- Resources Home 🏠
- Try SciSpace Copilot
- Search research papers
- Add Copilot Extension
- Try AI Detector
- Try Paraphraser
- Try Citation Generator
- April Papers
- June Papers
- July Papers
![working hypothesis for the study SciSpace Resources](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/2023/01/Scispace--600---72-px---1-.png)
![](http://mangareview.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
The Craft of Writing a Strong Hypothesis
![working hypothesis for the study Deeptanshu D](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/2021/08/1585503406514.jpg)
Table of Contents
Writing a hypothesis is one of the essential elements of a scientific research paper. It needs to be to the point, clearly communicating what your research is trying to accomplish. A blurry, drawn-out, or complexly-structured hypothesis can confuse your readers. Or worse, the editor and peer reviewers.
A captivating hypothesis is not too intricate. This blog will take you through the process so that, by the end of it, you have a better idea of how to convey your research paper's intent in just one sentence.
What is a Hypothesis?
The first step in your scientific endeavor, a hypothesis, is a strong, concise statement that forms the basis of your research. It is not the same as a thesis statement , which is a brief summary of your research paper .
The sole purpose of a hypothesis is to predict your paper's findings, data, and conclusion. It comes from a place of curiosity and intuition . When you write a hypothesis, you're essentially making an educated guess based on scientific prejudices and evidence, which is further proven or disproven through the scientific method.
The reason for undertaking research is to observe a specific phenomenon. A hypothesis, therefore, lays out what the said phenomenon is. And it does so through two variables, an independent and dependent variable.
The independent variable is the cause behind the observation, while the dependent variable is the effect of the cause. A good example of this is “mixing red and blue forms purple.” In this hypothesis, mixing red and blue is the independent variable as you're combining the two colors at your own will. The formation of purple is the dependent variable as, in this case, it is conditional to the independent variable.
Different Types of Hypotheses
![working hypothesis for the study Types-of-hypotheses](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/2023/07/Types-of-hypotheses.jpg)
Types of hypotheses
Some would stand by the notion that there are only two types of hypotheses: a Null hypothesis and an Alternative hypothesis. While that may have some truth to it, it would be better to fully distinguish the most common forms as these terms come up so often, which might leave you out of context.
Apart from Null and Alternative, there are Complex, Simple, Directional, Non-Directional, Statistical, and Associative and casual hypotheses. They don't necessarily have to be exclusive, as one hypothesis can tick many boxes, but knowing the distinctions between them will make it easier for you to construct your own.
1. Null hypothesis
A null hypothesis proposes no relationship between two variables. Denoted by H 0 , it is a negative statement like “Attending physiotherapy sessions does not affect athletes' on-field performance.” Here, the author claims physiotherapy sessions have no effect on on-field performances. Even if there is, it's only a coincidence.
2. Alternative hypothesis
Considered to be the opposite of a null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis is donated as H1 or Ha. It explicitly states that the dependent variable affects the independent variable. A good alternative hypothesis example is “Attending physiotherapy sessions improves athletes' on-field performance.” or “Water evaporates at 100 °C. ” The alternative hypothesis further branches into directional and non-directional.
- Directional hypothesis: A hypothesis that states the result would be either positive or negative is called directional hypothesis. It accompanies H1 with either the ‘<' or ‘>' sign.
- Non-directional hypothesis: A non-directional hypothesis only claims an effect on the dependent variable. It does not clarify whether the result would be positive or negative. The sign for a non-directional hypothesis is ‘≠.'
3. Simple hypothesis
A simple hypothesis is a statement made to reflect the relation between exactly two variables. One independent and one dependent. Consider the example, “Smoking is a prominent cause of lung cancer." The dependent variable, lung cancer, is dependent on the independent variable, smoking.
4. Complex hypothesis
In contrast to a simple hypothesis, a complex hypothesis implies the relationship between multiple independent and dependent variables. For instance, “Individuals who eat more fruits tend to have higher immunity, lesser cholesterol, and high metabolism.” The independent variable is eating more fruits, while the dependent variables are higher immunity, lesser cholesterol, and high metabolism.
5. Associative and casual hypothesis
Associative and casual hypotheses don't exhibit how many variables there will be. They define the relationship between the variables. In an associative hypothesis, changing any one variable, dependent or independent, affects others. In a casual hypothesis, the independent variable directly affects the dependent.
6. Empirical hypothesis
Also referred to as the working hypothesis, an empirical hypothesis claims a theory's validation via experiments and observation. This way, the statement appears justifiable and different from a wild guess.
Say, the hypothesis is “Women who take iron tablets face a lesser risk of anemia than those who take vitamin B12.” This is an example of an empirical hypothesis where the researcher the statement after assessing a group of women who take iron tablets and charting the findings.
7. Statistical hypothesis
The point of a statistical hypothesis is to test an already existing hypothesis by studying a population sample. Hypothesis like “44% of the Indian population belong in the age group of 22-27.” leverage evidence to prove or disprove a particular statement.
Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
Writing a hypothesis is essential as it can make or break your research for you. That includes your chances of getting published in a journal. So when you're designing one, keep an eye out for these pointers:
- A research hypothesis has to be simple yet clear to look justifiable enough.
- It has to be testable — your research would be rendered pointless if too far-fetched into reality or limited by technology.
- It has to be precise about the results —what you are trying to do and achieve through it should come out in your hypothesis.
- A research hypothesis should be self-explanatory, leaving no doubt in the reader's mind.
- If you are developing a relational hypothesis, you need to include the variables and establish an appropriate relationship among them.
- A hypothesis must keep and reflect the scope for further investigations and experiments.
Separating a Hypothesis from a Prediction
Outside of academia, hypothesis and prediction are often used interchangeably. In research writing, this is not only confusing but also incorrect. And although a hypothesis and prediction are guesses at their core, there are many differences between them.
A hypothesis is an educated guess or even a testable prediction validated through research. It aims to analyze the gathered evidence and facts to define a relationship between variables and put forth a logical explanation behind the nature of events.
Predictions are assumptions or expected outcomes made without any backing evidence. They are more fictionally inclined regardless of where they originate from.
For this reason, a hypothesis holds much more weight than a prediction. It sticks to the scientific method rather than pure guesswork. "Planets revolve around the Sun." is an example of a hypothesis as it is previous knowledge and observed trends. Additionally, we can test it through the scientific method.
Whereas "COVID-19 will be eradicated by 2030." is a prediction. Even though it results from past trends, we can't prove or disprove it. So, the only way this gets validated is to wait and watch if COVID-19 cases end by 2030.
Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis
![working hypothesis for the study Quick-tips-on-how-to-write-a-hypothesis](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/2023/07/Quick-Tips-on-how-to-write-a-hypothesis.jpg)
Quick tips on writing a hypothesis
1. Be clear about your research question
A hypothesis should instantly address the research question or the problem statement. To do so, you need to ask a question. Understand the constraints of your undertaken research topic and then formulate a simple and topic-centric problem. Only after that can you develop a hypothesis and further test for evidence.
2. Carry out a recce
Once you have your research's foundation laid out, it would be best to conduct preliminary research. Go through previous theories, academic papers, data, and experiments before you start curating your research hypothesis. It will give you an idea of your hypothesis's viability or originality.
Making use of references from relevant research papers helps draft a good research hypothesis. SciSpace Discover offers a repository of over 270 million research papers to browse through and gain a deeper understanding of related studies on a particular topic. Additionally, you can use SciSpace Copilot , your AI research assistant, for reading any lengthy research paper and getting a more summarized context of it. A hypothesis can be formed after evaluating many such summarized research papers. Copilot also offers explanations for theories and equations, explains paper in simplified version, allows you to highlight any text in the paper or clip math equations and tables and provides a deeper, clear understanding of what is being said. This can improve the hypothesis by helping you identify potential research gaps.
3. Create a 3-dimensional hypothesis
Variables are an essential part of any reasonable hypothesis. So, identify your independent and dependent variable(s) and form a correlation between them. The ideal way to do this is to write the hypothetical assumption in the ‘if-then' form. If you use this form, make sure that you state the predefined relationship between the variables.
In another way, you can choose to present your hypothesis as a comparison between two variables. Here, you must specify the difference you expect to observe in the results.
4. Write the first draft
Now that everything is in place, it's time to write your hypothesis. For starters, create the first draft. In this version, write what you expect to find from your research.
Clearly separate your independent and dependent variables and the link between them. Don't fixate on syntax at this stage. The goal is to ensure your hypothesis addresses the issue.
5. Proof your hypothesis
After preparing the first draft of your hypothesis, you need to inspect it thoroughly. It should tick all the boxes, like being concise, straightforward, relevant, and accurate. Your final hypothesis has to be well-structured as well.
Research projects are an exciting and crucial part of being a scholar. And once you have your research question, you need a great hypothesis to begin conducting research. Thus, knowing how to write a hypothesis is very important.
Now that you have a firmer grasp on what a good hypothesis constitutes, the different kinds there are, and what process to follow, you will find it much easier to write your hypothesis, which ultimately helps your research.
Now it's easier than ever to streamline your research workflow with SciSpace Discover . Its integrated, comprehensive end-to-end platform for research allows scholars to easily discover, write and publish their research and fosters collaboration.
It includes everything you need, including a repository of over 270 million research papers across disciplines, SEO-optimized summaries and public profiles to show your expertise and experience.
If you found these tips on writing a research hypothesis useful, head over to our blog on Statistical Hypothesis Testing to learn about the top researchers, papers, and institutions in this domain.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. what is the definition of hypothesis.
According to the Oxford dictionary, a hypothesis is defined as “An idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts, but that has not yet been proved to be true or correct”.
2. What is an example of hypothesis?
The hypothesis is a statement that proposes a relationship between two or more variables. An example: "If we increase the number of new users who join our platform by 25%, then we will see an increase in revenue."
3. What is an example of null hypothesis?
A null hypothesis is a statement that there is no relationship between two variables. The null hypothesis is written as H0. The null hypothesis states that there is no effect. For example, if you're studying whether or not a particular type of exercise increases strength, your null hypothesis will be "there is no difference in strength between people who exercise and people who don't."
4. What are the types of research?
• Fundamental research
• Applied research
• Qualitative research
• Quantitative research
• Mixed research
• Exploratory research
• Longitudinal research
• Cross-sectional research
• Field research
• Laboratory research
• Fixed research
• Flexible research
• Action research
• Policy research
• Classification research
• Comparative research
• Causal research
• Inductive research
• Deductive research
5. How to write a hypothesis?
• Your hypothesis should be able to predict the relationship and outcome.
• Avoid wordiness by keeping it simple and brief.
• Your hypothesis should contain observable and testable outcomes.
• Your hypothesis should be relevant to the research question.
6. What are the 2 types of hypothesis?
• Null hypotheses are used to test the claim that "there is no difference between two groups of data".
• Alternative hypotheses test the claim that "there is a difference between two data groups".
7. Difference between research question and research hypothesis?
A research question is a broad, open-ended question you will try to answer through your research. A hypothesis is a statement based on prior research or theory that you expect to be true due to your study. Example - Research question: What are the factors that influence the adoption of the new technology? Research hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between age, education and income level with the adoption of the new technology.
8. What is plural for hypothesis?
The plural of hypothesis is hypotheses. Here's an example of how it would be used in a statement, "Numerous well-considered hypotheses are presented in this part, and they are supported by tables and figures that are well-illustrated."
9. What is the red queen hypothesis?
The red queen hypothesis in evolutionary biology states that species must constantly evolve to avoid extinction because if they don't, they will be outcompeted by other species that are evolving. Leigh Van Valen first proposed it in 1973; since then, it has been tested and substantiated many times.
10. Who is known as the father of null hypothesis?
The father of the null hypothesis is Sir Ronald Fisher. He published a paper in 1925 that introduced the concept of null hypothesis testing, and he was also the first to use the term itself.
11. When to reject null hypothesis?
You need to find a significant difference between your two populations to reject the null hypothesis. You can determine that by running statistical tests such as an independent sample t-test or a dependent sample t-test. You should reject the null hypothesis if the p-value is less than 0.05.
![working hypothesis for the study working hypothesis for the study](https://typeset.io/resources/assets/icon-192x192.png?v=af7ef697bc)
You might also like
![working hypothesis for the study Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/size/w1000/2024/02/scispace-gpt-vs-consensus-gpt.png)
Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences
![working hypothesis for the study Nikhil Seethi](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/size/w100/2023/11/NIKHILS.png)
Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
- How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples
How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples
Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.
A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection .
Example: Hypothesis
Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.
Table of contents
What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.
A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.
A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).
Variables in hypotheses
Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .
- An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
- A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.
If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias will affect your results.
In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .
Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
- Academic style
- Vague sentences
- Style consistency
See an example
![working hypothesis for the study working hypothesis for the study](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dissertation-proofreading-service.png)
Step 1. Ask a question
Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.
Step 2. Do some preliminary research
Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.
At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.
Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis
Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.
4. Refine your hypothesis
You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:
- The relevant variables
- The specific group being studied
- The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis
5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways
To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.
In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.
If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.
6. Write a null hypothesis
If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis . The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .
- H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
- H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.
Research question | Hypothesis | Null hypothesis |
---|---|---|
What are the health benefits of eating an apple a day? | Increasing apple consumption in over-60s will result in decreasing frequency of doctor’s visits. | Increasing apple consumption in over-60s will have no effect on frequency of doctor’s visits. |
Which airlines have the most delays? | Low-cost airlines are more likely to have delays than premium airlines. | Low-cost and premium airlines are equally likely to have delays. |
Can flexible work arrangements improve job satisfaction? | Employees who have flexible working hours will report greater job satisfaction than employees who work fixed hours. | There is no relationship between working hour flexibility and job satisfaction. |
How effective is high school sex education at reducing teen pregnancies? | Teenagers who received sex education lessons throughout high school will have lower rates of unplanned pregnancy teenagers who did not receive any sex education. | High school sex education has no effect on teen pregnancy rates. |
What effect does daily use of social media have on the attention span of under-16s? | There is a negative between time spent on social media and attention span in under-16s. | There is no relationship between social media use and attention span in under-16s. |
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.
- 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
Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services
Discover proofreading & editing
A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).
Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.
Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/
Is this article helpful?
Shona McCombes
Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, get unlimited documents corrected.
✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts
How to Write a Research Hypothesis
- Research Process
- Peer Review
Since grade school, we've all been familiar with hypotheses. The hypothesis is an essential step of the scientific method. But what makes an effective research hypothesis, how do you create one, and what types of hypotheses are there? We answer these questions and more.
Updated on April 27, 2022
![working hypothesis for the study the word hypothesis being typed on white paper](https://images.prismic.io/aje-cms-production/How-to-Write-a-Research-Hypothesis_AJE%20Scholar.png?auto=compress,format&rect=0,0,1104,735&w=60)
What is a research hypothesis?
General hypothesis.
Since grade school, we've all been familiar with the term “hypothesis.” A hypothesis is a fact-based guess or prediction that has not been proven. It is an essential step of the scientific method. The hypothesis of a study is a drive for experimentation to either prove the hypothesis or dispute it.
Research Hypothesis
A research hypothesis is more specific than a general hypothesis. It is an educated, expected prediction of the outcome of a study that is testable.
What makes an effective research hypothesis?
A good research hypothesis is a clear statement of the relationship between a dependent variable(s) and independent variable(s) relevant to the study that can be disproven.
Research hypothesis checklist
Once you've written a possible hypothesis, make sure it checks the following boxes:
- It must be testable: You need a means to prove your hypothesis. If you can't test it, it's not a hypothesis.
- It must include a dependent and independent variable: At least one independent variable ( cause ) and one dependent variable ( effect ) must be included.
- The language must be easy to understand: Be as clear and concise as possible. Nothing should be left to interpretation.
- It must be relevant to your research topic: You probably shouldn't be talking about cats and dogs if your research topic is outer space. Stay relevant to your topic.
How to create an effective research hypothesis
Pose it as a question first.
Start your research hypothesis from a journalistic approach. Ask one of the five W's: Who, what, when, where, or why.
A possible initial question could be: Why is the sky blue?
Do the preliminary research
Once you have a question in mind, read research around your topic. Collect research from academic journals.
If you're looking for information about the sky and why it is blue, research information about the atmosphere, weather, space, the sun, etc.
Write a draft hypothesis
Once you're comfortable with your subject and have preliminary knowledge, create a working hypothesis. Don't stress much over this. Your first hypothesis is not permanent. Look at it as a draft.
Your first draft of a hypothesis could be: Certain molecules in the Earth's atmosphere are responsive to the sky being the color blue.
Make your working draft perfect
Take your working hypothesis and make it perfect. Narrow it down to include only the information listed in the “Research hypothesis checklist” above.
Now that you've written your working hypothesis, narrow it down. Your new hypothesis could be: Light from the sun hitting oxygen molecules in the sky makes the color of the sky appear blue.
Write a null hypothesis
Your null hypothesis should be the opposite of your research hypothesis. It should be able to be disproven by your research.
In this example, your null hypothesis would be: Light from the sun hitting oxygen molecules in the sky does not make the color of the sky appear blue.
Why is it important to have a clear, testable hypothesis?
One of the main reasons a manuscript can be rejected from a journal is because of a weak hypothesis. “Poor hypothesis, study design, methodology, and improper use of statistics are other reasons for rejection of a manuscript,” says Dr. Ish Kumar Dhammi and Dr. Rehan-Ul-Haq in Indian Journal of Orthopaedics.
According to Dr. James M. Provenzale in American Journal of Roentgenology , “The clear declaration of a research question (or hypothesis) in the Introduction is critical for reviewers to understand the intent of the research study. It is best to clearly state the study goal in plain language (for example, “We set out to determine whether condition x produces condition y.”) An insufficient problem statement is one of the more common reasons for manuscript rejection.”
Characteristics that make a hypothesis weak include:
- Unclear variables
- Unoriginality
- Too general
- Too specific
A weak hypothesis leads to weak research and methods . The goal of a paper is to prove or disprove a hypothesis - or to prove or disprove a null hypothesis. If the hypothesis is not a dependent variable of what is being studied, the paper's methods should come into question.
A strong hypothesis is essential to the scientific method. A hypothesis states an assumed relationship between at least two variables and the experiment then proves or disproves that relationship with statistical significance. Without a proven and reproducible relationship, the paper feeds into the reproducibility crisis. Learn more about writing for reproducibility .
In a study published in The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India by Dr. Suvarna Satish Khadilkar, she reviewed 400 rejected manuscripts to see why they were rejected. Her studies revealed that poor methodology was a top reason for the submission having a final disposition of rejection.
Aside from publication chances, Dr. Gareth Dyke believes a clear hypothesis helps efficiency.
“Developing a clear and testable hypothesis for your research project means that you will not waste time, energy, and money with your work,” said Dyke. “Refining a hypothesis that is both meaningful, interesting, attainable, and testable is the goal of all effective research.”
Types of research hypotheses
There can be overlap in these types of hypotheses.
Simple hypothesis
A simple hypothesis is a hypothesis at its most basic form. It shows the relationship of one independent and one independent variable.
Example: Drinking soda (independent variable) every day leads to obesity (dependent variable).
Complex hypothesis
A complex hypothesis shows the relationship of two or more independent and dependent variables.
Example: Drinking soda (independent variable) every day leads to obesity (dependent variable) and heart disease (dependent variable).
Directional hypothesis
A directional hypothesis guesses which way the results of an experiment will go. It uses words like increase, decrease, higher, lower, positive, negative, more, or less. It is also frequently used in statistics.
Example: Humans exposed to radiation have a higher risk of cancer than humans not exposed to radiation.
Non-directional hypothesis
A non-directional hypothesis says there will be an effect on the dependent variable, but it does not say which direction.
Associative hypothesis
An associative hypothesis says that when one variable changes, so does the other variable.
Alternative hypothesis
An alternative hypothesis states that the variables have a relationship.
- The opposite of a null hypothesis
Example: An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
Null hypothesis
A null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the two variables. It is posed as the opposite of what the alternative hypothesis states.
Researchers use a null hypothesis to work to be able to reject it. A null hypothesis:
- Can never be proven
- Can only be rejected
- Is the opposite of an alternative hypothesis
Example: An apple a day does not keep the doctor away.
Logical hypothesis
A logical hypothesis is a suggested explanation while using limited evidence.
Example: Bats can navigate in the dark better than tigers.
In this hypothesis, the researcher knows that tigers cannot see in the dark, and bats mostly live in darkness.
Empirical hypothesis
An empirical hypothesis is also called a “working hypothesis.” It uses the trial and error method and changes around the independent variables.
- An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
- Two apples a day keep the doctor away.
- Three apples a day keep the doctor away.
In this case, the research changes the hypothesis as the researcher learns more about his/her research.
Statistical hypothesis
A statistical hypothesis is a look of a part of a population or statistical model. This type of hypothesis is especially useful if you are making a statement about a large population. Instead of having to test the entire population of Illinois, you could just use a smaller sample of people who live there.
Example: 70% of people who live in Illinois are iron deficient.
Causal hypothesis
A causal hypothesis states that the independent variable will have an effect on the dependent variable.
Example: Using tobacco products causes cancer.
Final thoughts
Make sure your research is error-free before you send it to your preferred journal . Check our our English Editing services to avoid your chances of desk rejection.
![working hypothesis for the study Jonny Rhein, BA](https://images.prismic.io/aje-cms-production/b0015dd6-3542-4b84-9559-87e153dccdac_JonnyRhein.jpg?auto=compress,format&w=48)
Jonny Rhein, BA
See our "Privacy Policy"
![working hypothesis for the study U.S. flag](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/uswds/img/favicons/favicon-57.png)
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
The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research
Affiliations.
- 1 Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Strada Maggiore 45, 40125 Bologna, Italy.
- 2 Texas State University, San Marcos, TX USA.
- PMID: 33311812
- PMCID: PMC7722257
- DOI: 10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9
While hypotheses frame explanatory studies and provide guidance for measurement and statistical tests, deductive, exploratory research does not have a framing device like the hypothesis. To this purpose, this article examines the landscape of deductive, exploratory research and offers the working hypothesis as a flexible, useful framework that can guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. The working hypothesis conceptual framework is introduced, placed in a philosophical context, defined, and applied to public administration and comparative public policy. Doing so, this article explains: the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research; how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive, explorative research; the nature of micro-conceptual frameworks for deductive exploratory research; and, how the working hypothesis informs data analysis when exploratory research is deductive.
Keywords: Deductive qualitative research; Exploratory research; Pragmatism; Working hypothesis.
© The Author(s) 2020.
PubMed Disclaimer
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interestNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
A Common structure used in…
A Common structure used in the development of working hypotheses
Similar articles
- Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific? Murray BG Jr. Murray BG Jr. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2001 May;76(2):255-89. doi: 10.1017/s146479310100567x. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2001. PMID: 11396849 Review.
- Clinical reasoning and hypothesis generation in expert clinical swallowing examinations. McAllister S, Tedesco H, Kruger S, Ward EC, Marsh C, Doeltgen SH. McAllister S, et al. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2020 Jul;55(4):480-492. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12531. Epub 2020 Mar 17. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2020. PMID: 32185861
- Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Nevedal AL, Reardon CM, Opra Widerquist MA, Jackson GL, Cutrona SL, White BS, Damschroder LJ. Nevedal AL, et al. Implement Sci. 2021 Jul 2;16(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5. Implement Sci. 2021. PMID: 34215286 Free PMC article.
- Effectiveness of Positive Hypothesis Testing in Inductive and Deductive Rule Learning. Laughlin PR, Bonner BL, Altermatt TW. Laughlin PR, et al. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999 Feb;77(2):130-146. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2815. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999. PMID: 10069943
- Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review. Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, Johnson M, Kaltenthaler E, Paisley S, Papaioannou D, Shippam A. Chilcott J, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250. Health Technol Assess. 2010. PMID: 20501062 Review.
- "Trust people you've never worked with" - A social network visualization of teamwork, cohesion, social support, and mental health in NHS Covid personnel. Schilling S, Armaou M, Morrison Z, Carding P, Bricknell M, Connelly V. Schilling S, et al. Front Psychol. 2024 Feb 20;15:1293171. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1293171. eCollection 2024. Front Psychol. 2024. PMID: 38445057 Free PMC article.
- Correlation of Cognitive Reappraisal and the Microstructural Properties of the Forceps Minor: A Deductive Exploratory Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study. Porcu M, Cocco L, Cau R, Suri JS, Mannelli L, Manchia M, Puig J, Qi Y, Saba L. Porcu M, et al. Brain Topogr. 2024 Jan;37(1):63-74. doi: 10.1007/s10548-023-01020-4. Epub 2023 Dec 7. Brain Topogr. 2024. PMID: 38062326
- The use of the Capability-Opportunity- Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model to identify barriers to medication adherence and the application of mobile health technology in adults with coronary heart disease: A qualitative study. Park LG, Ng F, Handley MA. Park LG, et al. PEC Innov. 2023 Sep 7;3:100209. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100209. eCollection 2023 Dec 15. PEC Innov. 2023. PMID: 37753273 Free PMC article.
- Instructor experiences with online guitar lessons during the Covid-19 pandemic in Turkey. Ayyıldız EB, Zahal O. Ayyıldız EB, et al. Int J Music Educ. 2023 Aug;41(3):484-496. doi: 10.1177/02557614221123078. Epub 2022 Sep 27. Int J Music Educ. 2023. PMID: 37431490 Free PMC article.
- Exploring the conceptual framework of a health-promotion faculty from the perspective of members: a qualitative study. Sedghi F, Mahdizadeh M, Vahedian-Shahroodi M, Gholian-Aval M. Sedghi F, et al. BMJ Open. 2023 May 11;13(5):e073059. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073059. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 37169494 Free PMC article.
- Adler E, Clark R. How It’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research. 3. Belmont: Thompson-Wadsworth; 2008.
- Arnold RW. Multiple working hypothesis in soil genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1965;29(6):717–724. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1965.03615995002900060034x. - DOI
- Atieno O. An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Probl. Educ. 21st Century. 2009;13:13–18.
- Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research. 11. Belmont: Thompson-Wadsworth; 2007.
- Biddle C, Schafft KA. Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2015;9(4):320–334. doi: 10.1177/1558689814533157. - DOI
Related information
Linkout - more resources, full text sources.
- Europe PubMed Central
- PubMed Central
- 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.
How to write a research hypothesis
Last updated
19 January 2023
Reviewed by
Miroslav Damyanov
Start with a broad subject matter that excites you, so your curiosity will motivate your work. Conduct a literature search to determine the range of questions already addressed and spot any holes in the existing research.
Narrow the topics that interest you and determine your research question. Rather than focusing on a hole in the research, you might choose to challenge an existing assumption, a process called problematization. You may also find yourself with a short list of questions or related topics.
Use the FINER method to determine the single problem you'll address with your research. FINER stands for:
I nteresting
You need a feasible research question, meaning that there is a way to address the question. You should find it interesting, but so should a larger audience. Rather than repeating research that others have already conducted, your research hypothesis should test something novel or unique.
The research must fall into accepted ethical parameters as defined by the government of your country and your university or college if you're an academic. You'll also need to come up with a relevant question since your research should provide a contribution to the existing research area.
This process typically narrows your shortlist down to a single problem you'd like to study and the variable you want to test. You're ready to write your hypothesis statements.
Make research less tedious
Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights
- Types of research hypotheses
It is important to narrow your topic down to one idea before trying to write your research hypothesis. You'll only test one problem at a time. To do this, you'll write two hypotheses – a null hypothesis (H0) and an alternative hypothesis (Ha).
You'll come across many terms related to developing a research hypothesis or referring to a specific type of hypothesis. Let's take a quick look at these terms.
Null hypothesis
The term null hypothesis refers to a research hypothesis type that assumes no statistically significant relationship exists within a set of observations or data. It represents a claim that assumes that any observed relationship is due to chance. Represented as H0, the null represents the conjecture of the research.
Alternative hypothesis
The alternative hypothesis accompanies the null hypothesis. It states that the situation presented in the null hypothesis is false or untrue, and claims an observed effect in your test. This is typically denoted by Ha or H(n), where “n” stands for the number of alternative hypotheses. You can have more than one alternative hypothesis.
Simple hypothesis
The term simple hypothesis refers to a hypothesis or theory that predicts the relationship between two variables - the independent (predictor) and the dependent (predicted).
Complex hypothesis
The term complex hypothesis refers to a model – either quantitative (mathematical) or qualitative . A complex hypothesis states the surmised relationship between two or more potentially related variables.
Directional hypothesis
When creating a statistical hypothesis, the directional hypothesis (the null hypothesis) states an assumption regarding one parameter of a population. Some academics call this the “one-sided” hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis indicates whether the researcher tests for a positive or negative effect by including either the greater than (">") or less than ("<") sign.
Non-directional hypothesis
We refer to the alternative hypothesis in a statistical research question as a non-directional hypothesis. It includes the not equal ("≠") sign to show that the research tests whether or not an effect exists without specifying the effect's direction (positive or negative).
Associative hypothesis
The term associative hypothesis assumes a link between two variables but stops short of stating that one variable impacts the other. Academic statistical literature asserts in this sense that correlation does not imply causation. So, although the hypothesis notes the correlation between two variables – the independent and dependent - it does not predict how the two interact.
Logical hypothesis
Typically used in philosophy rather than science, researchers can't test a logical hypothesis because the technology or data set doesn't yet exist. A logical hypothesis uses logic as the basis of its assumptions.
In some cases, a logical hypothesis can become an empirical hypothesis once technology provides an opportunity for testing. Until that time, the question remains too expensive or complex to address. Note that a logical hypothesis is not a statistical hypothesis.
Empirical hypothesis
When we consider the opposite of a logical hypothesis, we call this an empirical or working hypothesis. This type of hypothesis considers a scientifically measurable question. A researcher can consider and test an empirical hypothesis through replicable tests, observations, and measurements.
Statistical hypothesis
The term statistical hypothesis refers to a test of a theory that uses representative statistical models to test relationships between variables to draw conclusions regarding a large population. This requires an existing large data set, commonly referred to as big data, or implementing a survey to obtain original statistical information to form a data set for the study.
Testing this type of hypothesis requires the use of random samples. Note that the null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing.
Causal hypothesis
The term causal hypothesis refers to a research hypothesis that tests a cause-and-effect relationship. A causal hypothesis is utilized when conducting experimental or quasi-experimental research.
Descriptive hypothesis
The term descriptive hypothesis refers to a research hypothesis used in non-experimental research, specifying an influence in the relationship between two variables.
- What makes an effective research hypothesis?
An effective research hypothesis offers a clearly defined, specific statement, using simple wording that contains no assumptions or generalizations, and that you can test. A well-written hypothesis should predict the tested relationship and its outcome. It contains zero ambiguity and offers results you can observe and test.
The research hypothesis should address a question relevant to a research area. Overall, your research hypothesis needs the following essentials:
Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity
Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)
- How to develop a good research hypothesis
In developing your hypothesis statements, you must pre-plan some of your statistical analysis. Once you decide on your problem to examine, determine three aspects:
the parameter you'll test
the test's direction (left-tailed, right-tailed, or non-directional)
the hypothesized parameter value
Any quantitative research includes a hypothesized parameter value of a mean, a proportion, or the difference between two proportions. Here's how to note each parameter:
Single mean (μ)
Paired means (μd)
Single proportion (p)
Difference between two independent means (μ1−μ2)
Difference between two proportions (p1−p2)
Simple linear regression slope (β)
Correlation (ρ)
Defining these parameters and determining whether you want to test the mean, proportion, or differences helps you determine the statistical tests you'll conduct to analyze your data. When writing your hypothesis, you only need to decide which parameter to test and in what overarching way.
The null research hypothesis must include everyday language, in a single sentence, stating the problem you want to solve. Write it as an if-then statement with defined variables. Write an alternative research hypothesis that states the opposite.
- What is the correct format for writing a hypothesis?
The following example shows the proper format and textual content of a hypothesis. It follows commonly accepted academic standards.
Null hypothesis (H0): High school students who participate in varsity sports as opposed to those who do not, fail to score higher on leadership tests than students who do not participate.
Alternative hypothesis (H1): High school students who play a varsity sport as opposed to those who do not participate in team athletics will score higher on leadership tests than students who do not participate in athletics.
The research question tests the correlation between varsity sports participation and leadership qualities expressed as a score on leadership tests. It compares the population of athletes to non-athletes.
- What are the five steps of a hypothesis?
Once you decide on the specific problem or question you want to address, you can write your research hypothesis. Use this five-step system to hone your null hypothesis and generate your alternative hypothesis.
Step 1 : Create your research question. This topic should interest and excite you; answering it provides relevant information to an industry or academic area.
Step 2 : Conduct a literature review to gather essential existing research.
Step 3 : Write a clear, strong, simply worded sentence that explains your test parameter, test direction, and hypothesized parameter.
Step 4 : Read it a few times. Have others read it and ask them what they think it means. Refine your statement accordingly until it becomes understandable to everyone. While not everyone can or will comprehend every research study conducted, any person from the general population should be able to read your hypothesis and alternative hypothesis and understand the essential question you want to answer.
Step 5 : Re-write your null hypothesis until it reads simply and understandably. Write your alternative hypothesis.
What is the Red Queen hypothesis?
Some hypotheses are well-known, such as the Red Queen hypothesis. Choose your wording carefully, since you could become like the famed scientist Dr. Leigh Van Valen. In 1973, Dr. Van Valen proposed the Red Queen hypothesis to describe coevolutionary activity, specifically reciprocal evolutionary effects between species to explain extinction rates in the fossil record.
Essentially, Van Valen theorized that to survive, each species remains in a constant state of adaptation, evolution, and proliferation, and constantly competes for survival alongside other species doing the same. Only by doing this can a species avoid extinction. Van Valen took the hypothesis title from the Lewis Carroll book, "Through the Looking Glass," which contains a key character named the Red Queen who explains to Alice that for all of her running, she's merely running in place.
- Getting started with your research
In conclusion, once you write your null hypothesis (H0) and an alternative hypothesis (Ha), you’ve essentially authored the elevator pitch of your research. These two one-sentence statements describe your topic in simple, understandable terms that both professionals and laymen can understand. They provide the starting point of your research project.
Should you be using a customer insights hub?
Do you want to discover previous research faster?
Do you share your research findings with others?
Do you analyze research data?
Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster
Editor’s picks
Last updated: 18 April 2023
Last updated: 27 February 2023
Last updated: 22 August 2024
Last updated: 5 February 2023
Last updated: 16 August 2024
Last updated: 9 March 2023
Last updated: 30 April 2024
Last updated: 12 December 2023
Last updated: 11 March 2024
Last updated: 4 July 2024
Last updated: 6 March 2024
Last updated: 5 March 2024
Last updated: 13 May 2024
Latest articles
Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.
Get started for free
- Research Process
- Manuscript Preparation
- Manuscript Review
- Publication Process
- Publication Recognition
- Language Editing Services
- Translation Services
![working hypothesis for the study Elsevier QRcode Wechat](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/themes/authentic/images/wechat-qrcode.jpg)
Step-by-Step Guide: How to Craft a Strong Research Hypothesis
- 4 minute read
- 356.9K views
Table of Contents
A research hypothesis is a concise statement about the expected result of an experiment or project. In many ways, a research hypothesis represents the starting point for a scientific endeavor, as it establishes a tentative assumption that is eventually substantiated or falsified, ultimately improving our certainty about the subject investigated.
To help you with this and ease the process, in this article, we discuss the purpose of research hypotheses and list the most essential qualities of a compelling hypothesis. Let’s find out!
How to Craft a Research Hypothesis
Crafting a research hypothesis begins with a comprehensive literature review to identify a knowledge gap in your field. Once you find a question or problem, come up with a possible answer or explanation, which becomes your hypothesis. Now think about the specific methods of experimentation that can prove or disprove the hypothesis, which ultimately lead to the results of the study.
Enlisted below are some standard formats in which you can formulate a hypothesis¹ :
- A hypothesis can use the if/then format when it seeks to explore the correlation between two variables in a study primarily.
Example: If administered drug X, then patients will experience reduced fatigue from cancer treatment.
- A hypothesis can adopt when X/then Y format when it primarily aims to expose a connection between two variables
Example: When workers spend a significant portion of their waking hours in sedentary work , then they experience a greater frequency of digestive problems.
- A hypothesis can also take the form of a direct statement.
Example: Drug X and drug Y reduce the risk of cognitive decline through the same chemical pathways
What are the Features of an Effective Hypothesis?
Hypotheses in research need to satisfy specific criteria to be considered scientifically rigorous. Here are the most notable qualities of a strong hypothesis:
- Testability: Ensure the hypothesis allows you to work towards observable and testable results.
- Brevity and objectivity: Present your hypothesis as a brief statement and avoid wordiness.
- Clarity and Relevance: The hypothesis should reflect a clear idea of what we know and what we expect to find out about a phenomenon and address the significant knowledge gap relevant to a field of study.
Understanding Null and Alternative Hypotheses in Research
There are two types of hypotheses used commonly in research that aid statistical analyses. These are known as the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis . A null hypothesis is a statement assumed to be factual in the initial phase of the study.
For example, if a researcher is testing the efficacy of a new drug, then the null hypothesis will posit that the drug has no benefits compared to an inactive control or placebo . Suppose the data collected through a drug trial leads a researcher to reject the null hypothesis. In that case, it is considered to substantiate the alternative hypothesis in the above example, that the new drug provides benefits compared to the placebo.
Let’s take a closer look at the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis with two more examples:
Null Hypothesis:
The rate of decline in the number of species in habitat X in the last year is the same as in the last 100 years when controlled for all factors except the recent wildfires.
In the next experiment, the researcher will experimentally reject this null hypothesis in order to confirm the following alternative hypothesis :
The rate of decline in the number of species in habitat X in the last year is different from the rate of decline in the last 100 years when controlled for all factors other than the recent wildfires.
In the pair of null and alternative hypotheses stated above, a statistical comparison of the rate of species decline over a century and the preceding year will help the research experimentally test the null hypothesis, helping to draw scientifically valid conclusions about two factors—wildfires and species decline.
We also recommend that researchers pay attention to contextual echoes and connections when writing research hypotheses. Research hypotheses are often closely linked to the introduction ² , such as the context of the study, and can similarly influence the reader’s judgment of the relevance and validity of the research hypothesis.
Seasoned experts, such as professionals at Elsevier Language Services, guide authors on how to best embed a hypothesis within an article so that it communicates relevance and credibility. Contact us if you want help in ensuring readers find your hypothesis robust and unbiased.
References
- Hypotheses – The University Writing Center. (n.d.). https://writingcenter.tamu.edu/writing-speaking-guides/hypotheses
- Shaping the research question and hypothesis. (n.d.). Students. https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/graduate-research-services/writing-thesis-sections-part-2/shaping-the-research-question-and-hypothesis
![working hypothesis for the study Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Systematic-Literature-Review-or-Literature-Review-560x420.jpg)
Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?
![working hypothesis for the study Problem Statement](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Picture1-560x420.jpg)
How to Write an Effective Problem Statement for Your Research Paper
You may also like.
![working hypothesis for the study Academic paper format](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Academic-paper-format-320x240.jpg)
Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?
![working hypothesis for the study Being Mindful of Tone and Structure in Artilces](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Being-Mindful-of-Tone-and-Structure-in-Artilces-320x240.jpg)
Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!
![working hypothesis for the study How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/How-to-Ensure-Inclusivity-in-Your-Scientific-Writing-320x240.jpg)
A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing
![working hypothesis for the study impactful introduction section](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/impactful-introduction-section-1-320x240.jpg)
Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions
![working hypothesis for the study Limitations of a Research](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Limitations-of-a-Research-320x240.jpg)
![](http://mangareview.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?
![working hypothesis for the study Guide to Crafting Impactful Sentences](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Guide-to-Crafting-Impactful-Sentences-320x240.jpg)
A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing
![working hypothesis for the study Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Write-an-Excellent-Discussion-in-Your-Manuscript-320x240.png)
6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript
![working hypothesis for the study How to Write Clear Civil Engineering Papers](https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/How-to-Write-Clear-Civil-Engineering-Papers-320x240.jpg)
How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider
Input your search keywords and press Enter.
The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research
- Open access
- Published: 08 December 2020
- Volume 55 , pages 1703–1725, ( 2021 )
Cite this article
You have full access to this open access article
- Mattia Casula ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7081-8153 1 ,
- Nandhini Rangarajan 2 &
- Patricia Shields ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0960-4869 2
72k Accesses
92 Citations
4 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
While hypotheses frame explanatory studies and provide guidance for measurement and statistical tests, deductive, exploratory research does not have a framing device like the hypothesis. To this purpose, this article examines the landscape of deductive, exploratory research and offers the working hypothesis as a flexible, useful framework that can guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. The working hypothesis conceptual framework is introduced, placed in a philosophical context, defined, and applied to public administration and comparative public policy. Doing so, this article explains: the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research; how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive, explorative research; the nature of micro-conceptual frameworks for deductive exploratory research; and, how the working hypothesis informs data analysis when exploratory research is deductive.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reflections on Methodological Issues
Research: Meaning and Purpose
Research Design and Methodology
Explore related subjects.
- Artificial Intelligence
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Exploratory research is generally considered to be inductive and qualitative (Stebbins 2001 ). Exploratory qualitative studies adopting an inductive approach do not lend themselves to a priori theorizing and building upon prior bodies of knowledge (Reiter 2013 ; Bryman 2004 as cited in Pearse 2019 ). Juxtaposed against quantitative studies that employ deductive confirmatory approaches, exploratory qualitative research is often criticized for lack of methodological rigor and tentativeness in results (Thomas and Magilvy 2011 ). This paper focuses on the neglected topic of deductive, exploratory research and proposes working hypotheses as a useful framework for these studies.
To emphasize that certain types of applied research lend themselves more easily to deductive approaches, to address the downsides of exploratory qualitative research, and to ensure qualitative rigor in exploratory research, a significant body of work on deductive qualitative approaches has emerged (see for example, Gilgun 2005 , 2015 ; Hyde 2000 ; Pearse 2019 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 3) the use of conceptual frameworks derived from comprehensive reviews of literature and a priori theorizing were common practices in qualitative research prior to the publication of Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) The Discovery of Grounded Theory . Gilgun ( 2015 ) coined the terms Deductive Qualitative Analysis (DQA) to arrive at some sort of “middle-ground” such that the benefits of a priori theorizing (structure) and allowing room for new theory to emerge (flexibility) are reaped simultaneously. According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 14) “in DQA, the initial conceptual framework and hypotheses are preliminary. The purpose of DQA is to come up with a better theory than researchers had constructed at the outset (Gilgun 2005 , 2009 ). Indeed, the production of new, more useful hypotheses is the goal of DQA”.
DQA provides greater level of structure for both the experienced and novice qualitative researcher (see for example Pearse 2019 ; Gilgun 2005 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 4) “conceptual frameworks are the sources of hypotheses and sensitizing concepts”. Sensitizing concepts frame the exploratory research process and guide the researcher’s data collection and reporting efforts. Pearse ( 2019 ) discusses the usefulness for deductive thematic analysis and pattern matching to help guide DQA in business research. Gilgun ( 2005 ) discusses the usefulness of DQA for family research.
Given these rationales for DQA in exploratory research, the overarching purpose of this paper is to contribute to that growing corpus of work on deductive qualitative research. This paper is specifically aimed at guiding novice researchers and student scholars to the working hypothesis as a useful a priori framing tool. The applicability of the working hypothesis as a tool that provides more structure during the design and implementation phases of exploratory research is discussed in detail. Examples of research projects in public administration that use the working hypothesis as a framing tool for deductive exploratory research are provided.
In the next section, we introduce the three types of research purposes. Second, we examine the nature of the exploratory research purpose. Third, we provide a definition of working hypothesis. Fourth, we explore the philosophical roots of methodology to see where exploratory research fits. Fifth, we connect the discussion to the dominant research approaches (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) to see where deductive exploratory research fits. Sixth, we examine the nature of theory and the role of the hypothesis in theory. We contrast formal hypotheses and working hypotheses. Seven, we provide examples of student and scholarly work that illustrates how working hypotheses are developed and operationalized. Lastly, this paper synthesizes previous discussion with concluding remarks.
2 Three types of research purposes
The literature identifies three basic types of research purposes—explanation, description and exploration (Babbie 2007 ; Adler and Clark 2008 ; Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Whetsell 2017 ). Research purposes are similar to research questions; however, they focus on project goals or aims instead of questions.
Explanatory research answers the “why” question (Babbie 2007 , pp. 89–90), by explaining “why things are the way they are”, and by looking “for causes and reasons” (Adler and Clark 2008 , p. 14). Explanatory research is closely tied to hypothesis testing. Theory is tested using deductive reasoning, which goes from the general to the specific (Hyde 2000 , p. 83). Hypotheses provide a frame for explanatory research connecting the research purpose to other parts of the research process (variable construction, choice of data, statistical tests). They help provide alignment or coherence across stages in the research process and provide ways to critique the strengths and weakness of the study. For example, were the hypotheses grounded in the appropriate arguments and evidence in the literature? Are the concepts imbedded in the hypotheses appropriately measured? Was the best statistical test used? When the analysis is complete (hypothesis is tested), the results generally answer the research question (the evidence supported or failed to support the hypothesis) (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ).
Descriptive research addresses the “What” question and is not primarily concerned with causes (Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Tajalli 2006 ). It lies at the “midpoint of the knowledge continuum” (Grinnell 2001 , p. 248) between exploration and explanation. Descriptive research is used in both quantitative and qualitative research. A field researcher might want to “have a more highly developed idea of social phenomena” (Strydom 2013 , p. 154) and develop thick descriptions using inductive logic. In science, categorization and classification systems such as the periodic table of chemistry or the taxonomies of biology inform descriptive research. These baseline classification systems are a type of theorizing and allow researchers to answer questions like “what kind” of plants and animals inhabit a forest. The answer to this question would usually be displayed in graphs and frequency distributions. This is also the data presentation system used in the social sciences (Ritchie and Lewis 2003 ; Strydom 2013 ). For example, if a scholar asked, what are the needs of homeless people? A quantitative approach would include a survey that incorporated a “needs” classification system (preferably based on a literature review). The data would be displayed as frequency distributions or as charts. Description can also be guided by inductive reasoning, which draws “inferences from specific observable phenomena to general rules or knowledge expansion” (Worster 2013 , p. 448). Theory and hypotheses are generated using inductive reasoning, which begins with data and the intention of making sense of it by theorizing. Inductive descriptive approaches would use a qualitative, naturalistic design (open ended interview questions with the homeless population). The data could provide a thick description of the homeless context. For deductive descriptive research, categories, serve a purpose similar to hypotheses for explanatory research. If developed with thought and a connection to the literature, categories can serve as a framework that inform measurement, link to data collection mechanisms and to data analysis. Like hypotheses they can provide horizontal coherence across the steps in the research process.
Table 1 demonstrated these connections for deductive, descriptive and explanatory research. The arrow at the top emphasizes the horizontal or across the research process view we emphasize. This article makes the case that the working hypothesis can serve the same purpose as the hypothesis for deductive, explanatory research and categories for deductive descriptive research. The cells for exploratory research are filled in with question marks.
The remainder of this paper focuses on exploratory research and the answers to questions found in the table:
What is the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research?
What is the Micro-conceptual framework for deductive exploratory research? [ As is clear from the article title we introduce the working hypothesis as the answer .]
How does the working hypothesis inform the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research?
How does the working hypothesis inform data analysis of deductive exploratory research?
3 The nature of exploratory research purpose
Explorers enter the unknown to discover something new. The process can be fraught with struggle and surprises. Effective explorers creatively resolve unexpected problems. While we typically think of explorers as pioneers or mountain climbers, exploration is very much linked to the experience and intention of the explorer. Babies explore as they take their first steps. The exploratory purpose resonates with these insights. Exploratory research, like reconnaissance, is a type of inquiry that is in the preliminary or early stages (Babbie 2007 ). It is associated with discovery, creativity and serendipity (Stebbins 2001 ). But the person doing the discovery, also defines the activity or claims the act of exploration. It “typically occurs when a researcher examines a new interest or when the subject of study itself is relatively new” (Babbie 2007 , p. 88). Hence, exploration has an open character that emphasizes “flexibility, pragmatism, and the particular, biographically specific interests of an investigator” (Maanen et al. 2001 , p. v). These three purposes form a type of hierarchy. An area of inquiry is initially explored . This early work lays the ground for, description which in turn becomes the basis for explanation . Quantitative, explanatory studies dominate contemporary high impact journals (Twining et al. 2017 ).
Stebbins ( 2001 ) makes the point that exploration is often seen as something like a poor stepsister to confirmatory or hypothesis testing research. He has a problem with this because we live in a changing world and what is settled today will very likely be unsettled in the near future and in need of exploration. Further, exploratory research “generates initial insights into the nature of an issue and develops questions to be investigated by more extensive studies” (Marlow 2005 , p. 334). Exploration is widely applicable because all research topics were once “new.” Further, all research topics have the possibility of “innovation” or ongoing “newness”. Exploratory research may be appropriate to establish whether a phenomenon exists (Strydom 2013 ). The point here, of course, is that the exploratory purpose is far from trivial.
Stebbins’ Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences ( 2001 ), is the only book devoted to the nature of exploratory research as a form of social science inquiry. He views it as a “broad-ranging, purposive, systematic prearranged undertaking designed to maximize the discovery of generalizations leading to description and understanding of an area of social or psychological life” (p. 3). It is science conducted in a way distinct from confirmation. According to Stebbins ( 2001 , p. 6) the goal is discovery of potential generalizations, which can become future hypotheses and eventually theories that emerge from the data. He focuses on inductive logic (which stimulates creativity) and qualitative methods. He does not want exploratory research limited to the restrictive formulas and models he finds in confirmatory research. He links exploratory research to Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) flexible, immersive, Grounded Theory. Strydom’s ( 2013 ) analysis of contemporary social work research methods books echoes Stebbins’ ( 2001 ) position. Stebbins’s book is an important contribution, but it limits the potential scope of this flexible and versatile research purpose. If we accepted his conclusion, we would delete the “Exploratory” row from Table 1 .
Note that explanatory research can yield new questions, which lead to exploration. Inquiry is a process where inductive and deductive activities can occur simultaneously or in a back and forth manner, particularly as the literature is reviewed and the research design emerges. Footnote 1 Strict typologies such as explanation, description and exploration or inductive/deductive can obscures these larger connections and processes. We draw insight from Dewey’s ( 1896 ) vision of inquiry as depicted in his seminal “Reflex Arc” article. He notes that “stimulus” and “response” like other dualities (inductive/deductive) exist within a larger unifying system. Yet the terms have value. “We need not abandon terms like stimulus and response, so long as we remember that they are attached to events based upon their function in a wider dynamic context, one that includes interests and aims” (Hildebrand 2008 , p. 16). So too, in methodology typologies such as deductive/inductive capture useful distinctions with practical value and are widely used in the methodology literature.
We argue that there is a role for exploratory, deductive, and confirmatory research. We maintain all types of research logics and methods should be in the toolbox of exploratory research. First, as stated above, it makes no sense on its face to identify an extremely flexible purpose that is idiosyncratic to the researcher and then basically restrict its use to qualitative, inductive, non-confirmatory methods. Second, Stebbins’s ( 2001 ) work focused on social science ignoring the policy sciences. Exploratory research can be ideal for immediate practical problems faced by policy makers, who could find a framework of some kind useful. Third, deductive, exploratory research is more intentionally connected to previous research. Some kind of initial framing device is located or designed using the literature. This may be very important for new scholars who are developing research skills and exploring their field and profession. Stebbins’s insights are most pertinent for experienced scholars. Fourth, frameworks and deductive logic are useful for comparative work because some degree of consistency across cases is built into the design.
As we have seen, the hypotheses of explanatory and categories of descriptive research are the dominate frames of social science and policy science. We certainly concur that neither of these frames makes a lot of sense for exploratory research. They would tend to tie it down. We see the problem as a missing framework or missing way to frame deductive, exploratory research in the methodology literature. Inductive exploratory research would not work for many case studies that are trying to use evidence to make an argument. What exploratory deductive case studies need is a framework that incorporates flexibility. This is even more true for comparative case studies. A framework of this sort could be usefully applied to policy research (Casula 2020a ), particularly evaluative policy research, and applied research generally. We propose the Working Hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and as a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It can be used as an evaluative criterion particularly for process evaluation and is useful for student research because students can develop theorizing skills using the literature.
Table 1 included a column specifying the philosophical basis for each research purpose. Shifting gears to the philosophical underpinning of methodology provides useful additional context for examination of deductive, exploratory research.
4 What is a working hypothesis
The working hypothesis is first and foremost a hypothesis or a statement of expectation that is tested in action. The term “working” suggest that these hypotheses are subject to change, are provisional and the possibility of finding contradictory evidence is real. In addition, a “working” hypothesis is active, it is a tool in an ongoing process of inquiry. If one begins with a research question, the working hypothesis could be viewed as a statement or group of statements that answer the question. It “works” to move purposeful inquiry forward. “Working” also implies some sort of community, mostly we work together in relationship to achieve some goal.
Working Hypothesis is a term found in earlier literature. Indeed, both pioneering pragmatists, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead use the term working hypothesis in important nineteenth century works. For both Dewey and Mead, the notion of a working hypothesis has a self-evident quality and it is applied in a big picture context. Footnote 2
Most notably, Dewey ( 1896 ), in one of his most pivotal early works (“Reflex Arc”), used “working hypothesis” to describe a key concept in psychology. “The idea of the reflex arc has upon the whole come nearer to meeting this demand for a general working hypothesis than any other single concept (Italics added)” (p. 357). The notion of a working hypothesis was developed more fully 42 years later, in Logic the Theory of Inquiry , where Dewey developed the notion of a working hypothesis that operated on a smaller scale. He defines working hypotheses as a “provisional, working means of advancing investigation” (Dewey 1938 , pp. 142). Dewey’s definition suggests that working hypotheses would be useful toward the beginning of a research project (e.g., exploratory research).
Mead ( 1899 ) used working hypothesis in a title of an American Journal of Sociology article “The Working Hypothesis and Social Reform” (italics added). He notes that a scientist’s foresight goes beyond testing a hypothesis.
Given its success, he may restate his world from this standpoint and get the basis for further investigation that again always takes the form of a problem. The solution of this problem is found over again in the possibility of fitting his hypothetical proposition into the whole within which it arises. And he must recognize that this statement is only a working hypothesis at the best, i.e., he knows that further investigation will show that the former statement of his world is only provisionally true, and must be false from the standpoint of a larger knowledge, as every partial truth is necessarily false over against the fuller knowledge which he will gain later (Mead 1899 , p. 370).
Cronbach ( 1975 ) developed a notion of working hypothesis consistent with inductive reasoning, but for him, the working hypothesis is a product or result of naturalistic inquiry. He makes the case that naturalistic inquiry is highly context dependent and therefore results or seeming generalizations that may come from a study and should be viewed as “working hypotheses”, which “are tentative both for the situation in which they first uncovered and for other situations” (as cited in Gobo 2008 , p. 196).
A quick Google scholar search using the term “working hypothesis” show that it is widely used in twentieth and twenty-first century science, particularly in titles. In these articles, the working hypothesis is treated as a conceptual tool that furthers investigation in its early or transitioning phases. We could find no explicit links to exploratory research. The exploratory nature of the problem is expressed implicitly. Terms such as “speculative” (Habib 2000 , p. 2391) or “rapidly evolving field” (Prater et al. 2007 , p. 1141) capture the exploratory nature of the study. The authors might describe how a topic is “new” or reference “change”. “As a working hypothesis, the picture is only new, however, in its interpretation” (Milnes 1974 , p. 1731). In a study of soil genesis, Arnold ( 1965 , p. 718) notes “Sequential models, formulated as working hypotheses, are subject to further investigation and change”. Any 2020 article dealing with COVID-19 and respiratory distress would be preliminary almost by definition (Ciceri et al. 2020 ).
5 Philosophical roots of methodology
According to Kaplan ( 1964 , p. 23) “the aim of methodology is to help us understand, in the broadest sense not the products of scientific inquiry but the process itself”. Methods contain philosophical principles that distinguish them from other “human enterprises and interests” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 23). Contemporary research methodology is generally classified as quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Leading scholars of methodology have associated each with a philosophical underpinning—positivism (or post-positivism), interpretivism or constructivist and pragmatism, respectively (Guba 1987 ; Guba and Lincoln 1981 ; Schrag 1992 ; Stebbins 2001 ; Mackenzi and Knipe 2006 ; Atieno 2009 ; Levers 2013 ; Morgan 2007 ; O’Connor et al. 2008 ; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). This section summarizes how the literature often describes these philosophies and informs contemporary methodology and its literature.
Positivism and its more contemporary version, post-positivism, maintains an objectivist ontology or assumes an objective reality, which can be uncovered (Levers 2013 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). Footnote 3 Time and context free generalizations are possible and “real causes of social scientific outcomes can be determined reliably and validly (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 14). Further, “explanation of the social world is possible through a logical reduction of social phenomena to physical terms”. It uses an empiricist epistemology which “implies testability against observation, experimentation, or comparison” (Whetsell and Shields 2015 , pp. 420–421). Correspondence theory, a tenet of positivism, asserts that “to each concept there corresponds a set of operations involved in its scientific use” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 40).
The interpretivist, constructivists or post-modernist approach is a reaction to positivism. It uses a relativist ontology and a subjectivist epistemology (Levers 2013 ). In this world of multiple realities, context free generalities are impossible as is the separation of facts and values. Causality, explanation, prediction, experimentation depend on assumptions about the correspondence between concepts and reality, which in the absence of an objective reality is impossible. Empirical research can yield “contextualized emergent understanding rather than the creation of testable theoretical structures” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). The distinctively different world views of positivist/post positivist and interpretivist philosophy is at the core of many controversies in methodology, social and policy science literature (Casula 2020b ).
With its focus on dissolving dualisms, pragmatism steps outside the objective/subjective debate. Instead, it asks, “what difference would it make to us if the statement were true” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 42). Its epistemology is connected to purposeful inquiry. Pragmatism has a “transformative, experimental notion of inquiry” anchored in pluralism and a focus on constructing conceptual and practical tools to resolve “problematic situations” (Shields 1998 ; Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ). Exploration and working hypotheses are most comfortably situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective.
6 Research approaches
Empirical investigation relies on three types of methodology—quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.
6.1 Quantitative methods
Quantitative methods uses deductive logic and formal hypotheses or models to explain, predict, and eventually establish causation (Hyde 2000 ; Kaplan 1964 ; Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 ; Morgan 2007 ). Footnote 4 The correspondence between the conceptual and empirical world make measures possible. Measurement assigns numbers to objects, events or situations and allows for standardization and subtle discrimination. It also allows researchers to draw on the power of mathematics and statistics (Kaplan 1964 , pp. 172–174). Using the power of inferential statistics, quantitative research employs research designs, which eliminate competing hypotheses. It is high in external validity or the ability to generalize to the whole. The research results are relatively independent of the researcher (Johnson & Onwuegbunzie 2004 ).
Quantitative methods depend on the quality of measurement and a priori conceptualization, and adherence to the underlying assumptions of inferential statistics. Critics charge that hypotheses and frameworks needlessly constrain inquiry (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 19). Hypothesis testing quantitative methods support the explanatory purpose.
6.2 Qualitative methods
Qualitative researchers who embrace the post-modern, interpretivist view, Footnote 5 question everything about the nature of quantitative methods (Willis et al. 2007 ). Rejecting the possibility of objectivity, correspondence between ideas and measures, and the constraints of a priori theorizing they focus on “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize the findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). Characteristics of traditional qualitative research include “induction, discovery, exploration, theory/hypothesis generation and the researcher as the primary ‘instrument’ of data collection” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 18). It also concerns itself with forming “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). The data of qualitative methods are generated via interviews, direct observation, focus groups and analysis of written records or artifacts.
Qualitative methods provide for understanding and “description of people’s personal experiences of phenomena”. They enable descriptions of detailed “phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts.” Researchers use naturalistic settings to “study dynamic processes” and explore how participants interpret experiences. Qualitative methods have an inherent flexibility, allowing researchers to respond to changes in the research setting. They are particularly good at narrowing to the particular and on the flipside have limited external validity (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 20). Instead of specifying a suitable sample size to draw conclusions, qualitative research uses the notion of saturation (Morse 1995 ).
Saturation is used in grounded theory—a widely used and respected form of qualitative research, and a well-known interpretivist qualitative research method. Introduced by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ), this “grounded on observation” (Patten and Newhart 2000 , p. 27) methodology, focuses on “the creation of emergent understanding” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). It uses the Constant Comparative method, whereby researchers develop theory from data as they code and analyze at the same time. Data collection, coding and analysis along with theoretical sampling are systematically combined to generate theory (Kolb 2012 , p. 83). The qualitative methods discussed here support exploratory research.
A close look at the two philosophies and assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research suggests two contradictory world views. The literature has labeled these contradictory views the Incompatibility Theory, which sets up a quantitative versus qualitative tension similar to the seeming separation of art and science or fact and values (Smith 1983a , b ; Guba 1987 ; Smith and Heshusius 1986 ; Howe 1988 ). The incompatibility theory does not make sense in practice. Yin ( 1981 , 1992 , 2011 , 2017 ), a prominent case study scholar, showcases a deductive research methodology that crosses boundaries using both quantaitive and qualitative evidence when appropriate.
6.3 Mixed methods
Turning the “Incompatibility Theory” on its head, Mixed Methods research “combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches … for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al. 2007 , p. 123). It does this by partnering with philosophical pragmatism. Footnote 6 Pragmatism is productive because “it offers an immediate and useful middle position philosophically and methodologically; it offers a practical and outcome-oriented method of inquiry that is based on action and leads, iteratively, to further action and the elimination of doubt; it offers a method for selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better answer many of their research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 17). What is theory for the pragmatist “any theoretical model is for the pragmatist, nothing more than a framework through which problems are perceived and subsequently organized ” (Hothersall 2019 , p. 5).
Brendel ( 2009 ) constructed a simple framework to capture the core elements of pragmatism. Brendel’s four “p”’s—practical, pluralism, participatory and provisional help to show the relevance of pragmatism to mixed methods. Pragmatism is purposeful and concerned with the practical consequences. The pluralism of pragmatism overcomes quantitative/qualitative dualism. Instead, it allows for multiple perspectives (including positivism and interpretivism) and, thus, gets around the incompatibility problem. Inquiry should be participatory or inclusive of the many views of participants, hence, it is consistent with multiple realities and is also tied to the common concern of a problematic situation. Finally, all inquiry is provisional . This is compatible with experimental methods, hypothesis testing and consistent with the back and forth of inductive and deductive reasoning. Mixed methods support exploratory research.
Advocates of mixed methods research note that it overcomes the weaknesses and employs the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods provide precision. The pictures and narrative of qualitative techniques add meaning to the numbers. Quantitative analysis can provide a big picture, establish relationships and its results have great generalizability. On the other hand, the “why” behind the explanation is often missing and can be filled in through in-depth interviews. A deeper and more satisfying explanation is possible. Mixed-methods brings the benefits of triangulation or multiple sources of evidence that converge to support a conclusion. It can entertain a “broader and more complete range of research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 21) and can move between inductive and deductive methods. Case studies use multiple forms of evidence and are a natural context for mixed methods.
One thing that seems to be missing from mixed method literature and explicit design is a place for conceptual frameworks. For example, Heyvaert et al. ( 2013 ) examined nine mixed methods studies and found an explicit framework in only two studies (transformative and pragmatic) (p. 663).
7 Theory and hypotheses: where is and what is theory?
Theory is key to deductive research. In essence, empirical deductive methods test theory. Hence, we shift our attention to theory and the role and functions of the hypotheses in theory. Oppenheim and Putnam ( 1958 ) note that “by a ‘theory’ (in the widest sense) we mean any hypothesis, generalization or law (whether deterministic or statistical) or any conjunction of these” (p. 25). Van Evera ( 1997 ) uses a similar and more complex definition “theories are general statements that describe and explain the causes of effects of classes of phenomena. They are composed of causal laws or hypotheses, explanations, and antecedent conditions” (p. 8). Sutton and Staw ( 1995 , p. 376) in a highly cited article “What Theory is Not” assert the that hypotheses should contain logical arguments for “why” the hypothesis is expected. Hypotheses need an underlying causal argument before they can be considered theory. The point of this discussion is not to define theory but to establish the importance of hypotheses in theory.
Explanatory research is implicitly relational (A explains B). The hypotheses of explanatory research lay bare these relationships. Popular definitions of hypotheses capture this relational component. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines a hypothesis a “an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven”. Vocabulary.Com’s definition emphasizes explanation, a hypothesis is “an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation”. According to Wikipedia a hypothesis is “a proposed explanation for a phenomenon”. Other definitions remove the relational or explanatory reference. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a hypothesis as a “supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts.” Science Buddies defines a hypothesis as a “tentative, testable answer to a scientific question”. According to the Longman Dictionary the hypothesis is “an idea that can be tested to see if it is true or not”. The Urban Dictionary states a hypothesis is “a prediction or educated-guess based on current evidence that is yet be tested”. We argue that the hypotheses of exploratory research— working hypothesis — are not bound by relational expectations. It is this flexibility that distinguishes the working hypothesis.
Sutton and Staw (1995) maintain that hypotheses “serve as crucial bridges between theory and data, making explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical argument will be operationalized” (p. 376, italics added). The highly rated journal, Computers and Education , Twining et al. ( 2017 ) created guidelines for qualitative research as a way to improve soundness and rigor. They identified the lack of alignment between theoretical stance and methodology as a common problem in qualitative research. In addition, they identified a lack of alignment between methodology, design, instruments of data collection and analysis. The authors created a guidance summary, which emphasized the need to enhance coherence throughout elements of research design (Twining et al. 2017 p. 12). Perhaps the bridging function of the hypothesis mentioned by Sutton and Staw (1995) is obscured and often missing in qualitative methods. Working hypotheses can be a tool to overcome this problem.
For reasons, similar to those used by mixed methods scholars, we look to classical pragmatism and the ideas of John Dewey to inform our discussion of theory and working hypotheses. Dewey ( 1938 ) treats theory as a tool of empirical inquiry and uses a map metaphor (p. 136). Theory is like a map that helps a traveler navigate the terrain—and should be judged by its usefulness. “There is no expectation that a map is a true representation of reality. Rather, it is a representation that allows a traveler to reach a destination (achieve a purpose). Hence, theories should be judged by how well they help resolve the problem or achieve a purpose ” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 , p. 23). Note that we explicitly link theory to the research purpose. Theory is never treated as an unimpeachable Truth, rather it is a helpful tool that organizes inquiry connecting data and problem. Dewey’s approach also expands the definition of theory to include abstractions (categories) outside of causation and explanation. The micro-conceptual frameworks Footnote 7 introduced in Table 1 are a type of theory. We define conceptual frameworks as the “way the ideas are organized to achieve the project’s purpose” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 p. 24). Micro-conceptual frameworks do this at the very close to the data level of analysis. Micro-conceptual frameworks can direct operationalization and ways to assess measurement or evidence at the individual research study level. Again, the research purpose plays a pivotal role in the functioning of theory (Shields and Tajalli 2006 ).
8 Working hypothesis: methods and data analysis
We move on to answer the remaining questions in the Table 1 . We have established that exploratory research is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic. Given this, we will proceed with a few examples and draw out lessons for developing an exploratory purpose, building a framework and from there identifying data collection techniques and the logics of hypotheses testing and analysis. Early on we noted the value of the Working Hypothesis framework for student empirical research and applied research. The next section uses a masters level student’s work to illustrate the usefulness of working hypotheses as a way to incorporate the literature and structure inquiry. This graduate student was also a mature professional with a research question that emerged from his job and is thus an example of applied research.
Master of Public Administration student, Swift ( 2010 ) worked for a public agency and was responsible for that agency’s sexual harassment training. The agency needed to evaluate its training but had never done so before. He also had never attempted a significant empirical research project. Both of these conditions suggest exploration as a possible approach. He was interested in evaluating the training program and hence the project had a normative sense. Given his job, he already knew a lot about the problem of sexual harassment and sexual harassment training. What he did not know much about was doing empirical research, reviewing the literature or building a framework to evaluate the training (working hypotheses). He wanted a framework that was flexible and comprehensive. In his research, he discovered Lundvall’s ( 2006 ) knowledge taxonomy summarized with four simple ways of knowing ( Know - what, Know - how, Know - why, Know - who ). He asked whether his agency’s training provided the participants with these kinds of knowledge? Lundvall’s categories of knowing became the basis of his working hypotheses. Lundvall’s knowledge taxonomy is well suited for working hypotheses because it is so simple and is easy to understand intuitively. It can also be tailored to the unique problematic situation of the researcher. Swift ( 2010 , pp. 38–39) developed four basic working hypotheses:
WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual harassment training
WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual harassment training
WH3: Capital Metro provides adequate know - why knowledge in its sexual harassment training
WH4: Capital Metro provides adequate know - who knowledge in its sexual harassment training
From here he needed to determine what would determine the different kinds of knowledge. For example, what constitutes “know what” knowledge for sexual harassment training. This is where his knowledge and experience working in the field as well as the literature come into play. According to Lundvall et al. ( 1988 , p. 12) “know what” knowledge is about facts and raw information. Swift ( 2010 ) learned through the literature that laws and rules were the basis for the mandated sexual harassment training. He read about specific anti-discrimination laws and the subsequent rules and regulations derived from the laws. These laws and rules used specific definitions and were enacted within a historical context. Laws, rules, definitions and history became the “facts” of Know-What knowledge for his working hypothesis. To make this clear, he created sub-hypotheses that explicitly took these into account. See how Swift ( 2010 , p. 38) constructed the sub-hypotheses below. Each sub-hypothesis was defended using material from the literature (Swift 2010 , pp. 22–26). The sub-hypotheses can also be easily tied to evidence. For example, he could document that the training covered anti-discrimination laws.
WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual Harassment training
WH1a: The sexual harassment training includes information on anti-discrimination laws (Title VII).
WH1b: The sexual harassment training includes information on key definitions.
WH1c: The sexual harassment training includes information on Capital Metro’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment policy.
WH1d: Capital Metro provides training on sexual harassment history.
Know-How knowledge refers to the ability to do something and involves skills (Lundvall and Johnson 1994 , p. 12). It is a kind of expertise in action. The literature and his experience allowed James Smith to identify skills such as how to file a claim or how to document incidents of sexual harassment as important “know-how” knowledge that should be included in sexual harassment training. Again, these were depicted as sub-hypotheses.
WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual Harassment training
WH2a: Training is provided on how to file and report a claim of harassment
WH2b: Training is provided on how to document sexual harassment situations.
WH2c: Training is provided on how to investigate sexual harassment complaints.
WH2d: Training is provided on how to follow additional harassment policy procedures protocol
Note that the working hypotheses do not specify a relationship but rather are simple declarative sentences. If “know-how” knowledge was found in the sexual harassment training, he would be able to find evidence that participants learned about how to file a claim (WH2a). The working hypothesis provides the bridge between theory and data that Sutton and Staw (1995) found missing in exploratory work. The sub-hypotheses are designed to be refined enough that the researchers would know what to look for and tailor their hunt for evidence. Figure 1 captures the generic sub-hypothesis design.
![working hypothesis for the study figure 1](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11135-020-01072-9/MediaObjects/11135_2020_1072_Fig1_HTML.png)
A Common structure used in the development of working hypotheses
When expected evidence is linked to the sub-hypotheses, data, framework and research purpose are aligned. This can be laid out in a planning document that operationalizes the data collection in something akin to an architect’s blueprint. This is where the scholar explicitly develops the alignment between purpose, framework and method (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019b ).
Table 2 operationalizes Swift’s working hypotheses (and sub-hypotheses). The table provide clues as to what kind of evidence is needed to determine whether the hypotheses are supported. In this case, Smith used interviews with participants and trainers as well as a review of program documents. Column one repeats the sub-hypothesis, column two specifies the data collection method (here interviews with participants/managers and review of program documents) and column three specifies the unique questions that focus the investigation. For example, the interview questions are provided. In the less precise world of qualitative data, evidence supporting a hypothesis could have varying degrees of strength. This too can be specified.
For Swift’s example, neither the statistics of explanatory research nor the open-ended questions of interpretivist, inductive exploratory research is used. The deductive logic of inquiry here is somewhat intuitive and similar to a detective (Ulriksen and Dadalauri 2016 ). It is also a logic used in international law (Worster 2013 ). It should be noted that the working hypothesis and the corresponding data collection protocol does not stop inquiry and fieldwork outside the framework. The interviews could reveal an unexpected problem with Smith’s training program. The framework provides a very loose and perhaps useful ways to identify and make sense of the data that does not fit the expectations. Researchers using working hypotheses should be sensitive to interesting findings that fall outside their framework. These could be used in future studies, to refine theory or even in this case provide suggestions to improve sexual harassment training. The sensitizing concepts mentioned by Gilgun ( 2015 ) are free to emerge and should be encouraged.
Something akin to working hypotheses are hidden in plain sight in the professional literature. Take for example Kerry Crawford’s ( 2017 ) book Wartime Sexual Violence. Here she explores how basic changes in the way “advocates and decision makers think about and discuss conflict-related sexual violence” (p. 2). She focused on a subsequent shift from silence to action. The shift occurred as wartime sexual violence was reframed as a “weapon of war”. The new frame captured the attention of powerful members of the security community who demanded, initiated, and paid for institutional and policy change. Crawford ( 2017 ) examines the legacy of this key reframing. She develops a six-stage model of potential international responses to incidents of wartime violence. This model is fairly easily converted to working hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. Table 3 shows her model as a set of (non-relational) working hypotheses. She applied this model as a way to gather evidence among cases (e.g., the US response to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) to show the official level of response to sexual violence. Each case study chapter examined evidence to establish whether the case fit the pattern formalized in the working hypotheses. The framework was very useful in her comparative context. The framework allowed for consistent comparative analysis across cases. Her analysis of the three cases went well beyond the material covered in the framework. She freely incorporated useful inductively informed data in her analysis and discussion. The framework, however, allowed for alignment within and across cases.
9 Conclusion
In this article we argued that the exploratory research is also well suited for deductive approaches. By examining the landscape of deductive, exploratory research, we proposed the working hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It has the potential to guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. After presenting the nature of exploratory research purpose and how it differs from two types of research purposes identified in the literature—explanation, and description. We focused on answering four different questions in order to show the link between micro-conceptual frameworks and research purposes in a deductive setting. The answers to the four questions are summarized in Table 4 .
Firstly, we argued that working hypothesis and exploration are situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective. Pragmatism allows for pluralism in theory and data collection techniques, which is compatible with the flexible exploratory purpose. Secondly, after introducing and discussing the four core elements of pragmatism (practical, pluralism, participatory, and provisional), we explained how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research through a presentation of the benefits of triangulation provided by mixed methods research. Thirdly, as is clear from the article title, we introduced the working hypothesis as the micro-conceptual framework for deductive explorative research. We argued that the hypotheses of explorative research, which we call working hypotheses are distinguished from those of the explanatory research, since they do not require a relational component and are not bound by relational expectations. A working hypothesis is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic, and it could be viewed as a statement or group of statements of expectations tested in action depending on the research question. Using examples, we concluded by explaining how working hypotheses inform data collection and analysis for deductive exploratory research.
Crawford’s ( 2017 ) example showed how the structure of working hypotheses provide a framework for comparative case studies. Her criteria for analysis were specified ahead of time and used to frame each case. Thus, her comparisons were systemized across cases. Further, the framework ensured a connection between the data analysis and the literature review. Yet the flexible, working nature of the hypotheses allowed for unexpected findings to be discovered.
The evidence required to test working hypotheses is directed by the research purpose and potentially includes both quantitative and qualitative sources. Thus, all types of evidence, including quantitative methods should be part of the toolbox of deductive, explorative research. We show how the working hypotheses, as a flexible exploratory framework, resolves many seeming dualisms pervasive in the research methods literature.
To conclude, this article has provided an in-depth examination of working hypotheses taking into account philosophical questions and the larger formal research methods literature. By discussing working hypotheses as applied, theoretical tools, we demonstrated that working hypotheses fill a unique niche in the methods literature, since they provide a way to enhance alignment in deductive, explorative studies.
In practice, quantitative scholars often run multivariate analysis on data bases to find out if there are correlations. Hypotheses are tested because the statistical software does the math, not because the scholar has an a priori, relational expectation (hypothesis) well-grounded in the literature and supported by cogent arguments. Hunches are just fine. This is clearly an inductive approach to research and part of the large process of inquiry.
In 1958 , Philosophers of Science, Oppenheim and Putnam use the notion of Working Hypothesis in their title “Unity of Science as Working Hypothesis.” They too, use it as a big picture concept, “unity of science in this sense, can be fully realized constitutes an over-arching meta-scientific hypothesis, which enables one to see a unity in scientific activities that might otherwise appear disconnected or unrelated” (p. 4).
It should be noted that the positivism described in the research methods literature does not resemble philosophical positivism as developed by philosophers like Comte (Whetsell and Shields 2015 ). In the research methods literature “positivism means different things to different people….The term has long been emptied of any precise denotation …and is sometimes affixed to positions actually opposed to those espoused by the philosophers from whom the name derives” (Schrag 1992 , p. 5). For purposes of this paper, we are capturing a few essential ways positivism is presented in the research methods literature. This helps us to position the “working hypothesis” and “exploratory” research within the larger context in contemporary research methods. We are not arguing that the positivism presented here is anything more. The incompatibility theory discussed later, is an outgrowth of this research methods literature…
It should be noted that quantitative researchers often use inductive reasoning. They do this with existing data sets when they run correlations or regression analysis as a way to find relationships. They ask, what does the data tell us?
Qualitative researchers are also associated with phenomenology, hermeneutics, naturalistic inquiry and constructivism.
See Feilzer ( 2010 ), Howe ( 1988 ), Johnson and Onwuegbunzie ( 2004 ), Morgan ( 2007 ), Onwuegbuzie and Leech ( 2005 ), Biddle and Schafft ( 2015 ).
The term conceptual framework is applicable in a broad context (see Ravitch and Riggan 2012 ). The micro-conceptual framework narrows to the specific study and informs data collection (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019a ) .
Adler, E., Clark, R.: How It’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research, 3rd edn. Thompson-Wadsworth, Belmont (2008)
Google Scholar
Arnold, R.W.: Multiple working hypothesis in soil genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 29 (6), 717–724 (1965)
Article Google Scholar
Atieno, O.: An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 13 , 13–18 (2009)
Babbie, E.: The Practice of Social Research, 11th edn. Thompson-Wadsworth, Belmont (2007)
Biddle, C., Schafft, K.A.: Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 9 (4), 320–334 (2015)
Brendel, D.H.: Healing Psychiatry: Bridging the Science/Humanism Divide. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)
Bryman, A.: Qualitative research on leadership: a critical but appreciative review. Leadersh. Q. 15 (6), 729–769 (2004)
Casula, M.: Under which conditions is cohesion policy effective: proposing an Hirschmanian approach to EU structural funds, Regional & Federal Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2020.1713110 (2020a)
Casula, M.: Economic gowth and cohesion policy implementation in Italy and Spain, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (2020b)
Ciceri, F., et al.: Microvascular COVID-19 lung vessels obstructive thromboinflammatory syndrome (MicroCLOTS): an atypical acute respiratory distress syndrome working hypothesis. Crit. Care Resusc. 15 , 1–3 (2020)
Crawford, K.F.: Wartime sexual violence: From silence to condemnation of a weapon of war. Georgetown University Press (2017)
Cronbach, L.: Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology American Psychologist. 30 116–127 (1975)
Dewey, J.: The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychol. Rev. 3 (4), 357 (1896)
Dewey, J.: Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt & Co, New York (1938)
Feilzer, Y.: Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 4 (1), 6–16 (2010)
Gilgun, J.F.: Qualitative research and family psychology. J. Fam. Psychol. 19 (1), 40–50 (2005)
Gilgun, J.F.: Methods for enhancing theory and knowledge about problems, policies, and practice. In: Katherine Briar, Joan Orme., Roy Ruckdeschel., Ian Shaw. (eds.) The Sage handbook of social work research pp. 281–297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2009)
Gilgun, J.F.: Deductive Qualitative Analysis as Middle Ground: Theory-Guided Qualitative Research. Amazon Digital Services LLC, Seattle (2015)
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago (1967)
Gobo, G.: Re-Conceptualizing Generalization: Old Issues in a New Frame. In: Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L., Brannen, J. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods, pp. 193–213. Sage, Los Angeles (2008)
Chapter Google Scholar
Grinnell, R.M.: Social work research and evaluation: quantitative and qualitative approaches. New York: F.E. Peacock Publishers (2001)
Guba, E.G.: What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Eval. Pract. 8 (1), 23–43 (1987)
Guba, E., Lincoln, Y.: Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1981)
Habib, M.: The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia: an overview and working hypothesis. Brain 123 (12), 2373–2399 (2000)
Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., Onghena, P.: Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual. Quant. 47 (2), 659–676 (2013)
Hildebrand, D.: Dewey: A Beginners Guide. Oneworld Oxford, Oxford (2008)
Howe, K.R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Edu. Res. 17 (8), 10–16 (1988)
Hothersall, S.J.: Epistemology and social work: enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism. Eur. J. Social Work 22 (5), 860–870 (2019)
Hyde, K.F.: Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qual. Market Res. Int. J. 3 (2), 82–90 (2000)
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33 (7), 14–26 (2004)
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (2), 112–133 (2007)
Kaplan, A.: The Conduct of Inquiry. Chandler, Scranton (1964)
Kolb, S.M.: Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: valid research strategies for educators. J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 3 (1), 83–86 (2012)
Levers, M.J.D.: Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open 3 (4), 2158244013517243 (2013)
Lundvall, B.A.: Knowledge management in the learning economy. In: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics Working Paper Working Paper, vol. 6, pp. 3–5 (2006)
Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B.: Knowledge management in the learning economy. J. Ind. Stud. 1 (2), 23–42 (1994)
Lundvall, B.-Å., Jenson, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E.: Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation—From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In: Dosi, G., et al. (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London (1988)
Maanen, J., Manning, P., Miller, M.: Series editors’ introduction. In: Stebbins, R. (ed.) Exploratory research in the social sciences. pp. v–vi. Thousands Oak, CA: SAGE (2001)
Mackenzie, N., Knipe, S.: Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues Educ. Res. 16 (2), 193–205 (2006)
Marlow, C.R.: Research Methods for Generalist Social Work. Thomson Brooks/Cole, New York (2005)
Mead, G.H.: The working hypothesis in social reform. Am. J. Sociol. 5 (3), 367–371 (1899)
Milnes, A.G.: Structure of the Pennine Zone (Central Alps): a new working hypothesis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 85 (11), 1727–1732 (1974)
Morgan, D.L.: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (1), 48–76 (2007)
Morse, J.: The significance of saturation. Qual. Health Res. 5 (2), 147–149 (1995)
O’Connor, M.K., Netting, F.E., Thomas, M.L.: Grounded theory: managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qual. Inq. 14 (1), 28–45 (2008)
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (5), 375–387 (2005)
Oppenheim, P., Putnam, H.: Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II, pp. 3–36 (1958)
Patten, M.L., Newhart, M.: Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York (2000)
Pearse, N.: An illustration of deductive analysis in qualitative research. In: European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, pp. 264–VII. Academic Conferences International Limited (2019)
Prater, D.N., Case, J., Ingram, D.A., Yoder, M.C.: Working hypothesis to redefine endothelial progenitor cells. Leukemia 21 (6), 1141–1149 (2007)
Ravitch, B., Riggan, M.: Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Sage, Beverley Hills (2012)
Reiter, B.: The epistemology and methodology of exploratory social science research: Crossing Popper with Marcuse. In: Government and International Affairs Faculty Publications. Paper 99. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gia_facpub/99 (2013)
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J.: Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage, London (2003)
Schrag, F.: In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educ. Res. 21 (5), 5–8 (1992)
Shields, P.M.: Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A tool for public administration. Res. Pub. Admin. 41995-225 (1998)
Shields, P.M., Rangarajan, N.: A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management. New Forums Press (2013)
Shields, P.M., Tajalli, H.: Intermediate theory: the missing link in successful student scholarship. J. Public Aff. Educ. 12 (3), 313–334 (2006)
Shields, P., & Whetsell, T.: Public administration methodology: A pragmatic perspective. In: Raadshelders, J., Stillman, R., (eds). Foundations of Public Administration, pp. 75–92. New York: Melvin and Leigh (2017)
Shields, P., Rangarajan, N., Casula, M.: It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part I). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 10 , 39–47 (2019a)
Shields, P., Rangarajan, N., Casula, M.: It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part 2). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 11 , 40–51 (2019b)
Smith, J.K.: Quantitative versus qualitative research: an attempt to clarify the issue. Educ. Res. 12 (3), 6–13 (1983a)
Smith, J.K.: Quantitative versus interpretive: the problem of conducting social inquiry. In: House, E. (ed.) Philosophy of Evaluation, pp. 27–52. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1983b)
Smith, J.K., Heshusius, L.: Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educ. Res. 15 (1), 4–12 (1986)
Stebbins, R.A.: Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2001)
Book Google Scholar
Strydom, H.: An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Soc. Work/Maatskaplike Werk 49 (2), 149–164 (2013)
Sutton, R. I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Administrative science quarterly. 371–384 (1995)
Swift, III, J.: Exploring Capital Metro’s Sexual Harassment Training using Dr. Bengt-Ake Lundvall’s taxonomy of knowledge principles. Applied Research Project, Texas State University https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3671 (2010)
Thomas, E., Magilvy, J.K.: Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. J. Spec. Pediatric Nurs. 16 (2), 151–155 (2011)
Twining, P., Heller, R.S., Nussbaum, M., Tsai, C.C.: Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Comput. Educ. 107 , A1–A9 (2017)
Ulriksen, M., Dadalauri, N.: Single case studies and theory-testing: the knots and dots of the process-tracing method. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 19 (2), 223–239 (2016)
Van Evera, S.: Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1997)
Whetsell, T.A., Shields, P.M.: The dynamics of positivism in the study of public administration: a brief intellectual history and reappraisal. Adm. Soc. 47 (4), 416–446 (2015)
Willis, J.W., Jost, M., Nilakanta, R.: Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Sage, Beverley Hills (2007)
Worster, W.T.: The inductive and deductive methods in customary international law analysis: traditional and modern approaches. Georget. J. Int. Law 45 , 445 (2013)
Yin, R.K.: The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge 3 (1), 97–114 (1981)
Yin, R.K.: The case study method as a tool for doing evaluation. Curr. Sociol. 40 (1), 121–137 (1992)
Yin, R.K.: Applications of Case Study Research. Sage, Beverley Hills (2011)
Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills (2017)
Download references
Acknowledgements
The authors contributed equally to this work. The authors would like to thank Quality & Quantity’ s editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable advice and comments on previous versions of this paper.
Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. There are no funders to report for this submission.
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Strada Maggiore 45, 40125, Bologna, Italy
Mattia Casula
Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
Nandhini Rangarajan & Patricia Shields
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Mattia Casula .
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Additional information
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Casula, M., Rangarajan, N. & Shields, P. The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research. Qual Quant 55 , 1703–1725 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9
Download citation
Accepted : 05 November 2020
Published : 08 December 2020
Issue Date : October 2021
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9
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
- Exploratory research
- Working hypothesis
- Deductive qualitative research
- Find a journal
- Publish with us
- Track your research
- Nanotechnology News
- Nanotechnology Spotlights
- Other Tech News
- Smartworlder
- Lifestyle & Gadgets
- Learning Hub
- Nanowerk Databases
- Nano Catalog
The contents of this site are copyright ©2005-2024 Nanowerk. All Rights Reserved.
![working hypothesis for the study U.S. flag](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/uswds/img/favicons/favicon-57.png)
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- J Korean Med Sci
- v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25
![working hypothesis for the study Logo of jkms](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/logo-jkms.jpg)
A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles
Edward barroga.
1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.
Glafera Janet Matanguihan
2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.
The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.
INTRODUCTION
Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6
It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4
There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.
DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5
On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4
Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8
Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12
CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13
There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10
TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .
Quantitative research questions | Quantitative research hypotheses |
---|---|
Descriptive research questions | Simple hypothesis |
Comparative research questions | Complex hypothesis |
Relationship research questions | Directional hypothesis |
Non-directional hypothesis | |
Associative hypothesis | |
Causal hypothesis | |
Null hypothesis | |
Alternative hypothesis | |
Working hypothesis | |
Statistical hypothesis | |
Logical hypothesis | |
Hypothesis-testing | |
Qualitative research questions | Qualitative research hypotheses |
Contextual research questions | Hypothesis-generating |
Descriptive research questions | |
Evaluation research questions | |
Explanatory research questions | |
Exploratory research questions | |
Generative research questions | |
Ideological research questions | |
Ethnographic research questions | |
Phenomenological research questions | |
Grounded theory questions | |
Qualitative case study questions |
Research questions in quantitative research
In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .
Quantitative research questions | |
---|---|
Descriptive research question | |
- Measures responses of subjects to variables | |
- Presents variables to measure, analyze, or assess | |
What is the proportion of resident doctors in the hospital who have mastered ultrasonography (response of subjects to a variable) as a diagnostic technique in their clinical training? | |
Comparative research question | |
- Clarifies difference between one group with outcome variable and another group without outcome variable | |
Is there a difference in the reduction of lung metastasis in osteosarcoma patients who received the vitamin D adjunctive therapy (group with outcome variable) compared with osteosarcoma patients who did not receive the vitamin D adjunctive therapy (group without outcome variable)? | |
- Compares the effects of variables | |
How does the vitamin D analogue 22-Oxacalcitriol (variable 1) mimic the antiproliferative activity of 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D (variable 2) in osteosarcoma cells? | |
Relationship research question | |
- Defines trends, association, relationships, or interactions between dependent variable and independent variable | |
Is there a relationship between the number of medical student suicide (dependent variable) and the level of medical student stress (independent variable) in Japan during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic? |
Hypotheses in quantitative research
In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .
Quantitative research hypotheses | |
---|---|
Simple hypothesis | |
- Predicts relationship between single dependent variable and single independent variable | |
If the dose of the new medication (single independent variable) is high, blood pressure (single dependent variable) is lowered. | |
Complex hypothesis | |
- Foretells relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables | |
The higher the use of anticancer drugs, radiation therapy, and adjunctive agents (3 independent variables), the higher would be the survival rate (1 dependent variable). | |
Directional hypothesis | |
- Identifies study direction based on theory towards particular outcome to clarify relationship between variables | |
Privately funded research projects will have a larger international scope (study direction) than publicly funded research projects. | |
Non-directional hypothesis | |
- Nature of relationship between two variables or exact study direction is not identified | |
- Does not involve a theory | |
Women and men are different in terms of helpfulness. (Exact study direction is not identified) | |
Associative hypothesis | |
- Describes variable interdependency | |
- Change in one variable causes change in another variable | |
A larger number of people vaccinated against COVID-19 in the region (change in independent variable) will reduce the region’s incidence of COVID-19 infection (change in dependent variable). | |
Causal hypothesis | |
- An effect on dependent variable is predicted from manipulation of independent variable | |
A change into a high-fiber diet (independent variable) will reduce the blood sugar level (dependent variable) of the patient. | |
Null hypothesis | |
- A negative statement indicating no relationship or difference between 2 variables | |
There is no significant difference in the severity of pulmonary metastases between the new drug (variable 1) and the current drug (variable 2). | |
Alternative hypothesis | |
- Following a null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis predicts a relationship between 2 study variables | |
The new drug (variable 1) is better on average in reducing the level of pain from pulmonary metastasis than the current drug (variable 2). | |
Working hypothesis | |
- A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory | |
Dairy cows fed with concentrates of different formulations will produce different amounts of milk. | |
Statistical hypothesis | |
- Assumption about the value of population parameter or relationship among several population characteristics | |
- Validity tested by a statistical experiment or analysis | |
The mean recovery rate from COVID-19 infection (value of population parameter) is not significantly different between population 1 and population 2. | |
There is a positive correlation between the level of stress at the workplace and the number of suicides (population characteristics) among working people in Japan. | |
Logical hypothesis | |
- Offers or proposes an explanation with limited or no extensive evidence | |
If healthcare workers provide more educational programs about contraception methods, the number of adolescent pregnancies will be less. | |
Hypothesis-testing (Quantitative hypothesis-testing research) | |
- Quantitative research uses deductive reasoning. | |
- This involves the formation of a hypothesis, collection of data in the investigation of the problem, analysis and use of the data from the investigation, and drawing of conclusions to validate or nullify the hypotheses. |
Research questions in qualitative research
Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15
There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .
Qualitative research questions | |
---|---|
Contextual research question | |
- Ask the nature of what already exists | |
- Individuals or groups function to further clarify and understand the natural context of real-world problems | |
What are the experiences of nurses working night shifts in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic? (natural context of real-world problems) | |
Descriptive research question | |
- Aims to describe a phenomenon | |
What are the different forms of disrespect and abuse (phenomenon) experienced by Tanzanian women when giving birth in healthcare facilities? | |
Evaluation research question | |
- Examines the effectiveness of existing practice or accepted frameworks | |
How effective are decision aids (effectiveness of existing practice) in helping decide whether to give birth at home or in a healthcare facility? | |
Explanatory research question | |
- Clarifies a previously studied phenomenon and explains why it occurs | |
Why is there an increase in teenage pregnancy (phenomenon) in Tanzania? | |
Exploratory research question | |
- Explores areas that have not been fully investigated to have a deeper understanding of the research problem | |
What factors affect the mental health of medical students (areas that have not yet been fully investigated) during the COVID-19 pandemic? | |
Generative research question | |
- Develops an in-depth understanding of people’s behavior by asking ‘how would’ or ‘what if’ to identify problems and find solutions | |
How would the extensive research experience of the behavior of new staff impact the success of the novel drug initiative? | |
Ideological research question | |
- Aims to advance specific ideas or ideologies of a position | |
Are Japanese nurses who volunteer in remote African hospitals able to promote humanized care of patients (specific ideas or ideologies) in the areas of safe patient environment, respect of patient privacy, and provision of accurate information related to health and care? | |
Ethnographic research question | |
- Clarifies peoples’ nature, activities, their interactions, and the outcomes of their actions in specific settings | |
What are the demographic characteristics, rehabilitative treatments, community interactions, and disease outcomes (nature, activities, their interactions, and the outcomes) of people in China who are suffering from pneumoconiosis? | |
Phenomenological research question | |
- Knows more about the phenomena that have impacted an individual | |
What are the lived experiences of parents who have been living with and caring for children with a diagnosis of autism? (phenomena that have impacted an individual) | |
Grounded theory question | |
- Focuses on social processes asking about what happens and how people interact, or uncovering social relationships and behaviors of groups | |
What are the problems that pregnant adolescents face in terms of social and cultural norms (social processes), and how can these be addressed? | |
Qualitative case study question | |
- Assesses a phenomenon using different sources of data to answer “why” and “how” questions | |
- Considers how the phenomenon is influenced by its contextual situation. | |
How does quitting work and assuming the role of a full-time mother (phenomenon assessed) change the lives of women in Japan? |
Qualitative research hypotheses | |
---|---|
Hypothesis-generating (Qualitative hypothesis-generating research) | |
- Qualitative research uses inductive reasoning. | |
- This involves data collection from study participants or the literature regarding a phenomenon of interest, using the collected data to develop a formal hypothesis, and using the formal hypothesis as a framework for testing the hypothesis. | |
- Qualitative exploratory studies explore areas deeper, clarifying subjective experience and allowing formulation of a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach. |
Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15
Hypotheses in qualitative research
Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1
FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14
The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14
As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.
Variables | Unclear and weak statement (Statement 1) | Clear and good statement (Statement 2) | Points to avoid |
---|---|---|---|
Research question | Which is more effective between smoke moxibustion and smokeless moxibustion? | “Moreover, regarding smoke moxibustion versus smokeless moxibustion, it remains unclear which is more effective, safe, and acceptable to pregnant women, and whether there is any difference in the amount of heat generated.” | 1) Vague and unfocused questions |
2) Closed questions simply answerable by yes or no | |||
3) Questions requiring a simple choice | |||
Hypothesis | The smoke moxibustion group will have higher cephalic presentation. | “Hypothesis 1. The smoke moxibustion stick group (SM group) and smokeless moxibustion stick group (-SLM group) will have higher rates of cephalic presentation after treatment than the control group. | 1) Unverifiable hypotheses |
Hypothesis 2. The SM group and SLM group will have higher rates of cephalic presentation at birth than the control group. | 2) Incompletely stated groups of comparison | ||
Hypothesis 3. There will be no significant differences in the well-being of the mother and child among the three groups in terms of the following outcomes: premature birth, premature rupture of membranes (PROM) at < 37 weeks, Apgar score < 7 at 5 min, umbilical cord blood pH < 7.1, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and intrauterine fetal death.” | 3) Insufficiently described variables or outcomes | ||
Research objective | To determine which is more effective between smoke moxibustion and smokeless moxibustion. | “The specific aims of this pilot study were (a) to compare the effects of smoke moxibustion and smokeless moxibustion treatments with the control group as a possible supplement to ECV for converting breech presentation to cephalic presentation and increasing adherence to the newly obtained cephalic position, and (b) to assess the effects of these treatments on the well-being of the mother and child.” | 1) Poor understanding of the research question and hypotheses |
2) Insufficient description of population, variables, or study outcomes |
a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.
b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16
Variables | Unclear and weak statement (Statement 1) | Clear and good statement (Statement 2) | Points to avoid |
---|---|---|---|
Research question | Does disrespect and abuse (D&A) occur in childbirth in Tanzania? | How does disrespect and abuse (D&A) occur and what are the types of physical and psychological abuses observed in midwives’ actual care during facility-based childbirth in urban Tanzania? | 1) Ambiguous or oversimplistic questions |
2) Questions unverifiable by data collection and analysis | |||
Hypothesis | Disrespect and abuse (D&A) occur in childbirth in Tanzania. | Hypothesis 1: Several types of physical and psychological abuse by midwives in actual care occur during facility-based childbirth in urban Tanzania. | 1) Statements simply expressing facts |
Hypothesis 2: Weak nursing and midwifery management contribute to the D&A of women during facility-based childbirth in urban Tanzania. | 2) Insufficiently described concepts or variables | ||
Research objective | To describe disrespect and abuse (D&A) in childbirth in Tanzania. | “This study aimed to describe from actual observations the respectful and disrespectful care received by women from midwives during their labor period in two hospitals in urban Tanzania.” | 1) Statements unrelated to the research question and hypotheses |
2) Unattainable or unexplorable objectives |
a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17
The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.
CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .
![Click on image to zoom An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is jkms-37-e121-g001.jpg](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9039193/bin/jkms-37-e121-g001.jpg)
Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.
Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12
In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.
![Click on image to zoom An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is jkms-37-e121-g002.jpg](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9039193/bin/jkms-37-e121-g002.jpg)
EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES
- EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
- - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
- “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
- RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
- EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
- - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
- “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
- Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
- EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
- - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
- “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
- RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
- STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
- EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
- - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
- “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
- EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
- - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
- “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES
- EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
- - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
- “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
- “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
- EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
- - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
- “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
- “Conclusion
- Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
- EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
- “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
- Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
- EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
- - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
- “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
- “Statistical Analysis
- ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS
- EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
- “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
- “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
- “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
- EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
- “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
- “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
- EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
- “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
- “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
- “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30
Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.
Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author Contributions:
- Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
- Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
- Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
- Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
- Knowledge Base
- Methodology
- How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples
How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples
Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .
A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection.
Table of contents
What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.
A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.
A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).
Variables in hypotheses
Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more variables . An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls. A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.
In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .
Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.
Step 1: ask a question.
Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.
Step 2: Do some preliminary research
Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.
At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalise more complex constructs.
Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis
Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.
Step 4: Refine your hypothesis
You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:
- The relevant variables
- The specific group being studied
- The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis
Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways
To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if … then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.
In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.
If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.
Step 6. Write a null hypothesis
If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .
Research question | Hypothesis | Null hypothesis |
---|---|---|
What are the health benefits of eating an apple a day? | Increasing apple consumption in over-60s will result in decreasing frequency of doctor’s visits. | Increasing apple consumption in over-60s will have no effect on frequency of doctor’s visits. |
Which airlines have the most delays? | Low-cost airlines are more likely to have delays than premium airlines. | Low-cost and premium airlines are equally likely to have delays. |
Can flexible work arrangements improve job satisfaction? | Employees who have flexible working hours will report greater job satisfaction than employees who work fixed hours. | There is no relationship between working hour flexibility and job satisfaction. |
How effective is secondary school sex education at reducing teen pregnancies? | Teenagers who received sex education lessons throughout secondary school will have lower rates of unplanned pregnancy than teenagers who did not receive any sex education. | Secondary school sex education has no effect on teen pregnancy rates. |
What effect does daily use of social media have on the attention span of under-16s? | There is a negative correlation between time spent on social media and attention span in under-16s. | There is no relationship between social media use and attention span in under-16s. |
Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.
A hypothesis is not just a guess. It should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).
A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (‘ x affects y because …’).
A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses. In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.
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 Reference Generator.
McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 26 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/
Is this article helpful?
Shona McCombes
Other students also liked, operationalisation | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.
- Bipolar Disorder
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Self-Improvement
- Healthy Relationships
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Sweepstakes
- Guided Meditations
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2024 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
How to Write a Great Hypothesis
Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips
Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz
- The Scientific Method
Hypothesis Format
Falsifiability of a hypothesis.
- Operationalization
Hypothesis Types
Hypotheses examples.
- Collecting Data
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.
Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."
At a Glance
A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.
The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method
In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:
- Forming a question
- Performing background research
- Creating a hypothesis
- Designing an experiment
- Collecting data
- Analyzing the results
- Drawing conclusions
- Communicating the results
The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.
Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen.
In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.
Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.
In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment do not support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.
In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."
In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."
Elements of a Good Hypothesis
So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:
- Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
- Can your hypothesis be tested?
- Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?
Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.
How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis
To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:
- Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
- Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
- Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
- After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.
In the scientific method , falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.
Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that if something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.
One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.
The Importance of Operational Definitions
A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.
Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.
For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.
These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.
Replicability
One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.
Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.
Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.
To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.
Hypothesis Checklist
- Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
- Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
- Can you manipulate the variables?
- Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?
The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:
- Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
- Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
- Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
- Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
- Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
- Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.
A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the dependent variable if you change the independent variable .
The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."
A few examples of simple hypotheses:
- "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
- "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."
- "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
- "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."
Examples of a complex hypothesis include:
- "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
- "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."
Examples of a null hypothesis include:
- "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
- "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
- "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."
Examples of an alternative hypothesis:
- "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
- "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
- "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not."
Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis
Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.
Descriptive Research Methods
Descriptive research such as case studies , naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.
Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a correlational study can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.
Experimental Research Methods
Experimental methods are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).
Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually cause another to change.
The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.
Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses . R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607
Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:]. Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z
Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004
Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ? PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691
Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies . Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18
Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.
By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
Suggestions or feedback?
MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Machine learning
- Sustainability
- Black holes
- Classes and programs
Departments
- Aeronautics and Astronautics
- Brain and Cognitive Sciences
- Architecture
- Political Science
- Mechanical Engineering
Centers, Labs, & Programs
- Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
- Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
- Lincoln Laboratory
- School of Architecture + Planning
- School of Engineering
- School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
- Sloan School of Management
- School of Science
- MIT Schwarzman College of Computing
MIT study explains why laws are written in an incomprehensible style
Press contact :.
![working hypothesis for the study Stack of legal papers and gavel](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__image_gallery/public/images/202408/MIT_Layperson-legalese-01_0.jpg?itok=apiXRr9V)
Previous image Next image
Legal documents are notoriously difficult to understand, even for lawyers. This raises the question: Why are these documents written in a style that makes them so impenetrable?
MIT cognitive scientists believe they have uncovered the answer to that question. Just as “magic spells” use special rhymes and archaic terms to signal their power, the convoluted language of legalese acts to convey a sense of authority, they conclude.
In a study appearing this week in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , the researchers found that even non-lawyers use this type of language when asked to write laws.
“People seem to understand that there’s an implicit rule that this is how laws should sound, and they write them that way,” says Edward Gibson, an MIT professor of brain and cognitive sciences and the senior author of the study.
Eric Martinez PhD ’24 is the lead author of the study. Francis Mollica, a lecturer at the University of Melbourne, is also an author of the paper .
Casting a legal spell
Gibson’s research group has been studying the unique characteristics of legalese since 2020, when Martinez came to MIT after earning a law degree from Harvard Law School. In a 2022 study , Gibson, Martinez, and Mollica analyzed legal contracts totaling about 3.5 million words, comparing them with other types of writing, including movie scripts, newspaper articles, and academic papers.
That analysis revealed that legal documents frequently have long definitions inserted in the middle of sentences — a feature known as “center-embedding.” Linguists have previously found that this kind of structure can make text much more difficult to understand.
“Legalese somehow has developed this tendency to put structures inside other structures, in a way which is not typical of human languages,” Gibson says.
In a follow-up study published in 2023, the researchers found that legalese also makes documents more difficult for lawyers to understand. Lawyers tended to prefer plain English versions of documents, and they rated those versions to be just as enforceable as traditional legal documents.
“Lawyers also find legalese to be unwieldy and complicated,” Gibson says. “Lawyers don’t like it, laypeople don’t like it, so the point of this current paper was to try and figure out why they write documents this way.”
The researchers had a couple of hypotheses for why legalese is so prevalent. One was the “copy and edit hypothesis,” which suggests that legal documents begin with a simple premise, and then additional information and definitions are inserted into already existing sentences, creating complex center-embedded clauses.
“We thought it was plausible that what happens is you start with an initial draft that’s simple, and then later you think of all these other conditions that you want to include. And the idea is that once you’ve started, it’s much easier to center-embed that into the existing provision,” says Martinez, who is now a fellow and instructor at the University of Chicago Law School.
However, the findings ended up pointing toward a different hypothesis, the so-called “magic spell hypothesis.” Just as magic spells are written with a distinctive style that sets them apart from everyday language, the convoluted style of legal language appears to signal a special kind of authority, the researchers say.
“In English culture, if you want to write something that’s a magic spell, people know that the way to do that is you put a lot of old-fashioned rhymes in there. We think maybe center-embedding is signaling legalese in the same way,” Gibson says.
In this study, the researchers asked about 200 non-lawyers (native speakers of English living in the United States, who were recruited through a crowdsourcing site called Prolific), to write two types of texts. In the first task, people were told to write laws prohibiting crimes such as drunk driving, burglary, arson, and drug trafficking. In the second task, they were asked to write stories about those crimes.
To test the copy and edit hypothesis, half of the participants were asked to add additional information after they wrote their initial law or story. The researchers found that all of the subjects wrote laws with center-embedded clauses, regardless of whether they wrote the law all at once or were told to write a draft and then add to it later. And, when they wrote stories related to those laws, they wrote in much plainer English, regardless of whether they had to add information later.
“When writing laws, they did a lot of center-embedding regardless of whether or not they had to edit it or write it from scratch. And in that narrative text, they did not use center-embedding in either case,” Martinez says.
In another set of experiments, about 80 participants were asked to write laws, as well as descriptions that would explain those laws to visitors from another country. In these experiments, participants again used center-embedding for their laws, but not for the descriptions of those laws.
The origins of legalese
Gibson’s lab is now investigating the origins of center-embedding in legal documents. Early American laws were based on British law, so the researchers plan to analyze British laws to see if they feature the same kind of grammatical construction. And going back much farther, they plan to analyze whether center-embedding is found in the Hammurabi Code, the earliest known set of laws, which dates to around 1750 BC.
“There may be just a stylistic way of writing from back then, and if it was seen as successful, people would use that style in other languages,” Gibson says. “I would guess that it’s an accidental property of how the laws were written the first time, but we don’t know that yet.”
The researchers hope that their work, which has identified specific aspects of legal language that make it more difficult to understand, will motivate lawmakers to try to make laws more comprehensible. Efforts to write legal documents in plainer language date to at least the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon declared that federal regulations should be written in “layman’s terms.” However, legal language has changed very little since that time.
“We have learned only very recently what it is that makes legal language so complicated, and therefore I am optimistic about being able to change it,” Gibson says.
Share this news article on:
Press mentions.
Researchers at MIT have found that the use of legalese in writing “to assert authority over those less versed in such language,” reports Noor Al-Sibai for Futurism . “By studying this cryptic take on the English language, the researchers are hoping to make legal documents much easier to read in the future,” explains Al-Sibai.
Previous item Next item
Related Links
- Eric Martinez
- Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences
Related Topics
- Communications
- Literature, languages and writing
- Brain and cognitive sciences
Related Articles
![working hypothesis for the study Two multi-colored talk bubbles. The right bubble fills more of the screen than the left.](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__archive/public/images/202311/MIT_Color-Language-01-PRESS.jpg?itok=jpr2eFmQ)
How “blue” and “green” appeared in a language that didn’t have words for them
![working hypothesis for the study A magnifying glass on top of a law document; it warps the text. A large wavey “?” icon is in the magnifying glass.](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__archive/public/images/202305/MIT-LawyerLegalese-01-press.jpg?itok=PpPiRXj6)
Even lawyers don’t like legalese
![working hypothesis for the study legal document with question mark graphic](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__archive/public/images/202203/MIT-Legal-Documents-01-press.jpg?itok=nzHq3jDr)
Objection: No one can understand what you’re saying
More mit news.
![working hypothesis for the study Brain with words around it like "One; word; string of words"](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__recent_news/public/images/202408/MIT-Temporal-Window-01-new-press.jpg?itok=DiAQXYK2)
Scientists find neurons that process language on different timescales
Read full story →
![working hypothesis for the study Sebastian Lourido wears a lab coat with his name, and stands in a lab with blue-lit equipment.](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__recent_news/public/images/202408/MIT-Lourido-Hilton-01-Press.jpg?itok=wGTRTQh3)
Pursuing the secrets of a stealthy parasite
![working hypothesis for the study A transparnt cylinder with metal end caps contains a matrix of interconnected blue polygons. At its top, a funnel collects yellow polygons poured from another transparent cylinder containing interconnected red and yellow polygons.](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__recent_news/public/images/202408/MIT-rock-salt-cathodes.jpg?itok=pBSEgaqu)
Study of disordered rock salts leads to battery breakthrough
![working hypothesis for the study Quantum computer](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__recent_news/public/images/202408/MIT_Quantum-Factoring-01-PRESS.jpg?itok=5PuuJuLf)
Toward a code-breaking quantum computer
Uphill battles: Across the country in 75 days
![working hypothesis for the study Aneal Krishnan, William Cruz, Alexander Edwards, and David LoBosco pose in front of a desk with a backlit “IQT” logo. Cruz and Edwards wear military cadet uniforms.](https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_article__recent_news/public/images/202408/MIT-IQT.jpg?itok=MN0LNYB_)
3 Questions: From the bench to the battlefield
- More news on MIT News homepage →
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA
- Map (opens in new window)
- Events (opens in new window)
- People (opens in new window)
- Careers (opens in new window)
- Accessibility
- Social Media Hub
- MIT on Facebook
- MIT on YouTube
- MIT on Instagram
OFFICE ASSISTANT-MATH (Work Study Students Only)
How to apply.
In addition to completing the online application, a cover letter is required for consideration. The cover letter should address your specific interest in the position and include your current class schedule.
Job Summary
The Department of Mathematics and Statistics is looking for a hardworking and motivated student to work as an office assistant for the Fall 2024 term. Student assistant must be work study. This role also serves the Women's and Gender Studies Program.
What You'll Do
As the front point person to our office, you will greet guests, answer phone calls, respond to inquiries, process printing and copy requests for faculty and staff, create flyers and social media posts, sort mail, and other office duties.
Required Qualifications*
- Excellent communication skills
- Strong technology skills
- Proficent in Microsoft Office and Google Suite
- Must be a current student
Desired Qualifications*
- Experience working in an academic setting
- Experience working with confidential material
- Experience in event planning
- Experience with social media
Work Schedule
Looking for students to work 10-15 hours per week. Must be able to work the following shifts: Tuesdays 8:00 am to 11:00am, Wednesdays 11:00 am to 3:30pm and Fridays 8:00 am to 11:00 am.
Background Screening
The University of Michigan conducts background checks on all job candidates upon acceptance of a contingent offer and may use a third party administrator to conduct background checks. Background checks are performed in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
U-M EEO/AA Statement
The University of Michigan is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
7 Hard-Hitting Life Lessons from Ecclesiastes
![working hypothesis for the study 7 Hard-Hitting Life Lessons from Ecclesiastes](https://i.swncdn.com/media/800w/via/images/2023/03/31/30088/30088-bible-study-tools-logo_source_file.jpg)
The Books of Wisdom are some of the best places to glean advice from the Lord that we can daily apply to energize our spirits in the morning, and to uplift our spirits in times of distress. Each has its own format. The Psalms are a collection of songs written by various people, but primarily King David. The Proverbs are a group of allusions to wisdom in couplets, and the Song of Solomon is attributed to King Solomon about the beauty of intimacy in godly marriages.
The Book of Ecclesiastes is also attributed to King Solomon, but it has a decidedly different tone than the others. There is a much greater sense of sobriety, and it focuses on the worthlessness of worldly goods, wisdom, and a life without God.
Despite the somber tone of the Book of Ecclesiastes and its poetic nature, there is still a lot of wisdom to be gleaned from Solomon’s melancholic musings.
Here are seven life lessons from Ecclesiastes.
Photo credit: ©Getty Images/GordonImages
1. Work and Toil Makes Life Hard, and There’s No Escaping That
![working hypothesis for the study A tired construction worker taking a break](https://i.swncdn.com/media/800w/via/images/2023/03/31/30088/30088-bible-study-tools-logo_source_file.jpg)
“It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind” ( Ecclesiastes 1:13 b-14).
It may seem self-evident that life is hard, but many philosophies through the centuries have encouraged a mindset that a person can pursue pleasure and escape the pain of work. Whether it is the encouragement of hedonism, the meaninglessness of unhappiness and work under a nihilistic framework, or even the promise of Marxism that people can devote more time to leisure if they implement a specific political framework, man will try to find ways to avoid work.
The Bible made it clear from Genesis 3 that because of sin, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” ( Genesis 3:19 ). There isn’t a way out of the realities of working hard.
2. Self-Indulgence Is Foolishness
“And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” ( Ecclesiastes 2:10-11 ).
Like the false promise that we can escape hard work, the world will promise people they can find their meaning and their joy in self-indulgence. There are plenty of people who find their self-worth in buying stuff, obsessing over a hobby, or pursuing fun experiences. On their own, there is nothing wrong with enjoying pleasure in life, but it is not where we should find our identity and it should not be the focus of our existence. “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” ( 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 ). True purpose is found in things that will last into eternity.
Photo credit: ©Getty Images/coffeekai
3. There Is Real Evil in the World
![working hypothesis for the study A woman looking at her cell phone in the dark](https://i.swncdn.com/media/800w/via/images/2023/03/31/30088/30088-bible-study-tools-logo_source_file.jpg)
“Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them” ( Ecclesiastes 3:1 ).
Some people believe that mankind is inherently good but people choose to do bad things, and that if the right prescription is applied, people will eventually turn toward the light. The Bible repeatedly warns that mankind is wicked and will chose wickedness.
There are real evils in the world, not just petty wrongs or people doing bad things out of necessity. People sin and violate God’s law. “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” ( Romans 3:10 b-12). It is good to remember that we all need a Savior because of our unrighteousness, and not to be blinded to sin.
4. God Appoints Different Times for Different Phases and Seasons
“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven : a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted” ( Ecclesiastes 3:1-2 ).
The tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will is one that will probably be debated until the return of the Lord Jesus, but Solomon’s age and experience showed him that God sovereignly appoints seasons in life. When a person is a child, they grow and learn. In adulthood, they work, get married, and have families. In old age, they retire and reflect. These patterns are mirrored in the rise and fall of empires and the changing of the seasons. Embracing them and reaching out to God in all seasons will help someone live a better, more joyful life where they invest in the eternal, rather than only focusing on the physical world.
Photo credit: ©Getty Images/Georgijevic
5. Companionship Is Important, but God Must Be the Center of the Relationship
![working hypothesis for the study Man kissing his wife on the forehead](https://i.swncdn.com/media/800w/via/images/2023/03/31/30088/30088-bible-study-tools-logo_source_file.jpg)
“Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him — a threefold cord is not quickly broken" ( Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 ).
God is Triune in nature, meaning He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three in one – distinct yet the same. This mystery is reflected in the nature of relationships in this life. Children are one being, but the sum total of all the genes of all their predecessors. In marriage , two individuals become one, moving with a singular purpose in a unique way.
God designed people to be in relationship. While not everyone is called to marriage specifically, even in the beginning the Lord said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” ( Genesis 2:18 ). Most important to healthy relationships is that they be rooted in the love of God, and He should be the third cord in the threefold rope.
6. The Love of Money Is Vain, and Leads to Evil
“He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity” ( Ecclesiastes 5:1 ).
Money is not inherently evil, but loving it, making it one’s life pursuit, and idolizing it is sinful and wrong. It becomes the cause for many other sins and keeps people looking down at the ground instead of up to the Heavens and their Lord and Savior. Paul warned his apprentice Timothy, “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs” ( 1 Timothy 6:9-10 ).
Moreover, if God blesses someone financially, and they are ungrateful, they are not recognizing the love of the Lord, and have hardened a piece of themselves against Him.
Photo credit: ©Getty Images/Sam Edwards
7. There Are Many Mysteries in This Life for Which We May Not Get Answers
![working hypothesis for the study Man looking up at the stars](https://i.swncdn.com/media/800w/via/images/2023/03/31/30088/30088-bible-study-tools-logo_source_file.jpg)
“For who knows what is good for man while he lives the few days of his vain life, which he passes like a shadow? For who can tell man what will be after him under the sun?” ( Ecclesiastes 6:12 ).
Some people want to know all the answers to everything before they can have faith , feel fulfilled, or be perceived as wiser than others as a part of their self-worth. The problem with coveting knowledge is that some things will be mysteries in this life. God may choose to reveal the answers to some of them over the course of time, or in eternity, but that is up to the Lord. Trying to get answers to everything becomes a vain pursuit over time. Gaining wisdom and knowledge has its place, but it should never become an end to itself, or it will be a hollow pursuit.
God also reserves His right to have mysteries. “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out” ( Proverbs 25:2 ). Needing “all the answers” can also become an obstacle to accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and can become a sin. Accepting that there are some things we won’t know this side of eternity unless God reveals it can bring peace , and a deeper relationship with the Lord.
God did not want His people to be ignorant, foolish, or blind to truth. He made man a thinking, intelligent being in His own image, and gave them the ability to pursue beauty, truth, and wisdom. Whether gleaning life lessons from the Bible, through relationships with others, or through experience – sometimes painfully – learning more about ourselves and who we are before Almighty God is a part of this existence and prepares believers for life in eternity. It is also an invitation to those people who do not yet know Him to learn more about Him, to recognize their sin and need for salvation, and to repent and acknowledge Him as Lord and Savior.
Limburg, James. Encountering Ecclesiastes A Book for Our Time. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006.
Ryken, Phillip. Ecclesiastes (Redesign) Why Everything Matters . Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Wiersbe, Warren. The Wiersbe Study Bible Ecclesiastes Looking for Answers to the Meaning of Life. Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2012.
Photo credit: ©Getty Images/happyphoton
Bethany Verrett is a freelance writer who uses her passion for God, reading, and writing to glorify God. She and her husband have lived all over the country serving their Lord and Savior in ministry. She has a blog on graceandgrowing.com .
![](http://mangareview.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
COMMENTS
A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further ongoing research [1] ... These projects are a type of case study and use multiple methods of evidence collection. [34] The working hypotheses are used as a device to direct evidence collection. As a result, working hypotheses are generally organized using ...
The working hypothesis provides the bridge between theory and data that Sutton and Staw (1995) found missing in exploratory work. The sub-hypotheses are designed to be refined enough that the researchers would know what to look for and tailor their hunt for evidence. Figure 1 captures the generic sub-hypothesis design.
A hypothesis is a statement based on prior research or theory that you expect to be true due to your study. Example - Research question: ... Also referred to as the working hypothesis, an empirical hypothesis claims a theory's validation via experiments and observation. This way, the statement appears justifiable and different from a wild guess.
The specific group being studied. The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis. 5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways. To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.
Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs. Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate ...
In between the statement of a Working Hypothesis and the creation of the 95% confidence intervals used to create this means plot is a 7-step process of statistical hypothesis testing, presented in the following section. This page titled 1.1: The Working Hypothesis is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated ...
A logical hypothesis is a suggested explanation while using limited evidence. Example: Bats can navigate in the dark better than tigers. In this hypothesis, the researcher knows that tigers cannot see in the dark, and bats mostly live in darkness. Empirical hypothesis. An empirical hypothesis is also called a "working hypothesis."
Abstract. While hypotheses frame explanatory studies and provide guidance for measurement and statistical tests, deductive, exploratory research does not have a framing device like the hypothesis. To this purpose, this article examines the landscape of deductive, exploratory research and offers the working hypothesis as a flexible, useful ...
In addition, a "working" hypothesis is active, it is a tool in an ongoing process of inquiry. If one begins with a research question, the working hypothesis could be viewed as a statement or group of statements that answer the question. It "works" to move purposeful inquiry forward.
When we consider the opposite of a logical hypothesis, we call this an empirical or working hypothesis. This type of hypothesis considers a scientifically measurable question. ... or implementing a survey to obtain original statistical information to form a data set for the study. Testing this type of hypothesis requires the use of random ...
6 Empirical hypothesis. An empirical hypothesis, also known as a "working hypothesis," is one that is currently being tested. Unlike logical hypotheses, empirical hypotheses rely on concrete data. Examples: Customers at restaurants will tip the same even if the wait staff's base salary is raised.
These are known as the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is a statement assumed to be factual in the initial phase of the study. For example, if a researcher is testing the efficacy of a new drug, then the null hypothesis will posit that the drug has no benefits compared to an inactive control or placebo. Suppose ...
Wikipedia. tentative, testable answer to a scientific question. Science Buddies. an idea that can be tested to see if it is true or not. Longman Dictionary. A prediction or educated-guess based on current evidence that is yet to be tested. Urban Dictionary. Statement of expectations that can be subject to test. Shields & Rangarajan, 2013.
The authors' good base knowledge of the issue under study enabled the formulation of a meaningful hypothesis. «The working hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and a useful tool for ...
The working hypothesis provides the bridge between theory and data that Sutton and Staw (1995) found missing in exploratory work. The sub-hypotheses are designed to be refined enough that the researchers would know what to look for and tailor their hunt for evidence. Figure 1 captures the generic sub-hypothesis design.
A working hypothesis is a provisional statement of expectations that is accepted as a basis for further research. It can be linked to deductive, exploratory research purposes in empirical investigation and is often employed as a conceptual framework in qualitative research. The term "working" implies that these hypotheses are subject to change ...
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1,2. Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most ap propriate methodology and adequately. powering statistically the study to ...
4 Working hypotheses. A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. In this way, a working hypothesis is an accepted starting point for further research.
Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways. To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if … then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable. If a first-year student starts attending more lectures, then their exam scores will improve.
A working hypothesis is a proposed solution to a problem that's accepted pending further studies or a better idea. This can be used to take provisional actions so that things can progress while you're still uncertain as to the optimal solution to a problem. Choosing a direction to investigate further or making decisions in uncertain conditions.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process. Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test ...
Creative study, however, finds it largest application in those subjects in which, while much is known, more remains to be known. Such are the fields which we, ... working hypothesis differs from the ruling theory in that it is used as a means of determining facts, and has for its chief function the suggestion of lines of
An MIT study on "legalese" suggests this convoluted language acts to convey a sense of authority in legal documents. The researchers also found that even non-lawyers use legalese when asked to write laws. ... One was the "copy and edit hypothesis," which suggests that legal documents begin with a simple premise, and then additional ...
Background: Social media platforms are increasingly used to recruit patients for clinical studies. Yet, patients' attitudes regarding social media recruitment are underexplored. Objective: This mixed methods study aims to assess predictors of the acceptance of social media recruitment among patients with hepatitis B, a patient population that is considered particularly vulnerable in this ...
Experience working in an academic setting; Experience working with confidential material; Experience in event planning; Experience with social media; Work Schedule. Looking for students to work 10-15 hours per week. Must be able to work the following shifts: Tuesdays 8:00 am to 11:00am, Wednesdays 11:00 am to 3:30pm and Fridays 8:00 am to 11:00 am.
"It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind" (Ecclesiastes 1:13b-14).It may seem self-evident that life is hard, but many philosophies through the centuries have encouraged a mindset that a person can pursue pleasure and escape the pain of work.