.

How then are we to make sense of this? We do not challenge the need for law and regulation to categorise, but we do suggest that in the process of object categorisation in health research, law and regulation could do better to (re)incorporate the subject (the participant) into the processes of human HRR. In other words, by better understanding how law and regulation create objects and categories of objects and, in so doing, separate the human subject from object, we can consider the ways in which we may devise legal and regulatory frameworks that better account for any enduring connections between subjects and objects. This analysis, in turn, can help to minimise disruptions or controversies that can arise in health research. To do so, we now turn to liminality, an anthropological concept concerned with processes of transformation and change.

3. Transitions between subjects and objects in health research: three case studies

In case study one, From Object to Subject , we argue that important normative work is done by recognising the identity interests that citizens have and retain throughout the research endeavour, that is, by recognising that research practices and findings can have important impacts on participants’ own identities to the extent that the experience of participation contributes to or detracts from their own narratives about who they are as persons.

In case study two, From Subject to Object , we suggest that governance frameworks that over-emphasise mechanisms such as the anonymisation of research participants’ data, or the role of informed consent, fail adequately to account for the interests that individuals might retain in their data, even when this may be no longer identifiable or ‘connected’ in the eyes of the law.

Finally, in case study three, Between Subject and Object , we offer insights into how an inherently liminal being – the human embryo – is currently categorised. We argue that the failure to recognise what it means to lead embryos out of liminality towards diverse ends of either reproduction or research use, make current regulations increasingly morally questionable. Moreover, we suggest that the liminal analysis offered here coupled with the normative account of what it means to be a research participant, viz. the experiences of women and men as progenitors and donors, can provide good reasons why gamete and embryo donors ought to have more of a say in the research that is done with and on their embryos.

3.1. From object to subject: constituting the identity of the research participant

In ordinary language, there is ample room for ambiguity about whether participants in health research may most appropriately be thought of as the objects or the subjects of the endeavour. In one sense, they may be seen as the objects of study – passive parties to whom research activities are done. 21 This is perhaps most marked where research is conducted using data such as patient records, or stored tissue samples, without any direct contact with, or active involvement of, the participant. However, regulatory instruments and ethics guidelines governing health research commonly refer to ‘research subjects’ or ‘trial subjects’. 22 This is fitting inasmuch as participants’ bodies, behaviours, tissues or data are the focus and material – the subject matter – of inquiry. Nevertheless, it is not always or obviously the case that the participant – qua person – is the true subject of research, when most studies aim not to investigate individual-level traits or health, but to develop generalisable knowledge derived from analysis of a large amount of aggregate information on multiple participants.

This section will propose one important reason why we should not lose sight of the research participant as subject in one important sense, even if we do not always use this term to refer to them. This is because the language of subjecthood serves to highlight an ethically significant aspect of the process and experience of participation. 23 That is, taking part in health research can serve to construct the participant as the subject of her own life and experiences, by contributing to the development of her identity in a more thoroughgoing and normatively significant way than by merely acquiring the label of ‘research participant’.

3.1.1. Narrative self-constitution

To make sense of these suggestions, it is necessary to say a little more about what it might mean for someone to have and to develop an identity. Although the account outlined here is only one possible way of conceptualising what makes each of us the particular individuals we are, it is one that resonates with many of our everyday ideas about what identity looks like and how it works; it is also receiving increasing (though not universal) support in philosophical and bioethics debates. 24

A narrative conception of identity holds that each of our identities is constituted by the story we would each give of who we are. This story includes, amongst other features, our accounts of what we have experienced, what we have done and plan to do, our characteristics, desires, beliefs and values, and our relationships with other people, our bodies and the world around us. It is thus a constellation of many kinds of experiences, self-descriptions and modes of self-understanding. And it is a ‘story’, not only in the sense that extends and develops over time, but also because the features of which it comprises are not discrete elements, but part of a whole from which these various features derive their role, meaning and significance. A key feature of narrative theories of identity is the claim that our self-narratives do not merely describe us, but actually constitute who we are. An individual is the subject of her own self-narrative, in the sense that she is the protagonist, albeit one whose story is shaped by others and her environment, including that of her own body. 25 And the contents and nature of her self-narrative provide the interpretive and evaluative frame through which she experiences herself and the world, it shapes her particular subjectivity.

3.1.2. The impacts of participation

We will first examine the suggestion that the sheer act of taking part in research may itself contribute to the constitution of the participant as a subject. The proposal here is that taking part could provide experiences or plotlines that feed into an individual’s identity narrative and present opportunities for particular characteristics or self-descriptors to come to the fore or recede within this narrative.

According to a narrative conception of identity, our self-narratives are interpretive and ‘curated’ stories, in which some aspects of our lives feature (some prominently, others less so), while others do not. 26 At the most straightforward level, then, taking part in health research is a plausible candidate for acquiring a place in an individual’s account of who they are simply because, for most of us, it is not a quotidian activity. It will bring novel interactions and experiences, and often involve unusual exposure to risk or scrutiny and a degree of burden. It may well then stand out as noteworthy amongst life’s other activities and thus ‘make it into’ someone’s account of who she is.

Similarly, as one of us has argued elsewhere, 27 to the extent that taking part in research entails encounters with information about one’s own health, body or relationships in the form of research findings (either aggregate results or individually-relevant observations), 28 these too may impact upon participants’ accounts of who they are. They may do so, for example, by adding, subtracting, reinforcing or reconfiguring threads of participants’ self-characterisations, including their relationships to others. Such findings might include, for example, results indicating increased susceptibility to mental illness, or those that cast doubt on assumed genetic heritage. 29 To be clear, the suggestion here is not that research findings reveal who a participant ‘really is’, but rather that they may affect the ways in which participants construct the stories that constitute their identities.

However, even allowing that research findings and other experiences associated with participation may feed into someone’s self-narrative, it might still be queried whether the addition of even novel and noteworthy life experiences or insights supplied by research findings actually makes any substantial difference to who someone is, to their own identity and subjectivity. One response to this is that these new narrative threads do not occupy an isolated role in our identity narratives. Rather they serve to contextualise, colour and reconfigure other aspects of these stories and add to the lens through which we view and interpret our other experiences. A further response is that the experience of participation, and perhaps particularly the choice to do so in the first place, may be seen as playing normatively, not merely qualitatively, significant roles in constituting the participant as someone with particular commitments and values. This suggestion needs to be unpacked a little further.

Empirical studies that have investigated people’s motivations for taking part in various kinds of health research suggest that there are a number of possible ways that participation could contribute to the construction of the participant as a ‘moral subject’. Beyond being motivated by potential clinical benefits (for example access to check-ups or therapeutic interventions, which some may hope to gain from taking part), 30 it is not uncommon for individuals to characterise their participation as an expression of their principles, values and concern for others. For example, they may report being motivated by a desire to help others – either future patients with a particular condition or, more generally, by contributing to the generation of scientific knowledge as a public good. 31 Conversely, they may be less willing to participate when they doubt the social value of a study. Particularly in the field of genetic research – due to the inherently shared nature of genetic data and family histories – taking part may be a manifestation of particularly relational aspects of participants’ identities and associated bonds of care and concern for others. For example, participants undergoing testing to improve understanding of genetic diseases that run in their families may express their motives in terms of concern and love for relatives who could be at risk, or be a means of honouring those lost to the disease. 32 Meanwhile, a quite distinct way in which participation may function as a kind of enactment of self-image, may be witnessed amongst participants who report that donating their genomic data to research via commercial direct-to-consumer services is a way of manifesting their identities as techno-pioneers or ‘early adopters’. 33

The proposal here is that participation may do more than simply express some of an individual’s identifying characteristics. If we accept that to participate in health research is to enter into a liminal transformative process, then the introduction of the analytical frame of narrative identity offers a stronger interpretation – that taking part can actually serve to constitute who someone is. This is grounded in the claim that a self-narrative is not simply a set of inert self-descriptors, adopted or rejected at will. Rather, the relationship between one’s self-narrative and conduct is practical, normative and reflexive, meaning that the self-descriptors we adopt only plausibly define who we are to the extent that we actually act (or choose or judge) in accordance with them when it is possible and appropriate to do so. 34 According to this analysis, then, participation is constitutive of identity to the extent that it provides opportunities for important threads of self-characterisation to be enacted and thus reinforced as part of the kind of person someone is. This offers a way of interpreting the inferences that Hallowell and colleagues draw from their own observations – that participants in health research ‘construct themselves as responsible and caring individuals’ and as ‘moral being[s]’ – in such a way that ‘construct’ can be understood literally, not as merely in terms of self-presentation. 35 On this view, taking part in a genetic study (for example) may not merely demonstrate someone’s affection and concern for her (potentially at risk) siblings and children, but actually comprise part of what it means to her to be a loving parent and sister. 36

According to the same reasoning, if it is plausible that acting in accordance with the characteristics with which we define ourselves reinforces their roles in our identities, then the converse will also hold. That is, taking part in research that is at odds with our values or other characteristics with which we identify – for example, as might be the case if it serves commercial interests rather than the interests of patients, or uses unsafe or unethical methods 37 – may undermine, and be experienced as undermining, the corresponding aspects of our self-narratives and thus threaten our existing, and valued, accounts of who we are. Where the aims or conduct of studies are antithetical to the self-conception of participants, or the experience of participation is in some way distressing or contrary to their expectations, this could instead disrupt, or re-configure their identities in ways that are unwelcome or that that they struggle to inhabit or make sense of.

The suggestions made here, then, are that taking part in health research can be (re)constitutive of the participant as subject: the subject of her own identity narrative and her perspective on the world. As a result of participation, the particular self-descriptors, roles, relationships and experiences that make up an individual’s self-conception and provides the qualities of her subjectivity, may be gained, lost or rearranged in ways that are more, or less, welcome, desirable or ‘inhabitable’. Of course, the participant exists as a subject prior to participation but, through consenting and committing to participate and permitting herself to be the object of scrutiny and inquiry, she continues on the perpetual journey of evolving and becoming the particular subject she is.

Participation in health research may therefore be seen as a process through which, in serving as the object of research, the participant undergoes and experiences development as a subject, for better or perhaps worse. This transition from being an object of study to a particular subject is even more apparent where the means of participation is via literal objects – that is where it does not require the involvement of, or interventions upon, the whole person, but rather research conducted upon their data or tissue samples in their absence. As described above, the health research landscape is changing. Increasingly it is characterised by secondary data uses and studies that apply AI and bioinformatics to vast datasets. 38 ‘Remote’ participation of the kind entailed by these types of studies might not entail the kind of notable or risky life experiences described earlier in this section, and thus not feature as narrative plotlines on these grounds. However, it may still result in the generation of personally significant research findings. And, as noted above, many of the empirical studies investigating motivations for participation focus precisely on the role of data-focused research in the construction of the ‘moral subject’. These studies provide some indication that this aspect of identity constitution is present even in data-led non-contact research. In this, we may witness the very epitome of the transition from research object to research subject: the constitution of the participant as subject from the objects of study, for example, her health records or tissue samples.

3.1.3. Implications for managing health research

It might be queried why the potential impacts of health participation on our identities would, or should, make any difference to how health research is regulated. After all, if each of our identities is perpetually in development, why worry about one possible route of development? However, this is to overlook the implicit normativity in narrative conceptions of identity, normativity that is indicated in the examples given above. That is, we care about what kinds of individuals we are. We have interests in being able to develop and maintain aspects of our identities, and in being able to make sense of and comfortably inhabit our own accounts of who we are. 39 If this is indeed the case, it carries ethical implications for practices that impinge on these capacities, amongst which – we suggest here – health research practices may be counted. This, in turn, has implications for the responsibilities of those conducting health research and the policies governing its ethical conduct. Seen through our liminal lens, the process of becoming and being a research participant makes it incumbent on those responsible for research processes to lead participants through and out of the entire research trajectory.

What, then, are some of the ways in which current health research regulatory norms and practices might recognise and respond to the ways that participation may serve to constitute the participant as subject? Here, we make only brief suggestions that will be picked up further in the discussion of a processual approach to regulation in Part 5. First, this analysis emphasises that the value of trust in the research relationship – and efforts to foster and protect this – are not only important for reasons of recruitment and social licence. 40 In particular, it underscores the need to characterise fully and accurately the nature and aims of a study in recruiting participants and obtaining their consent to participate so that they can properly appraise how it fits with their ideas of who they are and their life projects. Also implicated are policies regarding the return of individually relevant research findings to participants. 41 The preceding analysis suggests a need to recognise the potential significance of research findings to participants beyond their clinical actionability. 42

Lastly, a key implication of this first example of the relationship between object and subject in health research is that the need to attend to possible impacts on participants’ identities are not severed by their physical remoteness from the research that is conducted, but may be mediated by their donation of research objects such as data or tissues. In the next example, we take a closer look at this relationship in the context of data governance, specifically the consent-or-anonymise binary, which is paradigmatic of the way in which the subject-object distinction draws focus away from the transformative experiences of the research participant.

3.2. From subject to object: the anonymisation of data

Big data provides us with an illustration of the problems associated with attempting to categorise and distinguish subjects and objects as separate, fixed constructs, as well as the consequences of prioritising the object over the subject. Here, we use the term ‘subject’ to refer to individuals to whom data pertains. We use the term ‘object’ to refer to the data and information which relate to the data subject. In this section, we consider the problems associated with current approaches to conceptualising subject/object relationships in the data context. In particular, we suggest that the dominant ‘consent-or-anonymise’ model represents a caricature of subject/object separations created, to some extent, by current regulatory frameworks and the ways in which big data strives to prioritise the object at the expense of important considerations around the subject, including narrative interests as outlined above. In this realm, we find that the law seeks to impose bright lines/thresholds across the data reuse research endeavour, and incorrectly assumes that these are reflective of the realities, including human experiences around data use.

However, we also acknowledge that research practice has a part to play here. A liminal approach, which emphasises the human experience and the process of transformation involved in health research, requires us to revisit the current constructs provided for within the law and to account for the subjects’ interests in their data and connections to them. Taken together, we suggest that governance frameworks that over-emphasise mechanisms, such as the anonymisation of research participants’ data, or the role of informed consent, fail to adequately account for the interests that individuals might retain in their data, even when this may be no longer identifiable or ‘connected’ in the eyes of the law. Data protection law makes the privacy-related interest of ‘identifiability’ the core concern; however, in addition to narrative identity interests, research subjects might also have reputation-related interests at stake – for example, not being associated with, or facilitating, research with which they fundamentally disapprove on moral grounds.

Alongside the clear benefits of data use and reuse, not least the rich insights these may provide across a wide variety of health, health-related, and even non-health concerns, come significant regulatory challenges. 43 These include important questions around consent, privacy and the role and value of public interest, which we have discussed at length elsewhere. 44 What has not received attention to date, but which is central to how we approach the regulation of data or research, are the ways in which the big data revolution, powered in part by secondary uses of patient and research data and the analytical capacities of artificial intelligence, is shifting the focus away from data subjects and towards big data objects. We see this reflected perhaps most starkly in the ‘consent-or-anonymise’ paradigm that, in our view, presents a false choice to data subjects as to the (ongoing) connections they may have with their data; it also fails to recognise the full range of subjects’ interests that are at stake.

3.2.1. The consent-or-anonymise paradigm

As mentioned above, law’s creation of regulatory silos that attempt to draw bright lines around distinct categories of data (identifiable, anonymous, sensitive) is based on an assumption that such bright lines necessarily capture and sufficiently protect the core interests at stake. Indeed, in the case of anonymisation, the working assumption is that these technical processes adequately sever the relationships between data subjects and data objects: by rendering the data no longer ‘personal’, it also can no longer attach to a data subject. Under data protection law, anonymous data means ‘information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable’. 45 We suggest that such an assumption of relationship-severing is problematic in that it overlooks the important on-going (and at times implicit or symbolic) relationships between subjects and objects in terms of their interests in how data pertaining to them may be used including: who data are shared with (e.g. public/private organisations?), the purposes for data sharing (what kinds of research?) and the outcomes (does data use lead to commercial profit? If so, how are these profits used?).

The law’s relatively myopic approach results in prioritising legal focus on the object, i.e. the data relating to the individual. This is particularly so when data objects are used in large-scale datasets where the emphasis is placed on maximising the potential research value of the data objects. As datasets increase in volume and are continually linked to additional datasets, not only are the risks to privacy increased, but the opportunities to (re)create the legal category of ‘personal data’ are multiplied (because the likelihood of re-identification of individuals can increase through data linkage). This means, in practice, multiple third parties within a big data environment might become data controllers for the purposes of data protection law, so coming within this legal domain. Moreover, from the data subject’s perspective, as her data move further and further away from her immediate control and knowledge of what is being done, her influence is weakened or removed altogether while her interests in her data in terms of how it may be used, with whom it may be shared, and so on, remain the same – and become arguably stronger in some cases, e.g. if non-approved uses are made that impact negatively on reputational or identity interests.

Taken together, these examples show why the ‘consent-or-anonymise’ paradigm is increasingly problematic, in that it does not adequately reflect the interests that may be retained in how data is used, even if an individual is not identifiable in a legal sense. This is not to say that such interests should always be determinative – such an approach would be disproportionately detrimental to health research – but, as we will go on to argue below, neither should they be wholly discounted or ignored.

Consider, for example, the use of personally identifiable information versus non-identifiable data, and the distinct regulatory frameworks which each triggers. Personally identifiable information is regarded as information which relates to an identified or identifiable individual. Subject to certain caveats, to use personally identifiable information, there are both legal and ethical requirements to obtain the consent of the data subject prior to use. This can be problematic. For example, obtaining consent is timely and cost-intensive, particularly considering that big data studies rely upon data relating to thousands of individuals. Often, research projects have time-limited funding which severely impedes the ability to contact every single individual to obtain their consent. Likewise, questions arise as to whether or not obtaining individual consent is always desirable when data subjects may not necessarily wish to be contacted to obtain permission for every single use of their data in research.

In recognition of the impracticalities (and impossibilities) of obtaining consent, regulatory responses have been developed to facilitate the use of data without consent requirements via (amongst other approaches) the use of anonymisation. Anonymisation involves techniques that make the identification of a data subject highly unlikely, and thus the use of such data no longer falls within legal requirements to obtain the data subject’s consent or another lawful basis before use. We add a caveat to this point by acknowledging that data protection law (at least in Europe) generally offers a variety of lawful bases to process personal data, of which consent is but one. In principle, then, the choice to researchers (as data controllers) is more akin to ‘anonymise the data or choose a lawful basis’; in health research, there are projects that tend not to operate on consent for the lawful basis to process personal data, such as retrospective chart reviews and epidemiological research. 46 This said, it is through long-standing practice in health research (foremost through the normative weight placed on consent) that the lawful basis chosen by many researchers to process personal data in their projects is, indeed, consent. The result has been the perpetuation of the ‘consent-or-anonymise’ paradigm, 47 where researchers wishing to use data either obtain consent from data subjects or anonymise the data prior to use.

3.2.2. Implications for health research

This model can be viewed as a paradigmatic example of regulatory attempts to separate the subject (the person) from the object (their data); it suggests that merely through ‘stripping’ identifiable information from data pertaining to a subject, the connection between the data subject and object is severed. The practical, ethical and social realities are, however, far more complicated. Each time datasets are linked together, more and more information pertaining to an individual is connected and the potential for re-identification increases. Technological developments in data use have also provided increased means of generating data that is re-identifying of persons; this, in turn, renders ‘true anonymisation’ highly unlikely. 48 Moreover, despite the benefits for a research agenda of obviating consent requirements, the use of anonymous data (where re-identification is no longer possible) is not always ideal in the research setting when both (i) identifiable information and (ii) the ability to link together multiple datasets (which cannot be done via anonymisation) provide richer datasets with greater research potential. Consent-or-anonymise threatens to thwart many big data objectives while at the same time creating illusions of control and protection that – in many instances – simply do not respect the moral connection between a subject and her data.

One technocratic solution which has been developed to mitigate the limitations of the consent or anonymise paradigm is pseudonymisation. This is an alternative methodology that provides a means of retaining the ability to link together data about individuals across multiple datasets, without re-identification. Identifiers within datasets are attributed codes/pseudonyms which are held separately from original datasets. Thus, the potential to re-identify individuals and link together multiple datasets is maintained, whilst also paying due regard to privacy concerns. Indeed, pseudonymisation demonstrates the fluid nature of data, from identifiable to non-identifiable and back to identifiable, which occupies the research space and which manifestly contrasts with the concept of separation between subject and object. Thus, the prominence of the data subject waxes and wanes over time, depending upon the research context. It could be argued that data objects in the case of pseudonymisation may simultaneously be considered to fall within both categories of identifiable and non-identifiable or, in fact, within neither category. This feature of in-betweenness could be seen as an example of the liminality of things – data themselves are in processes of transforming and becoming something else (notably, or possible future relevance to a data subject). 49 As such, our liminal framing suggests, once again that there are continued obligations to lead the data objects – and the data subjects – through and out of this digital liminal phase, and potentially also to close feedback loops between research participants and research outcomes, as we have argued in detail elsewhere. 50

We suggest that anonymisation does not absolve us of thinking about broader ethical issues and from considering the full range of interests that are engaged – be they collective (e.g. the benefits of research) or individual (e.g. narrative or reputational). This illustrates that our analysis is not merely descriptive, but also can also direct us towards governance frameworks that are able to speak to this nuanced relationship. Indeed, when we engage with the limitations of such an approach as a default – both in terms of the researchers’ needs for a rich dataset, as well as individual narrative and reputational interests in the use of the data, identifiable or not – this forces us to consider alternative approaches. We address what some of these might look like in Part 5.

By acknowledging the ebb and flow from subject to object, this also directs our attention to the potential move between object and subject. As we have seen, the legal and moral status of the entity as object or subject is critically ambiguous and depends on the vagaries of what is done to it and the regulatory paradigm under which this falls, as explored further in the following section where we turn to a case study that exemplifies this, embryos in vitro , which under UK law are attributed a ‘special status,’ not quite person (subject) or thing (object).

3.3. Between subject and object: the human embryo in vitro

The human embryo in vitro is paradigmatic of an entity that does not fit neatly into either of the legal categories of ‘subject’ or ‘object.’ Embryonic development is the most rapidly unfolding biological process in any stage of human life. This complexity is mirrored in legal frameworks that are, at the same time, detailed and ambiguous. This section explores that complexity and exemplifies the need not to dismiss categories completely; in some cases, it might be appropriate to make the implicit ‘object’ status of the embryo explicit. This analysis suggests that even where we recognise the need for categorisation in some cases, our normative claim regarding the importance of subjects’ experiences remains. In this case, there is room for the law to better account for the process and experience of becoming a donor, and their experience of their embryos becoming decidedly a research ‘object.’

3.3.1. A ‘special’ status?

All in vitro embryos that are created, stored, used, implanted, and disposed of in the UK are governed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended) (‘the 1990 Act’). The intellectual basis for this Act lies in the 1985 Warnock Report, which recommended that embryos created in vitro be afforded a ‘special status’. While the exact nature of this status was and remains unclear, we know that it involves affording embryos ‘respect’, 51 and not treating them with ‘frivolity’. Every embryo created in vitro enjoys the Warnock Report’s ‘special status’; this is reflected in provisions for how embryos are to be used either in reproduction or in research; it is found in the rule against implanting human-animal hybrids; 52 and it is the reason behind the 14-day time limit on research with human embryos. 53 Like other frameworks for HRR (e.g. the Human Tissue Act 2004), the 1990 Act itself focuses primarily on embryos in vitro (for the purposes of this section, the ‘object’), and what we can and cannot do to them, while little recognition is given to the context from which the embryos are created or obtained.

But what category is assigned to the in vitro embryo by law: subject or object? It is arguable that embryos in vitro are treated neither as a legal subject nor as a legal object by the 1990 Act, but rather as something that falls in between this binary. The unarticulated construction of embryos in law as subject-objects has been a result of attempting to regulate an uncertain space and to accommodate potentially fundamentally conflicting values: that is, showing respect for the embryo while promoting reproductive medicine and embryonic research in the public interest, the last of which destroys the embryo in the process. And, as noted above, while all embryos created in vitro are governed by this ‘special status’, there are at least two distinct paths which they may go down once created (or unfrozen): (1) towards reproductive ends and (2) towards research ends. While it is clear, legally speaking, that embryos are neither subjects nor objects in the traditional sense – they do not have legal personhood, but neither are they a mere ‘thing’ and so cannot be property – their subject-ness or object-ness in research practice is arguably affected by the ultimate end for which they are used. As some of us have argued elsewhere:

The liminal states and the subject/object dyad are important for the future of artificial reproduction and embryo research because the notion of ‘the moral status of the embryo’ underpins the entire legal architecture of human reproductive regulation. A liminal perspective suggests, however, that at best, the law may be perpetuating a moral myth, and at worst, the compressed regulatory regime is fundamentally flawed. 54

To expand on this further, if embryos are placed on a ‘reproductive path’, their treatment as a subject, rather than as an object, could be said to intensify. This is clearly not to say that they are immediately treated as subjects in law (e.g. with personhood), but more as a subjects-to-be . For example, clinics responsible for reproductive IVF must consider a host of factors when deciding whether to accept clients for treatment and many of these are about the well-being of the future person. 55 Equally, once these embryos are implanted, the Abortion Act 1967 makes it increasingly difficult, as the foetus develops, for the pregnancy to be terminated. Conversely, placing embryos on a research path intensifies their treatment as ‘object’. Once determinedly a research embryo (whether created for research purposes, or donated), these entities may only be researched on and then disposed of; they can never cross to the reproductive path. Admittedly, there are strict limits on what one can and cannot do with them, and before 14 days (or before the primitive streak, whichever happens sooner), they must be disposed of. Thus, although they are ‘not nothing’ 56 in moral and legal terms, research embryos are, for all practical intents and purposes, treated as ‘artefacts’. 57 In other words, they become legal objects. This does not mean that they cannot be ‘special’ in some continuing sense; many legal objects and ‘artefacts’ engender considerable amounts of legal protection that reflects the ways in which we ‘value’ them – for example, celebrated works of art. Thus, object-hood does not necessarily render the embryo as ‘nothing’, but at the end of the day, research embryos are still disposed of much like any other object that outlives its usefulness. Still, embryos can matter in other ways. For example, empirical research has shown that ‘Some participants understood existing trajectories (including embryo research) as feeding back into the field of reproduction, hence, maintaining narrative consistency of hope where fertility treatment provides a technical solution for childless people’, but it has also been shown that voices of donors have been ‘marginalised’ in the research process and debates about research. 58 Therefore, not only is the process of becoming a donor ridden with anxiety, 59 but so is the possibility of ‘their’ donated embryos contributing to the advancement of the very endeavour they are trying to achieve as fertility patients.

Our analysis thus far encourages us to embrace fluid, experiential aspects of being involved in health research, and this case study also provides the opportunity to call out certain processes for what they are. The reality is that there is no such thing as the unitary ‘ in vitro embryo’ as a legal category. In vitro embryos are liminal entities when they are created, but the decision to place them on the reproductive or the research path has moral implications that must be recognised. In other words, there is an imperative, here, to make the implicit explicit: the embryo that becomes a research artefact is being treated as more object-like. The point in time when this occurs is a moral and ethical crossroads that should be acknowledged. Moreover, in doing so, we open the potential for a more honest debate about what we can and should do with the embryo as an artefact (object) – which is distinct to the embryo as a future person (subject). At the same time, the relationship that donors have (as subjects) with their embryos (as objects) is imbued with moral meaning that is not yet fully reflected in the legal and governance arrangements that are currently in place.

3.3.2. Implications for health research

The processes of transformation and change in the regulation of embryos in vitro are radically different depending on the outcome that is envisioned for them, and the ultimate end points are diametrically in opposition: one results in life, the other in destruction. Van Gennep’s original formulation of liminality describes processes of change in time and space, but, as we have argued elsewhere, another way of thinking about liminality is to focus on the spatial and temporal aspects of the very processes under consideration. A liminal lens reveals that being in-between bounded legal categories is only ever a temporary state; indeed, liminality itself is often only a fleeting matter because the tendency is to proceed through a liminal state towards a transformative end point. 60 For the in vitro embryo, these end points are practically and morally irreconcilable. Yet, it is arguable that the all-encompassing ‘special status’ is blind to this; conceptually, it severs in vitro embryos from the multiplicity of futures that the law has regulated for (i.e. reproductive use/implantation or research/disposal), and leaves out the possibility for constructive debates (inclusive of embryo/gamete donors) surrounding how any next steps in embryo research regulation should take place. 61 It perpetuates a myth of considerably dubious moral character.

In sum, we suggest that not only are the categories of subject and object helpfully problematised by our liminal lens but also that the failure to create appropriate categories for those whose subject-ness or object-ness is temporally dependent undermines the ethical legitimacy of law in human health research. Recognising the research embryo as a legal object has several normative implications. For one, it can open up new avenues of research; it might also give reason to provide a framework that allows us to tell donors more accurately and clearly what will happen to their donated embryos, and to give them more input to those future research processes.

Ultimately, the analysis of these three case studies allows us to consider more deeply who has a say in research processes, depending on what these processes are. Indeed, if an option for further donor involvement in research were deemed desirable, it might enable us to address more fully the critique that donors can feel as if they are on the side-lines when it comes to research. 62 As we have demonstrated in this section, the regulatory landscape in health research severs a moral, and personal, a connection that many research participants may have with their research contributions, be it tissue, data, or embryos. We, therefore, suggest the need to rethink regulation in processual terms, as an endeavour that occurs over a much longer time period than HRR currently recognises; health research is a liminal process, yet we fail to treat it as such. 63 We consider how we might do so using our framework for processual regulation in the next section.

4. Beyond categorisation: a framework for processual regulation

4.1. challenging the subject-object paradigm.

Each of the three case studies above presents challenges to the suitability of a siloed approach to subjects and objects in HRR. Together, these challenges may be summarised as follows:

• The first case study, focusing on the subjectivity of the research participant, suggests that a powerful and important personal interest may be under-represented and under-recognised in HRR: the interest that research participants have in constructing and inhabiting their own identity narratives. This interest may be impacted, for better or worse by participants’ experiences of taking part in health research, and by the ways that HRR influences these experiences;
• The products of research, such as ‘research data’, can also feed into one’s identity. The second case study, the consent-or-anonymise paradigm in data governance, provides a concrete example of the ways in which the subject/object separation can prioritise the object (viz. data) over the identity or experiences of the subject; this can also have implications for a wider set of reputational interests;
• Embryos in vitro exemplify another research process that relates to legal subjects and objects that has, at least in part, been segmented by this enduring distinction. Not because it has been pushed neatly into either category, but because, here, we have not called out processes for what they are. Despite the ‘special status’ of embryos, their subject-ness or object-ness intensify as fertility or research processes go on, respectively; therefore
• While processes of transition and change happen to the participant and her contribution (e.g. data, embryos, or tissue), she (as a subject) and her interests in that contribution remain a constant in the research timeline. The full implications of this are not yet recognised in law.

Liminality, as a lens, has revealed several insights about the ways in which research occurs in practice, and the fluidity of research participants’ experiences (and relation to) their contributions. Liminality also focuses our attention on the subject as the experiencer, often going through a transformation of identity as the research processes take place, from being a participant to a person affected by research results. We have argued that a rigid separation of the categories of subject and object in HRR fails to reflect the reality of research practices, where, for example, tissue becomes data. Each of these bounded spaces relates to each other, but the nature of the frameworks surrounding them mean that the experiences of research participants as being either research subject and/or object, or their relation to their contributions (be it tissue, embryos, or otherwise), are insufficiently captured by current regulatory regimes. Our approach redirects regulatory attention from one chiefly focused upon legal ‘objects’ e.g. tissue, to one that highlights the experiences of human ‘subject,’ i.e. the research participant.

But how can law and regulation better reflect this changing materiality, not only in a physical sense but also in terms of their importance (i.e. how much they matter ) to their subjects, i.e. to research participants? Moreover, how can law and regulation reflect the fluidity of connection between research participants and research objects, such as data, tissue and embryos? Each of the above case studies captures a process in health research: the process of becoming a research participant or ‘research subject’ and their experiences as their contributions (be these data, tissue, or embryos) become research objects. These processes, oftentimes fluid and unfixed, 64 are a key feature of research practices that, as our case studies show, is not currently reflected by HRR. To better reflect the experiences of research participants in the regulation of health research, be it their connection to their contributions/objects (e.g. data), however great or small, 65 we need a regulatory framework that accounts for the greyness of the spaces between research participants and research objects. This may mean we need to consider who has a say in research processes, when they get to have a say, and how they might do so. We argue that this may be done through a framework for ‘processual regulation’.

4.2. What is processual regulation?

As mentioned above, we have collectively and individually explored previously notions of processual regulation as it relates to HRR. Processual regulation is more than a ‘mere focus on process in regulation. […] ‘[S]uch an approach requires a temporal–spatial examination of regulatory spaces and practices as these are experienced by all actors, including the relationship of actors with the objects of regulation.’ 66 In a previous piece, we suggested that processual-oriented regulation has the following features:

• Over time, it recognises the flexibility and fluidity inherent in laboratory and clinical research;
• In space, it focuses on iterative interactions that adapt to new developments in science and medicine, as well as with changes in law and regulation; and
• Through experience, it reflects the complete investigative endeavour and is able, for example, to guide the different involved parties through the entire research process. 67

One of us has built upon this first iteration in the context of the regulation of embryos in vitro to suggest a specific, ‘context-based approach’ which recognises (a) the multiplicity of intersecting pathways that the law leads embryos through (i.e. research, reproduction, PGD, freezing); (b) each of these pathways is relational i.e. dependent on the decisions and experiences of those who lead them into, on and out of those pathways; and (c) that at the end of those pathways there are only two possible outcomes: implantation in vivo, or destruction. 68 This approach, borne from a liminal lens , brings together the experiential and time-sensitive aspects of the processes that in vitro embryos are taken through by donors, researchers, and other stakeholders. Another of us, in the context of public interest and the sharing of health research data, used a processual lens to suggest that ‘a fuller account of the public interest is provided through the application of a processual approach that pays attention to (1) a holistic view of the operation of law, beyond the statute book; (2) the dynamic nature both of law (broadly conceived) and publics’ views over time; and (3) the actors, activities and subjectivities that are in play’. 69

4.3. A framework for processual regulation

In this article, we have used a liminal lens to establish that the experience and interests of research participants are a key normative basis for better recognising the continuing connection between subjects and objects in HRR. In this section, we put forward a new framework for processual regulation, building on our previous iterations (5.2, above) and our findings from our analysis of the above case studies. We argue that this framework helps us to consider broader governance tools, within and beyond HRR. By binding objects of health research, law overlooks the experiences of the research participants qua subject of research and the donors of data, tissue and embryos. We suggest an alternative regulatory perspective, processual regulation , which has the following key features:

• Acknowledges and articulates the often-enduring connection between subjects and objects;
• Reflects the reality that fluidity can occur between the categories of subject and object in health research;
• Recognises the potential implications of these relationships for a subject/research participant’s identity; and
• Embraces the view that health research needs to be seen holistically, as an endeavour that continues beyond the categorisation (subject, object, research, consent, etc.) that HRR currently acknowledges.

Our analysis therefore suggests a need for greater transparency of research processes and more commitment to opportunities for co-production of regulation. For example, this means that research participants should have the opportunity to have a greater knowledge of, if not a real say in, what happens to their research contributions. In practical terms, processual regulation may therefore mean giving subjects the following opportunities:

• Meaningful on-going engagement in and after the research processes for research participants;
• Input to research direction and access decisions on the use of research resources;
• Feedback, on a personal level, relating to the use of and findings from participant contributions to health research (including individually relevant, and ‘incidental’ or unexpected findings, not only aggregate results) 70 ; and
• Opportunity to co-produce regulation with regulatory actors so that their experience and ongoing metaphysical connection to their research contribution, whatever form that may take – even when ‘disconnected’ from their body – is duly recognised and accounted for throughout the research lifecycle.

Our framework exposes the opportunity to introduce mechanisms that give participants the options to be fed back information about the uses to which their contributions are put and – where appropriate – to participate meaningfully in processes of deciding on the direction of research. Equally, we do not claim that research participants always have a marked interest in research objects deriving from them. Instead, it is the nuances of the fluidity that can occur between subject and objects that is inadequately reflected in HRR. More generally, it should be noted that we do not suggest that processual regulation is necessarily tied to liminality; this is simply offered as a lens that helps us more closely to interrogate the spaces between conventional legal spaces in which much of health research practice takes place. Moreover, we also do not suggest that processual regulation should be limited to the realm of health research. In today’s world, where lines between common legal categories are increasingly blurred (especially ‘person’ and ‘thing’), and a plethora of technological developments are taking place (much faster than law and regulation can keep up with), processual regulation as an adaptive framework can help us to tackle these relatively new challenges in law and society.

5. Conclusion

We began this article by highlighting law’s current approaches to categorisation; law almost always focuses on the ‘thing’ and not the person from which the thing derives. We explained that this is particularly acute in HRR, which takes its cue from law, where the subject/object divide is more pronounced and unstable as most ‘things’ in this field of regulation come from the human body. HRR has thus tended to adopt a siloed approach, severing research objects from research subjects. Our normative position, however, is that the connection between subject and object within and across regulatory environments in human health research is a matter of profound ethical and social importance, and the law must recognise and respond to this by capturing HRR holistically as a process over a much longer period of time than it currently acknowledges.

Liminality, an anthropological concept concerned with processes of transformation and change, enabled us to emphasise the enduring connectedness between subjects and objects in these contexts, specifically in three case studies: the identity of the research participant, the anonymisation of data, and the embryo in vitro. Through our analysis of these case studies, we showed that the relationship between subjects (oftentimes research participants) and their objects is not so easily severed.

Overall, our core contribution has been to suggest that the notion that material of enduring human value – such as personal data and tissue – can be stripped of its moral significance by spatio-temporal distance, or by techno-bureaucratic measures such as anonymisation, is simply inadequate as a grounding for ethically robust research regimes – that is, regimes which recognise and respect the interests engaged through experience of participating in health research. We therefore offered a framework for ‘processual regulation’ to better capture HRR as an experiential process of transformation and change, particularly as these impact on the interests of subjects/participants involved in the research. This framework has significant practical implications for research participants (subjects), whom we argue should be recognised as having an on-going relationship with their research objects throughout the research lifecycle.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on research conducted with support from a Wellcome Senior Investigator Award entitled ‘Confronting the Liminal Spaces of Health Research Regulation’ (Award No: WT103360MA): http://www.liminalspaces.ed.ac.uk/ .

Biographies

Catriona McMillan is a Senior Research Fellow in Medical Law and Ethics, School of Law, University of Edinburgh.

Edward Dove is a Lecturer in Health Law and Regulation, School of Law, University of Edinburgh.

Graeme Laurie is a Professorial Fellow, School of Law, University of Edinburgh.

Emily Postan is a Senior Research and Teaching Fellow in Bioethics, School of Law, University of Edinburgh.

Nayha Sethi is a Chancellor’s Fellow in Data Driven Innovation, School of Medicine, University of Edinburgh.

Annie Sorbie is a Lecturer in Medical Law and Ethics, School of Law, University of Edinburgh.

Funding Statement

1 Graeme Laurie, ‘Liminality and the Limits of Law in Health Research Regulation: What Are We Missing in the Spaces In-Between?’ (2016) 25 Medical Law Review 47, 49.

2 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (herein ‘GDPR’).

3 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended) s4A.

4 Samuel Taylor-Alexander and others, ‘Beyond Regulatory Compression: Confronting the Liminal Spaces of Health Research Regulation’ (2016) 8 Law, Innovation and Technology 149, 158.

5 Moore v. Regents of the University of California , 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).

6 R v Department of Health, Ex Parte Source Informatics Ltd [C.A. 2000] 1 All ER 786.

7 See GDPR (n 2) Recital 26, Data Protection Act 2018, Human Tissue Act 2004.

8 See, for example: Pam Carter, Graeme Laurie, and Mary Dixon-Woods, ‘The Social Licence for Research: Why Care. Data Ran into Trouble’ (2015) 41 Journal of Medical Ethics 404; Alexis Clarke, Annie Mitchell and Charles Abraham ‘Understanding Donation Experiences of Unspecified (Altruistic) Kidney Donors’ (2014) 19 British Journal of Health Psychology 393; Sarah Parry, ‘(Re) Constructing Embryos in Stem Cell Research: Exploring the Meaning of Embryos for People Involved in Fertility Treatments’ (2006) 62 Social Science and Medicine 2349.

9 Taylor-Alexander and others (n 4) 150.

10 See Taylor-Alexander and others (n 4); Laurie (n 1).

11 See Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, Status Passage (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971).

12 Ezekiel Emanuel, David Wendler and Christine Grady, ‘An Ethical Framework for Biomedical Ethics’ Ezekiel Emanuel and others (eds), The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2018) 127.

13 Agomoni Ganguli-Mitra, Edward Dove, Graeme Laurie, and Samuel Taylor-Alexander, ‘Reconfiguring Social Value in Health Research Through the Lens of Liminality’ (2017) 31 Bioethics 87, 89.

14 Taylor-Alexander and others (n 4); Catriona McMillan, The Human Embryo In vitro: Breaking the Legal Stalemate (CUP, forthcoming); Annie Sorbie, ‘Sharing Confidential Health Data for Research Purposes in the UK: Where are “Publics” in the Public Interest?’ (2019) 16 Evidence and Policy 249.

15 Austin Sarat and others, ‘The Concept of Boundaries in the Practices and Products of Sociolegal Scholarship: An Introduction’ in Austin Sarat and others (eds), Crossing Boundaries: Traditions and Transformations in Law and Society Research (Northwestern University Press, 1998) 3–4.

16 Specifically, as seen in the GDPR (n 2).

17 Specifically, as seen in the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014.

18 Edward Dove, Regulatory of Stewardship of Health Research: Navigating Participant Protection and Research Promotion (Edward Elgar, 2020).

19 Carter and others (n 8).

20 Sara Davidson and others, ‘Public Acceptability of Data Sharing Between the Public, Private and Third Sectors for Research Purposes’ (2013) Scottish Government; Ipsos Mori ‘The One-Way Mirror: Public Attitudes to Commercial Access to Health Data’ (2016) Report prepared for the Wellcome Trust.

21 Oonagh Corrigan, and Richard Tutton, ‘What’s in a Name? Subjects, Volunteers, Participants and Activists in Clinical Research’ (2006) 1 Clinical Ethics 101.

22 For example, the Declaration of Helsinki and The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. Though the language of ‘participant’, with its more positive connotations of inclusivity and respect, has become more prevalent over recent decades (see Corrigan and Tutton, n 21).

23 This is not necessarily to the exclusion of the terminology of ‘participant’. However, contrary to the idea that the term ‘subject’ is in some sense less respectful of the agency and individuality of the individual than the term ‘participant’, a possible implication of the proposal made here is that this terminology may actually serve to emphasise the impact of participation on these attributes.

24 See, for example, Kim Atkins and Catriona Mackenzie, Practical Identity and Narrative Agency (Routledge 2013), David DeGrazia, Human Identity and Bioethics (Cambridge University Press, 2005), Emily Postan, ‘Defining Ourselves: Personal Bioinformation as a Tool of Narrative Self-Conception’ (2016) 13 Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 1331; Marya Schechtman, The Constitution of Selves (Cornell University Press, 1996).

25 Postan (n 24).

26 Schechtman (n 24).

27 Postan (n 24).

28 That they will receive such findings is by no means a given, particularly when these are classed as ‘incidental’ to the core purpose of the research. See, for example, Susan Wolf and others, ‘Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations’ (2008) 36 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 219.

29 Postan (n 24); Kristof Van Assche, Serge Gutwirth, and Sigrid Sterckx, ‘Protecting Dignitary Interests of Biobank Research Participants: Lessons from Havasupai Tribe v Arizona Board of Regents ’ (2013) 5 Law, Innovation and Technology 54.

30 It should not be assumed, however, that hopes for personal therapeutic benefit are necessarily distinct from identity development. It is possible that for some, participation offers a means of being informed and proactive in the face of risk or ill-health, and thus, embracing a responsible, engaged and biologised mode of self-identification, see Carlos Novas and Nikolas Rose, ‘Genetic Risk and the Birth of the Somatic Individual’ (2000) 29 Economy and Society 485.

31 Mary Dixon-Woods and Carolyn Tarrant, ‘Why Do People Cooperate with Medical Research? Findings from Three Studies’ (2009) 68 Social Science & Medicine 2215; Nina Hallowell and others, ‘An Investigation of Patients’ Motivations for Their Participation in Genetics-Related Research’ (2010) 36 Journal of Medical Ethics 37.

32 Hallowell and others (n 31); Ann Hurley and others, ‘Genetic Susceptibility for Alzheimer’s Disease: Why Did Adult Offspring Seek Testing?’ (2005) 20 American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias 374.

33 Richard Tutton and Barbara Prainsack, ‘Enterprising or Altruistic Selves? Making Up Research Subjects in Genetics Research’ (2011) 37 Sociology of Health and Illness 1081.

34 Christine Korsgaard, Self-constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity (Oxford University Press, 2009).

35 Hallowell and others (n 31) 43–44.

36 Lori d'Agincourt-Canning, ‘Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Responsibility and Choice’ (2006) 16 Qualitative Health Research 97.

37 Dixon-Woods and Tarrant (n 31).

38 Graeme Laurie and Nayha Sethi, ‘Towards Principles–Based Approaches to Governance of Health–Related Research Using Personal Data’ (2013) 4 European Journal of Risk Regulation 43.

39 Postan (n 24).

40 Carter, Laurie and Dixon-Woods (n 8) 404–409.

41 Wolf and others (n 28).

42 Emily Postan, ‘Disclosure of Research Findings: Changing Roles and Relationships’ in Graeme Laurie and others (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Health Research Regulation (CUP, forthcoming).

43 Graeme Laurie and Nayha Sethi, ‘Information Governance of Use of Health-Related Data in Medical Research in Scotland: Current Practices and Future Scenarios’ (2011) University of Edinburgh School of Law Working Paper No. 2011/26.

44 Nayha Sethi and Graeme Laurie, ‘Delivering Proportionate Governance in the Era of eHealth: Making Linkage and Privacy Work Together’ (2013) 13 Medical Law International 168; Laurie and Sethi, ‘Towards Principles-based Approaches’ (n 38) 43–57; Sorbie (n 14).

45 GDPR (n 2), Recital 26.

46 Edward Dove and Jiahong Chen, ‘Should Consent for Data Processing Be Privileged in Health Research? A Comparative Legal Analysis’ (2020) 10 International Data Privacy Law 117.

47 Academy of Medical Sciences, Personal Data for Public Good: Using Health Information in Medical Research (AMC, 2006).

48 Paul Ohm, ‘Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization’ (2010) 57 UCLA Law Review 1701.

49 Subjects may also retain interest in their data post-mortem. See Sethi and Laurie (n 51); Laurie and Sethi (n 45) 43–57; Sorbie (n 10).

50 Taylor-Alexander and others (n 4).

51 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Cmnd 9314, 1984) (‘The Warnock Report’), 11.15.

52 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended) s3(2), s3ZA.

53 Ibid s3(4).

54 Taylor-Alexander and others (n 4) 168.

55 E.g. the ‘welfare of the child principle’, contained in s13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended); and the age limit for IVF treatment, see National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Fertility Problems: Assessment and Treatment (NICE, 2013).

56 Mary Ford, ‘Nothing and Not Nothing: Law’s Ambivalent Response to Transformation and Transgression at the Beginning of Life’ in Stephen Smith and Ronan Deazley (eds), The Legal, Medical and Cultural Regulation of the Body: Transformation and Transgression (Routledge, 2009).

57 John K Mason, ‘Discord and Disposal of Embryos’ (2004) 8 Edinburgh Law Review 84.

58 Parry (n 8) 2358.

60 We recognise that states of permanent liminality can exist. Indeed, the embryo that is frozen in perpetuity could be an example of this. Space does not permit us to discuss the implications of this particular scenario

61 Any amendment also needs robust, open enquiry into public attitudes, see Giulia Cavaliere, ‘A 14-Day Limit for Bioethics: The Debate Over Human Embryo Research’ (2017) 18 BMC Medical Ethics 38.

62 Parry (n 8).

63 Laurie (n 1) 47.

64 Although, as we have shown above in the third case study, in vitro embryos, sometimes these processes are indeed fixed.

65 See Parry (n 8).

66 Taylor-Alexander and others (n 4).

68 See McMillan (n 14).

69 Sorbie (n 14) 261.

70 It is recognised here that in the context of health research, which is increasingly exploratory, translational and reliant on algorithmic analysis of big data, a rigid distinction between intended and incidental research finding is increasingly unsupportable.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

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
• Research Objectives | Definition & Examples

Research Objectives | Definition & Examples

Published on July 12, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on November 20, 2023.

Research objectives describe what your research is trying to achieve and explain why you are pursuing it. They summarize the approach and purpose of your project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement . They should:

• Establish the scope and depth of your project
• Contribute to your research design
• Indicate how your project will contribute to existing knowledge

Table of contents

What is a research objective, why are research objectives important, how to write research aims and objectives, smart research objectives, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research objectives.

Research objectives describe what your research project intends to accomplish. They should guide every step of the research process , including how you collect data , build your argument , and develop your conclusions .

Your research objectives may evolve slightly as your research progresses, but they should always line up with the research carried out and the actual content of your paper.

Research aims

A distinction is often made between research objectives and research aims.

A research aim typically refers to a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear at the end of your problem statement, before your research objectives.

Your research objectives are more specific than your research aim and indicate the particular focus and approach of your project. Though you will only have one research aim, you will likely have several research objectives.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Research objectives are important because they:

• Establish the scope and depth of your project: This helps you avoid unnecessary research. It also means that your research methods and conclusions can easily be evaluated .
• Contribute to your research design: When you know what your objectives are, you have a clearer idea of what methods are most appropriate for your research.
• Indicate how your project will contribute to extant research: They allow you to display your knowledge of up-to-date research, employ or build on current research methods, and attempt to contribute to recent debates.

Once you’ve established a research problem you want to address, you need to decide how you will address it. This is where your research aim and objectives come in.

Step 1: Decide on a general aim

Your research aim should reflect your research problem and should be relatively broad.

Step 2: Decide on specific objectives

Break down your aim into a limited number of steps that will help you resolve your research problem. What specific aspects of the problem do you want to examine or understand?

Step 3: Formulate your aims and objectives

Once you’ve established your research aim and objectives, you need to explain them clearly and concisely to the reader.

You’ll lay out your aims and objectives at the end of your problem statement, which appears in your introduction. Frame them as clear declarative statements, and use appropriate verbs to accurately characterize the work that you will carry out.

The acronym “SMART” is commonly used in relation to research objectives. It states that your objectives should be:

• Specific: Make sure your objectives aren’t overly vague. Your research needs to be clearly defined in order to get useful results.
• Measurable: Know how you’ll measure whether your objectives have been achieved.
• Achievable: Your objectives may be challenging, but they should be feasible. Make sure that relevant groundwork has been done on your topic or that relevant primary or secondary sources exist. Also ensure that you have access to relevant research facilities (labs, library resources , research databases , etc.).
• Relevant: Make sure that they directly address the research problem you want to work on and that they contribute to the current state of research in your field.
• Time-based: Set clear deadlines for objectives to ensure that the project stays on track.

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

Research objectives describe what you intend your research project to accomplish.

They summarize the approach and purpose of the project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement .

Your research objectives indicate how you’ll try to address your research problem and should be specific:

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

• Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
• Your proposed timeline and duration
• Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
• Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

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.

Ryan, E. (2023, November 20). Research Objectives | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-objectives/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, "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

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to appropriately choose research subjects

Affiliation.

• 1 Consulting Center of Biomedical Statistics, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100850, China. [email protected]
• PMID: 21419075
• DOI: 10.3736/jcim20110303

The research subject is the first key element of the three key elements in the research design. An appropriate selection of research subjects is crucial to the success of the research. This article summarizes the general principles for the selection of research subjects, the types and numbers of research subjects and the common mistakes that researchers tend to make in the selection of the research subjects. This article also provides the methodology suggestions for the selection of research subjects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• How to appropriately choose observed indexes. Hu LP, Bao XL, Guan X, Wang Q. Hu LP, et al. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2011 May;9(5):491-4. doi: 10.3736/jcim20110505. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2011. PMID: 21565134
• How to appropriately choose and arrange research factors. Hu LP, Bao XL, Guan X, Wang Q. Hu LP, et al. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2011 Apr;9(4):361-4. doi: 10.3736/jcim20110403. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2011. PMID: 21486547
• Screening and evaluation of study subjects in patient-oriented research. Toto RD. Toto RD. J Investig Med. 2010 Apr;58(4):608-11. doi: 10.231/JIM.0b013e3181c9f68c. J Investig Med. 2010. PMID: 20009952
• Developing and systematically implementing participatory action research. White GW, Suchowierska M, Campbell M. White GW, et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Apr;85(4 Suppl 2):S3-12. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.109. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004. PMID: 15083417 Review.
• [Recruitment and selection of test subjects for scientific research in geriatrics: literature review and experiences of the Nijmegen NESTOR study]. Olde Rikkert MG, van Asselt DZ, van Kraaij DJ, Jansen RW, Hoefnagels WH. Olde Rikkert MG, et al. Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr. 1998 Feb;29(1):4-10. Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr. 1998. PMID: 9536508 Review. Dutch.
• Search in MeSH
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• The Open University
• Accessibility hub
• 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.

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

How R Discovery is Transforming Research Reading Habits for Academics in Brazil

What is Independent Publishing in Academia?

Matters of Interest: The Objects of Research in Science and Technoscience

• Published: 30 October 2011
• Volume 42 , pages 365–383, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent 1 ,
• Sacha Loeve 1 ,
• Alfred Nordmann 2 &
• Astrid Schwarz 3  

1372 Accesses

36 Citations

Explore all metrics

This discussion paper proposes that a meaningful distinction between science and technoscience can be found at the level of the objects of research. Both notions intermingle in the attitudes, intentions, programs and projects of researchers and research institutions—that is, on the side of the subjects of research. But the difference between science and technoscience becomes more explicit when research results are presented in particular settings and when the objects of research are exhibited for the specific interest they hold. When an experiment is presented as scientific evidence which confirms or disconfirms a hypothesis, this agrees with traditional conceptions of science. When organic molecules are presented for their capacity to serve individually as electric wires that carry surprisingly large currents, this would be a hallmark of technoscience. Accordingly, we propose research on the ontology of research objects. The focus on the character and significance of research objects makes this a specifically philosophical project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Funded by the French and German Research Councils, ANR and DFG, the project “Genesis and Ontology of Technoscientific Research Objects” is set to develop a number of case studies in a larger collaborative setting. For more information see http://www.goto-objects.eu .

Hottois ( 1984 ) and ( 2002 ); Latour ( 1987 ); Haraway ( 1997 ); Hayles ( 2004 ); Ihde and Selinger ( 2003 ); Sassower ( 1995 ); Stengers ( 2010 ).

This definition does not make any assumptions as to whether this work of purification ever succeeds, nor does it commit science or philosophy of science to a realist metaphysics. Indeed, the differences and debates between various brands of realism, conventionalism, instrumentalism, constructivism arise within the scientific enterprise—they result from the question what the work of purification can achieve, and how the “signs of the real” should be interpreted.

An anonymous reviewer suggested a way of refining the question here that might be especially fruitful for a project dedicated to the ontology of research objects: The question of realism versus positivism or constructivism arises in respect to the problem of reality ( Realität ) as an object of representation. In contrast, research that engages the agency or efficacy of things that function outside the laboratory is interested in actuality ( Wirklichkeit ). However, some theories of reality assume that what is actually and efficaciously the case affords the only “signs of the real” that serve as the evidentiary basis for representations of reality.

See Gibbons et al. ( 1994 ); Nowotny et al. ( 2001 ); ( 2000 ). For an overview and discussions see Nordmann et al. ( 2011 ).

Ludwig Wittgenstein, in particular, articulated this ontology: “The world is the totality of facts, not of things.”—“It is essential to a thing that it can be a constituent part of an atomic fact.”—“Objects I can only name . Signs represent them. I can only speak of them. I cannot assert them . A proposition can only say how a thing is, not what it is” (Wittgenstein 1958 , 1.1, 2.011, 3.221).

For a critique of this story-line see Rabinow ( 1997 ).

How do the ways of “foregrounding” different aspects of the same research relate to the distinct definitions of science and technoscience? Take the example of “control.” We stated that the sciences aim for true representations, the technosciences for capabilities of control, but we did not use this to define the difference. After all, according to certain pragmatist and empiricist accounts of science, one ascertains the correctness or adequacy of a representation by taking as evidence a resulting capability to control. According to our definition, then, this is the decisive difference: In the case of those pragmatist and empiricist accounts of science control validates propositions and is not knowledge in its own right. In the case of technoscience, however, control is knowledge in its own right and the task for the philosophy of technoscience is to reconstruct the underlying epistemology, notions of validation etc. Having done this for technoscience, we can turn back to look at the sciences and ask whether there, too, is operative “under the surface,” so to speak, that other epistemology according to which the achievement of control is knowledge in its own right, indepedently of whether it validates a proposition. This is how “foregrounding” works and it leaves quite intact, of course, the notion that the sciences are oriented to the ideal of purification and thus to representations and propositions that are true or false.

However, it could be argued that such a top-down approach, in which objects embody idealized ontological frameworks, should be complemented by a more bottom-up approach, where one would investigate how research objects may prove able to reconfigure the overall map of knowledge, including the guiding ideals of science and technoscience. This is not only a purely methodological “top-down versus bottom-up” problem but concerns the status of ontology in respect to epistemology. Is the ontology of objects framed by a prior epistemological standpoint, or do the objects constrain the epistemic strategies of science and technoscience? To what extent and how exactly are technoscientific objects plastic to human ends and modalities of access—as opposed to the much emphasized resistance or recalcitrance of scientific objects? Do technoscientific attempts at mastering complexity encounter something like a “plastic stubbornness” of technoscientific objects? Here, different approaches come to mind, such as “existential pluralism” (Souriau 1943 ), “agential realism” (Barad 1999 ), or “object oriented metaphysics” (Harman 2005 ). This problem could also be addressed by reconstructing “biographies of objects” (Daston 2000 ).

Arguably, the ontology of facts is underpinned by an ontology of data where data are thought to be meaningless unless apprehended in the shape of propositions that organize them as facts.

An extreme illustration of this point was provided by Nobel-laureate Gerd Binnig, one of the inventors of the scanning-tunneling microscope, suggesting that a rock is not a rock but could be anything else ( 2004 , 7).

To be sure, we are not assuming that, in fact, the technosciences can overcome notions of a limited world and discover unlimited resources for endless novelty and surprise. Obviously, such ideas can be criticized as technoscientific hubris. We do claim, however, that the notion of limits (as in conservation laws) are not constitutive for technoscientific research practice, while they may well be necessary preconditions for the representation of the world.

It might appear far-fetched to speak of “magical thinking”in respect to technoscientific research practice. But the far-fetched comparison makes a point about inferences from the similarity of two physical systems, e.g., from the similarity of cancer in the oncomouse and a human, or from the similarity of a dynamic behavior in silico and in vivo (of a simulation model in a computer and of a physical process in an experimental system). Precisely because these similarities are constructed with the help of research technologies, one can take them as indicative of a shared reality that makes these systems similar. (Compare to this the skeptical rejection of inferences from similarity in modern theories of knowledge: similarity judgments are thought to be reducible to statements of the form “identical in specific respects, different in other respects” and not to signify anything sui generis —see Goodman 1972 in contrast to Foucault 1973 , esp. 17–25).

“In many cases the outcome of activating a disposition does not depend on any particular human situation, interest, or construction. However, in some cases the phenomenon has a specifically human aspect. Compare the generic outcome that ice of a certain thickness can bear a certain weight per unit area, expressed in a generic disposition, with the claim that ice of that thickness affords walking for a person. Generalizing the notion of an affordance we can say that an apparatus/world complex can afford things . For instance, wheat, yeast, and a stove can afford loaves of bread. A lathe can afford chair legs, and a discharge tube can afford gamma rays. […] The phenomena that are produced in an [apparatus/world complex] are the manifestations of affordances. These are dispositions that bring together two sets of causal powers that cannot be disentangled. There are the powers of the material stuff organized as an apparatus and the powers of the world realized in the phenomena.” (Rom Harré 2003 , 37f.).

Here the concept of “nature” follows an Aristotelian conception whereby every thing has its own nature and no longer refers to a homogeneous space of lawful regularities.

See Mody and Lynch ( 2010 ); Hennig ( 2006 ) and ( 2011 ); Soentgen ( 2006 ); Baird and Shew ( 2004 ); Shinn ( 2008 ).

This and the next paragraph have been adapted from Nordmann 2010a .

This first production of immediacy can be said to be ‘analogic’ in two senses: it is based on the STM’s operation as an analogue to sensing, and it takes recourse to analogies between the experiment and the model.

To be sure, more sustained reflections of microscopy indicate that the question about realism and truth is based on a misleading dichotomy. For much instrument-aided observation one can say that it does not provide straightforward access to something given, but that it is not therefore an inferential construction of something invented.

Compare Rom Harré’s account of the difference between instruments that function like probes (the thermometer, the light microscope) and a complex of apparatus and world that makes a phenomenon available for research and development, for observation and intervention. As we saw above, he says of the latter complexes that they afford a thing or an activity (Harré 2003 ).

Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique: contribution à une psychanalyse de la connaissance objective . Paris: J. Vrin.

Google Scholar  

Baird, D., & Shew, A. (2004). Probing the history of scanning tunneling microscopy. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 145–156). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Balashov, J. (2010). Persistence and spacetime . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barad, K. (1999). Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader . New York, London: Routledge.

Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). Les vertiges de la techoscience. Façonner le monde atome par atome . Paris: La Découverte.

Binnig, G. (2004). Preface. In N. Boeing (Ed.), Alles nano?! Die Technik des 21. Jahrhunderts . Berlin: Rowohlt.

Binnig, G. (2009). Interview statesment. In: Expedition Zukunft/Science Express (exhibition catalogue) (p. 239 and 246). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Boon, M., & Knuuttila, T. (2011). Breaking up with the epochal break: The case of engineering sciences. In A. Nordmann, H. Radder, & G. Schiemann (Eds.), Science transformed? Debating claims of an epochal break (pp. 66–79). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.

Carrier, M., & Nordmann, A. (Eds.). (2010). Science in the context of application. Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 274, p. 491). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chang, Hasok. (2004). Inventing temperature. Measurement and scientific progress . New York: Oxford University Press.

Daston, L. (Ed.). (2000). Biographies of scientific objects . Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity . New York: Zone Books.

de Jong, R., & Betti, A. (2010). The classical model of science: A millennia-old model of scientific rationality. Synthese, 174 , 185–203.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dewey, J. (1971). Experience and nature . LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

Dupuy, J.-P. (2010). The narratology of lay ethics. Nanoethics, 4 (2), 153–170.

Echeverria, J. (2003). La revolucion tecnocientifica . Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Economica.

Foucault, M. (1973). The order of things: An archeology of the human sciences . New York: Vintage Books.

Galison, P. (2006). The pyramid and the ring. Presentation at the conference of the Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie (GAP) , Berlin.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge—The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies . London: Sage.

Gimzewski, J. K. (2008). Nanotechnology: The endgame of materialism. Leonardo, 41 (3), 259–264.

Goodman, N. (1972). Seven strictures on similarity. In: Problems and projects (pp. 22–32). Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobs-Merrill.

Gzil, F. (2007). Animal models of Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive ageing, Presentation at the First Conference of the European Philosophy of Science Association , Madrid , November 14–17.

Hacking, I. (1981). Do we see through a microscope? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 62 , 305–322.

Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_witness@Second_millenium. FemaleMan©_meets_Onco-mouse™: Feminism and technoscience . New York: Routledge.

Harman, G. (2005). Guerilla metaphysics. Phenomenology and the carpentry of Things . Chicago: Open Court.

Harré, R. (2003). The Materiality of instruments in a metaphysics for experiments. In H. Radder (Ed.), Philosophy of scientific experimentation (pp. 19–38). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Hayles, K. (Ed.). (2004). Nanoculture: Implications of the new technoscience . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hennig, J. (2006). Changes in the design of scanning tunneling microscopic images from 1980 to 1990. In J. Schummer & D. Baird (Eds.), Nanotechnology challenges: Implications for philosophy, ethics and society (pp. 143–163). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hennig, J. (2011). Bildpraxis: Visuelle Strategien in der frühen Nanotechnologie . Bielefeld: Transcript.

Hottois, G. (1984). Le signe et la technique. La philosophie à l’épreuve de la technique . Paris: Aubier.

Hottois, G. (2002). Technoscience et sagesse? . Nantes: Pleins Feux.

Ihde, D., & Selinger, E. (Eds.). (2003). Chasing technoscience . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Keller, E. F. (2000). Models of and models for: Theory and practice in contemporary biology. Philosophy of Science, 67 (3), 72–86.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Loeve, S. (2010). About a definition of nano: how to articulate nano and technology? HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 16 (1), 3–18.

Mendeleev, D. (1952). The relation between the properties of the atomic weight of the elements. In H. M. Leicester & H. S. Klickstein (Eds.), Sourcebook in Chemistry 1400–1900 (p. 439). New York: Dover.

Mody, Cyrus. C. M., & Lynch, M. (2010). Test objects and other epistemic things: A history of a nanoscale object. British Society for the History of Science, 43 (3), 423–458.

Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor-network theory and after (pp. 74–89). Oxford: Blackwell.

Nordmann, A. (2006). Collapse of distance: Epistemic strategies of science and technoscience. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 41 , 7–34.

Nordmann, A. (2010a). Philosophy of technoscience in the regime of vigilance. In G. Hodge, D. Bowman, & A. Maynard (Eds.), International handbook of regulating nanotechnologies (pp. 25–45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Nordmann, A. (2010b). Science in the context of technology. In M. Carrier & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Science in the context of application. Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 274, pp. 467–482). Dordrecht: Springer.

Nordmann, A. (2011). The age of technoscience. In A. Nordmann, H. Radder, & G. Schiemann (Eds.), Science transformed? Debating claims of an epochal break (pp. 19–30). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.

Nordmann, A., Radder, H., & Schiemann, G. (Eds.). (2011). Science transformed? Debating claims of an epochal break . Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty . USA: Blackwell.

Quine, W. V. O. (1980). From a logical point of view: Nine logico-philosophical essays . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rabinow, P. (1997). Essays on the anthropology of reason . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sassower, R. (1995). Cultural collisions: Postmodern technoscience . New York: Routledge.

Schiemann, G. (2005). Natur, Technik, Geist. Kontexte der Natur nach Aristoteles und Descartes in lebens-weltlicher und subjektiver Erfahrung . Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.

Schlick, M. (2009). Allgemeine erkenntnislehre . Wien: Springer.

Schwarz, A., & Nordmann, A. (2010). The political economy of technoscience. In M. Carrier & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Science in the context of application. Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 274, pp. 317–336). Dordrecht: Springer.

Shinn, T. (2008). Research-technology and cultural change. Instrumentation, genericity, transversality . Oxford: The Bardwell Press.

Soentgen, J. (2006). Atome sehen, Atome hören. In A. Nordmann, J. Schummer, & A. Schwarz (Eds.), Nanotechnologien im Kontext. Philosophische, ethische und gesellschaftliche Perspektiven (pp. 97–113). Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.

Souriau, E. (1943). Les différents modes d’existence . Paris: Presses Universtaires de France 2010.

Stengers, I. (2010). Cosmopolitics . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Verbeek, P. P. (2000). The thing about technology: Toward a phenomenology of technological artifacts. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Metaphysics, epistemology, and technology (pp. 281–301). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design . University Park: Pennyslvania State University Press.

Whewell, W. (1858). Novum organum renovatum (3rd ed.). London: Parker.

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Tractatus logico-philosophicus . London: Routledge & Paul.

Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre d’Etudes des Techniques, des Connaissances et des Pratiques (CETCOPRA), Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 75231, Paris cedex 05, France

Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent & Sacha Loeve

Technische Universität Darmstadt, Residenzschloss, 64283, Darmstadt, Germany

Alfred Nordmann

Astrid Schwarz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid Schwarz .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bensaude-Vincent, B., Loeve, S., Nordmann, A. et al. Matters of Interest: The Objects of Research in Science and Technoscience. J Gen Philos Sci 42 , 365–383 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-011-9172-y

Download citation

Published : 30 October 2011

Issue Date : November 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-011-9172-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research objects
• Technoscience
• Dispositions
• Affordances
• Philosophy of scientific experimentation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
• COVID-19 Library Updates
• Make Appointment

Object Research: Overview

• Research Tools

Introduction to Object Research

Often, when viewing objects at museums or in archives,* we are presented with contextual information pertaining to an object's origin, purpose, historical, social, political or aesthetic meaning. If that contextual information has not yet been created, observation and research will need to be done. This guide will provide you with information on how to conduct object research for the purpose of creating your own interpretation of an object.

Object research will help you contextualize an object in respect to other collection objects, photographic collections, or archival materials held at an institution and help you to define its place within a broader style, genre or historical period. It will also aid you in considering contemporaneous aesthetic, social, or political concerns and how these might shape the object’s reception (during various historical periods and among different groups of people).

The tabs on the left identify stages of object research and can be used in conjunction with your course material.

*For information about archives read: Schmidt, Laura.  "Using Archives: A Guide to Effective Research."  (Society of American Archivists, 2011), 1-16.

• Next: Discovery >>
• Last Updated: Jan 22, 2021 2:04 PM
• URL: https://libguides.depaul.edu/object

• Policy & Compliance
• Human Subjects

Definition of Human Subjects Research

• Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or
• Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens."

Decision Tool: Am I Doing Human Subjects Research?  

The questionnaire is a tool to assist you with determining whether your project involves non-exempt human subjects research, meets the criteria for exempt human subjects research, or does not involve human subjects research. 

Human Subjects Research Infographic

This resource summarizes the definition of human subjects research and provides examples of human subjects research projects. It also describes what you will need when you are preparing your NIH application and what is required if you are funded.

Exempt Human Subjects Research Infographic

This resource is a guide to simplify the understanding of the exemptions from the federal regulations for the protection of human subjects research. It summarizes Exemptions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, providing basic definitions, examples of studies that meet and do not meet the criteria of the exemption, and aspects one must consider when engaged in exempt or non-exempt human subjects research. 

Research Involving Private Information or Biospecimens Flowchart

Studies involving the use of human specimens or data may or may not be considered to be research involving human subjects, depending on the details of the materials to be used. Use this flowchart to help determine if studies involving private information or biospecimens may meet the definition of human subjects research.

Public Health Surveillance Exclusions

Learn about research activities which may qualify for a public health surveillance exclusion. Find useful information, key resources, and instructions for NIH applicants and offerors.

This page last updated on: January 13, 2020

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

• DOI: 10.33397/2619-0559-2019-1-1-217-249
• Corpus ID: 188397790

THE OBJECT AND SUBJECT OF RESEARCH IN CIVIL DISSERTATIONS

• O. Kuznetsova , A. Zakharkina
• Published in METODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE… 1 January 2019

Research Is an Activity and a Subject of Study: A Proposed Metaconcept and Its Practical Application

Allison Hosier *

Information literacy instruction based on the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education tends to focus on basic research skills. However, research is not just a skill but also a subject of study. The ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education opens the door to integrating the study of research into information literacy instruction via its acknowledgement of the contextual nature of research. This article introduces the metaconcept that research is both an activity and a subject of study. The application of this metaconcept in core LIS literature is discussed and a model for incorporating the study of research into information literacy instruction is suggested.

Introduction

Studies have shown that students’ confidence in their research skills often does not match their proficiency with those skills. 1 Students seem to believe that their facility with search engines is sufficient for any research-related task they may be faced with. In believing this, what students fail to realize is that while the information-seeking skills they have developed are certainly valuable in some situations, they are less so in others.

Instructors of composition courses face a similar dilemma. Students believe that writing is nothing more than a basic skill and often fail to appreciate the importance of rhetorical context to the writing process. In an effort to resolve this, instructors help students familiarize themselves with different genres of writing via the study of writing itself. As a result, students may begin to recognize that basic skills are not enough to meet the expectations for writing in every context. The most successful student writers are ones who are able to recognize themselves as novices in some of these contexts. 2 These student writers will also begin to see that writing is not just an activity but also a subject of study. 3

Students who learn about research through information literacy instruction may not have the opportunity to experience a similar epiphany about the research process. This is because common models of information literacy instruction are primarily skills-based with a particular focus on application. There is little if any time to devote to teaching students about the contextual nature of research or how to study a research product for evidence of conventions related to these contexts.

If information literacy instruction is typically skills-based, it is likely because the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (the Standards ) is a skills-based document, as are similar documents that have shaped how information literacy has been taught until now. The Standards guidelines in particular fail to address the contextual nature of research in a meaningful way, thus limiting opportunities to introduce this important concept in the classroom.

The advent of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (the Framework ) marks a shift from skills-based thinking about information literacy to concept-based thinking. Because of this shift, information literacy instructors now have the option to expand their teaching beyond the application of basic research skills. The Framework ’s attention to context in particular can be used to create a model of instruction that involves the study of research in addition to the application of research skills. In this way, students will better recognize that research, like writing, is both an activity and a subject of study.

The purpose of this article is threefold. The first is to propose the metaconcept that research is both an activity and a subject of study. This metaconcept has long been present in the literature in the library and information science field but has been largely absent from information literacy instruction. The second goal of this study is dto discuss how the influence of the Standards led to the skills-based model of information literacy instruction while suggesting that the Framework ’s attention to context provides a path for reshaping such instruction around the study of research. Third, a model for integrating this metaconcept into information literacy instruction will be presented.

These ideas were initially inspired by Adler-Kassner and Wardle’s edited volume Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies . Just as Adler-Kassner and Wardle and their collaborators aimed to articulate what writing studies experts know about their subject to improve conversations with students and other nonexperts, the application of the ideas in the present study can lead to better discussions about information literacy with those who in the past may not have fully understood its value.

Defining Research

Before getting to the heart of this paper’s argument, it may be helpful to first establish more clearly what, exactly, is meant by “research.”

In their “Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects,” the Office for Human Research Protections defines research as a systematic investigation intended to contribute to generalizable knowledge. 4 Institutional Review Boards commonly use this definition to guide researchers applying for approval to pursue research involving human subjects.

The Standards also portrays research as an investigation, one that likely involves the use of library resources. The prescribed steps for the research process include the identification of a gap in knowledge, the identification and evaluation of relevant sources, and the ethical use of those sources. 5

In the Framework , research is alluded to as a “reflective discovery of information” in the expanded definition of information literacy. 6 This journey of reflective discovery is intended to lead to the creation of new knowledge.

Information-seeking is a concept related closely to research that takes into consideration contexts beyond the scientific and academic ones that are the primary concern of the above definitions. Wilson describes information-seeking as a behavior that “arises as a consequence of a need perceived by an information user who…makes demands upon formal or informal information sources or services, which result in success or failure to find relevant information.” 7

It is necessary to define research broadly in a discussion of research as both an activity and a subject of study, because the study of research can take many forms and context is always a consideration. For this reason, the understanding of research in this paper will encompass the following:

• Research is any formal or informal process that is undertaken to fill a gap in knowledge, build on existing knowledge, or create new knowledge.
• Goals of research include but are not limited to answering a research question, testing a hypothesis, or satisfying curiosity.
• Research involves investigation of some kind. This investigation may be formal, such as an exhaustive literature review or the careful implementation of the scientific method, or it may be informal, such as a brief Google search. More formal research investigations may be qualitative or quantitative in nature.
• The research process is often iterative rather than linear.
• The results of research may be captured in a research product or a set of research products. The products of research can take many forms, including but not limited to: formally published research studies, dissertations, conference proceedings, creative works, presentations, speeches, news and magazine articles, and blog posts.
• Research products often include evidence of research in some way, whether it is a list of citations, a detailed description of methodology, a quote from an interview subject, a list of acknowledgements, a verbal allusion to a source of information (as in a speech), or contextual links (as in an online blog post).

Research envisioned through an information literacy lens is often academic in nature. This type of research will be referred to as “academic research” throughout this paper. Table 1 outlines additional terms that will be used to refer to different types of research where necessary. This is not intended as a definitive list of research genres but rather a guide that will serve to clarify certain points. Note that some types of research may overlap with others.

Research Is a Subject of Study

A study of research is one in which the products or processes of research are analyzed to better understand some aspect of research itself. This is most directly seen in studies that observe actual research behaviors or evaluate specific research products. The study of research also has an influence on other areas of inquiry. Context is often key to studies of research.

The study of research is most prevalent in literature found in the library and information science (LIS) field. However, it also has relevant applications in other fields. This section will first summarize areas of inquiry directly and indirectly related to the study of research that can be found in LIS literature. A few relevant examples from the related field of writing studies will also be mentioned. Brief consideration will then be given to a relevant example from the field of psychology.

The Study of Research in Library and Information Science

Researchers in library and information science study the processes and products of research to improve systems and services, to understand how those systems and services are used, to analyze collections, to measure the impact of research-related instruction, to trace the development of a research topic over time, and more. These areas of inquiry are studied in a variety of contexts using a range of methods and populations. The study of research is relevant to virtually every specialization in library and information science. It is not an exaggeration to say that if you open any of the core journals in this field, such as those identified in a 2014 study by Nixon, 8 you are likely to find at least one article that is concerned directly or indirectly with the study of research in some way, shape, or form.

The study of research is a theme that has long been present in LIS literature but can be difficult to locate because until now it has not generally been named as such. The metaconcept introduced here gives us a novel lens through which to view our work and begin to articulate what we know about research as both an activity and a subject of study in a new way. When this lens is applied to content analyses and literature reviews, which are fairly common in LIS literature 9 and are themselves an example of the study of research, these works can serve as a valuable proxy for identifying topics related to the study of research in our field. An analysis by Tuomaala, Jarvelin, & Vakkari from 2014 may be most useful in this respect for the present discussion. 10 The breakdown of topics and subtopics the authors created for their study is specific enough to begin to see shades of the research-as-subject metaconcept. In their analysis, the authors found that information seeking, which includes subtopics such as information use and information management, accounted for 12.3 percent of the LIS literature in 2005, the most recent year considered for the study. The study of research also has applications related to studies of information storage and retrieval, a separate topic that includes subtopics such as cataloging and the testing of retrieval systems. More than 30 percent of the articles published that year related to this topic. Other potentially relevant areas from Tuomaala, Jarvelin, and Vakkari’s study include research on user education (1.7%), citation patterns (6.5%), and webometrics (2.9%).

What does the study of research in LIS look like? For one, it is often concerned with context. Researchers seek to gain important insights into how different populations seek or use information in different contexts. Some of the populations studied in recent issues of core LIS journals include disadvantaged adolescents, Catholic clergy, linguists, and poultry farmers, to name just a few. 11 Contexts of interest found in recent literature include not just academic or scholarly ones 12 but also personal, as in studies of everyday life information seeking, 13 and professional, as in studies of how information is accessed and used in various workplace environments. 14 Those who study the products of research may be interested in understanding how researchers cite data, what common themes can be found in the research on a particular subject, or how the content of one type of research product might distinguish it from another type of research product. 15 In all of these cases, context matters to the researcher.

Context also matters to those whose work may be informed by the study of research though research itself is not the direct object of study. For example, the work of collection management researchers must be informed at least in part by how a particular population uses the collection in question. 16 Usability studies may be primarily concerned with issues of design, but the researcher must also take into account the context in which the resource being tested will actually be used. 17 A study of a library’s physical space must include some consideration for the research and information-seeking activities that users conduct in that space, which will be different depending on details such as the type and size of the library as well as the population it serves. 18 Researchers who create algorithms or implement other methods to improve the effectiveness of information retrieval systems must have some understanding of the needs and behaviors of the system’s front-end users. 19 Though the examples cited are all from recent literature, they represent areas of inquiry that have developed over a long period of time.

In the past, the study of academic research as conducted by students has been of particular concern to those who teach information literacy. Leckie, for example, comments on how typical research assignments reflect an expert approach to research that may be inaccessible to novice student researchers. 20 Information literacy instruction is also often informed by studies that establish an understanding of students’ research behavior, including their method of strategic satisficing, 21 why they prefer certain resources and tools over others, 22 and why their choices do not always match expert expectations of quality and reliability. 23 Understanding gaps between the research skills librarians teach and the ones that are actually used in the workplace, as in Head, Van Hoeck, Eschler, and Fullerton, is another area of inquiry that has gained importance over time. 24

Among these studies of the products and processes of academic research are arguments for teaching students about the contextual nature of research. Fister advocates for creating a better awareness of the rhetorical aspects of research, 25 an idea that was later put into action by Davidson and Crateau. 26 Simmons proposes applying genre theory and critical information literacy to research instruction so that librarians can position themselves as discourse mediators, studying and teaching the conventions of research in different disciplines as anthropologists study and teach the practices of different cultures. 27 Harris makes a similar argument: “Before we make assumptions about how to assist communities of learning, we may also need to define and navigate the social, political, and cultural characteristics of that community.” 28

The study of research touches nearly every aspect of the library and information science field, in one form or another. But, as Faix points out, experts in other fields also take part in scholarly conversations about research. 29 This includes related fields such as writing studies, where authors like Brent and North approach the study of research from a composition perspective. 30 However, the study of research is also relevant to researchers in more scientific fields, which are often considered outside the scope of information literacy instruction. Though this paper focuses primarily on information literacy instruction, the overall argument is that such instruction would be more effective if it involved the study of research to help students appreciate the contextual nature of the research process. This means expanding our thinking about research beyond the library-based academic notions we have favored so far. For this reason, a relevant example of the study of research in psychology is provided in the next section.

The Study of Replicability and Reproducibility in Psychology

The methods, goals, and motivations of scientific research are considered to be distinct from the ones described by documents such as the Standards and the Framework . That this is the case serves as further evidence in support of the importance of context to the research process. However, scientific researchers have also been known to turn inward and examine the processes and products of research as it is represented in their fields.

In the field of psychology, the work done as part of the Reproducibility Project is particularly relevant to the present discussion. As part of this project, a team of researchers attempted to replicate the results of 100 psychological studies. 31 Their findings led them to create a set of recommendations for how to improve the research and publication process in their field to better promote replicability. One of these recommendations was to teach students to study research publications in their fields to evaluate the evidence used and learn to see potential methodological flaws.

The findings of this project inspired a number of responses. Some researchers studied the methods undertaken by those who worked on the project and used these analyses to question or criticize the results. 32 Others turned to conversations about whether replicability and reproducibility should be goals of psychological research in the first place. 33 There are also studies, 34 published since then, that seek to establish whether there are methods that can be used to improve the replicability of a study and others 35 that recommend new approaches to evaluating replicability itself. A similar study to investigate the reproducibility of cancer biology research is also being undertaken. 36

From these discussions, it becomes clear that research is not just an activity but also a subject of study for researchers in LIS and other fields. This metaconcept has important connections to the contextual nature of research. Both ideas are essential to learning about research in a meaningful way. Despite this, information literacy instruction tends to be generally skills-based with little or no discussion of these ideas. The reason for this may be that, for many, models of information literacy instruction have been built around the Standards , a document that places priority on teaching research skills over research-related concepts.

The Importance of Context: Limitations of the Standards and New Opportunities

As stated earlier, the Standards is a skills-based document. When considering the historical context of this document, its focus on the activity of research makes sense. Information literacy had developed over time from a job skill to one that was more closely related to research. Meanwhile, bibliographic instruction had also shifted from the original concept-based approaches to ones that focused more on teaching students basic access skills. 37 The Standards simply reflected these ways of thinking.

The Standards was also developed at a time when academic librarians were seeking to stake a place for themselves in the missions of their institutions, which had become more closely tied to the employability of their graduates. 38 For such institutions, learning outcomes became the favored way of gauging the success of a particular program. One of the Standards ’ stated goals is to provide measurable learning outcomes for information literacy. 39 To be measurable, learning outcomes must be based on what can be observed. It is much easier to measure the development of skills than it is to measure changes in a student’s worldview.

The limitations of the Standards have been well documented over time. 40 One of the main shortcomings of the Standards has always been in its failure to acknowledge the importance of context to the research process. More accurately, the Standards assume a single research context: that of library-based academic research. The closest the document comes to referencing the contextual nature of research is the occasional gesture toward discipline-specific research, which is still a highly academic notion (see table 2). Despite the aspiration of the Standards toward transferability, 41 research studies that have tested this idea tend to have mixed results. 42 In other words, despite its stated intentions, what the document is really doing is, as Mark points out, reflecting a tendency in the academy to measure expertise by one’s ability to adopt the conventions of academia. 43

Because the Standards does not adequately take into account the contextual nature of research, neither does Standards -based information literacy instruction. Instead, such instruction focuses primarily if not exclusively on teaching students the basic skills associated with library-based academic research. We know this because influential tools created to standardize the assessment of information literacy learning, such as the Information Literacy VALUE rubrics and the learning goals suggested by the Middle States Commission of Higher Education, reflect it. 44 We also know this because studies of syllabi for credit-bearing information literacy courses show that the most common topics taught as part of these courses are skills-based. 45

The influence of the Standards has had a noticeable effect on the way librarians think about teaching information literacy. When asked by Hofer, Townsend, and Brunetti about the most common “stuck places” students encountered when learning about research, the answers given by the librarians who participated in the study were concerned almost exclusively with academic research skills. 46 One place where a more contextual view of research shows through is in the respondents’ stated desire to help students better understand how the process of information creation might differ from one discipline to another.

The Standards has also had an effect on how information literacy is perceived by those outside the library field. When Gullikson asked nonlibrary faculty at what academic level they would expect students to have achieved individual learning outcomes from the Standards , the majority of those who responded indicated that they would expect students to have mastered these skills in the early part of their careers in higher education, if not before. 47 Standards- based information literacy, in the eyes of nonlibrarians, is at best seen as what Norgaard calls “a mere look up skill.” 48

The Standards provides no path to introducing students to the contextual nature of research. Because of this, the idea that research is both an activity and a subject of study became lost in our information literacy instruction and our thinking about information literacy instruction despite the fact that it remained a prevalent theme in our professional literature. In insisting on the importance of context to the research process, 49 the Framework gives us a way to change our thinking and our instruction.

Each of the Framework ’s six frames is infused with implicit and explicit references to the contextual nature of research (see table 3). In fact, the only frame in which the word “context” does not appear in one form or another is “Research as Inquiry,” which still manages to highlight the importance of distinguishing between processes of inquiry intended to meet different needs.

Of course, the Framework, like the Standards , is also a product of ACRL and so, as Foasberg points out, its contexts of interest are still primarily academic in nature. 50 No doubt research is currently underway to test the transferability of the Framework . In the meantime, it is not difficult to imagine how the six frames could apply to nonacademic forms of research. For example, negotiating a meaning from varying perspectives, as described in the “Scholarship as Conversation” frame, is as of much concern to those conducting personal, professional, or creative research as it is to those conducting academic research. Those who follow the investigative steps of the scientific method can likely find relevance in the idea of “Research as Inquiry.”

It may be true that not every threshold concept will apply to every research context. For some, that might be seen as a shortcoming of the present argument. However, it is worth remembering that the Framework is intended to be a flexible document, making it clear that there is room for more threshold concepts than those identified in the original version. 51 Further, in establishing a set of threshold concepts related to writing studies, Adler-Kassner and Wardle and their collaborators identified 37 threshold concepts, some of which may be more applicable to the study and activity of certain genres of writing than others. Granted, this work is not intended for broad implementation the way the Framework is, but both documents are of a similar spirit. 52

As stated earlier, students often enter the information literacy classroom unable to recognize that, while the skills and knowledge they have developed are valuable in some research contexts, they may be less so in others. For information literacy instructors, this has been a significant barrier, one that the Standards provided no meaningful way to overcome. The metaconcept that has been established here gives us a lens through which to understand research as not just an activity but also a subject of study. The Framework provides a path to pass on this knowledge to students by introducing them to the importance of context to the research process. The next section describes how a common model for composition instruction could be adapted for this purpose.

A Suggested Model for Practical Application

In Standards -based information literacy instruction, students are introduced to the conventions of academic research at the same time that they are expected to apply those conventions. They are expected to do this correctly without ever having seen or studied an example of such research, except perhaps one provided by their instructor for informational purposes. Badke criticizes this approach, colorfully stating, “teaching application without teaching method and philosophy is akin to showing someone how to steer and use the brakes on a car without teaching overall driving technique and the rules of the road.” 53

In writing studies, there is a similar expectation that, as Sommers and Saltz put it, students will “become master builders while they are still apprentices.” 54 However, composition instruction does not generally begin and end with application the way information literacy instruction does. Instead, students first study a selected example of a genre of writing to learn about the conventions of that genre and then attempt to apply those conventions in their own work. Information literacy instruction could benefit from emulating this structure.

Rather than organizing an information literacy course around units based on skills, sources, or tools, the course could be organized instead around different research contexts. More work may need to be done to determine what exactly those contexts can or should be or whether the conventions, goals, and motivations of those contexts can be said to represent “genres” as the term is understood by researchers of genre theory. 55 However, a general information literacy course could conceivably be organized around units on academic research, personal research, professional research, creative research, scientific research, and more.

In this approach, research skills like those described by the Standards would still be valuable but would only be taught after students first had the opportunity to study an example piece of research. Similar to the work of some professionals who study research, students could closely examine the types of sources used and think about the roles those sources play in the author’s research. They might also study the way the author gives credit to those sources, perhaps noticing that, in some research contexts, credit is given through formal citation while in others it is done through contextual links, quotes from interview subjects, or some other way. By doing this, students would learn how the conventions of research change from context to context. They may begin to develop a more realistic view of how much more there is to learn beyond the skills they already have and why it is worth learning.

As an illustration of how a unit in a course designed like this would work, consider that in a composition course students might first be given Letter from a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of persuasive writing. They would study this piece before trying to emulate King’s rhetorical moves in their own work.

In a unit on academic research in an information literacy course, students might first be given an example research essay or scholarly article. Rather than studying the writing, they would look at the evidence of research in the source. They might be asked to notice how the author uses citations or footnotes and includes a list of sources at the end. Attention might be drawn to the nature of the sources the author used, and critical thought might be given to why he or she made those choices. A student could also be asked to comment on how each source was used in the example piece: to add new information, to present and answer a contradicting view, to pull a quote, and so on.

The same could be done with units on other types of research. In a different unit, a personal blog post could be used as an example of personal research in which the evidence of research might appear as contextual links rather than formal citations. Or a news article could be studied as an example of journalistic or professional research in which quotes from sources with firsthand knowledge of an event are privileged over other types of sources. Even King’s Letter could be used as an example of research. In this piece, King borrows ideas from and makes reference to Socrates and the Bible to support his ideas. He also relies on the authority granted to him by his own personal experience with the issues he is discussing. 56

After studying the conventions of a genre of research through an example piece, students could then be taught the skills needed to complete the type of research each product represents. As a culminating project, students could be required to create a research product of their own that follows the conventions they learned about and then reflect on the ways that they used or challenged those conventions in their own work.

What is described above would be most appropriate for a general information literacy course taught at the undergraduate level. Instructors who teach more advanced or discipline-based information literacy could adapt this approach to suit their students’ needs and interests. For example, such instruction could focus more closely on the evaluation of research as it is most often represented in a field of study or profession. Students could be taught to see flaws in an author’s methodology, reasoning, or use of sources. They might also benefit from reviewing studies of information behavior of relevant populations to gain an understanding of how these populations interact with and create information in various settings. Instructors could invite students to think critically about the research practices in their fields and reflect on areas of potential improvement.

Caveats and Potential Concerns

It is necessary at this point to acknowledge that the common model for teaching composition described earlier is not without its critics in that field. Connors, for example, argues that using genres and modes to teach writing is more of a convenience to the instructor than a reflection of how writing actually works. 57 Hillocks makes the case that using genre and form to teach composition neglects the importance of inquiry and teaching students how to work with content. 58

In implementing a similar model for information literacy instruction, information literacy instructors may also have concerns. Foremost among these may be a reluctance to teach research outside the discipline-agnostic academic context of past Standards -based instruction. To do so, it has been argued in the past, would be to tread on the toes of disciplinary faculty who are the rightfully recognized experts on research in their fields of study and also perhaps to stray outside our professional strengths. 59 In response to this, it must be acknowledged that disciplinary faculty have been valuable partners in teaching information literacy in the past and could continue to be so in this new approach. As far as professional strengths, the Standards may have been limited to library-based academic research but the study of research in the LIS field is not, showing that contexts outside academia are, in fact, within our professional domain. Even if they were not, librarians tend to portray themselves as research experts as a way of communicating their value to their institutions. Taking advantage of the ways in which researchers in our own field have cultivated an understanding of how research works in a variety of contexts can only enhance our ability to label ourselves this way.

Another possible area of concern might be one anticipated by Townsend, Brunetti, and Hofer who acknowledge that threshold concepts like the ones found in the Framework tend to privilege certain ways of thinking. 60 Information literacy instructors may feel that the study of research is for professionals only and that teaching it to students would set up an expectation that, to be successful researchers, they need to become junior librarians or junior professors. However, it is worth noting that the goal of composition instruction, which involves both the study and practice of writing, is to teach students to be competent writers with an appreciation for rhetorical context. They are introduced to expert ways of thinking as a way of expanding their worldview but are not expected to become published (or even publishable) authors as a result of what they learn.

Finally, there may be some question of whether teaching students the conventions associated with different research contexts and then expecting them to follow those conventions stifles creativity by inviting conformity to existing systems. In answer to this, it could be argued that using the conventions of research as a teaching tool opens the door to conversations about why those conventions exist in the first place and in what ways they uphold what Beilin refers to as the “knowledge regime.” 61 Teaching students to think critically about the research that goes into creating a particular research product would enable them to more clearly see how the recontextualization process that is part of all research is subject to the inherent biases and worldviews of the author. 62 Even more important, as observed by Simmons, when students learn about generic conventions, they may learn to see themselves as having “the potential to effect changes in the conventions instead of simply learning to conform to the established patterns.” 63 In other words, learning “the rules” is also the first step in learning how to break those rules and challenge the systems that created them in meaningful and interesting ways.

Current models of information literacy instruction that treat research as nothing more than a basic skill do not serve students well. They also do not serve information literacy well. Research is not a basic skill that can be mastered for a lifetime in the space of a single instruction session. It is an activity that relies heavily on rhetorical context. It is also a subject of study with areas of inquiry in which context is often a large consideration. To paraphrase Wardle and Adler-Kassner, 64 a successful researcher is someone who cultivates an understanding of the expectations associated with research in a given context and then meaningfully engages with those expectations. Such a researcher is both a consumer and a creator of information.

The metaconcept introduced in this article, that research is both an activity and a subject of study, is an attempt to name something that has been present in LIS literature all along but for which there has been no room in information literacy instruction in the past. Future work to identify the ways in which this metaconcept has manifested itself in the literature in our field will be valuable in helping us to articulate the value of our work in a new way. In the meantime, it could serve as a useful frame for transforming information literacy instruction and enhancing the reputation of information literacy as something more than a basic skill.

1. Valeria E. Molteni and Emily K. Chan, “Student Confidence/Overconfidence in the Research Process,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 41, no. 1 (2015): 2–8.

2. Nancy Sommers and Laura Saltz, “The Novice as Expert: Writing the Freshman Year,” College Composition and Communication 56, no. 1 (2004): 124–49.

3. Elizabeth Wardle and Linda Adler-Kassner, “Metaconcept: Writing Is an Activity and a Subject of Study,” in Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies , eds. Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2015), 15–16.

4. Office for Human Research Protection, “Basic HHS Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects” (2009), available online at https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html [accessed 23 January 2018].

5. ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education , “Information Literacy Defined” (2000), available online at www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency [accessed 23 January 2018].

6. ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education , “Introduction” (2015), available online at www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework [accessed 23 January 2018].

7. T.D. Wilson, “Models in Information Behaviour Research,” Journal of Documentation 55, no. 3 (1999): 251.

8. Judith M. Nixon, “Core Journals in Library and Information Science: Developing a Methodology for Ranking LIS Journals,” College & Research Libraries 75, no. 1 (2014): 66–90.

9. Examples include: Stephen E. Atkins, “Subject Trends in Library and Information Science Research, 1975–1984,” Library Trends 36, no. 4 (Spring 1988): 633–58; Lois Buttlar, “Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship,” College & Research Libraries 52, no. 1 (Jan. 1991): 38–53; Gloria S. Cline, ” College & Research Libraries : Its First Forty Years,” College & Research Libraries 43, no. 3 (1982): 208–32; Gregory A. Crawford, ”The Research Literature of Academic Librarianship: A Comparison of College & Research Libraries and Journal of Academic Librarianship ,” College & Research Libraries 60, no. 3 (1999): 224–30; Amy VanScoy and Cady Fontana, “How Reference and Information Services is Studied: Research Approaches and Methods,” Library & Information Science Research 38, no. 2 (2016): 94–100.

10. Otto Tuomaala, Kalervo Jarvelin, and Pertti Vakkari, “Evolution of Library and Information Science, 1965–2005: Content Analysis of Journal Articles,” Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology 65, no. 7 (2014): 1446–62.

11. Steven Buchanan and Lauren Tuckerman, “The Information Behaviours of Disadvantaged and Disengaged Adolescents,” Journal of Documentation 72, no. 3 (2016): 527–48; Jacob Dankasa, “Mapping the Everyday Life Information Needs of Catholic Clergy: Savolainen’s ELIS Model Revisited,” Journal of Documentation 72, no. 3 (2016): 549–68; Maja Krtalic, Sanjica Faletar Tanackovic, and Damir Hasenay, “Linguists as Newspaper Users: Perceptions and Experiences,” Library and Information Science Research 38, no. 2 (2016): 108–16; Grace Msoffe and Patrick Ngulube, “Farmers’ Access to Poultry Management Information in Selected Areas of Tanzania,” Library and Information Science Research 38, no. 3 (2016): 82–90.

12. Examples include: Nancy Falciani-White, “Understanding the ‘Complexity of Experience’: Modeling Faculty Research Practices,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 2 (2016): 118–26; Christopher V. Hollister, “An Exploratory Study on Post-tenure Research Productivity Among Academic Librarians,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 4 (2016): 368–81; Sloan Komissarov and James Murray, “Factors That Influence Undergraduate Information-seeking Behavior and Opportunities for Student Success,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 4 (2016): 423–49; Carol Sabbar and Iris Xie, “Language in the Information-Seeking Context: A Study of U.S. Scholars Using Non-English Sources,” Journal of Documentation 72, no. 1 (2016): 103–26.

13. Examples include: Lisa M. Given et al., “Watching Young Children ‘Play’ with Information Technology: Everyday Life Information Seeking in the Home,” Library and Information Science Research 38, no. 4 (2016): 344–52; Helena Känsäkoski and Maija-Leena Huotari, “Applying the Theory of Information Worlds Within a Health Care Practise in Finland,” Journal of Documentation 72, no. 2 (2016): 321–41; Reijo Savolainen, “Approaches to Socio-Cultural Barriers to Information Seeking,” Library and Information Science Research 38, no. 1 (2016): 52–59.

14. Examples include: Elham Sayyad Abdi, Helen Partridge, and Christine Bruce, “Web Designers and Developers’ Experience of Information Literacy: A Phenomenographic Study,” Library and Information Science Research 38, no. 4 (2016): 353–59; Rebecca Lea French and Kirsty Williamson, “The Information Practices of Welfare Workers: Conceptualizing and Modelling Information Bricolage,” Journal of Documentation 72, no. 4 (2016): 737–54; Ayse Göker et al., “Expeditions Through Image Jungles: The Commercial Use of Image Libraries in an Online Environment,” Journal of Documentation 72, no. 1 (2016): 5–23.

15. Examples related to each theme mentioned include: Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, Evaristo Jimenez-Contreras, and Daniel Torres-Salinas, “Analyzing Data Practices Using the Data Citation Index,” Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology 67, no. 12 (2016): 2964–75; Angela Dresselhaus, “Literature of Acquisitions in Review, 2012–2013,” Library Resources & Technical Services 60, no. 3 (2016): 169–81; and Dian Walster, Deborah H. Charbonneau, and Kafi Kumasi, “Finding and Reading Reports of Research: How Academic Librarians Can Help Students Be More Successful,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 6 (2016): 732–38.

16. Examples include: Cheryl D. Bain et al., “Using WorldShare Collection Evaluation to Analyze Physical Science and Engineering Monograph Holdings by Discipline,” Collection Management 41, no. 3 (2016): 133–51; Michael Hughes, “A Long-Term Study of Collection Use Based on Detailed Library of Congress Classification, a Statistical Tool for Collection Management Decisions,” Collection Management 41, no. 3 (2016): 152–67; Blanca Rodriguez-Bravo and Francisco Rodriguez-Sedano, “Trends in Library Collection Circulation in Spanish Universities,” Library Resources & Technical Services 60, no. 4 (2016): 248–58.

17. Examples include: Kelsey Renee Brett, Ashley Lierman, and Cherie Turner, “Lessons Learned: A Primo Usability Study,” Information Technology and Libraries 35, no. 1 (2016): 7–25; Reese Hoi Yin Fung, Dickson K.W. Chiu, Eddie H.T. Ko, Kevin K.W. Ho, and Patrick Lo, “Heuristic Usability Evaluation of University of Hong Kong Libraries’ Mobile Website,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 5 (2016): 581–94; Joanne Oud, “Accessibility of Vendor-Created Database Tutorials for People with Disabilities,” Information Technology and Libraries 35, no. 4 (2016): 7–18; Kyunghye Yoon et al., “An Exploratory Study of Library Website Accessibility for Visually Impaired Users,” Library & Information Science Research 38, no. 3 (2016): 250–58.

18. Examples include: Çağrı Imamoğlu and Meltem Ö. Gürel, “‘Good Fences Make Good Neighbors’: Territorial Dividers Increase User Satisfaction and Efficiency in Library Study Spaces,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 1 (2016): 65–73; Vera Lux, Robert J. Snyder, and Colleen Boff, “Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 2 (2016): 109–17; Silas M. Oliveira, “Space Preferences at James White Library: What Students Really Want,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 4 (2016): 355–67.

19. Examples include: Edward Kai Fung Dang, Robert W.P. Luk, and James Allan, “A Context-Dependent Relevance Model,” Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology 67, no. 3 (2016): 582–93; Bo Xu, Hongfei Lin, and Yuan Lin, “Assessment of Learning to Rank Methods for Query Expansion,” Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology 67, no. 6 (2016): 1345–57.

20. Gloria J. Leckie, (1996). “Desperately Seeking Citations: Uncovering Faculty Assumptions About the Undergraduate Research Process,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 22, no. 3 (1996): 201–08.

21. Claire Warwick et al., “Cognitive Economy and Satisficing in Information Seeking: A Longitudinal Study of Undergraduate Information Behavior,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 60, no. 12 (2009): 2402–15.

22. James P. Purdy, “Why First-Year College Students Select Online Research Resources as Their Favorite,” First Monday 17, no. 9 (2012).

23. Kyung-Sun Kim and Sei-Ching Joanna Sin, “Selecting Quality Sources: Bridging the Gap Between the Perception and Use of Information Sources,” Journal of Information Science 37, no. 2 (2011): 178–88.

24. Allison J. Head, Michele Van Hoeck, Jordan Eschler, and Sean Fullerton, “What Information Competencies Matter in Today’s Workplace?” Library and Information Research 37, no. 114 (2013): 75–104.

25. Barbara Fister, “Teaching the Rhetorical Dimensions of Research,” Research Strategies 11, no. 4 (1993): 211–19.

26. Jeanne R. Davidson and Carole Anne Crateau. “Intersections: Teaching Research Through a Rhetorical Lens,” Research Strategies 16, no. 4 (1998): 245–57.

27. Michelle Holschuh Simmons, “Librarians as Disciplinary Discourse Mediators: Using Genre Theory to Move toward Critical Information Literacy,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 5, no. 3 (2005): 297–311.

28. Benjamin R. Harris, “Communities as Necessity in Information Literacy Development: Challenging the Standards,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34, no. 3 (2008): 250.

29. Allison Faix, “Assisting Students to Identify Sources: An Investigation,” Library Review 53, no. 8/9 (2014): 624–36.

30. Doug Brent, “Crossing Boundaries: Co-Op Students Relearning to Write,” College Composition and Communication 63, no. 4 (2012): 558–92; Sarah North, “Different Values, Different Skills? A Comparison of Essay Writing by Students from Arts and Science Backgrounds,” Studies in Higher Education 30, no. 5 (2005): 517–33.

31. Jens B. Asendorpf et al., “Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology,” European Journal of Personality 27, no. 2 (2013): 108–19.

32. Examples include: Shane W. Bench et al., “Does Expertise Matter in Replication? An Examination of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 68 (2017): 181–84; and Alexander Etz and Joachim Vandekerckhove, “A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology,” Plos One 11, no. 2 (2016): 1–12.

33. Wolfgang Stroebe, “Are Most Published Social Psychological Findings False?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66 (2016): 134–44.

34. Examples include: Mark J. Brandt et al., “The Replication Recipe: What Makes for a Convincing Replication?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 50 (2014): 217–24; and Sean Grant, Lukasz Cybulski, and Evan Mayo-Wilson, “Improving Transparency and Reproducibility through Registration: The Status of Intervention Trials Published in Clinical Psychology Journals,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 84, no. 9 (2016): 753–67.

35. Uri Simonsohn, “Small Telescopes: Detectability and the Evaluation of Replication Results,” Psychological Science 26, no. 5 (2015): 559–69.

36. Timothy M. Errington et al., “Science Forum: An Open Investigation of the Reproducibility of Cancer Biology Research,” eLife 3 (2014).

37. Shirley J. Behrens, “A Conceptual Analysis and Historical Overview of Information Literacy,” College & Research Libraries 55, no. 4 (1994): 309–22; Frances L. Hopkins, “A Century of Bibliographyic Instruction: The Historical Claim to Professional and Academic Legitimacy,” College & Research Libraries 43, no. 3 (1982): 192–98; Mary F. Salony, “The History of Bibliographic Instruction: Changing Trends From Books to the Electronic World,” Reference Librarian 24, no. 51 (1995): 31–51.

38. Emily Drabinski, “Toward a Kairos of Library Instruction,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 40, no. 5 (2014): 480–85; Heidi L.M. Jacobs, “Information Literacy and Reflective Pedagogical Praxis,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34, no. 3 (2008): 256–62.

39. ACRL Standards , “Information Literacy and Assessment.”

40. Notable examples of such thinking include: James Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32, no. 2 (2006): 192–99; Edward K. Owusu-Ansah, “Information Literacy and the Academic Library: A Critical Look at a Concept and the Controversies Surrounding It,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 29, no. 4 (2003): 219–30; Troy A. Swanson, “Applying a Critical Pedagogical Perspective to Information Literacy Standards,” Community & Junior College Libraries 12, no. 4 (2004): 65–78: Eamon Tewell, “A Decade of Critical Information Literacy: A Review of the Literature,” Communications in Information Literacy 9, no. 1 (2015): 24–43.

41. ACRL Standards , “Information Literacy Defined”; ACRL Standards , “Information Literacy and Higher Education.”

42. Examples include: Brent, “Crossing Boundaries”; Jason Eyre, “Context and Learning: The Value and Limits of Library-Based Information Literacy Teaching,” Health Information and Libraries Journal 29, no. 4 (2012): 344–48; and Kaye Towlson and Nathan Rush, “Carving the Information Literacy Niche Within Graduate Employability ,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 19, no. 3 (2013): 300–15.

43. Amy E. Mark, “Privileging Peer Review: Implications for Undergraduates ,” Communications in Information Literacy 5, no. 1 (2011): 4–8.

44. Association of American Colleges & Universities, “Information Literacy VALUE Rubric” (2010), available online at https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/information-literacy [accessed 23 January 2018]; Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Higher Education, Developing Research & Communication Skills: Guidelines for Information Literacy Instruction (Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2003).

45. Paul L. Hrycaj, “An Analysis of Online Syllabi for Credit-Bearing Library Skills Courses,” College & Research Libraries 67, no. 6 (2006): 525–35; Rachael E. Elrod, Elise D. Wallace, and Cecilia B. Sirigos, “Teaching Information Literacy: A Review of 100 Syllabi,” Southeastern Librarian 60, no. 3 (2012): 8–15.

46. Amy R. Hofer, Lori Townsend, and Korey Brunetti, “Troublesome Concepts and Information Literacy: Investigating Threshold Concepts for IL Instruction,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 12, no. 4 (2012): 387–405.

47. Shelley Gullikson, “Faculty Perceptions of ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32, no. 6 (2006): 583–92.

48. Rolf Norgaard, “Writing Information Literacy: Contributions to a Concept,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 43, no. 2 (2003): 126.

49. ACRL Framework , “Introduction.”

50. Nancy M. Foasberg, “From Standards to Frameworks for IL: How the ACRL Framework Addresses Critiques of the Standards ,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 15, no. 4 (2015): 708.

51. ACRL Framework , “Introduction.”

52. Elizabeth Wardle and Linda Adler-Kassner, “Naming What We Know: The Project of This Book,” in Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies, eds. Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2015), 8.

53. William Badke, “A Rationale for Information Literacy as a Credit-Bearing Discipline ,” Journal of Information Literacy 2, no. 1 (2008).

54. Sommers and Saltz, “The Novice as Expert,” 132.

55. Amy J. Devitt, Writing Genres (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004).

56. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail , available online at https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/letter-birmingham-jail [accessed 23 January 2018].

57. Robert J. Connors, “The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse,” College Composition and Communication 32, no. 4 (1981): 444–55.

58. George Hillocks, Jr., “The Focus on Form vs. Content in Teaching Writing,” Research in the Teaching of English 40, no. 2 (2005): 238–48.

59. Richard Feinberg and Christine King, “Short-Term Library Skill Competencies: Arguing for the Achievable,” College & Research Libraries 49, no. 1 (1988): 24–28.

60. Lori Townsend, Korey Brunetti, and Amy R. Hofer, “Threshold Concepts and Information Literacy,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 11, no. 3 (2011): 853–69.

61. Ian Beilin, “Beyond the Threshold: Conformity, Resistance, and the ACRL Information Literacy Framework for Higher Education,” In the Library with the Lead Pipe (Feb. 25, 2015), available online at www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/beyond-the-threshold-conformity-resistance-and-the-aclr-information-literacy-framework-for-higher-education/ [accessed 26 October 2018].

62. Christine Pawley, “Information Literacy: A Contradictory Coupling,” Library Quarterly 73, no. 4 (2003): 422–52.

63. Simmons, “Librarians as Disciplinary Discourse Mediators,” 302.

64. Wardle and Adler-Kassner, “Metaconcept,” 16.

* Allison Hosier is Information Literacy Librarian in the University Libraries at the University at Albany, State University of New York; email: [email protected] . ©2019 Allison Hosier, Attribution-NonCommercial ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ) CC BY-NC.

Article Views (Last 12 Months)

Contact ACRL for article usage statistics from 2010-April 2017.

Article Views (By Year/Month)

© 2024 Association of College and Research Libraries , a division of the American Library Association

Print ISSN: 0010-0870 | Online ISSN: 2150-6701

ALA Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2150-6701

The official IELTS by IDP app is here! Download it today.

• IELTS Academic

IELTS Academic assesses how well you can use English in an academic environment.

IELTS General training

Students applying to high schools or vocational training programs in English-speaking countries might need to take this test.

If you would like to study at undergraduate or postgraduate level in the UK, you can take IELTS UKVI.

IELTS One Skill Retake

Didn't get the band score you require? Check to see if you're eligible for a One Skill Retake.

English self-assessment tool

Check your language level and get personalised suggestions on how to improve your English and prepare for IELTS.

Get your results

Check your provisional IELTS results online and do more.

IELTS Community

Join the IELTS community and meet with other IELTS test takers from all over the world!

Had a great and memorable experience with IELTS - IFI. The staffs are supportive and very accommodating. Venue is stellar and conducive for testing. Not to mention, the online review is comprehensive and mock exam is absolutely helpful.

Gabriel Yumul

Ielts reading test: how to manage your time, grammar 101: affect vs. effect.

Grammar 101: Understanding verb tenses

IELTS General Training, Writing Task 1: How to write a letter

Ielts writing task 2: how to write a good introduction.

Grammar 101: Subjects and Objects in English

Do you want to understand the grammar behind English language? Let’s have a look at the subject and object in sentences. As a basic rule, the subject is the person or thing doing something. The object is having something done to it. Also, do the grammar quiz on the same.

Content Tags

Subjects vs objects in english.

Subjects and objects have the opposite functions in a sentence. The subject is the ‘doer’ of the action. For example, take the sentence “We are watching Netflix.” Here, the subject is the pronoun ‘we’. Objects are the opposite; instead of doing something (like watching Netflix), they are acted upon. Now, let’s look at the sentence “The police gave him a warning.” In this case the pronoun “him” is receiving something (a warning), so that’s the object of a sentence.  

Subject pronouns include I, you, he, she, it, we, they, who, and whoever. 

Object pronouns are me, you, him, her, it, us, them, whom, and whomever.

Grammar: Subjects in English language explained

Definition of subjects in english language .

In English grammar, we use the word ‘subject’ to talk about the person or thing (a noun or pronoun) that does the ‘action.’ Usually, that means that the subject comes before the verb (what are verbs? Grammar 101:  Understanding verb tenses ). So, the subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is performing the action.

Examples of subjects in the English language 

Simple sentences .

Very simple sentences in English have one  verb  and one subject. For example: 

Jason works. Here, the subject is “Jason.” The verb is “works.” In this example, Jason is the subject, because he is the person doing the action, “working” in this case. 

Nick sleeps. Nick is the subject, because he’s doing the action of “sleeping”. 

The subject doesn’t always have to be a person/name. Very often it is not - it is a pronoun (for example, he/she/it, etc), or a group of people (we/they). Have a look at the following sentences. 

I sleep. (The subject is ‘I’ because it’s doing the action of sleeping.) 

We are watching Netflix. (The subject is ‘we’ because it’s doing the action of watching) 

They play football. (The subject is ‘they’ because it’s doing the action of playing) 

More complicated sentences 

Sometimes a sentence is a bit more complicated and it gets a bit harder to find the subject. Have a look at the following sentences: 

I am thirsty. (The subject is ‘I’) 

Mike appears busy. (The subject is ‘Mike’) 

The employees are in a meeting. (The subject is ‘the employees’)  

The girl from my class presented an excellent speech at our graduation. (The subject is ‘the girl from my class’ because she’s doing the action) 

Gemma, Gillian and Mike are having lunch. (The subject is ‘Gemma, Gillian and Mike’ because they're doing the action of having lunch) 

Grammar: Objects in English language explained

Definition of objects in english language .

Now that you know what subjects are, let’s have a look at objects. Generally, we use the word ‘object’ to talk about the thing/person that the action is done to. Or, the one who receives the action.  

A direct object is a noun or pronoun that receives the action of a  verb in a sentence . Usually, it answers the questions what? or whom? about the verb. Choose the direct object(s) in each sentence. 

Examples of direct objects in English language 

The direct object of a verb is the thing being acted upon. So, it means it is the receiver of the action. Usually, you can find the direct object by finding the verb and asking “what?” or “whom?”. For example: 

Mike loves doughnuts. (Mike loves what? The object is ‘doughnuts’.) 

James got his IELTS scores yesterday. (James got what? The object is ‘his IELTS scores’.) 

I put the orange cat out in the garden. (I put what (out in the garden)? The object is ‘the orange cat’.) 

Examples of indirect objects in English language 

Apart from direct objects, there are also indirect objects. An indirect object is the recipient of the direct object. How do you find an indirect object in a sentence? You can do this by first finding the direct object. Then, ask “who” or “what” received it. The indirect object will chronologically exist before the direct object in a sentence. Have a look at the example sentences below. We have put the direct objects in bold and underlined the indirect objects. 

Can you give  Tomoko  the keys ? 

Find the direct object: Give what? the keys 

Find the indirect object: Who (or what) received the keys? Tomoko 

The bartender made Gracie an ice-cold drink.  

Find the direct object: The bartender made what? An ice-cold drink 

The bartender made a cold drink for whom? Gracie 

Examples of the object of a preposition in English language 

It gets a little trickier now. We call the noun or pronoun after a preposition the object of a preposition. When you know the direct object, finding an indirect object is fairly simple. Remember, you find a direct object by asking “what?” or “whom?” the verb is doing. Then, to find an indirect object, ask “to whom/what?” or “for whom/what” the direct object is intended. Have a look at the example sentences below. We have put the prepositions in bold and underlined the objects of prepositions. 

Emily is from  Ireland . 

You can tell from  her accent  that Emily is from Ireland. 

Grammar Quiz: Subjects and objects in English language

Now that you’ve had a look at the grammar rules and some examples - it’s time to try it for yourself. Have a look at the following sentences, and try to find the subject and the object. The answers are given below, so you can check them for yourself.

Quiz: find the subject 

Q1: All the children in the class study maths.  

a) study 

b) maths 

c) all the children in the class 

Q2: They took the General Training IELTS test for migration purposes. 

a) General Training IELTS test 

b) They 

c) migration purposes 

Q3: For lunch, Mike and Gemma ordered burgers and chips. 

a) For lunch 

b) Mike and Gemma 

c) burgers and chips 

Q4: Gagan and Daniel received an award for players of the year. 

a) Gagan 

b) Daniel 

c) Gagan and Daniel 

d) players of the year 

Q5: Next year, I want to go to university in Sydney. 

a) Next year 

c) university in Sydney 

Quiz: find the object 

Q6: Josh painted a flower for his school project. 

a) Josh 

b) flower 

c) school project 

Q7: The cafe baked their own pies. 

a) The cafe 

b) their 

c) their own pies 

Q8: Janet has to practise football every single day if she wants to become a professional. 

a) Janet 

b) practice 

c) football 

d) professional 

Q9: The kids built a castle with Lego. 

a) The kids 

b) built 

c) a castle 

d) Lego 

Q10: I will come over after I do the dishes and finish my homework. 

b) the dishes 

c) my homework 

d) the dishes + my homework

Answers to the Grammar Quiz: Subjects and objects in English language

Want to learn more about commonly confused words.

In written English, it is important to know the correct spelling of a word you want to use. You don’t want to write “weak” when you mean “week” even though they sound the same. In spoken English, spelling is less important, but pronunciation is. Think about the word “lead” which can be pronounced as “led” or “leed.” Because these words cause a lot of confusion, it’s well worth spending a few minutes to understand the difference:  homophones vs homographs vs homonyms . 

People often use elude when they mean allude, or write  allude when they should really write elude . There are other commonly confused words too: Do you know the difference between advice or advise? That is the question in another article where we explain the difference between these two commonly misused words.  Read it here .

Share this article

You may also like.

Understanding the IELTS Speaking band descriptors

Maximize your IELTS preparation: How our English self-assessment tool can help

Commonly used 'black' and 'blue' idioms

Types of essays to expect in your IELTS Writing Task 2

PTE have made changes to how they compare to IELTS. Will this impact you?

List of minimum IELTS scores For Canadian universities in 2021

IELTS Speaking test: 10 tips from Experts

IELTS Listening free practice questions

• Useful links
• Who accepts IELTS?
• News and articles
• IELTS Masterclass
• Your IELTS results
• IELTS General Training
• IELTS Online
• IELTS by IDP app
• Find sessions
• Check IELTS results
• Middle East
• Netherlands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Saudi Arabia
• Solomon Islands
• South Korea
• Switzerland
• Legal notices
• Privacy policy
• Cookie policy
• Copyright 2024 IDP IELTS

Register to get your text revised right away for FREE ⚡

Today more than 1001 people got their English checked.

By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Terms of Service .

Get a FREE revision 🎁

Register a new account, welcome back, confirm your email.

Please click the link that we've sent to this address to post your question to our experts. Ok, I'll check my email

not your email? Change it now

Set a new email

Here you can set your new address email. Remember to use a valid email address. We will send you an email to confirm your account.

Facebook Login Discontinued

Unfortunately, the Facebook login method has been discontinued.

To access your TextRanch account, please click the "Reset Password" button below and input your Facebook Email. Our team will send you an email with further instructions.

If you don't remember your email, please fill out this form .

Your text is being reviewed by one of our Experts. We will notify you when your revision is ready.

Or wait in this page

Leave this page open, and your corrected text will appear as soon as it's ready!

You need to add a payment method to get our special promo ⚡

Enter your email below to get instant access to the first Chapter of our Ebook

Downloaded more than 1320 times today.

Add payment method

NOTE: Credits are valid for one year.

We're so happy that you liked your revision! Your feedback helps us improve our service. Want more FREE revisions ? 🎁

Step 1 out of 2!

Like us on Facebook by clicking the like button below:

Almost there!

Last step (2/2)

Share TextRanch on Facebook by clicking on the button below.

Congrats! You've just earned 3 credits!

Closing your account will prevent you from accessing your past revisions, and you will no longer be eligible for a FREE daily revision.

There is no cost to keep your TextRanch account, and we store all of your past revisions in a secure and private manner.

Help us understand

If we didn't meet your expectations, we'd really like to know more. Please tell us why you are closing your account:

Which one is correct? "research object" or "research subject"?

TextRanch: The best way to perfect your writing.

Discover why 1,062,726 users count on TextRanch to get their English corrected!

One of our experts will correct your English.

100% Human-Powered Editing!

research object

This phrase is correct and commonly used in research contexts.

• The research object of the study was to determine the efficacy of the new drug.
• The researchers carefully defined the research object before designing the experiment.
• The study aimed to explore the relationship between the research object and various environmental factors.
• The research object of the investigation was the impact of social media on mental health.
• The research object was clearly outlined in the research proposal.

Alternatives:

• study focus
• investigative target
• analytical subject
• study object
• research focus

research subject

• The research subject of the study was the impact of climate change on biodiversity.
• Participants in the research study were asked to provide consent before becoming research subjects.
• The professor explained the importance of selecting an appropriate research subject for the experiment.
• The research subject's behavior was carefully monitored throughout the study.
• The research subject population included both male and female participants.
• study participant
• experimental subject
• research participant
• test subject
• survey respondent

Last Updated: April 02, 2024

Thanks to TextRanch, I was able to score above 950 on TOEIC, and I got a good grade on ACTFL OPIC as well. + Read the full interview

I love TextRanch because of the reliable feedback. The editors' comments are helpful and the customer service is amazing. + Read the full interview

TextRanch has helped me to improve my written skills as well as to communicate more naturally, like a local English speaker. + Read the full interview

TextRanch is amazingly responsive and really cares about the client. It's the best online service that I have ever used! + Read the full interview

I started to use TextRanch when I began to learn English. It has been an awesome way to improve my English skills. + Read the full interview

I love that TextRanch editors are real people who revise the text and provide feedback – it makes it so personal. + Read the full interview

I sometimes wonder if my English expressions make sense clearly and TextRanch helps me a lot in such cases. + Read the full interview

TextRanch has been really helpful in improving the flow and repairing the structure of my sentences. + Read the full interview

“Faster than AI"

“This was very helpful and I personally think this site is the best."

“It was extremely thorough and very helpful!"

“7 years without any disappointment. Always 100% satisfied. You guys are the best in the world at what you do. Thank you so much :)"

“In a world of text messages and online communication, this is great to have as a live tool. Thank you."

“Without textranch I would be stuck!"

“Accuracy and fast response. Personal comments from editor. Thank you."

“I wasn't aware of this service, it's fascinating and more reliable than standard IA tools available on the internet"

“The fact that you can get reliable fast feedback on your texts."

“you guys are better than grammarly i'm being honest here"

“OMG! This is really good than any other text correction tools I've used so far. Highly recommend this."

“Very fast and accurate. thank you."

“I love this app because it's help to writing skills all of students ♥️"

“This was exactly the mistake I was looking for, the wording dind´t sound right at first. Better than grammarly!"

“The immediate help that I received was reassuring and very satisfactory. Thanks."

“this helps A LOT for my studies."

“Woow!! I would never have expected such precision! Thank you soooo much!!"

“Real Time Editor and not AI. Many Thanks."

“The very first thing excites me about Textranch is how much your editors care."

“The fact that texts are checked by human editors rather than by AI, etc. I appreciate this!"

“Feel welcome, immediate response, high quality feedback"

“This is the best app that I have ever seen"

“Quick response and got what I intend to say. Grammar correction is excellent because the meaning is retained."

“Excellent, I truly loved this textRanch for quick revision. This textRanch for quick revision is a 10/10 for me."

⚡️Ask our Editor now.

Fresh content for your texts, so you can be more professional.

estimated time: 30 minutes , directly in your inbox

📝 ️Notes for your editor

Let our editor help you, include background information, explanations of unusual words and special terms, or instructions about specific improvements you want.

Want to improve your English business writing?

More than 150,000 people like you receive our weekly newsletter to master their English skills!

Why choose TextRanch?

Lowest prices Up to 50% lower than other online editing sites.

Fastest Times Our team of editors is working for you 24/7.

Qualified Editors Native English experts for UK or US English.

Top Customer Service We are here to help. Satisfaction guaranteed!

• Appliances and Devices
• Decor and Design
• Home Improvement
• Organization
• Outside Care
• Safety and Security
• Pro Services
• Children and Parenting
• Games and Hobbies
• Love and Relationships
• Special Events and Occasions
• Tanning and Sun Care
• Jewelry and Accessories
• Exercise Equipment
• Dental and Ortho
• Feet and Orthotics
• Nursing Care
• Sleep and Rest
• Stress and Anxiety
• Physical Therapy
• Supplements
• Swimming and Water Fun
• Weight Loss
• Weight Training
• Bloggy Conference
• Camping and RV
• Middle-East
• United States
• Unites state

Your Kitchen Storage Design Guide

The essential role of fire doors in hmo safety, 5 benefits of wooden flooring, the best benefits of outdoor blinds, when is the right time to start planning a hen do, sugar waxing myths debunked, choosing lab-created diamond drop earrings, homecoming through the ages – a fascinating journey into the evolution…, useful tips to hiring a driver in bali, finding happiness in travel and adventure, know the snorkeling in cancun isla mujeres cost, the ultimate pontoon boat buying guide: everything you need to know…, object and subject in research and its role in finding inspiration for writing a research paper.

The first step you need to take when you get the task of writing a research paper is choosing a topic you want to dwell upon. It is advisable to select an issue you are personally interested in. Otherwise, you will end up having to pay for research paper as you will not be able to complete the task on your own. In case the option to pay someone to do my research paper is the last thing on your mind, it is time to get down to business. Start by figuring out what the object and subject of research are. Then , proceed to gathering all vital information to be able to support all your arguments. In case you are stuck, try to come up with ideas that help you stay inspired in the process of writing a paper. You don’t necessarily have to pay for research paper. You can complete this task yourself, but it may take more time than you have planned.

Table of Contents

The definition of object and subject of research

• The object of research is a thing or phenomenon that can be observed or measured
• The subject of research is a category, a model or an idea

Let’s take a look at an example. If you want to analyze a social media platform, such as facebook, the object of research will be posts written by its users. The subject of research are the topics of those posts. It can also be said that in some research studies objects are quantitative while subjects are qualitative. However, a lot depends on the issue under consideration. 

How to define the object and subject of research

First of all, analyze the topic you have chosen to research in detail. Think about the subject you want to study in detail, as well as the tools which you are going to use. If you have metrics with the help of which you can measure this phenomenon, they will be the object of research while the issue in general will be the subject. 

Nowadays, it is possible to use services with the help of which one can pay for research paper samples to get a better idea of the type of document they are supposed to submit. No matter whether a student uses such tools for writing inspiration or for finding some useful tips, it is important to choose a trustworthy service where you can pay for research paper samples securely. It might take a while until you come across such a resource. Simply googling something like ‘pay research paper’ or research paper done for you’ won’t be that helpful. If you really want to pay someone to do your research paper, allocate enough time on looking for a suitable service. 

How to find inspiration for research paper writing

If you are currently working on the task of writing a research paper and feel stuck even though you are genuinely interested in the topic you have chosen, perhaps it is time to take some time off. Focus on other things, such as your hobbies or fun activities. Your brain needs to recharge in order to generate unconventional ideas. If you want to find inspiration for writing , the best thing you can do is let it go for a little while. It is totally normal to feel frustrated while working on your assignment. It does not mean that it is time to start googling ‘pay research paper’ as a last resort. What it simply means is that your brain signifies it is time for you to unwind. Focus on something else at least for a few hours, and you will see how many great ideas you are going to come up. 

Research paper writing skills

People don’t become research paper writing gurus overnight. It takes time and effort to write impressive research papers each semester and still generate new ideas. You can learn how to do that, but there is no easy way to develop these skills. Everything is pretty obvious: allocate a lot of time on this process, study every relevant aspect in detail and practice writing as many papers as possible. The more you write, the easier it gets to define what the object and the subject of your research paper is, as well as what aspects you need to focus on in your piece of writing. 

All in all, finding inspiration for writing a research paper can be quite difficult, especially when you have tons of other assignments to complete. Keep in mind that the best way to unwind is to take a little break and to do something completely different. It will help your brain recharge which, in its turn, might result in coming up with some very unconventional ideas. You can later transform them into the object or the subject of your research depending on the field in question. Stay curious and don’t be afraid to experiment. Be a part of new experiences. It helps your mind generate better ideas. As a result, you will be able to submit better papers and get better grades.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

From stress to success: how professional writers can relieve your essay burden, stephon marbury net worth details, nba career, and more, what is the best essay framework, leave a reply cancel reply.

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

• Submit a Manuscript
• Advanced search

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Advanced Search

Assessing the Emergence and Evolution of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Research in Neuroradiology

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Alexandre Boutet
• ORCID record for Samuel S. Haile
• ORCID record for Hyo Jin Son
• ORCID record for Mikail Malik
• ORCID record for Mehran Nasralla
• ORCID record for Jurgen Germann
• ORCID record for Farzad Khalvati
• ORCID record for Birgit B. Ertl-Wagner
• Figures & Data
• Info & Metrics

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Interest in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has been growing in neuroradiology, but there is limited knowledge on how this interest has manifested into research and specifically, its qualities and characteristics. This study aims to characterize the emergence and evolution of AI/ML articles within neuroradiology and provide a comprehensive overview of the trends, challenges, and future directions of the field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis of the American Journal of Neuroradiology ; the journal was queried for original research articles published since inception (January 1, 1980) to December 3, 2022 that contained any of the following key terms: “machine learning,” “artificial intelligence,” “radiomics,” “deep learning,” “neural network,” “generative adversarial network,” “object detection,” or “natural language processing.” Articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers, and categorized into statistical modeling (type 1), AI/ML development (type 2), both representing developmental research work but without a direct clinical integration, or end-user application (type 3), which is the closest surrogate of potential AI/ML integration into day-to-day practice. To better understand the limiting factors to type 3 articles being published, we analyzed type 2 articles as they should represent the precursor work leading to type 3.

RESULTS: A total of 182 articles were identified with 79% being nonintegration focused (type 1 n = 53, type 2 n = 90) and 21% ( n = 39) being type 3. The total number of articles published grew roughly 5-fold in the last 5 years, with the nonintegration focused articles mainly driving this growth. Additionally, a minority of type 2 articles addressed bias (22%) and explainability (16%). These articles were primarily led by radiologists (63%), with most (60%) having additional postgraduate degrees.

CONCLUSIONS: AI/ML publications have been rapidly increasing in neuroradiology with only a minority of this growth being attributable to end-user application. Areas identified for improvement include enhancing the quality of type 2 articles, namely external validation, and addressing both bias and explainability. These results ultimately provide authors, editors, clinicians, and policymakers important insights to promote a shift toward integrating practical AI/ML solutions in neuroradiology.

• ABBREVIATIONS:

Alexandre Boutet and Samuel S. Haile are co-first authors that contributed equally.

Farzad Khalvati and Birgit B. Ertl-Wagner are co-supervisors of this article.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text and PDF of this article at www.ajnr.org .

• © 2024 by American Journal of Neuroradiology

Log in using your username and password

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager

• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Jump to section

• MATERIALS AND METHODS
• CONCLUSIONS

Related Articles

• No related articles found.
• Google Scholar

Cited By...

• No citing articles found.

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

• A Deep Learning Approach to Predict Recanalization First-Pass Effect following Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke
• Evaluating Biases and Quality Issues in Intermodality Image Translation Studies for Neuroradiology: A Systematic Review

Similar Articles

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Emotional design and validation study of human–landscape visual interaction.

Share and Cite

Ren, H.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, L. Emotional Design and Validation Study of Human–Landscape Visual Interaction. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 1966. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071966

Ren H, Cheng L, Zhang J, Wang Q, Zhang L. Emotional Design and Validation Study of Human–Landscape Visual Interaction. Buildings . 2024; 14(7):1966. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071966

Ren, Hongguo, Lu Cheng, Jing Zhang, Qingqin Wang, and Lujia Zhang. 2024. "Emotional Design and Validation Study of Human–Landscape Visual Interaction" Buildings 14, no. 7: 1966. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071966

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals