I appreciate Alphones's answer, but I want him to give some explanation.
Generaly, the procedure for testing research hypotheses consists of finding an element or parameter that contradicts the hypothesis put forward. If there is none, then the hypothesis can be said to be confirmed, otherwise it is invalidated.
In the case of qualitative research, not only is the sample often small (not statistically representative), but there is often no possibility of (statistically) testing the hypotheses. More often than not, everything is based on assertions limited to respondents or empirical findings. In such conditions, one researcher can say whatever he likes about a hypothesis while another says the opposite.
In my opinion, hypotheses are not always necessary for qualitative research, which is often descriptive.
I think that hypotheses are more necessary for explanatory studies.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Anatomy
- Tissue