if we are giving objectives then it is necessary to again write hypothesis
It depends on research design. In quantitative research hypothesis are needed, in qualitative research hypothesis may occur as results.
I think yes if the research is quantitative or qualitative
But you may need not to express these hypothesis written in the research body
Yes, if you want to build a research thesis, you need hypothesis to build upon. Otherwise your results ands analysis won't be coherent.
In my opinion, yes, in agreement with the aforementioned views. I consider that the written hypothesis strengthens the purpose of the research work.
In my opinion, an explicit hypothesis provides information concerning the interpretation of the methodological strategy, implementation, analysis, etc. and increases the likelihood of useful peer-reviewing.
In social science research papers, I often do NOT see an hypothesis stated explicitly. Instead, the authors present a conceptual framework in their literature review that supports the idea, technique, etc., they are studying or testing.
Mainly for quantitative study, I recommend you to include and test your hypothesis to strengthen your research. (this is my humble opinion)
I am mostly a material scientist. So, in order to create a new material with improved/promising properties - I have to have some idea//hypothesis - of what will happen after I mix several components; will the properties of these component remain in a novel material or how they will be changed. In other words - for successful work I have to use my imagination/hypotheses.
On the other hand, Dear Meena, I can not completely reject mixing several components - chosen absolutely haphazardly - there still wiill be a chance to create a material with UNIQUE (new and very valuable) properties. Everything is possible, though the probability of obtaining such a material is laughably low - several times it happened in my over-40-years research
Regards, Leonid
I think that it depends on the domain. In my field, civil engineering, we usually write the research objectives. That is what I have observed in theses and articles I have read. I am teaching a course on research methods and my understanding is that either research questions or research hypotheses must be written in the first chapter of a thesis. In social sciences, the research hypothesis is often used.
No. A hypothesis is not necessary if you have clear objectives. Indeed, most research reports are often confused because of attempts to create hypotheses for null hypothesis significance testing. Objectives should be clear with statements that describe when each objective is met. Requirements for some journals require the null hypothesis significance testing scheme as a substitute for the scientific method. Significance means that a difference is detectable under some testing circumstance based on a null hypothesis. The level of detection typically required is p = 0.05. Any result is highly uncertain at the level of detection. Do not be confused by stating a hypothesis for significance testing when clear objectives will make the plans and results clear.
Dear Meena:
I think that hypotheses are always present in a research work. If they have not been made explicit, then they surely are present implicitly. And of course, in order to clarify our research ideas we should make our hypotheses explicit. A hypothesis is a question we ask about an aspect of (empirical or formal).reality. I can not imagine a research work if I don't need any answer.
You can do a research without a hypothesis, but if you try using it once, this will be how you will do new researches thereafter.
Surely, in some kind ( predictive, optimization related..)of research, it is better to state the hypothesis. Once the results are out, we need to verify whether rejection of the hypothesis really happens.
Dear Dr. Dr. Meena Potdar,
In my opinion it is quite impossible to avoid occurring of situation of a hypothesis. Any kind of research can not lead ahead without thinking about a specific, testable prediction of the relationship between two or more variables.
Dear Dr. Meena,
In most cases yes hypothesis is very essential for research and needs to be considered seriously.
Best Regards,
M. Nithyanandan
Is it necessary to use hypothesis in the research work ?
From social science research perspective, hypothesis is generally needed for quantitative research. Hypothesis is generally not needed in qualitative research whereby the end outcome of the qualitative research is some proposition(s) that can be refined to become some hypotheses if needed.
In language studies Hypothesis is highly essential because it has multi dimensional benefit to the research. Generally hypothesis means a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence. Language is everchanging one it is not static it is dynamic. so Hypothesis for any research in Language studies is essential.
It depends on the nature of the study. In the case of exploratory studies, one can go for without hypotheses.
Definitely.
You mentioned that you have your objectives i.e. 'proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point' in your research work you will try 'for further investigation' to prove that.
dear all,
In mathematics and statistics, research is full of hypothesesare, it is one of the main instruments of research, scientific research without hypotheses do not understand ...
Karl Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations’ states that Knowledge, particularly 'scientific knowledge, progresses by 'unjustified (hypothesis) anticipations, by guesses, by tentative solutions to our problems, by conjectures'. What controls these conjectures is, 'attempted refutations'. Philosophers have not distinguished clearly enough between 'questions of origin and questions of validity'. Popper approach is not about sources but about assertions. Error can only be detected by criticising the theories or guesses of others and by criticising our own theories or guesses.
It depend on subject of research. In the social science hypothesis are necessary when theory are verified. It means that researcher has base to formulating of hypothesis. The base is in theory or in the results of previous research. But if the area are quite new, there are not basis to expect some results (the area is just explored), the researcher just freshly look around then the hypothesis should not be formulated. Of course, researcher every time has some assumptions and they are not possible to elimination. Some clues, in the scope of social science, could be found, e.g., in the ethnographic design and in the classic Grounded Theory.
Depends on the research objectives. If the research objective is provide additional supporting data to be statistically relevant, then one would do it by duplication of procedures, If by accident or your own observation see something unusual during the experiments never reported before, then you come up with a hypothesis to pursue further research with a new objective.
For example, testing a new drug or medicine on animals. The results from animals form a hypothesis for the new objective to now test the effectiveness and safe dosages of new drug or medicine on human test subjects.
One infamous example is Viagra. The original research object was to test the drug sildenafil citrate for treating high blood pressure and angina. A scientific hypothesis was the basis. The test subjects indicated an unforeseen effect - penile erections. subsequently a new hypothesis was formed. Based on this new hypothesis a new research objective tested successfully and created a new blue pill.
We use mathematics/statistics to test out hypotheses on the outcome and relevance on how much data to collect. Computer processors/chips have become smaller and smaller and more powerful - our calculators, watches, phones, toys have more computing power than systems in the past which took a whole room and required massive power and air-conditioning. The research objective was to use hypotheses, that everything could be shrunk down.
Then you have philosophical and psychological hypotheses which can go round and round in never ending arguments - one say its real because of this and the other claims its an illusion based on that. Does the shape of your head and facial features indicate you are backward, superior, insane, retarded, criminal, normal, etc.? Phrenology was very popular through the racism founded on Darwin's nonsense inspiring books by Dr. John Beddoe and Dr. Robert Knox (of Burke and Hare grave-robbing crimes in the 19th century). One can conclude these were all hypotheses unfortunately taken as fact in the past.
Dear Meena,
The answer is no. It depends whether the researcher follows an inductive or deductive approach. When studying debris flows in wester Ross in 1976, I adopted an inductive approach in which I observed and measured as many details about them as I could - eg. number, size, form. Once I had the data, the job of sifting it in order to draw conclusions was considerable. I did however have to use that inductive approach, as there was so little research available on debris flows at that time especially in Scotland. I could adopt a deductive approach today and begin my research by drawing a hypothesis such as "that debris flow gullies are formed by debris flow erosion processes". I would then observe and record in order to test that hypothesis. If it is true, then OK. If it proves false, then I need to look for other factors, such as post debris flow fluvial activity. In fact falsification of a hypothesis opens up more research.
I hope that is helpful
George Strachan
I agree with George, sometimes, inductive method are necessary. The simple model for scientific method; i.e. hypothesis, modelling or experimenting, conclusion rarely works. Many times, discovery were done by chance, mistake or successive failure.
Dear all
Is it necessary to use hypothesis in the research work?
According my experience of clinical medicine, diagnose is fundamental for treatment. The diagnose to patient in hospital, have three stage. I have high fever patient for example.
The first stage: only high fever symptom. Without other symptoms and signs, without result of Urinalysis and complete blood count or the result shows regular. The diagnose is hypothesis and not good for treatment.
The second stage: with other symptoms and signs, some changes in the urinalysis and complete blood count. The diagnosis is close to right. The treatment is close to right.
The third stage: aforementioned and more Laboratory testing, X-ray …
The diagnosis is accuracy, and treatment is accuracy.
In medical realm accuracy and right are important.
In the context of Karl Popper epistemology a science is an hypothesis which evolves frough falsification. In this context we use hypoyhesis.
In empirical research using hypotheses are important as they set direction in your research. Hypotheses are formulated after a thorough literature review or observation thus adding on to new areas in your research design.
Hypothesis X:
It is not factor X that is involved, and this is the hypothesis that I wish to test with many different data sets from X different research fields....
How to know a hypothesis truly merits testing?
I agree with most of you above - in some social sciences hypotheses are rejected, in order to be more freely explore the world. (I just took a sociology class, so I have been subjected to these ideas ... ) In the mathematical sciences, however, we CANNOT live without them - without axioms we can't do ANYTHING!
In mathematics, we take certain fundamental, basic, axioms for granted - otherwise we can't do much ANYTHING. The hypotheses we state are then those mathematical results - typically a series of implications derived from technical assumptions made on the entities we construct - that we wish to establish, by means of logically correct implications based on the axioms and hypotheses, as well as on basic constructs that we use, like classical convex/differentiable functions and sets, as well as new classes of functions and sets whose properties we derive. So axioms are not treated as hypotheses (they are rather often assumed but not mentioned); the hypotheses are those extra properties that we impose on the constructs we need.
Results that reject a hypothesis have equal scientific value than results that support a hypothesis, also accepting that results can support simultaneously different hypotheses....
If a topic is so well researched that certain relationships have become partly established and require corroboration, or if the theory is well stated that requires to be tested empirically, testable hypotheses would be there. But there are research issues that need explorative efforts. One cannot formulate hypotheses at the very beginning. Such research activities grow in a tree structure, meeting new nodes and multiple paths (edges) to stride on each node. Some paths may lead to dead end. But some others lead to another node. In such cases, it may not be possible to formulate hypotheses at the very beginning. Those who have done research know very well that after reaching a node, there is darkness and lack of information that may help to chose among different paths that radiate from that node.
Hypothesis is necessary for assuming and conclusion of the project work. I think if some statistical softwares used results are very accurate.
It depends on the type of research. Hipotheses, questions or prediction are the guides of research. Accoding to them, we choose theory and methdology. The discussion also greatly depends on them.
It is not required to have a hypothesis (es) though it is generally expected by thesis examiners. For research papers, hypotheses are not a requirement. The researcher can give insights about the results of the research without any hypotheses. But in such cases, the expected results would be highlighted either in the introduction or literature review section.
In my opinion, hypotheses are not necessary if you have exploratory study which is led by strong objectives. For other type of studies though, it is better to have and test the hypothesis.
Dear all
Hypothesis is widely used in preliminary stage and initial stage on a research work. Following progress of a research, more and more evidences need to proof it. All in all hypotheses is process. It never be a positive result, especially in medical and pharmaceutical realm.
How do you analyse data without an hypothesis? There must be mental reasons to start correlating variables, or not?
True that human beings are pattern searching animals and this pattern is a mental image of relationships. But these patterns, are not fully genetically determined; the patterns are regularities that have been observed through the sense organs. Likewise, it is true that we preconceive relations and accordingly form hypotheses and search in the data for their corroboration or otherwise. This is true, but not universal and exclusive. Patterns are there in the real world and we learn to have our mental image that we search later accordingly.
yes it is must because of we have test your relationship on particular test
Dear Meena
The classical way of doing research is:
hypothesis ------> modelling and data gathering or processing ---> conclusion and verification of hypothesis
However, this scheme is limitative and sometimes in reality inverted, new hypothesis come as a result. Also, sometimes, through the course of research new discoveries emerge which was not in the purpose of research. A good example is the discovery of microwave oven
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/microwave.htm
Absolutely no hypotheses was made before the discovery.
So do not be too rigid about hypothesis.
One other thing is through computation or modelling, many are posing hypothesis they do not even verify : assuming gaussian distribution, linearity, etc.
These are very important hypotheses that are not always checked and this is dangerous
Regards
Dear Meena,
Your question has certainly stirred up debate and that is good. Hypothesis testing is an important method used in the analysis of scientific data. I do however agree with A. Robichaud who correctly points out that hypothesis testing is not essential and that much has been discovered during data gathering that owed nothing to any proposed hypothesis. Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin followed from simple observation of what was seen in a Petri dish, for example. Indeed I would argue that accurate observation and recording is of more importance than hypothesis testing, because it is at that point that bias and error creep in. No matter how well the statistics are manipulated and interpreted thereafter, the results are inevitably erroneous and positively misleading. Accurate observations and detailed recording alone provide data that is eminently suitable for statistical analysis related to any hypothesis that is formulated. Also, during the period of data gathering whether in the field or in the lab, there is time for reflection as you go along. New ideas spring to mind, fresh insights are gained and the whole line of research may be altered significantly even before data gathering is completed.
Both Inductive and deductive approaches are relevant and Popper's falsification is so useful as it leads to further research.
Kind regards
George
My view is the researcher can conduct a research without testing the hypothesis. In my PhD research there is an objective called “What is the degree of religiosity as perceived by managerial employees in Sri Lankan listed companies?”
I have achieved this objective by using the descriptive statistics. But there is a possibility of achieving the above mentioned objective by testing hypothesis also.
A hypothesis is a supposition that if this is not complimented in practice the possible conclusions would be theoretic only.
There is always an hypothesis, thus the real question is if it is necessary or not to state it explicitly in a project/grant formulation. The answer depends on what your specific scientific discipline is and, more importantly, on whom will evaluate your formulation. Someone can say that, from an operative stand point, is really more important to design strong scientific specific aims and develop robust experimental designs to test them. However, if the hypothesis is weak (because it lacks viability or is not supported by the state of the art), even good aims (that should be logically coherent with the hypothesis) will not save the project. For this reason, I believe is more convenient to work out a good explicit hypothesis en every research proposal.
Dear Dr. Meena Potdar,
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables (Kendra Cherry, 2018). The hypothesis is not always necessary in all researches. It depends on the type of research. It is necessary in a problem oriented research. But it is not necessary in exploratory researches and descriptive studies.
Chigbu, The article you attached is worth to read.Thank you sharing .
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing