Can One Research Objective Contain More Than One Task?

Is “To Identify, Compare, and Evaluate...” One Objective or Three?

You begin writing an objective and discover that one verb is apparently insufficient:

To identify students' generative AI practices, compare these practices across disciplines, and evaluate their relationship with academic writing performance.

Grammatically, that is one sentence. Methodologically, however, it may contain several research tasks.

This raises a practical question: must every research objective contain exactly one action, or can several related actions legitimately appear together?

There is no universal one-verb-per-objective rule. The more useful test is whether the actions collectively represent one coherent research accomplishment or whether they create separate questions, analyses, or evidentiary commitments that would be clearer as distinct objectives.

One Objective Can Contain Related Actions, but Avoid Bundling Independent Research Tasks

The Real Issue Is Conceptual Unity, Not the Number of Verbs

An Objective Represents a Research Accomplishment

A research objective states what the study intends to accomplish. It should be sufficiently specific that the researcher can determine what evidence and analysis are required to address it.

WHO protocol guidance recommends objectives that are simple rather than complex, specific rather than vague, and established in advance. That emphasis on simplicity is useful when considering compound objectives.

If several actions form one analytical sequence or describe different parts of the same accomplishment, combining them may be reasonable. If each action could stand as an independent research question with its own evidence and findings, combining them may conceal the true scope of the study.

Some Multiple Actions Naturally Belong Together

Consider:

To identify and characterize the academic writing tasks for which undergraduate students use generative AI.

“Identify” and “characterize” are related. The second action deepens the first rather than launching a substantially different investigation.

Likewise:

To develop and preliminarily evaluate a rubric for assessing students' verification of AI-generated information.

Development and preliminary evaluation could form one coherent methodological objective if the research project is explicitly designed as an instrument-development study. The evaluation is part of establishing whether the developed rubric is usable or defensible.

That does not mean the actions must always remain together. If development and validation involve major independent phases, separate objectives may communicate the design more accurately.

Other Compound Objectives Hide Several Studies in One Sentence

Now consider:

To identify students' generative AI use, compare usage across disciplines, determine its effect on writing performance, explore faculty attitudes, and develop an institutional AI policy framework.

This is technically one sentence and, with enough commas, one objective. It is also carrying a remarkable amount of methodological luggage.

The actions imply different questions, potentially different populations, different forms of evidence, different analyses, and even a development component. Combining them does not make the study more focused. It simply hides its breadth.

Use the “One Accomplishment” Test

A practical way to evaluate a compound objective is to ask:

If all of these actions were completed, would I describe the result as one research accomplishment or several?

Look at Whether the Actions Require Different Evidence

The data required by each action provide another useful diagnostic.

Suppose the objective is:

To describe students' frequency and purposes of generative AI use in academic writing.

Both components could plausibly be addressed through the same participant group, instrument, descriptive dataset, and analytical section. Treating them as one objective may be efficient and coherent.

Now consider:

To describe students' generative AI use and explore faculty members' experiences implementing institutional AI policies.

The second action introduces a different population, phenomenon, and likely method. The conjunction and does not make them one research accomplishment.

Look at Whether the Actions Require Different Analyses

Different analyses do not automatically require separate objectives. One objective can involve several analytical procedures if they collectively address one question.

For example, characterizing a scale may require several statistical analyses. Those analyses are methodological operations supporting one objective, not necessarily separate objectives themselves.

However, if one action is descriptive, another tests an association, and another evaluates an intervention, the analytical differences may indicate genuinely separate research purposes.

Sequence Does Not Automatically Create Unity

Researchers sometimes combine actions because one occurs after another:

To assess students' AI literacy, develop a training programme, and evaluate the programme's effectiveness.

These tasks are sequentially related, but each could represent a substantial research phase. Assessment informs development, and development precedes evaluation, yet the sequence may still contain three distinct objectives.

Chronological dependence is therefore not enough. Ask whether each stage makes a substantial independent contribution to the study.

Compound Objectives Can Make Completion Ambiguous

Suppose an objective states:

To identify, compare, and evaluate students' generative AI practices.

The study successfully identifies and compares the practices but never performs the intended evaluation. Has the objective been achieved?

Only partially.

This is one reason a heavily compound objective can become difficult to manage. If the components can succeed or fail independently, separating them may make the eventual findings and conclusions easier to map back to the stated objectives.

The question of whether every research objective should produce a result becomes particularly important when one objective contains several independently reportable components.

Do Not Split Every Minor Operation Into Its Own Objective

There is an opposite problem. Researchers can become so determined to keep objectives “single-task” that they create lists such as:

• To calculate the mean AI literacy score.
• To calculate the standard deviation of AI literacy scores.
• To tabulate AI literacy scores by year level.
• To create a graph of AI literacy scores.

These are analytical or reporting operations, not necessarily four meaningful research objectives.

A more coherent objective might be:

To characterize AI literacy levels among undergraduate students.

The calculations and visualizations belong in the analysis plan.

Compound Objectives Can Also Reveal an Overly Broad Study

If you repeatedly need four or five substantial verbs to describe one objective, the problem may not be sentence construction. The study itself may be trying to accomplish too much.

Splitting the objective into separate statements will make that scope visible, but it will not make the work disappear.

At that point, reconsider the appropriate number of research objectives and whether all of them genuinely belong in one study.

When to Keep Tasks Together and When to Split Them

The revised structure is longer on the page but conceptually cleaner. Each objective now represents a recognizable research accomplishment with a clearer relationship to evidence and analysis.

If the original study did not actually need the comparison or explanatory components, an even better solution would be to remove them rather than preserving every possible line of inquiry simply because they sound interesting.

Common Mistakes With Multi-Task Objectives

Use the Independence Test Before Combining Tasks

When an objective contains several verbs or clauses, temporarily separate them. Then ask whether each component could reasonably stand alone as a meaningful research objective.

After restructuring, check the level of detail. A compound objective can become difficult to read partly because it is too broad or insufficiently bounded, not merely because it contains several verbs.

You should also check whether each revised objective remains achievable with the study design. Splitting an impossible objective into three neat sentences produces three impossible objectives, which is tidy but not especially helpful.

Should You Split a Multi-Task Objective?

Frequently Asked Questions About Multiple Tasks in One Objective

One Objective Can Do More Than One Thing, but It Should Still Mean One Thing

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.