importance and sources of hypothesis in social research

2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Define and describe the scientific method.
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research.
• Describe the function and importance of an interpretive framework.
• Describe the differences in accuracy, reliability and validity in a research study.

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered social patterns in the workplace that have transformed industries, in families that have enlightened family members, and in education that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the question is formed, the sociologist proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the social world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of six prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scientific scholarship.

Sociological research does not reduce knowledge to right or wrong facts. Results of studies tend to provide people with insights they did not have before—explanations of human behaviors and social practices and access to knowledge of other cultures, rituals and beliefs, or trends and attitudes.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes or results. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists often look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might also study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, social researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This does not mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in collecting and analyzing data in research studies.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963). Typically, the scientific method has 6 steps which are described below.

Step 1: Ask a Question or Find a Research Topic

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, select a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geographic location and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. Sociologists strive to frame questions that examine well-defined patterns and relationships.

In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?”

Step 2: Review the Literature/Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library, a thorough online search, and a survey of academic journals will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted, identify gaps in understanding of the topic, and position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study crime, a researcher might also sort through existing data from the court system, police database, prison information, interviews with criminals, guards, wardens, etc. It’s important to examine this information in addition to existing research to determine how these resources might be used to fill holes in existing knowledge. Reviewing existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve a research study design.

Step 3: Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a conjecture about the relationship between the phenomenon and one or more causal factors. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. For example, a hypothesis might be in the form of an “if, then statement.” Let’s relate this to our topic of crime: If unemployment increases, then the crime rate will increase.

In scientific research, we formulate hypotheses to include an independent variables (IV) , which are the cause of the change, and a dependent variable (DV) , which is the effect , or thing that is changed. In the example above, unemployment is the independent variable and the crime rate is the dependent variable.

In a sociological study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

Taking an example from Table 12.1, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Note, however, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. A sociologist might predict that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying related two topics or variables is not enough. Their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Step 4: Design and Conduct a Study

Researchers design studies to maximize reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group or what will happen in one situation will happen in another. Cooking is a science. When you follow a recipe and measure ingredients with a cooking tool, such as a measuring cup, the same results is obtained as long as the cook follows the same recipe and uses the same type of tool. The measuring cup introduces accuracy into the process. If a person uses a less accurate tool, such as their hand, to measure ingredients rather than a cup, the same result may not be replicated. Accurate tools and methods increase reliability.

Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. To produce reliable and valid results, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define each concept, or variable, in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner. Moreover, researchers can determine whether the experiment or method validly represent the phenomenon they intended to study.

A study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, might define “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” However, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” For the results to be replicated and gain acceptance within the broader scientific community, researchers would have to use a standard operational definition. These definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

We will explore research methods in greater detail in the next section of this chapter.

Step 5: Draw Conclusions

After constructing the research design, sociologists collect, tabulate or categorize, and analyze data to formulate conclusions. If the analysis supports the hypothesis, researchers can discuss the implications of the results for the theory or policy solution that they were addressing. If the analysis does not support the hypothesis, researchers may consider repeating the experiment or think of ways to improve their procedure.

However, even when results contradict a sociologist’s prediction of a study’s outcome, these results still contribute to sociological understanding. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While many assume that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results may substantiate or contradict it.

Sociologists carefully keep in mind how operational definitions and research designs impact the results as they draw conclusions. Consider the concept of “increase of crime,” which might be defined as the percent increase in crime from last week to this week, as in the study of Swedish crime discussed above. Yet the data used to evaluate “increase of crime” might be limited by many factors: who commits the crime, where the crimes are committed, or what type of crime is committed. If the data is gathered for “crimes committed in Houston, Texas in zip code 77021,” then it may not be generalizable to crimes committed in rural areas outside of major cities like Houston. If data is collected about vandalism, it may not be generalizable to assault.

Step 6: Report Results

Researchers report their results at conferences and in academic journals. These results are then subjected to the scrutiny of other sociologists in the field. Before the conclusions of a study become widely accepted, the studies are often repeated in the same or different environments. In this way, sociological theories and knowledge develops as the relationships between social phenomenon are established in broader contexts and different circumstances.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on empirical data and the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework, sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective , seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge or understanding about the human experience.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects including storytelling. This type of researcher learns through the process and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

Critical Sociology

Critical sociology focuses on deconstruction of existing sociological research and theory. Informed by the work of Karl Marx, scholars known collectively as the Frankfurt School proposed that social science, as much as any academic pursuit, is embedded in the system of power constituted by the set of class, caste, race, gender, and other relationships that exist in the society. Consequently, it cannot be treated as purely objective. Critical sociologists view theories, methods, and the conclusions as serving one of two purposes: they can either legitimate and rationalize systems of social power and oppression or liberate humans from inequality and restriction on human freedom. Deconstruction can involve data collection, but the analysis of this data is not empirical or positivist.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-1-approaches-to-sociological-research

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Developing a Research Question

18 Hypotheses

When researchers do not have predictions about what they will find, they conduct research to answer a question or questions, with an open-minded desire to know about a topic, or to help develop hypotheses for later testing. In other situations, the purpose of research is to test a specific hypothesis or hypotheses.  A hypothesis is a statement, sometimes but not always causal, describing a researcher’s expectations regarding anticipated finding. Often hypotheses are written to describe the expected relationship between two variables (though this is not a requirement). To develop a hypothesis, one needs to understand the differences between independent and dependent variables and between units of observation and units of analysis. Hypotheses are typically drawn from theories and usually describe how an independent variable is expected to affect some dependent variable or variables. Researchers following a deductive approach to their research will hypothesize about what they expect to find based on the theory or theories that frame their study. If the theory accurately reflects the phenomenon it is designed to explain, then the researcher’s hypotheses about what would be observed in the real world should bear out.

Sometimes researchers will hypothesize that a relationship will take a specific direction. As a result, an increase or decrease in one area might be said to cause an increase or decrease in another. For example, you might choose to study the relationship between age and legalization of marijuana. Perhaps you have done some reading in your spare time, or in another course you have taken.  Based on the theories you have read, you hypothesize that “age is negatively related to support for marijuana legalization.” What have you just hypothesized? You have hypothesized that as people get older, the likelihood of their support for marijuana legalization decreases. Thus, as age moves in one direction (up), support for marijuana legalization moves in another direction (down). If writing hypotheses feels tricky, it is sometimes helpful to draw them out. and depict each of the two hypotheses we have just discussed.

Note that you will almost never hear researchers say that they have proven their hypotheses. A statement that bold implies that a relationship has been shown to exist with absolute certainty and that there is no chance that there are conditions under which the hypothesis would not bear out. Instead, researchers tend to say that their hypotheses have been supported (or not) . This more cautious way of discussing findings allows for the possibility that new evidence or new ways of examining a relationship will be discovered. Researchers may also discuss a null hypothesis, one that predicts no relationship between the variables being studied. If a researcher rejects the null hypothesis, he or she is saying that the variables in question are somehow related to one another.

Quantitative and qualitative researchers tend to take different approaches when it comes to hypotheses. In quantitative research, the goal often is to empirically test hypotheses generated from theory. With a qualitative approach, on the other hand, a researcher may begin with some vague expectations about what he or she will find, but the aim is not to test one’s expectations against some empirical observations. Instead, theory development or construction is the goal. Qualitative researchers may develop theories from which hypotheses can be drawn and quantitative researchers may then test those hypotheses. Both types of research are crucial to understanding our social world, and both play an important role in the matter of hypothesis development and testing.  In the following section, we will look at qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, as well as mixed methods.

Text Attributions

• This chapter has been adapted from Chapter 5.2 in Principles of Sociological Inquiry , which was adapted by the Saylor Academy without attribution to the original authors or publisher, as requested by the licensor. © Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License .

An Introduction to Research Methods in Sociology Copyright © 2019 by Valerie A. Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.1.3: Developing Theories and Hypotheses

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 109843

2.5: Developing a Hypothesis

Learning objectives.

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis, it is important to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition (1965) [1] . He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observations before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this if-then relationship. “ If drive theory is correct, then cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this question is an interesting one on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [2] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the number of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how easily they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). Researchers begin with a set of phenomena and either construct a theory to explain or interpret them or choose an existing theory to work with. They then make a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researchers then conduct an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, they reevaluate the theory in light of the new results and revise it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researchers can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [3] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans [Zajonc & Sales, 1966] [4] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use inductive reasoning which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive. That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that it really does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

• Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149 , 269–274 ↵
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵

Model Answers

Q: Discuss the importance and sources of hypothesis in social research.

Question asked in UPSC Sociology 2020 Paper 1. Download our app for last 20 year question with model answers.

Model Answer:

Importance of Hypothesis in Social Research

Hypothesis in social research refers to a tentative statement or assumption about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a testable prediction that serves as a starting point for conducting a study. Hypotheses are important in social research for several reasons:

1. Direction and focus: Hypotheses provide a clear direction and focus for the research. They help researchers identify the variables that need to be studied and the relationships that need to be explored. For example, a hypothesis might state that “ higher levels of education lead to higher income levels. ” This statement provides a clear direction for the researcher to investigate the relationship between education and income.

2. Basis for research design: Hypotheses serve as the foundation for designing a research study. They help researchers choose the appropriate methods, techniques, and tools to collect and analyze data. For instance, if a researcher wants to test the hypothesis that “ participation in sports reduces the likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior, ” they might design a study that compares crime rates among individuals who participate in sports and those who do not.

3. Testability: Hypotheses are testable statements that can be either supported or refuted by empirical evidence. This testability is crucial for the scientific process, as it allows researchers to build on existing knowledge and contribute to the understanding of social phenomena. For example, if a hypothesis states that “ social media use increases feelings of loneliness, ” researchers can collect data on social media usage and loneliness levels to test this assumption.

4. Explanation and prediction: Hypotheses help researchers explain and predict social phenomena. By identifying relationships between variables, hypotheses can provide insights into the underlying mechanisms and processes that drive social behavior. For instance, a hypothesis that “ unemployment leads to increased crime rates, ” might suggest that addressing unemployment could help reduce crime.

Sources of hypothesis in social research:

1. Theory: Hypotheses can be derived from existing theories in the field. Theories provide a framework for understanding social phenomena and can suggest relationships between variables that can be tested through research. For example, social learning theory might suggest the hypothesis that “ children who witness violence in their homes are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior. “

2. Previous research: Hypotheses can be based on the findings of previous studies. Researchers can build on existing knowledge by testing new relationships or exploring the same relationships in different contexts. For example, if a previous study found a relationship between poverty and crime in urban areas, a researcher might hypothesize that the same relationship exists in rural areas.

3. Observations and personal experiences: Researchers can develop hypotheses based on their own observations and experiences. These insights can provide a starting point for investigating social phenomena. For example, a researcher who notices a high rate of teenage pregnancy in their community might hypothesize that a lack of access to sexual education is a contributing factor.

4. Expert opinions and literature reviews: Consulting experts in the field and reviewing existing literature can help researchers identify gaps in knowledge and generate hypotheses. For instance, a review of research on the effects of social media on mental health might reveal conflicting findings, leading a researcher to hypothesize that certain factors, such as the type of social media platform or the amount of time spent online, might moderate these effects.

In conclusion, hypotheses play a crucial role in social research by providing direction, focus, and a basis for research design. They are derived from various sources, including theory, previous research, observations, and expert opinions. By testing hypotheses, researchers can contribute to the understanding of social phenomena and inform policies and interventions aimed at addressing social issues.

Download our app for UPSC Sociology Optional - Syllabus, NCERT Books, IGNOU Books, Past Paper with Model Answers, Topper Notes & Answer Sheet.

• Increase Font Size

10 Research questions and testing hypotheses

Soumyajit Patra

This module will teach you about the importance of research questions and hypothesis in social science research. At the end of this module, you will find some digital resources and a bibliography for your further study.

• Introduction

Knowledge is contextual and much of it depends on agreement. It is contextual as it has a time-space dimension – knowledge varies from time to time, region to region and from society to society. Take the example of the imperishable plastic bags. These were thought to be very useful even a few years back. But today its harmful effects on environment are known to all and we have started thinking the other way round. The old knowledge has been replaced by the new one.

Knowledge is a matter of agreement as well. A significant portion of what we know is a matter of agreement and belief. Little of it is based on our personal experience and discovery. As we grow up through the process of socialization, we learn to accept (to take it for granted) what everybody around us already knows. If we start questing everything we are taught and try to test instead of accepting what is given, life would be impossible to bear with (Babbie 2004: 5). We have to learn where and how to raise ‘questions’ in our everyday life. This is equally true in case of scientific knowledge. We need to clarify, in this context, the distinction between scientific knowledge and common sense as well as the purpose of scientific research.

2.1 Scientific Knowledge and Common Sense

The distinction between scientific knowledge and common sense would be relevant here. The former is based on logic and is verifiable. The foundation of scientific knowledge is systematic and critical questioning, observation and reasoning. But as Majumdar (2005: 10) defines it, common sense does not ‘take us beyond what are observable. It limits us to events and conclusions that are widely believed as true.’ So, for obvious reasons, knowledge gathered through scientific inquiries may oppose the common sense. Social scientists often emphasize upon the explanatory nature of science that, to a large extent, involves refined and fundamental questioning of the existing knowledge.

2.2 Scientific Research

The purpose of scientific research is to modify or contribute to the existing stock of knowledge through proper inquiry directed by properly framed research questions and reasoning. It is widely believed that there is no ‘absolute’ in science. Scientific knowledge is inclusive and is always open to further investigation and revision. In the words of Das (2004: 21), ‘research may be described as systematic and critical investigation of phenomena towards increasing the stream of knowledge.’ In a similar way Majumdar (2005: 25) writes: ‘The obvious function of research is to add new knowledge to our existing store. Therefore, scientific research is a cumulative process. Since new insights are obtained into the problem investigated, we need to review or modify our earlier beliefs and postulates’.

• Learning Outcome

This Module will help you understand different types of research questions and hypotheses that give rise to reliable scientific knowledge. You will also learn how to formulate them.

• What are Research Questions?

Researchers have many queries and curiosities in their mind and they try to reach at some satisfactory and valid answers and solutions of these after a careful and meticulous analysis of the relevant data collected through appropriate methods. Research questions are specific questions framed during the initial phase of the research, the answers of which a researcher tries to find out. The research questions set the direction of the entire research process. We can argue following Bryman (2012: 9) that

“A research question is a question that provides an explicit statement of what it is the researcher wants to know about. A research purpose can be presented as a statement … but a question forces the researcher to be more explicit about what is to be investigated”.

4.1 How can Research Questions be framed?

Mere selection of research topic does not direct a researcher to the actual methods to be followed and the specific areas to look at for collecting data. As Patrick White (2009: 33) has argued,

“It is usually much easier to decide upon a topic or area of interest than it is to produce a set of well-structured questions”.

It may be worth noting here that research involves certain definite stages and a researcher starts framing research questions and hypothesis after selection of topic and review of existing literature. The following diagram shows the stages of research before and after the research questions:

Selection of research topic, which is the elementary task of any research, is, however, not an easy task. One has to go through the existing literatures to find out gaps in research. Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) however publishes trend reports of research done on important themes in sociology and makes us aware of what has so far been done and what needs to be done (Singh 2013). Despite such literature, a researcher has to be very precise in focusing his or her attention while framing research questions. When, after going through the existing literatures on the concerned area, the researcher finally specifies the objectives of the study, he or she is better able to frame his or her research questions. Research questions can also be framed on the basis common sense.

• De Vaus (2002) has provided us with some examples that can guide us in developing research questions particularly for descriptive researches. These are:
• What is the time frame of our interest?
• What is the geographical location of our interest?
• Is our interest in broad description or in comparing and specifying patterns for subgroups?
• What aspect of the topic are we interested in?
• How abstract is our interest?

The research questions of explanatory studies mostly focus on delving the causal relationships between different variables. Naturally the ‘why-questions’ are more important in explanatory researches than the ‘what-questions’, which forms the basis of descriptive studies. According to Babbie (2008: 99), descriptive studies answer questions of what, where, when and how, exploratory studies questions of why? However, the suggestions of Ramkrishna Mukherjee (1993) can be helpful for formulating research questions for any type research in social sciences.

Calling his approach as ‘inductive-inferential method’ Mukherjee ( Ibid .) argues that a social scientist should try to find out the answer of the following questions:

What is it?

What will it be?

What should it be?

For obvious reasons when a researcher deals with the first two questions, i.e. ‘what is it?’ and ‘how is it?’ the orientation of her research is descriptive and classificatory (see also Bose 1997). As soon as she incorporates the question ‘why is it’, her work becomes more explanatory in its spirit. When a social scientist’s research questions include the fourth and fifth questions as well, it becomes a diagnostic study. There can be a reasonable debate among the positivists regarding the inclusion of the fifth question as they believe that the questions like ‘what should it be?’ involve value judgements. However, you canunderstand that a comprehensive research should be based on all the questions mentioned above. In many cases, the researchers deal with a number of research questions, but do not clearly state which questions are more important, or how the questions are related. Such a multiplicity of questions can lead to the problem of lack of focus (Andrews 2003). The researchers should select the number of research questions for her or his study considering the time-cost-labour components of the work. Time, labour and cost of the study would proportionately be increased with the increase in the number of research questions. Too many research questions are difficult to manage as well.

• 2 Features of Research Questions?

Good research questions that lead to proper research findings have some important features (White 2009; De Vaus 2002; Andrews 2003). The following are the most important among them:

 Research questions should be interrogative – Research questions should be interrogative in nature, it should not be declarative. For example it should be like this: ‘What is the relationship between educational level and attitude towards the freedom of media?’ A statement like: ‘There may be some relationship between educational level and attitude towards the freedom of media’ is not a research question.

 Research questions should be based on the objectives of the study – Research questions should not divert the attention of the researcher from the basic objectives of the study. It should rather try to delve deep into the problem.

 Research questions should be specific – There should not be any ambiguity in the research questions. It should be easily understandable and precise as much as possible.

 It should be simple but well-structured – Much of the success of a research depends on the research questions. It should be focused and precisely framed. The ‘fallacy of many questions’ (i.e. aiming at ‘more than one inquiry in a single question’) should be avoided (White 2009). The questions should be structured in such a manner that they help the researcher unveil a specific dimension of the problem.

Self-check Exercise -1:

• What do you mean by research?

Research is a scientific process of inquiry by which the existing stock of knowledge is either enriched or modified.

• Distinguish between scientific knowledge and common sense.

Scientific knowledge is based on logic and is verifiable. The foundation of scientific knowledge is systematic and critical questioning, observation and reasoning. But common sense is gathered from direct day to day experience. Although common sense is not gathered through scientific inquiry it can be helpful in many research works.

• What are research questions?

Research questions are specific questions emerged out of the broad problems of research, the answers of which a researcher tries to find out. The research questions set the direction of the entire research process.

• What are the features of good research questions?

Research questions should be interrogative. It should not be a statement. A research question should also be specific, understandable and well-structured. Good research questions are based on the objectives of the study.

• Distinguish between descriptive and explanatory research.

Descriptive research tries to describe a phenomenon or a situation or a problem. It generally deals with ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions. Explanatory research, on the other hand, tries to explain the ‘cause-effect’ relationships between different variables. This type of research also involves ‘why’ questions along with the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions.

• Research questions and hypothesis

Both research questions and hypotheses are useful in social science research. According to White (2009), the difference between them is that while research questions are interrogative in its form, hypotheses are declarative statements which are intended to be tested during the course of research. Hypotheses can be restructured in the form of questions. But then one should not call it hypothesis.

5.1 What is hypothesis?

When a researcher conceptualizes her research problems, she thinks about it in general terms. Research questions or hypotheses help look at the specific aspects of the problem. So hypotheses or research questions enable us to carry out meaningful analysis. Hypotheses are specific statements about the problem made at the initial stage of the research, which may be proved right or wrong also include things such as households, cities, organizations, schools, and nations. If an attribute does not vary, it is a constant” (Bryman 2012: 48).

Once a hypothesis assumes a relationship between two or more variables, the validity of such assumption, made on the basis of the personal experiences, knowledge and insights of the researcher, is tested through suitable statistical techniques. Hence, hypothesis is ‘[a]n informed speculation, which is set up to be tested, about the possible relationship between two or more variables’ Bryman (2012: 712). If the primary assumptions are proved correct after the analysis of data, they become part of the theory. So it is said that ‘hypothesis provides the link between the empirical world and the theory’ (Majumdar 2005: 78). Hypothesis formulation and testing are closely associated with the quantitative approach to study social phenomena (Jupp 2006).

5.2 Features of a good hypothesis

‘A hypothesis is a specified testable expectation about empirical reality that follows from a more general proposition’ (Babbie 2004: 44). It is the assumption made about the relationship between different variables on the basis of existing knowledge or common sense. But all declarative statements or assumptions are not hypotheses. Let us discuss some examples:

• ‘The rate of dropout is higher among the girl students’.
• ‘The rate of dropout varies with gender with the girl students having a higher dropout rate’.

The first assumption is not an example of a good hypothesis as it does not clearly state the two variables. But, the second one is a better one because it clearly mentions gender and rate of dropout as two variables and a relationship between them is assumed.

The features of good hypotheses are as follows:

• Hypothesis generally states (predicts) the relationship between two variables.
• It is expressed as a statement and not as a question (Payne and Payne 2005: 112)
• Hypothesis should be clearly stated, specific and conceptually clear.
• It should be consistent with the known laws of nature (Majumdar 2005)
• Hypothesis is testable (after the final analysis it may prove to be correct or incorrect).

5.3 Soures of hypotheses

Hypotheses are not ordinary or casual statements about the empirical reality. They emerge through a systematic and logical process. According to Goode and Hatt (1981), there are four possible sources from which hypotheses can emerge. These are:

 Culture can furnish hypotheses – Every human society has some distinctive cultural traits. Many social science researches focus on human behaviour or on meaningful social actions. Folkways, mores, values, customs, belief patterns can help formulate hypotheses in these studies. at the end of the analysis (Henn et al 2006).

Hypotheses are formulated at the third stage of the research process (see Diagram 1). According to Goode and Hatt (1981: 56), ‘[a] hypothesis states what we are looking for.’ They write ‘[i]t is a proposition which can be put to a test to determine its validity.’ Hypotheses are primary assumptions about the interrelations of different variables which set the direction of the entire research process. It may be noted that “a variable is simply an attribute on which cases vary. ‘Cases’ can obviously be people, but they can

Hypotheses can emerge from the science itself – In the backdrop of any research there should be one or more theories. Hypotheses are often deducted from a theory to verify or modify some of its basic conclusions. Goode and Hatt ( ibid .) opine that the socialization process, that a student of a particular discipline undergoes, teaches her/him about the promising areas, paradigms, laws, analytical categories, concepts and methods of that particular discipline. This knowledge can help the student to assume some possible causal relationships between some variables that she or he can put to a test for verification.

 Hypotheses can be formulated from analogies – Analogies between human society and nature, between two different types of communities are often a fertile source of hypotheses. For obvious reasons, the researcher should take care in making such analogies. Analogies should not be illogical, it should, on the other hand, be consistent with the known laws of nature.

 Hypotheses can come out from idiosyncratic, personal experiences of the researcher – The scientist lives in a particular culture or she can encounter some cultural traits of some other cultures. Her personal experiences can help her formulate effective hypotheses.

5.4 Types of hypothesis

Hypothesis can be classified in many ways. Goode and Hatt (1981) categorize them into three types on the basis of the level of abstraction.

• pothesis that state the existence of empirical uniformities – Generally these hypotheses are framed when the researchers want to test the ‘common-sense propositions’. In other words, sometimes the researchers are interested to establish the parallels between what people think about a phenomenon and what actually exists. These often lead to the observations of simple differences. In these hypotheses, sometimes, common sense ideas are put into well-defined concepts and then the hypotheses are statistically verified.
• Hypothesis that is concerned with complex ideal types – These hypotheses try to focus on the logically assumed relationships existing among empirical uniformities. In particular, these hypotheses ‘lead to specific coincidences of observations’ ( ibid .: 62). For obvious reasons, these types of hypotheses deal with a higher level of abstraction than the hypotheses that are concerned with the existence of empirical uniformities.
• thesis that is concerned with the relation of analytical variables – According to Goode and Hatt ( ibid .) these hypotheses deal with the highest level of abstraction. In this case, the researcher analytically formulates a hypothesis that shows a relationship between changes in one aspect of the phenomenon with the actual or assumed changes in another aspect.

Majumdar (2005) has categorized hypothesis into two types – eliminative (or analytic) induction and enumerative induction. In the former case hypotheses are formulated as ‘universal generalization’ and the presence of any contrary evidence leads to its rejection. In case of enumerative induction, a complete enumeration is required to accept or reject the hypothesis. Look at the following examples:

Hypothesis I: Female students score better in Research Methodology course than the male students.

This is an example of eliminative or analytic induction. If any male student is found, who has scored more than the female students, there would be no reason to accept the hypothesis.

Hypothesis II: Ten Percent female students score better in Research Methodology course than the male students.

This is an example of enumerative induction. To accept or reject the hypothesis a complete enumeration is necessary.

5.5 Hypothesis Testing

A researcher formulates a number of hypotheses (sometimes called experimental hypotheses) and all these hypotheses are tested on the basis of data collected for the study. When a researcher wants to test the hypothesis with the help of some statistical techniques, he or she frames what is called null hypothesis. According to Babbie (2004: 49), in connection with hypothesis testing and tests of statistical significance, the hypothesis that suggests that there is no relationship among the variables under study is null hypothesis . Sometimes null hypothesis states that there is no difference between two variables.

Null Hypothesis (denoted by H 0 ): There is no difference between the percentage of male students and the percentage of female students who have got 60 per cent marks in Research Methodology course.

If the data collected for the study show, for example, that in reality there are differences between the percentage of male students and percentage of female students who have scored 60 per cent in Research Methodology course, there are statistical techniques to determine whether the difference found is statistically significant, or we can ignore the difference attributing it simply to chance factors and accept the null hypothesis (H0). If the difference obtained from the collected data is statistically significant the researcher rejects the null hypothesis and accepts the alternative hypothesis. For obvious reasons there may be more than one alternative hypotheses (denoted by: H1, H2, H3 etc) the researcher has to select any one from among the alternatives if the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. The following are the examples:

Alternative Hypothesis (H 1 ): There is significant difference between the percentage of male students and the percentage of female students who have got 60 per cent marks in Research Methodology course.

Or, Alternative Hypothesis (H 2 ): The percentage of male students is higher than the percentage of female students who have got 60 per cent marks in Research Methodology course.   Or,

Alternative Hypothesis (H 3 ): The percentage of female students is higher than the percentage of male students who have got 60 per cent marks in Research Methodology course.

It is not always easy to accept a hypothesis from among the alternatives. The researchers often has to find out what is called crucial instance to take a final decision regarding the acceptance of a hypothesis from among a number of options (alternative hypotheses). Sometimes they have to go through an experiment to decide what actually would be the alternative hypothesis (in the above example whether H2 is correct or H3 is correct. It should be noted that both H2 and H3 cannot be correct at the same time.) The experiment which finally helps to come to a final decision regarding which one should be accepted reasonably from among the hypotheses is called experimentum crucis (Babbie 2004; Majumdar 2005) . There are a number of statistical techniques like Z-test, t-test, χ2-test etc to test the null hypothesis.

Self-check Exercise – 2:

• Distinguish between research question and hypothesis.

Both research questions and hypothesis are framed at the initial stage of the research and both help to look at the research problem in a very specific manner. But while the research question is a specific question the answer of which is sought, hypothesis is a declarative statement framed on the basis of the initial assumptions the validity of which is tested with the help of some statistical techniques. Hypotheses are formulated mainly in case of quantitative research.

• State any two features of a good hypothesis.

A good hypothesis is specific and it indicates the relationship between two variables.

• What is null hypothesis?

In case of hypothesis testing, the hypothesis that states that there is no difference or relationship between two variables under study is called null hypothesis. It is denoted by Ho. The statistical testing of hypothesis starts with null hypothesis. If the test-result tells the researcher to reject the null hypothesis, the researcher accepts alternative hypothesis.

• What are alternative hypotheses?

Alternative hypotheses are formulated against the null hypothesis that states that there is some relationship or difference between the variables. These are denoted by H1, H2 etc.

• Type I error and Type II error

Although in case of quantitative research, the researcher specifies the variables and puts the null hypothesis to test using some statistical techniques, there are dangers of reaching at wrong decisions even if the researcher resort to scientific techniques in the testing of hypotheses. He or she can commit two types of errors – Type I error and Type II error. When the researcher accepts a hypothesis when it is actually incorrect it is called Type I error. In case of Type II error the test-result tells the researcher to reject a hypothesis when it is actually correct. Let us look into the following examples:

Suppose you are interested to know whether there is any relationship between the education of the mother and that of their daughters. Sociologists generally use χ2 test to determine such relationships statistically. The null hypothesis of such a test would be like this:

H 0: There is no relationship between mothers’ education and daughters’ education.

The alternative hypothesis would be:

H 1: There is a definite relationship between mothers’ education and daughters’ education.

Suppose the calculated value of χ2 forces the researcher to accept the null hypothesis and come to the conclusion that there is no relationship between the education of the mother and that of their daughters. But in reality these two are highly related. This is the example of Type I error.

Now, suppose you are interested to know about the relationship between distance of home from the nearest high road and the number of children of the married women.

The null hypothesis of such a test would be like this:

H 0: There is no relationship between distance of home from the high road and the number of children.

H 1: There is significant relationship between distance of home from the high road and the number of children.

Suppose the calculated value of χ2 forces the researcher to reject the null hypothesis and come to the conclusion that there is significant relationship between distance of home from the nearest high road and the number of children married women have. It is not difficult to understand that any such relationship between these two is absurd. This is the example of Type II error.

• Hypothesis and qualitative research

It has been said that hypothesis is generally associated with quantitative research. But it would be wrong to assume that in qualitative studies, they are irrelevant. According to Jupp (2006), some qualitative researches aim at describing the nature, contexts and consequences of social interactions, social relationships and the process of creations of meanings. These studies also start with some assumptions about the social realities which can be treated as hypotheses. Obviously, these hypotheses do not indicate the relationships between variables. Hypothesis testing in ‘qualitative research is a continuous process, involving the search for cases or contexts that do not square with the assertions being made, rather than a once-and-for-all event’ (Jupp 2006: 138). This is the process of analytical induction and when contrary evidences or what is called crucial instances challenge the conclusions of previous study they are modified or rejected. New hypotheses are then framed in the light of new information or experiences and again their validity is checked.

The topic of any research, which the title of the dissertation signifies, indicates the broad area of research. It is often easy to decide about a topic of research. But, a researcher has to be precise in focusing his or her attention while framing his/her research questions. Research questions and hypotheses are framed to specify the areas in which the researcher concentrates. Research questions are interrogative whereas hypotheses are declarative statements. When the researcher finalizes the specific objectives of the study, he or she is better able to frame his research questions or hypotheses. The researcher tries to find out the answers of the research questions framed at the beginning of the study. Hypotheses or the assumptions.

• Andrews, R. Research Questions. London: Continuum, 2003.
• Babbie,  E. The Practice of Social Research . Australia: Thomson Wadsworth, 2004.
• Bose, P. K. “Problems and Paradoxes of Inductive Social Science: A Critique of Ramkrishna Mukherjee”.
• Sociological Bulletin 46, no. 2 (1997): 153-171.
• Bryman, A, Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Routledge, 1988.
• …….. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Das, D. K. L. Practice of Social Research. Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2004.
• Goode, W. J. and Hatt, P. K. Methods in Social Research. Auckland: McGraw – Hill International Book Company, 1981.
• Henn, M.  et. al. A Short Introduction to Social Research, London: Sage Publications, 2006.
• Jupp, V. The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, 2006.
• Majumdar, P. K. Research Methods in Social Science. New Delhi: Viva Books Pvt. Ltd., 2005.
• Mukherjee, R. Systematic Sociology. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1993.
• Payne, G. and Payne, J. Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage Publications, 2005.
• Singh, Yogendra. ICSSR Research Surveys and Explorations: Indian Sociology. Box Set, Vols 1-3. New Delhi: Oxford, 2013.
• Vaus, De D, Surveys in Social Research. London: Routledge, 2002.
• White, P. Developing Research Questions: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The importance of defining the hypothesis in scientific research

2012, International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies

Related Papers

Oscar Masaka

Gurpreet Bhatia

Nagalaxmi Lucky

Racidon Bernarte

Learning material for graduate students enrolled in Research 1 (PUP Graduate School)

Dr. Usman Bappi

kavita vadrale

RELATED PAPERS

Faie Faiezah

Jacintho Del Vecchio Junior

Parvez Alam

kishan chaudhary

Srinivas Katherasala

Raphael Sena

KABIR TAHIR HAMID

Mohammad Torabi

Maraam M . Alutaybi

Cognitive Foundations of Language Structure and Use

Dr. VISHAL VARIA

Karlene Roberts

serena natale

Serena Natale

Kgosi Leatile Kgautlhe

Xochitl Ortiz

H Johnson Nenty

ishie blouch

Anjali Singh

Raja Asad Azad

Clement Ali

Mark Lenders

Nuor A I N I Y Hidayati

Rengganis Ernia

Christopher Halter

fahmi malik

pinky marie mendi gallano

kaleem ahmed

Hadi Pranoto

Dao Lệ Doanh

Akash Dixit

Rana Naveed

Valentine J Owan

Mohamed Chakroun

Tamiru Duguma

Xerxes Daji

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Hossein Farhady

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Chris Fife-Schaw

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Your Article Library

Sources of hypothesis in social research: 4 sources.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

This article throws light on the four important sources of hypothesis in social research, i.e, (1) General Culture in which a Science Develops, (2) Scientific Theory, (3) Analogies, and (4) Consequences of Personal, Idiosyncratic Experience as the Sources of Hypothesis.

1. General Culture in which a Science Develops :

A cultural pattern influences the thinking process of the people and the hypothesis may be formulated to test one or more of these ideas. Cultural values serve to direct research interests. The function of culture has been responsible for developing today’s science to a great dimension. In the words of Goode and Hatt, “to say that the hypotheses are the product of the cultural values does not make them scientifically less important than others, but it does at least indicate that attention has been called to them by the culture itself.

For example in the Western society race is thought to be an important determinant of human behaviour. Such a proposition can be used to formulate a hypothesis. We may also cite metaphysical bias and metaphysical ideas of Indian culture to have been responsible for the formulation of certain types of hypotheses. It implies that cultural elements of common cultural pattern may form a source of the formulation of hypotheses.

2. Scientific Theory:

A major source of hypothesis is theory. A theory binds a large body of facts by positing a consistent and lawful relationship among a set of general concepts representing those facts. Further generalizations are formed on the basis of the knowledge of theory. Corollaries are drawn from the theories.

These generalizations or corollaries constitute a part of hypothesis. Since theories deal with abstractions which cannot be directly observed and can only remain in the thought process, a scientific hypothesis which is concerned with observable facts and observable relationship between facts can only be used for the purpose of selecting some of the facts as concrete instances of the concepts and for making a tentative statement about the existence of a relation among the selected facts with the purpose of subjecting the relation to an empirical test.”

A hypothesis emerges as a deduction from theory. Hence, hypotheses become “working instruments of theory” Every worthwhile theory provides for the formulation of additional hypothesis. “The hypothesis is the backbone of all scientific theory construction; without it, confirmation or rejection of theories would be impossible.”

The hypotheses when tested are “either proved or disproved and in turn constitute further tests of the original theory.” Thus the hypothetical type of verbal proposition forms the link between the empirical propositions or facts and the theories. The validity of a theory can be examined only by means of scientific predictions or experimental hypothesis.

3. Analogies:

Observation of a similarity between two phenomena may be a source of formation of a hypothesis aimed at testing similarity in any other respect. Julian Huxley has pointed out that “casual observation in nature or in the framework of another science may be a fertile source of hypothesis. The success of a system in one discipline can be used in other discipline also. The theory of ecology is based on the observation of certain plants in certain geographical conditions. As such, it remains in the domain of Botany. On the basis of that the hypothesis of human ecology could be conceived.

Hypothesis of social physics is also based on analogy. “When the hypothesis was born out by social observation, the same term was taken into sociology. It has become an important idea in sociological theory”. Although analogy is not always considered, at the time of formulation of hypothesis; it is generally satisfactory when it has some structural analogies to other well established theories. For the systematic simplicity of our knowledge, the analogy of a hypothesis becomes inversely helpful. Formulation of an analogous hypothesis is construed as an achievement because by doing so its interpretation is made easy.

4. Consequences of Personal, Idiosyncratic Experience as the Sources of Hypothesis:

Not only culture, scientific theory and analogies provide the sources of hypothesis, but also the way in which the individual reacts to each of these is also a factor in the statement of hypotheses. Certain facts are present, but every one of us is not able to observe them and formulate a hypothesis.

Referring to Fleming’s discovery of penicillin, Backrach has maintained that such discovery is possible only when the scientist is prepared to be impressed by the ‘unusual’. An unusual event struck Fleming when he noted that the dish containing bacteria had a green mould and the bacteria were dead. Usually he would have washed the dish and have attempted once again to culture the bacteria.

But normally, he was moved to bring the live bacteria in close contact with the green mould, resulting in the discovery of penicillin. The example of Sir Issac Newton, the discoverer of the theory of Gravitation, is another glaring example of this type of ‘personal experience’. Although prior to Newton’s observation, several persons had witnessed the falling of the apple, he was the right man to formulate the theory of gravitation on the basis of this phenomenon.

Thus emergence of a hypothesis is a creative manner. To quote Mc Guigan, “to formulate a useful and valuable hypothesis, a scientist needs first sufficient experience in that area, and second the quality of the genius.” In the field of social sciences, an illustration of individual perspective may be visualized in Veblen’s work. Thorstein Veblen’s own community background was replete with negative experiences concerning the functioning of economy and he was a ‘marginal man’, capable of looking at the capitalist system objectively.

Thus, he could be able to attack the fundamental concepts and postulates of classical economics and in real terms Veblen could experience differently to bear upon the economic world, resulting in the making of a penetrating analysis of our society. Such an excellent contribution of Veblen has, no doubt, influenced social science since those days.

Related Articles:

• 6 Main Characteristics of a Usable Hypotheses | Social Research
• Hypotheses: Meaning, Types and Sources | Social Research

Comments are closed.

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
• v.53(4); 2010 Aug

Research questions, hypotheses and objectives

Patricia farrugia.

* Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, the

Bradley A. Petrisor

† Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and the

Forough Farrokhyar

‡ Departments of Surgery and

§ Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont

Mohit Bhandari

There is an increasing familiarity with the principles of evidence-based medicine in the surgical community. As surgeons become more aware of the hierarchy of evidence, grades of recommendations and the principles of critical appraisal, they develop an increasing familiarity with research design. Surgeons and clinicians are looking more and more to the literature and clinical trials to guide their practice; as such, it is becoming a responsibility of the clinical research community to attempt to answer questions that are not only well thought out but also clinically relevant. The development of the research question, including a supportive hypothesis and objectives, is a necessary key step in producing clinically relevant results to be used in evidence-based practice. A well-defined and specific research question is more likely to help guide us in making decisions about study design and population and subsequently what data will be collected and analyzed. 1

Objectives of this article

In this article, we discuss important considerations in the development of a research question and hypothesis and in defining objectives for research. By the end of this article, the reader will be able to appreciate the significance of constructing a good research question and developing hypotheses and research objectives for the successful design of a research study. The following article is divided into 3 sections: research question, research hypothesis and research objectives.

Research question

Interest in a particular topic usually begins the research process, but it is the familiarity with the subject that helps define an appropriate research question for a study. 1 Questions then arise out of a perceived knowledge deficit within a subject area or field of study. 2 Indeed, Haynes suggests that it is important to know “where the boundary between current knowledge and ignorance lies.” 1 The challenge in developing an appropriate research question is in determining which clinical uncertainties could or should be studied and also rationalizing the need for their investigation.

Increasing one’s knowledge about the subject of interest can be accomplished in many ways. Appropriate methods include systematically searching the literature, in-depth interviews and focus groups with patients (and proxies) and interviews with experts in the field. In addition, awareness of current trends and technological advances can assist with the development of research questions. 2 It is imperative to understand what has been studied about a topic to date in order to further the knowledge that has been previously gathered on a topic. Indeed, some granting institutions (e.g., Canadian Institute for Health Research) encourage applicants to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence if a recent review does not already exist and preferably a pilot or feasibility study before applying for a grant for a full trial.

In-depth knowledge about a subject may generate a number of questions. It then becomes necessary to ask whether these questions can be answered through one study or if more than one study needed. 1 Additional research questions can be developed, but several basic principles should be taken into consideration. 1 All questions, primary and secondary, should be developed at the beginning and planning stages of a study. Any additional questions should never compromise the primary question because it is the primary research question that forms the basis of the hypothesis and study objectives. It must be kept in mind that within the scope of one study, the presence of a number of research questions will affect and potentially increase the complexity of both the study design and subsequent statistical analyses, not to mention the actual feasibility of answering every question. 1 A sensible strategy is to establish a single primary research question around which to focus the study plan. 3 In a study, the primary research question should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction of the grant proposal, and it usually specifies the population to be studied, the intervention to be implemented and other circumstantial factors. 4

Hulley and colleagues 2 have suggested the use of the FINER criteria in the development of a good research question ( Box 1 ). The FINER criteria highlight useful points that may increase the chances of developing a successful research project. A good research question should specify the population of interest, be of interest to the scientific community and potentially to the public, have clinical relevance and further current knowledge in the field (and of course be compliant with the standards of ethical boards and national research standards).

FINER criteria for a good research question

Adapted with permission from Wolters Kluwer Health. 2

Whereas the FINER criteria outline the important aspects of the question in general, a useful format to use in the development of a specific research question is the PICO format — consider the population (P) of interest, the intervention (I) being studied, the comparison (C) group (or to what is the intervention being compared) and the outcome of interest (O). 3 , 5 , 6 Often timing (T) is added to PICO ( Box 2 ) — that is, “Over what time frame will the study take place?” 1 The PICOT approach helps generate a question that aids in constructing the framework of the study and subsequently in protocol development by alluding to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and identifying the groups of patients to be included. Knowing the specific population of interest, intervention (and comparator) and outcome of interest may also help the researcher identify an appropriate outcome measurement tool. 7 The more defined the population of interest, and thus the more stringent the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the greater the effect on the interpretation and subsequent applicability and generalizability of the research findings. 1 , 2 A restricted study population (and exclusion criteria) may limit bias and increase the internal validity of the study; however, this approach will limit external validity of the study and, thus, the generalizability of the findings to the practical clinical setting. Conversely, a broadly defined study population and inclusion criteria may be representative of practical clinical practice but may increase bias and reduce the internal validity of the study.

PICOT criteria 1

A poorly devised research question may affect the choice of study design, potentially lead to futile situations and, thus, hamper the chance of determining anything of clinical significance, which will then affect the potential for publication. Without devoting appropriate resources to developing the research question, the quality of the study and subsequent results may be compromised. During the initial stages of any research study, it is therefore imperative to formulate a research question that is both clinically relevant and answerable.

Research hypothesis

The primary research question should be driven by the hypothesis rather than the data. 1 , 2 That is, the research question and hypothesis should be developed before the start of the study. This sounds intuitive; however, if we take, for example, a database of information, it is potentially possible to perform multiple statistical comparisons of groups within the database to find a statistically significant association. This could then lead one to work backward from the data and develop the “question.” This is counterintuitive to the process because the question is asked specifically to then find the answer, thus collecting data along the way (i.e., in a prospective manner). Multiple statistical testing of associations from data previously collected could potentially lead to spuriously positive findings of association through chance alone. 2 Therefore, a good hypothesis must be based on a good research question at the start of a trial and, indeed, drive data collection for the study.

The research or clinical hypothesis is developed from the research question and then the main elements of the study — sampling strategy, intervention (if applicable), comparison and outcome variables — are summarized in a form that establishes the basis for testing, statistical and ultimately clinical significance. 3 For example, in a research study comparing computer-assisted acetabular component insertion versus freehand acetabular component placement in patients in need of total hip arthroplasty, the experimental group would be computer-assisted insertion and the control/conventional group would be free-hand placement. The investigative team would first state a research hypothesis. This could be expressed as a single outcome (e.g., computer-assisted acetabular component placement leads to improved functional outcome) or potentially as a complex/composite outcome; that is, more than one outcome (e.g., computer-assisted acetabular component placement leads to both improved radiographic cup placement and improved functional outcome).

However, when formally testing statistical significance, the hypothesis should be stated as a “null” hypothesis. 2 The purpose of hypothesis testing is to make an inference about the population of interest on the basis of a random sample taken from that population. The null hypothesis for the preceding research hypothesis then would be that there is no difference in mean functional outcome between the computer-assisted insertion and free-hand placement techniques. After forming the null hypothesis, the researchers would form an alternate hypothesis stating the nature of the difference, if it should appear. The alternate hypothesis would be that there is a difference in mean functional outcome between these techniques. At the end of the study, the null hypothesis is then tested statistically. If the findings of the study are not statistically significant (i.e., there is no difference in functional outcome between the groups in a statistical sense), we cannot reject the null hypothesis, whereas if the findings were significant, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis (i.e., there is a difference in mean functional outcome between the study groups), errors in testing notwithstanding. In other words, hypothesis testing confirms or refutes the statement that the observed findings did not occur by chance alone but rather occurred because there was a true difference in outcomes between these surgical procedures. The concept of statistical hypothesis testing is complex, and the details are beyond the scope of this article.

Another important concept inherent in hypothesis testing is whether the hypotheses will be 1-sided or 2-sided. A 2-sided hypothesis states that there is a difference between the experimental group and the control group, but it does not specify in advance the expected direction of the difference. For example, we asked whether there is there an improvement in outcomes with computer-assisted surgery or whether the outcomes worse with computer-assisted surgery. We presented a 2-sided test in the above example because we did not specify the direction of the difference. A 1-sided hypothesis states a specific direction (e.g., there is an improvement in outcomes with computer-assisted surgery). A 2-sided hypothesis should be used unless there is a good justification for using a 1-sided hypothesis. As Bland and Atlman 8 stated, “One-sided hypothesis testing should never be used as a device to make a conventionally nonsignificant difference significant.”

The research hypothesis should be stated at the beginning of the study to guide the objectives for research. Whereas the investigators may state the hypothesis as being 1-sided (there is an improvement with treatment), the study and investigators must adhere to the concept of clinical equipoise. According to this principle, a clinical (or surgical) trial is ethical only if the expert community is uncertain about the relative therapeutic merits of the experimental and control groups being evaluated. 9 It means there must exist an honest and professional disagreement among expert clinicians about the preferred treatment. 9

Designing a research hypothesis is supported by a good research question and will influence the type of research design for the study. Acting on the principles of appropriate hypothesis development, the study can then confidently proceed to the development of the research objective.

Research objective

The primary objective should be coupled with the hypothesis of the study. Study objectives define the specific aims of the study and should be clearly stated in the introduction of the research protocol. 7 From our previous example and using the investigative hypothesis that there is a difference in functional outcomes between computer-assisted acetabular component placement and free-hand placement, the primary objective can be stated as follows: this study will compare the functional outcomes of computer-assisted acetabular component insertion versus free-hand placement in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Note that the study objective is an active statement about how the study is going to answer the specific research question. Objectives can (and often do) state exactly which outcome measures are going to be used within their statements. They are important because they not only help guide the development of the protocol and design of study but also play a role in sample size calculations and determining the power of the study. 7 These concepts will be discussed in other articles in this series.

From the surgeon’s point of view, it is important for the study objectives to be focused on outcomes that are important to patients and clinically relevant. For example, the most methodologically sound randomized controlled trial comparing 2 techniques of distal radial fixation would have little or no clinical impact if the primary objective was to determine the effect of treatment A as compared to treatment B on intraoperative fluoroscopy time. However, if the objective was to determine the effect of treatment A as compared to treatment B on patient functional outcome at 1 year, this would have a much more significant impact on clinical decision-making. Second, more meaningful surgeon–patient discussions could ensue, incorporating patient values and preferences with the results from this study. 6 , 7 It is the precise objective and what the investigator is trying to measure that is of clinical relevance in the practical setting.

The following is an example from the literature about the relation between the research question, hypothesis and study objectives:

Study: Warden SJ, Metcalf BR, Kiss ZS, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for chronic patellar tendinopathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatology 2008;47:467–71.

Research question: How does low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compare with a placebo device in managing the symptoms of skeletally mature patients with patellar tendinopathy?

Research hypothesis: Pain levels are reduced in patients who receive daily active-LIPUS (treatment) for 12 weeks compared with individuals who receive inactive-LIPUS (placebo).

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of LIPUS in the management of patellar tendinopathy symptoms.

The development of the research question is the most important aspect of a research project. A research project can fail if the objectives and hypothesis are poorly focused and underdeveloped. Useful tips for surgical researchers are provided in Box 3 . Designing and developing an appropriate and relevant research question, hypothesis and objectives can be a difficult task. The critical appraisal of the research question used in a study is vital to the application of the findings to clinical practice. Focusing resources, time and dedication to these 3 very important tasks will help to guide a successful research project, influence interpretation of the results and affect future publication efforts.

Tips for developing research questions, hypotheses and objectives for research studies

• Perform a systematic literature review (if one has not been done) to increase knowledge and familiarity with the topic and to assist with research development.
• Learn about current trends and technological advances on the topic.
• Seek careful input from experts, mentors, colleagues and collaborators to refine your research question as this will aid in developing the research question and guide the research study.
• Use the FINER criteria in the development of the research question.
• Ensure that the research question follows PICOT format.
• Develop a research hypothesis from the research question.
• Develop clear and well-defined primary and secondary (if needed) objectives.
• Ensure that the research question and objectives are answerable, feasible and clinically relevant.

FINER = feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant; PICOT = population (patients), intervention (for intervention studies only), comparison group, outcome of interest, time.

Competing interests: No funding was received in preparation of this paper. Dr. Bhandari was funded, in part, by a Canada Research Chair, McMaster University.

Talk to Our counsellor: 9916082261

• Book your demo
• GS Foundation Classroom Program
• Current Affairs Monthly Magazine
• Our Toppers

Practice  Questions  – Write short note on Importance and Sources of Hypothesis in Sociological Research. [ UPSC 2008]

Approach –  Introduction, What makes Hypothesis relevant in a sociological research?, What are the sources which aids us to derive hypothesis?, Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

A hypothesis is a prediction of what will be found at the outcome of a research project and is typically focused on the relationship between two different variables studied in the research. It is usually based on both theoretical expectations about how things work and already existing scientific evidence.

We know that research begins with a problem or a felt need or difficulty. The purpose of research is to find a solution to the difficulty. It is desirable that the researcher should propose a set of suggested solutions or explanations of the  difficulty which the research proposes to solve. Such tentative solutions formulated as a proposition are called hypotheses. The suggested solutions formulated as hypotheses may or may not be the real solutions to the problem. Whether they are or not is the task of research to test and establish.

DEFINTITIONS

• Lundberg- A Hypothesis is a tentative generalisation, the validity of which remains to be tested. In its most elementary stages, the hypothesis may be any hunch, guess imaginative idea or Intuition whatsoever which becomes the basis of action or Investigation.
• Bogardus- A Hypothesis is a proposition to be tested.
• Goode and Hatt- It is a proposition which can be put to test to determinants validity.
• P. V. Yaung- The idea of ​a temporary but central importance that becomes the basis of useful research is called a working hypothesis.

TYPES OF HYPOTHESIS

i)  Explanatory Hypothesis : The purpose of this hypothesis is to explain a certain fact. All hypotheses are in a way explanatory for a hypothesis is advanced only when we try to explain the observed fact. A large number of hypotheses are advanced to explain the individual facts in life. A theft, a murder, an accident are examples.

ii) Descriptive Hypothesis:  Some times a researcher comes across a complex phenomenon. He/ she does not understand the relations among the observed facts. But how to account for these facts? The answer is a descriptive hypothesis. A hypothesis is descriptive when it is based upon the points of resemblance of some thing. It describes the cause and effect relationship of a phenomenon e.g., the current unemployment rate of a state exceeds 25% of the work force. Similarly, the consumers of local made products constitute asignificant market segment.

iii) Analogical Hypothesis : When we formulate a hypothesis on the basis of similarities (analogy), it is called an analogical hypothesis e.g., families with higher earnings invest more surplus income on long term investments.

iv) Working hypothesis : Some times certain facts cannot be explained adequately by existing hypotheses, and no new hypothesis comes up. Thus, the investigation is held up. In this situation, a researcher formulates a hypothesis which enables to continue investigation. Such a hypothesis, though inadequate and formulated for the purpose of further investigation only, is called a working hypothesis. It is simply accepted as a starting point in the process of investigation.

v) Null Hypothesis:  It is an important concept that is used widely in the sampling theory. It forms the basis of many tests of significance. Under this type, the hypothesis is stated negatively. It is null because it may be nullified, if the evidence of a random sample is unfavourable to the hypothesis. It is a hypothesis being tested (H0). If the calculated value of the test is less than the permissible value, Null hypothesis is accepted, otherwise it is rejected. The rejection of a null hypothesis implies that the difference could not have arisen due to chance or sampling fluctuations.

USES OF HYPOTHESIS

i) It is a starting point for many a research work. ii) It helps in deciding the direction in which to proceed. iii) It helps in selecting and collecting pertinent facts. iv) It is an aid to explanation. v) It helps in drawing specific conclusions. vi) It helps in testing theories. vii) It works as a basis for future knowledge.

ROLE  OF HYPOTHESIS

In any scientific investigation, the role of hypothesis is indispensable as it always guides and gives direction to scientific research. Research remains unfocused without a hypothesis. Without it, the scientist is not in position to decide as to what to observe and how to observe. He may at best beat around the bush. In the words of Northrop, “The function of hypothesis is to direct our search for order among facts, the suggestions formulated in any hypothesis may be solution to the problem, whether they are, is the task of the enquiry”.

First ,  it is an operating tool of theory. It can be deduced from other hypotheses and theories. If it is correctly drawn and scientifically formulated, it enables the researcher to proceed on correct line of study. Due to this progress, the investigator becomes capable of drawing proper conclusions. In the words of Goode and Hatt, “without hypothesis the research is unfocussed, a random empirical wandering. The results cannot be studied as facts with clear meaning. Hypothesis is a necessary link between theory and investigation which leads to discovery and addition to knowledge.

Secondly,  the hypothesis acts as a pointer to enquiry. Scientific research has to proceed in certain definite lines and through hypothesis the researcher becomes capable of knowing specifically what he has to find out by determining the direction provided by the hypothesis. Hypotheses acts like a pole star or a compass to a sailor with the help of which he is able to head in the proper direction.

Thirdly , the hypothesis enables us to select relevant and pertinent facts and makes our task easier. Once, the direction and points are identified, the researcher is in a position to eliminate the irrelevant facts and concentrate only on the relevant facts. Highlighting the role of hypothesis in providing pertinent facts, P.V. Young has stated, “The use of hypothesis prevents a blind research and indiscriminate gathering of masses of data which may later prove irrelevant to the problem under study”. For example, if the researcher is interested in examining the relationship between broken home and juvenile delinquency, he can easily proceed in the proper direction and collect pertinent information succeeded only when he has succeed in formulating a useful hypothesis.

Fourthly , the hypothesis provides guidance by way of providing the direction, pointing to enquiry, enabling to select pertinent facts and helping to draw specific conclusions. It saves the researcher from the botheration of ‘trial and error’ which causes loss of money, energy and time.

Finally,  the hypothesis plays a significant role in facilitating advancement of knowledge beyond one’s value and opinions. In real terms, the science is incomplete without hypotheses.

STAGES OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING

• EXPERIMENTATION   : Research study focuses its study which is manageable and approachable to it and where it can test its hypothesis. The study gradually becomes more focused on its variables and influences on variables so that hypothesis may be tested. In this process, hypothesis can be disproved.
• REHEARSAL TESTING :   The researcher should conduct a pre testing or rehearsal before going for field work or data collection.
• FIELD RESEARCH :  To test and investigate hypothesis, field work with predetermined research methodology tools is conducted in which interviews, observations with stakeholders, questionnaires, surveys etc are used to follow. The documentation study may also happens at this stage.
• PRIMARY & SECONDARY DATA/INFORMATION ANALYSIS :  The primary or secondary data and information’s available prior to hypothesis testing may be used to ascertain validity of hypothesis itself.

Formulating a hypothesis can take place at the very beginning of a research project, or after a bit of research has already been done. Sometimes a researcher knows right from the start which variables she is interested in studying, and she may already have a hunch about their relationships. Other times, a researcher may have an interest in ​a particular topic, trend, or phenomenon, but he may not know enough about it to identify variables or formulate a hypothesis. Whenever a hypothesis is formulated, the most important thing is to be precise about what one’s variables are, what the nature of the relationship between them might be, and how one can go about conducting a study of them.

Request a call back.

Let us help you guide towards your career path We will give you a call between 9 AM to 9 PM

Join us to give your preparation a new direction and ultimately crack the Civil service examination with top rank.

• #1360, 2nd floor,above Philips showroom, Marenhalli, 100ft road, Jayanagar 9th Block, Bangalore
• [email protected]
• +91 9916082261
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

© 2022 Achievers IAS Classes

Click Here To Download Brochure

• Syllabus & Strategy
• Previous Year Qn Paper
• Practice Questions
• Monthly Prelims CSAT Consolidation
• Monthly Prelims GS Consolidation

General Studies

• Ethics and Integrity – Strategical Approach

Political Science and International Relations

• Essay Engineering Module
• Monthly Main Political Science & IR Practice Question
• Monthly Mains Sociology Practice Question
• Monthly Mains Consolidation
• Questions for Practice
• Daily News Scan
• Editorial & Articles
• IAS Google – Monthly News Scan
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation
• Special Edition
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• General Studies Test Series
• Political Science & International Relations
• Ethics and Essay – Exclusive
• Classroom Coaching
• Online Coaching
• CSAT Aptitude
• Ethics & Essay

+91-9884554654

Like our Facebook page

Join Us on Telegram

Follow Us on Twitter

Follow Us on Instagram

Subscribe Us

Mains Daily Question

Latest news.

• 05 Apr April 05, 2024 Current Affairs
• 04 Apr April 04, 2024 Current Affairs
• 04 Apr Light Pollution - PPP 100 - PRELIMS 2024 - 15
• 03 Apr April 03, 2024 Current Affairs
• 02 Apr April 02, 2024 Current Affairs

CURRENT AFFAIRS, WHATS NEW

Discuss the importance and sources of hypothesis in social research. (upsc cse mains 2020 - sociology, paper 1).

A Hypothesis is a tentative generalisation, the validity of which remains to be tested. In its most elementary stages, the hypothesis may be any hunch, guess imaginative idea or Intuition whatsoever which becomes the basis of action or Investigation.

Significance of hypothesis

In any scientific investigation, the role of hypothesis is indispensable as it always guides and gives direction to scientific research. Research remains unfocused without a hypothesis. Without it, the scientist is not in position to decide as to what to observe and how to observe. He may at best beat around the bush. In the words of Northrop, “The function of hypothesis is to direct our search for order among facts, the suggestions formulated in any hypothesis may be solution to the problem, whether they are, is the task of the enquiry”.

• First, it is an operating tool of theory. It can be deduced from other hypotheses and theories. If it is correctly drawn and scientifically formulated, it enables the researcher to proceed on correct line of study. Due to this progress, the investigator becomes capable of drawing proper conclusions. In the words of Goode and Hatt, “without hypothesis the research is unfocussed, a random empirical wandering. The results cannot be studied as facts with clear meaning. Hypothesis is a necessary link between theory and investigation which leads to discovery and addition to knowledge.
• Secondly, the hypothesis acts as a pointer to enquiry. Scientific research has to proceed in certain definite lines and through hypothesis the researcher becomes capable of knowing specifically what he has to find out by determining the direction provided by the hypothesis. Hypotheses acts like a pole star or a compass to a sailor with the help of which he is able to head in the proper direction.
• Thirdly, the hypothesis enables us to select relevant and pertinent facts and makes our task easier. Once, the direction and points are identified, the researcher is in a position to eliminate the irrelevant facts and concentrate only on the relevant facts. Highlighting the role of hypothesis in providing pertinent facts, P.V. Young has stated, “The use of hypothesis prevents a blind research and indiscriminate gathering of masses of data which may later prove irrelevant to the problem under study”. For example, if the researcher is interested in examining the relationship between broken home and juvenile delinquency, he can easily proceed in the proper direction and collect pertinent information succeeded only when he has succeed in formulating a useful hypothesis.
• Fourthly, the hypothesis provides guidance by way of providing the direction, pointing to enquiry, enabling to select pertinent facts and helping to draw specific conclusions. It saves the researcher from the botheration of ‘trial and error’ which causes loss of money, energy and time.
• Finally, the hypothesis plays a significant role in facilitating advancement of knowledge beyond one’s value and opinions. In real terms, the science is incomplete without hypotheses.

Sources of Hypothesis in Research

A hypothesis may be formulated through a number of is sources. Following are the main sources of hypothesis.

• Previous study - Previous knowledge and information regarding the topic of hypothesis will be extremely helpful to create a concrete hypothesis.
• Personal experience - If one has a personal experience regarding the topic of investigation, he/she can use that information in the hypothesis to make it more complete and good quality.
• Thinking and imagination - A researcher''s creative thinking and imagination can sometimes aid in the formulation of a good hypothesis. A researcher''s personal ideas and thinking abilities would result in a greater number of hypothesis formulations as well as control over the problem.
• Scientific theory - It would be extremely helpful to use scientific theories in hypothesis because it is capable of explaining all the facts related to the investigation.

POSTED ON 11-08-2023 BY ADMIN

Please access our Privacy Policy to learn what personal data Disqus collects and your choices about how it is used. All users of our service are also subject to our --> Terms of Service.

Latest Post

General studies - pcm - books, csat - aptitude - books, political science & ir - books, sociology - books, environment - special edition, ias 2024 batches admission open, ethics and integrity - books.

• Strategy – Mains
• Strategy – Prelims
• Syllabus – Prelims
• Syllabus – Mains
• Prelims – Old Question Papers Analysis
• Mains – Old Question Paper -2013-2019
• 1979-2019 Old Question Papers
• Sample Study Materials
• Strategic Scan with Old Question Papers

Some Reference Essays

• Essays by Raja Sir
• Thavaseelan, IAS
• Sivakrishnamurthy, IAS – Essay 1
• Sivakrishnamurthy, IAS – Essay 2
• Rajarshi Das Gupta, IAS

List of previous year essay topics (1997-2019)

• (DOWNLOAD PDF)

IAS GOOGLE is googled by the team of Raja Sir’s Cracking IAS Academy. Sources include The Hindu, Indian Express, pib.nic.in, Down To Earth, Economic Times, Vigyan Prasar, AIR and the like. IAS GOOGLE has been prepared in pace with emerging UPSC Trends.

LATEST NEWS

• Current Affairs --> --> Current Affairs --> --> -->
• Editorials & Articles --> --> Editorials & Articles --> --> -->
• Editorials-&-Articles --> --> Editorials-&-Articles --> --> -->
• Mains --> --> Mains --> --> -->
• Mains Daily Question --> --> Mains Daily Question --> --> -->
• Mains Monthly Questions --> --> Mains Monthly Questions --> --> -->
• Model Essays --> --> Model Essays --> --> -->
• Prelims --> --> Prelims --> --> -->
• Prelims Daily Questions --> --> Prelims Daily Questions --> --> -->
• PSIR Daily Practice --> --> PSIR Daily Practice --> --> -->
• Sociology Daily Practice --> --> Sociology Daily Practice --> --> -->
• Whats New --> --> Whats New --> --> -->

Copyright © 2021 IAS Google. All Rights Reserved

• Open access
• Published: 12 December 2023

Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental health in public health emergency and disaster response: a scoping review

• C. E. Hall 1 , 2 ,
• H. Wehling 1 ,
• J. Stansfield 3 ,
• J. South 3 ,
• S. K. Brooks 2 ,
• N. Greenberg 2 , 4 ,
• R. Amlôt 1 &
• D. Weston 1  

BMC Public Health volume  23 , Article number:  2482 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1772 Accesses

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

The ability of the public to remain psychologically resilient in the face of public health emergencies and disasters (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) is a key factor in the effectiveness of a national response to such events. Community resilience and social capital are often perceived as beneficial and ensuring that a community is socially and psychologically resilient may aid emergency response and recovery. This review presents a synthesis of literature which answers the following research questions: How are community resilience and social capital quantified in research?; What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?

A scoping review procedure was followed. Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering both community resilience and social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria.

The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster. There was no common method for measuring community resilience or social capital. The association between community resilience and social capital with mental health was regarded as positive in most cases. However, we found that community resilience, and social capital, were initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies and enhanced by social group activities.

Several key recommendations are proposed based on the outcomes from the review, which include: the need for a standardised and validated approach to measuring both community resilience and social capital; that there should be enhanced effort to improve preparedness to public health emergencies in communities by gauging current levels of community resilience and social capital; that community resilience and social capital should be bolstered if areas are at risk of disasters or public health emergencies; the need to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to communities with high resilience in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster; the importance of conducting robust evaluation of community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peer Review reports

For the general population, public health emergencies and disasters (e.g., natural disasters; infectious disease outbreaks; Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear incidents) can give rise to a plethora of negative outcomes relating to both health (e.g. increased mental health problems [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]) and the economy (e.g., increased unemployment and decreased levels of tourism [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]). COVID-19 is a current, and ongoing, example of a public health emergency which has affected over 421 million individuals worldwide [ 7 ]. The long term implications of COVID-19 are not yet known, but there are likely to be repercussions for physical health, mental health, and other non-health related outcomes for a substantial time to come [ 8 , 9 ]. As a result, it is critical to establish methods which may inform approaches to alleviate the longer-term negative consequences that are likely to emerge in the aftermath of both COVID-19 and any future public health emergency.

The definition of resilience often differs within the literature, but ultimately resilience is considered a dynamic process of adaptation. It is related to processes and capabilities at the individual, community and system level that result in good health and social outcomes, in spite of negative events, serious threats and hazards [ 10 ]. Furthermore, Ziglio [ 10 ] refers to four key types of resilience capacity: adaptive, the ability to withstand and adjust to unfavourable conditions and shocks; absorptive, the ability to withstand but also to recover and manage using available assets and skills; anticipatory, the ability to predict and minimize vulnerability; and transformative, transformative change so that systems better cope with new conditions.

There is no one settled definition of community resilience (CR). However, it generally relates to the ability of a community to withstand, adapt and permit growth in adverse circumstances due to social structures, networks and interdependencies within the community [ 11 ]. Social capital (SC) is considered a major determinant of CR [ 12 , 13 ], and reflects strength of a social network, community reciprocity, and trust in people and institutions [ 14 ]. These aspects of community are usually conceptualised primarily as protective factors that enable communities to cope and adapt collectively to threats. SC is often broken down into further categories [ 15 ], for example: cognitive SC (i.e. perceptions of community relations, such as trust, mutual help and attachment) and structural SC (i.e. what actually happens within the community, such as participation, socialising) [ 16 ]; or, bonding SC (i.e. connections among individuals who are emotionally close, and result in bonds to a particular group [ 17 ]) and bridging SC (i.e. acquaintances or individuals loosely connected that span different social groups [ 18 ]). Generally, CR is perceived to be primarily beneficial for multiple reasons (e.g. increased social support [ 18 , 19 ], protection of mental health [ 20 , 21 ]), and strengthening community resilience is a stated health goal of the World Health Organisation [ 22 ] when aiming to alleviate health inequalities and protect wellbeing. This is also reflected by organisations such as Public Health England (now split into the UK Health Security Agency and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) [ 23 ] and more recently, CR has been targeted through the endorsement of Community Champions (who are volunteers trained to support and to help improve health and wellbeing. Community Champions also reflect their local communities in terms of population demographics for example age, ethnicity and gender) as part of the COVID-19 response in the UK (e.g. [ 24 , 25 ]).

Despite the vested interest in bolstering communities, the research base establishing: how to understand and measure CR and SC; the effect of CR and SC, both during and following a public health emergency (such as the COVID-19 pandemic); and which types of CR or SC are the most effective to engage, is relatively small. Given the importance of ensuring resilience against, and swift recovery from, public health emergencies, it is critically important to establish and understand the evidence base for these approaches. As a result, the current review sought to answer the following research questions: (1) How are CR and SC quantified in research?; (2) What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; (3) What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, (4) What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?

By collating research in order to answer these research questions, the authors have been able to propose several key recommendations that could be used to both enhance and evaluate CR and SC effectively to facilitate the long-term recovery from COVID-19, and also to inform the use of CR and SC in any future public health disasters and emergencies.

A scoping review methodology was followed due to the ease of summarising literature on a given topic for policy makers and practitioners [ 26 ], and is detailed in the following sections.

Identification of relevant studies

An initial search strategy was developed by authors CH and DW and included terms which related to: CR and SC, given the absence of a consistent definition of CR, and the link between CR and SC, the review focuses on both CR and SC to identify as much relevant literature as possible (adapted for purpose from Annex 1: [ 27 ], as well as through consultation with review commissioners); public health emergencies and disasters [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], and psychological wellbeing and recovery (derived a priori from literature). To ensure a focus on both public health and psychological research, the final search was carried across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE using OVID. The final search took place on the 18th of May 2020, the search strategy used for all three databases can be found in Supplementary file 1 .

Selection criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed alongside the search strategy. Initially the criteria were relatively inclusive and were subject to iterative development to reflect the authors’ familiarisation with the literature. For example, the decision was taken to exclude research which focused exclusively on social support and did not mention communities as an initial title/abstract search suggested that the majority of this literature did not meet the requirements of our research question.

The full and final inclusion and exclusion criteria used can be found in Supplementary file 2 . In summary, authors decided to focus on the general population (i.e., non-specialist, e.g. non-healthcare worker or government official) to allow the review to remain community focused. The research must also have assessed the impact of CR and/or SC on mental health and wellbeing, resilience, and recovery during and following public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks which affect communities (to ensure the research is relevant to the review aims), have conducted primary research, and have a full text available or provided by the first author when contacted.

Charting the data

All papers were first title and abstract screened by CH or DW. Papers then were full text reviewed by CH to ensure each paper met the required eligibility criteria, if unsure about a paper it was also full text reviewed by DW. All papers that were retained post full-text review were subjected to a standardised data extraction procedure. A table was made for the purpose of extracting the following data: title, authors, origin, year of publication, study design, aim, disaster type, sample size and characteristics, variables examined, results, restrictions/limitations, and recommendations. Supplementary file 3 details the charting the data process.

Analytical method

Data was synthesised using a Framework approach [ 32 ], a common method for analysing qualitative research. This method was chosen as it was originally used for large-scale social policy research [ 33 ] as it seeks to identify: what works, for whom, in what conditions, and why [ 34 ]. This approach is also useful for identifying commonalities and differences in qualitative data and potential relationships between different parts of the data [ 33 ]. An a priori framework was established by CH and DW. Extracted data was synthesised in relation to each research question, and the process was iterative to ensure maximum saturation using the available data.

Study selection

The final search strategy yielded 3584 records. Following the removal of duplicates, 2191 records remained and were included in title and abstract screening. A PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flow diagram

At the title and abstract screening stage, the process became more iterative as the inclusion criteria were developed and refined. For the first iteration of screening, CH or DW sorted all records into ‘include,’ ‘exclude,’ and ‘unsure’. All ‘unsure’ papers were re-assessed by CH, and a random selection of ~ 20% of these were also assessed by DW. Where there was disagreement between authors the records were retained, and full text screened. The remaining papers were reviewed by CH, and all records were categorised into ‘include’ and ‘exclude’. Following full-text screening, 26 papers were retained for use in the review.

Study characteristics

This section of the review addresses study characteristics of those which met the inclusion criteria, which comprises: date of publication, country of origin, study design, study location, disaster, and variables examined.

Date of publication

Publication dates across the 26 papers spanned from 2008 to 2020 (see Fig.  2 ). The number of papers published was relatively low and consistent across this timescale (i.e. 1–2 per year, except 2010 and 2013 when none were published) up until 2017 where the number of papers peaked at 5. From 2017 to 2020 there were 15 papers published in total. The amount of papers published in recent years suggests a shift in research and interest towards CR and SC in a disaster/ public health emergency context.

Graph to show retained papers date of publication

Country of origin

The locations of the first authors’ institutes at the time of publication were extracted to provide a geographical spread of the retained papers. The majority originated from the USA [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], followed by China [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], Japan [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], Australia [ 51 , 52 , 53 ], The Netherlands [ 54 , 55 ], New Zealand [ 56 ], Peru [ 57 ], Iran [ 58 ], Austria [ 59 ], and Croatia [ 60 ].

There were multiple methodological approaches carried out across retained papers. The most common formats included surveys or questionnaires [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 59 ], followed by interviews [ 39 , 40 , 43 , 51 , 52 , 60 ]. Four papers used both surveys and interviews [ 35 , 41 , 45 , 58 ], and two papers conducted data analysis (one using open access data from a Social Survey [ 44 ] and one using a Primary Health Organisations Register [ 56 ]).

Study location

The majority of the studies were carried out in Japan [ 36 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], followed by the USA [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], China [ 43 , 45 , 46 , 53 ], Australia [ 51 , 52 ], and the UK [ 54 , 55 ]. The remaining studies were carried out in Croatia [ 60 ], Peru [ 57 ], Austria [ 59 ], New Zealand [ 56 ] and Iran [ 58 ].

Multiple different types of disaster were researched across the retained papers. Earthquakes were the most common type of disaster examined [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], followed by research which assessed the impact of two disastrous events which had happened in the same area (e.g. Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Mississippi, and the Great East Japan earthquake and Tsunami; [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 48 ]). Other disaster types included: flooding [ 51 , 54 , 55 , 59 , 60 ], hurricanes [ 35 , 39 , 41 ], infectious disease outbreaks [ 43 , 46 ], oil spillage [ 40 ], and drought [ 52 ].

Variables of interest examined

Across the 26 retained papers: eight referred to examining the impact of SC [ 35 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 46 , 49 , 55 , 60 ]; eight examined the impact of cognitive and structural SC as separate entities [ 40 , 42 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 54 , 57 , 59 ]; one examined bridging and bonding SC as separate entities [ 58 ]; two examined the impact of CR [ 38 , 56 ]; and two employed a qualitative methodology but drew findings in relation to bonding and bridging SC, and SC generally [ 51 , 52 ]. Additionally, five papers examined the impact of the following variables: ‘community social cohesion’ [ 36 ], ‘neighbourhood connectedness’ [ 44 ], ‘social support at the community level’ [ 47 ], ‘community connectedness’ [ 43 ] and ‘sense of community’ [ 53 ]. Table  1 provides additional details on this.

How is CR and SC measured or quantified in research?

The measures used to examine CR and SC are presented Table  1 . It is apparent that there is no uniformity in how SC or CR is measured across the research. Multiple measures are used throughout the retained studies, and nearly all are unique. Additionally, SC was examined at multiple different levels (e.g. cognitive and structural, bonding and bridging), and in multiple different forms (e.g. community connectedness, community cohesion).

What is the association between CR and SC on mental wellbeing?

To best compare research, the following section reports on CR, and facets of SC separately. Please see Supplementary file 4  for additional information on retained papers methods of measuring mental wellbeing.

• Community resilience

CR relates to the ability of a community to withstand, adapt and permit growth in adverse circumstances due to social structures, networks and interdependencies within the community [ 11 ].

The impact of CR on mental wellbeing was consistently positive. For example, research indicated that there was a positive association between CR and number of common mental health (i.e. anxiety and mood) treatments post-disaster [ 56 ]. Similarly, other research suggests that CR is positively related to psychological resilience, which is inversely related to depressive symptoms) [ 37 ]. The same research also concluded that CR is protective of psychological resilience and is therefore protective of depressive symptoms [ 37 ].

• Social capital

SC reflects the strength of a social network, community reciprocity, and trust in people and institutions [ 14 ]. These aspects of community are usually conceptualised primarily as protective factors that enable communities to cope and adapt collectively to threats.

There were inconsistencies across research which examined the impact of abstract SC (i.e. not refined into bonding/bridging or structural/cognitive) on mental wellbeing. However, for the majority of cases, research deems SC to be beneficial. For example, research has concluded that, SC is protective against post-traumatic stress disorder [ 55 ], anxiety [ 46 ], psychological distress [ 50 ], and stress [ 46 ]. Additionally, SC has been found to facilitate post-traumatic growth [ 38 ], and also to be useful to be drawn upon in times of stress [ 52 ], both of which could be protective of mental health. Similarly, research has also found that emotional recovery following a disaster is more difficult for those who report to have low levels of SC [ 51 ].

Conversely, however, research has also concluded that when other situational factors (e.g. personal resources) were controlled for, a positive relationship between community resources and life satisfaction was no longer significant [ 60 ]. Furthermore, some research has concluded that a high level of SC can result in a community facing greater stress immediately post disaster. Indeed, one retained paper found that high levels of SC correlate with higher levels of post-traumatic stress immediately following a disaster [ 39 ]. However, in the later stages following a disaster, this relationship can reverse, with SC subsequently providing an aid to recovery [ 41 ]. By way of explanation, some researchers have suggested that communities with stronger SC carry the greatest load in terms of helping others (i.e. family, friends and neighbours) as well as themselves immediately following the disaster, but then as time passes the communities recover at a faster rate as they are able to rely on their social networks for support [ 41 ].

Cognitive and structural social capital

Cognitive SC refers to perceptions of community relations, such as trust, mutual help and attachment, and structural SC refers to what actually happens within the community, such as participation, socialising [ 16 ].

Cognitive SC has been found to be protective [ 49 ] against PTSD [ 54 , 57 ], depression [ 40 , 54 ]) mild mood disorder; [ 48 ]), anxiety [ 48 , 54 ] and increase self-efficacy [ 59 ].

For structural SC, research is again inconsistent. On the one hand, structural SC has been found to: increase perceived self-efficacy, be protective of depression [ 40 ], buffer the impact of housing damage on cognitive decline [ 42 ] and provide support during disasters and over the recovery period [ 59 ]. However, on the other hand, it has been found to have no association with PTSD [ 54 , 57 ] or depression, and is also associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety [ 54 ]. Similarly, it is also suggested by additional research that structural SC can harm women’s mental health, either due to the pressure of expectations to help and support others or feelings of isolation [ 49 ].

Bonding and bridging social capital

Bonding SC refers to connections among individuals who are emotionally close, and result in bonds to a particular group [ 17 ], and bridging SC refers to acquaintances or individuals loosely connected that span different social groups [ 18 ].

One research study concluded that both bonding and bridging SC were protective against post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms [ 58 ]. Bridging capital was deemed to be around twice as effective in buffering against post-traumatic stress disorder than bonding SC [ 58 ].

Other community variables

Community social cohesion was significantly associated with a lower risk of post-traumatic stress disorder symptom development [ 35 ], and this was apparent even whilst controlling for depressive symptoms at baseline and disaster impact variables (e.g. loss of family member or housing damage) [ 36 ]. Similarly, sense of community, community connectedness, social support at the community level and neighbourhood connectedness all provided protective benefits for a range of mental health, wellbeing and recovery variables, including: depression [ 53 ], subjective wellbeing (in older adults only) [ 43 ], psychological distress [ 47 ], happiness [ 44 ] and life satisfaction [ 53 ].

Research has also concluded that community level social support is protective against mild mood and anxiety disorder, but only for individuals who have had no previous disaster experience [ 48 ]. Additionally, a study which separated SC into social cohesion and social participation concluded that at a community level, social cohesion is protective against depression [ 49 ] whereas social participation at community level is associated with an increased risk of depression amongst women [ 49 ].

What is the impact of Infectious disease outbreaks / disasters and emergencies on community resilience?

From a cross-sectional perspective, research has indicated that disasters and emergencies can have a negative effect on certain types of SC. Specifically, cognitive SC has been found to be impacted by disaster impact, whereas structural SC has gone unaffected [ 45 ]. Disaster impact has also been shown to have a negative effect on community relationships more generally [ 52 ].

Additionally, of the eight studies which collected data at multiple time points [ 35 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 49 , 56 , 60 ], three reported the effect of a disaster on the level of SC within a community [ 40 , 42 , 49 ]. All three of these studies concluded that disasters may have a negative impact on the levels of SC within a community. The first study found that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill had a negative effect on SC and social support, and this in turn explained an overall increase in the levels of depression within the community [ 40 ]. A possible explanation for the negative effect lays in ‘corrosive communities’, known for increased social conflict and reduced social support, that are sometimes created following oil spills [ 40 ]. It is proposed that corrosive communities often emerge due to a loss of natural resources that bring social groups together (e.g., for recreational activities), as well as social disparity (e.g., due to unequal distribution of economic impact) becoming apparent in the community following disaster [ 40 ]. The second study found that SC (in the form of social cohesion, informal socialising and social participation) decreased after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan; it was suggested that this change correlated with incidence of cognitive decline [ 42 ]. However, the third study reported more mixed effects based on physical circumstances of the communities’ natural environment: Following an earthquake, those who lived in mountainous areas with an initial high level of pre-community SC saw a decrease in SC post disaster [ 49 ]. However, communities in flat areas (which were home to younger residents and had a higher population density) saw an increase in SC [ 49 ]. It was proposed that this difference could be due to the need for those who lived in mountainous areas to seek prolonged refuge due to subsequent landslides [ 49 ].

What types of intervention enhance CR and SC and protect survivors?

There were mixed effects across the 26 retained papers when examining the effect of CR and SC on mental wellbeing. However, there is evidence that an increase in SC [ 56 , 57 ], with a focus on cognitive SC [ 57 ], namely by: building social networks [ 45 , 51 , 53 ], enhancing feelings of social cohesion [ 35 , 36 ] and promoting a sense of community [ 53 ], can result in an increase in CR and potentially protect survivors’ wellbeing and mental health following a disaster. An increase in SC may also aid in decreasing the need for individual psychological interventions in the aftermath of a disaster [ 55 ]. As a result, recommendations and suggested methods to bolster CR and SC from the retained papers have been extracted and separated into general methods, preparedness and policy level implementation.

General methods

Suggested methods to build SC included organising recreational activity-based groups [ 44 ] to broaden [ 51 , 53 ] and preserve current social networks [ 42 ], introducing initiatives to increase social cohesion and trust [ 51 ], and volunteering to increase the number of social ties between residents [ 59 ]. Research also notes that it is important to take a ‘no one left behind approach’ when organising recreational and social community events, as failure to do so could induce feelings of isolation for some members of the community [ 49 ]. Furthermore, gender differences should also be considered as research indicates that males and females may react differently to community level SC (as evidence suggests males are instead more impacted by individual level SC; in comparison to women who have larger and more diverse social networks [ 49 ]). Therefore, interventions which aim to raise community level social participation, with the aim of expanding social connections and gaining support, may be beneficial [ 42 , 47 ].

Preparedness

In order to prepare for disasters, it may be beneficial to introduce community-targeted methods or interventions to increase levels of SC and CR as these may aid in ameliorating the consequences of a public health emergency or disaster [ 57 ]. To indicate which communities have low levels of SC, one study suggests implementing a 3-item scale of social cohesion to map areas and target interventions [ 42 ].

It is important to consider that communities with a high level of SC may have a lower level of risk perception, due to the established connections and supportive network they have with those around them [ 61 ]. However, for the purpose of preparedness, this is not ideal as perception of risk is a key factor when seeking to encourage behavioural adherence. This could be overcome by introducing communication strategies which emphasise the necessity of social support, but also highlights the need for additional measures to reduce residual risk [ 59 ]. Furthermore, support in the form of financial assistance to foster current community initiatives may prove beneficial to rural areas, for example through the use of an asset-based community development framework [ 52 ].

Policy level

At a policy level, the included papers suggest a range of ways that CR and SC could be bolstered and used. These include: providing financial support for community initiatives and collective coping strategies, (e.g. using asset-based community development [ 52 ]); ensuring policies for long-term recovery focus on community sustainable development (e.g. community festival and community centre activities) [ 44 ]; and development of a network amongst cooperative corporations formed for reconstruction and to organise self-help recovery sessions among residents of adjacent areas [ 58 ].

This scoping review sought to synthesise literature concerning the role of SC and CR during public health emergencies and disasters. Specifically, in this review we have examined: the methods used to measure CR and SC; the impact of CR and SC on mental wellbeing during disasters and emergencies; the impact of disasters and emergencies on CR and SC; and the types of interventions which can be used to enhance CR. To do this, data was extracted from 26 peer-reviewed journal articles. From this synthesis, several key themes have been identified, which can be used to develop guidelines and recommendations for deploying CR and SC in a public health emergency or disaster context. These key themes and resulting recommendations are summarised below.

Firstly, this review established that there is no consistent or standardised approach to measuring CR or SC within the general population. This finding is consistent with a review conducted by the World Health Organization which concludes that despite there being a number of frameworks that contain indicators across different determinants of health, there is a lack of consensus on priority areas for measurement and no widely accepted indicator [ 27 ]. As a result, there are many measures of CR and SC apparent within the literature (e.g., [ 62 , 63 ]), an example of a developed and validated measure is provided by Sherrieb, Norris and Galea [ 64 ]. Similarly, the definitions of CR and SC differ widely between researchers, which created a barrier to comparing and summarising information. Therefore, future research could seek to compare various interpretations of CR and to identify any overlapping concepts. However, a previous systemic review conducted by Patel et al. (2017) concludes that there are nine core elements of CR (local knowledge, community networks and relationships, communication, health, governance and leadership, resources, economic investment, preparedness, and mental outlook), with 19 further sub-elements therein [ 30 ]. Therefore, as CR is a multi-dimensional construct, the implications from the findings are that multiple aspects of social infrastructure may need to be considered.

Secondly, our synthesis of research concerning the role of CR and SC for ensuring mental health and wellbeing during, or following, a public health emergency or disaster revealed mixed effects. Much of the research indicates either a generally protective effect on mental health and wellbeing, or no effect; however, the literature demonstrates some potential for a high level of CR/SC to backfire and result in a negative effect for populations during, or following, a public health emergency or disaster. Considered together, our synthesis indicates that cognitive SC is the only facet of SC which was perceived as universally protective across all retained papers. This is consistent with a systematic review which also concludes that: (a) community level cognitive SC is associated with a lower risk of common mental disorders, while; (b) community level structural SC had inconsistent effects [ 65 ].

Further examination of additional data extracted from studies which found that CR/SC had a negative effect on mental health and wellbeing revealed no commonalities that might explain these effects (Please see Supplementary file 5 for additional information)

One potential explanation may come from a retained paper which found that high levels of SC result in an increase in stress level immediately post disaster [ 41 ]. This was suggested to be due to individuals having greater burdens due to wishing to help and support their wide networks as well as themselves. However, as time passes the levels of SC allow the community to come together and recover at a faster rate [ 41 ]. As this was the only retained paper which produced this finding, it would be beneficial for future research to examine boundary conditions for the positive effects of CR/SC; that is, to explore circumstances under which CR/SC may be more likely to put communities at greater risk. This further research should also include additional longitudinal research to validate the conclusions drawn by [ 41 ] as resilience is a dynamic process of adaption.

Thirdly, disasters and emergencies were generally found to have a negative effect on levels of SC. One retained paper found a mixed effect of SC in relation to an earthquake, however this paper separated participants by area in which they lived (i.e., mountainous vs. flat), which explains this inconsistent effect [ 49 ]. Dangerous areas (i.e. mountainous) saw a decrease in community SC in comparison to safer areas following the earthquake (an effect the authors attributed to the need to seek prolonged refuge), whereas participants from the safer areas (which are home to younger residents with a higher population density) saw an increase in SC [ 49 ]. This is consistent with the idea that being able to participate socially is a key element of SC [ 12 ]. Overall, however, this was the only retained paper which produced a variable finding in relation to the effect of disaster on levels of CR/SC.

Finally, research identified through our synthesis promotes the idea of bolstering SC (particularly cognitive SC) and cohesion in communities likely to be affected by disaster to improve levels of CR. This finding provides further understanding of the relationship between CR and SC; an association that has been reported in various articles seeking to provide conceptual frameworks (e.g., [ 66 , 67 ]) as well as indicator/measurement frameworks [ 27 ]. Therefore, this could be done by creating and promoting initiatives which foster SC and create bonds within the community. Papers included in the current review suggest that recreational-based activity groups and volunteering are potential methods for fostering SC and creating community bonds [ 44 , 51 , 59 ]. Similarly, further research demonstrates that feelings of social cohesion are enhanced by general social activities (e.g. fairs and parades [ 18 ]). Also, actively encouraging activities, programs and interventions which enhance connectedness and SC have been reported to be desirable to increase CR [ 68 ]. This suggestion is supported by a recent scoping review of literature [ 67 ] examined community champion approaches for the COVID-19 pandemic response and recovery and established that creating and promoting SC focused initiatives within the community during pandemic response is highly beneficial [ 67 ]. In terms of preparedness, research states that it may be beneficial for levels of SC and CR in communities at risk to be assessed, to allow targeted interventions where the population may be at most risk following an incident [ 42 , 44 ]. Additionally, from a more critical perspective, we acknowledge that ‘resilience’ can often be perceived as a focus on individual capacity to adapt to adversity rather than changing or mitigating the causes of adverse conditions [ 69 , 70 ]. Therefore, CR requires an integrated system approach across individual, community and structural levels [ 17 ]. Also, it is important that community members are engaged in defining and agreeing how community resilience is measured [ 27 ] rather than it being imposed by system leads or decision-makers.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, is it expected that there will be long-term repercussions both from an economic [ 8 ] and a mental health perspective [ 71 ]. Furthermore, the findings from this review suggest that although those in areas with high levels of SC may be negatively affected in the acute stage, as time passes, they have potential to rebound at a faster rate than those with lower levels of SC. Ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of current initiatives as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses into a recovery phase will be invaluable for supplementing the evidence base identified through this review.

• Recommendations

As a result of this review, a number of recommendations are suggested for policy and practice during public health emergencies and recovery.

Future research should seek to establish a standardised and validated approach to measuring and defining CR and SC within communities. There are ongoing efforts in this area, for example [ 72 ]. Additionally, community members should be involved in the process of defining how CR is measured.

There should be an enhanced effort to improve preparedness for public health emergencies and disasters in local communities by gauging current levels of SC and CR within communities using a standardised measure. This approach could support specific targeting of populations with low levels of CR/SC in case of a disaster or public health emergency, whilst also allowing for consideration of support for those with high levels of CR (as these populations can be heavily impacted initially following a disaster). By distinguishing levels of SC and CR, tailored community-centred approaches could be implemented, such as those listed in a guide released by PHE in 2015 [ 73 ].

CR and SC (specifically cognitive SC) should be bolstered if communities are at risk of experiencing a disaster or public health emergency. This can be achieved by using interventions which aim to increase a sense of community and create new social ties (e.g., recreational group activities, volunteering). Additionally, when aiming to achieve this, it is important to be mindful of the risk of increased levels of CR/SC to backfire, as well as seeking to advocate an integrated system approach across individual, community and structural levels.

It is necessary to be aware that although communities with high existing levels of resilience / SC may experience short-term negative consequences following a disaster, over time these communities might be able to recover at a faster rate. It is therefore important to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to these communities in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster.

Robust evaluation of the community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic response is essential to inform the evidence base concerning the effectiveness of CR/ SC. These evaluations should continue through the response phase and into the recovery phase to help develop our understanding of the long-term consequences of such interventions.

Limitations

Despite this review being the first in this specific topic area, there are limitations that must be considered. Firstly, it is necessary to note that communities are generally highly diverse and the term ‘community’ in academic literature is a subject of much debate (see: [ 74 ]), therefore this must be considered when comparing and collating research involving communities. Additionally, the measures of CR and SC differ substantially across research, including across the 26 retained papers used in the current review. This makes the act of comparing and collating research findings very difficult. This issue is highlighted as a key outcome from this review, and suggestions for how to overcome this in future research are provided. Additionally, we acknowledge that there will be a relationship between CR & SC even where studies measure only at individual or community level. A review [ 75 ] on articulating a hypothesis of the link to health inequalities suggests that wider structural determinants of health need to be accounted for. Secondly, despite the final search strategy encompassing terms for both CR and SC, only one retained paper directly measured CR; thus, making the research findings more relevant to SC. Future research could seek to focus on CR to allow for a comparison of findings. Thirdly, the review was conducted early in the COVID-19 pandemic and so does not include more recent publications focusing on resilience specifically in the context of COVID-19. Regardless of this fact, the synthesis of, and recommendations drawn from, the reviewed studies are agnostic to time and specific incident and contain critical elements necessary to address as the pandemic moves from response to recovery. Further research should review the effectiveness of specific interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic for collation in a subsequent update to this current paper. Fourthly, the current review synthesises findings from countries with individualistic and collectivistic cultures, which may account for some variation in the findings. Lastly, despite choosing a scoping review method for ease of synthesising a wide literature base for use by public health emergency researchers in a relatively tight timeframe, there are disadvantages of a scoping review approach to consider: (1) quality appraisal of retained studies was not carried out; (2) due to the broad nature of a scoping review, more refined and targeted reviews of literature (e.g., systematic reviews) may be able to provide more detailed research outcomes. Therefore, future research should seek to use alternative methods (e.g., empirical research, systematic reviews of literature) to add to the evidence base on CR and SC impact and use in public health practice.

This review sought to establish: (1) How CR and SC are quantified in research?; (2) The impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; (3) The impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, (4) What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?. The chosen search strategy yielded 26 relevant papers from which we were able extract information relating to the aims of this review.

Results from the review revealed that CR and SC are not measured consistently across research. The impact of CR / SC on mental health and wellbeing during emergencies and disasters is mixed (with some potential for backlash), however the literature does identify cognitive SC as particularly protective. Although only a small number of papers compared CR or SC before and after a disaster, the findings were relatively consistent: SC or CR is negatively impacted by a disaster. Methods suggested to bolster SC in communities were centred around social activities, such as recreational group activities and volunteering. Recommendations for both research and practice (with a particular focus on the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) are also presented.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Social Capital

Zortea TC, Brenna CT, Joyce M, McClelland H, Tippett M, Tran MM, et al. The impact of infectious disease-related public health emergencies on suicide, suicidal behavior, and suicidal thoughts. Crisis. 2020;42(6):474–87.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Davis JR, Wilson S, Brock-Martin A, Glover S, Svendsen ER. The impact of disasters on populations with health and health care disparities. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2010;4(1):30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Francescutti LH, Sauve M, Prasad AS. Natural disasters and healthcare: lessons to be learned. Healthc Manage Forum. 2017;30(1):53–5.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jones L, Palumbo D, Brown D. Coronavirus: How the pandemic has changed the world economy. BBC News; 2021. Accessible at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51706225 .

Below R, Wallemacq P. Annual disaster statistical review 2017. Brussels: CRED, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Qiu W, Chu C, Mao A, Wu J. The impacts on health, society, and economy of SARS and H7N9 outbreaks in China: a case comparison study. J Environ Public Health. 2018;2018:2710185.

Worldometer. COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. 2021.

Harari D, Keep M. Coronavirus: economic impact house of commons library. Briefing Paper (Number 8866); 2021. Accessible at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8866/ .

Nabavi N. Covid-19: pandemic will cast a long shadow on mental health, warns England’s CMO. BMJ. 2021;373:n1655.

Ziglio E. Strengthening resilience: a priority shared by health 2020 and the sustainable development goals. No. WHO/EURO: 2017-6509-46275-66939. World Health Organization; Regional Office for Europe; 2017.

Asadzadeh A, Kotter T, Salehi P, Birkmann J. Operationalizing a concept: the systematic review of composite indicator building for measuring community disaster resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;25:147.

Sherrieb K, Norris F, Galea S. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Soc Indicators Res. 2010;99(2):227.

Poortinga W. Community resilience and health: the role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital. Health Place. 2011;18(2):286–95.

Ferlander S. The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta Sociol. 2007;50(2):115–28.

Nakagawa Y, Shaw R. Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery. Int J Mass Emerge Disasters. 2004;22(1):5–34.

Grootaert C, Narayan D, Jones VN, Woolcock M. Measuring social capital: an integrated questionnaire. Washington, DC: World Bank Working Paper, No. 18; 2004.

Adler PS, Kwon SW. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev. 2002;27(1):17–40.

Aldrich DP, Meyer MA. Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci. 2015;59(2):254–69.

Rodriguez-Llanes JM, Vos F, Guha-Sapir D. Measuring psychological resilience to disasters: are evidence-based indicators an achievable goal? Environ Health. 2013;12(1):115.

De Silva MJ, McKenzie K, Harpham T, Huttly SR. Social capital and mental Illness: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(8):619–27.

Bonanno GA, Galea S, Bucciarelli A, Vlahov D. Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the september 11th terrorist attack. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):181.

World Health Organization. Health 2020: a European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2013.

Public Health England. Community-Centred Public Health: Taking a Whole System Approach. 2020.

SPI-B. The role of Community Champion networks to increase engagement in the context of COVID19: Evidence and best practice. 2021.

Public Health England. Community champions: A rapid scoping review of community champion approaches for the pandemic response and recovery. 2021.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

World Health Organisation. WHO health evidence network synthesis report: what quantitative and qualitative methods have been developed to measure health-related community resilience at a national and local level. 2018.

Hall C, Williams N, Gauntlett L, Carter H, Amlôt R, Peterson L et al. Findings from systematic review of public perceptions and responses. PROACTIVE EU. Deliverable 1.1. 2019. Accessible at: https://proactive-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PROACTIVE_20210312_D1.1_V5_PHE_Systematic-Review-of-Public-Perceptions-and-Responses_revised.pdf .

Weston D, Ip A, Amlôt R. Examining the application of behaviour change theories in the context of Infectious disease outbreaks and emergency response: a review of reviews. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1483.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Patel SS, Rogers MB, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ. What do we mean by ‘community resilience’? A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the literature. PLoS Curr. 2017;9:ecurrents.dis.db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brooks SK, Weston D, Wessely S, Greenberg N. Effectiveness and acceptability of brief psychoeducational interventions after potentially traumatic events: a systematic review. Eur J Psychotraumatology. 2021;12(1):1923110.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):21–34.

Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:1–8.

Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):252–60.

Heid AR, Pruchno R, Cartwright FP, Wilson-Genderson M. Exposure to Hurricane Sandy, neighborhood collective efficacy, and post-traumatic stress symptoms in older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(7):742–50.

Hikichi H, Aida J, Tsuboya T, Kondo K, Kawachi I. Can community social cohesion prevent posttraumatic stress disorder in the aftermath of a disaster? A natural experiment from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(10):902–10.

Lee J, Blackmon BJ, Cochran DM, Kar B, Rehner TA, Gunnell MS. Community resilience, psychological resilience, and depressive symptoms: an examination of the Mississippi Gulf Coast 10 years after Hurricane Katrina and 5 years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Disaster med. 2018;12(2):241–8.

Lee J, Blackmon BJ, Lee JY, Cochran DM Jr, Rehner TA. An exploration of posttraumatic growth, loneliness, depression, resilience, and social capital among survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the deepwater Horizon oil spill. J Community Psychol. 2019;47(2):356–70.

Lowe SR, Sampson L, Gruebner O, Galea S. Psychological resilience after Hurricane Sandy: the influence of individual- and community-level factors on mental health after a large-scale natural disaster. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125761.

Rung AL, Gaston S, Robinson WT, Trapido EJ, Peters ES. Untangling the disaster-depression knot: the role of social ties after deepwater Horizon. Soc Sci Med. 2017;177:19–26.

Weil F, Lee MR, Shihadeh ES. The burdens of social capital: how socially-involved people dealt with stress after Hurricane Katrina. Soc Sci Res. 2012;41(1):110–9.

Hikichi H, Aida J, Matsuyama Y, Tsuboya T, Kondo K, Kawachi I. Community-level social capital and cognitive decline after a Natural Disaster: a natural experiment from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Soc Sci Med. 2018;257:111981.

Lau AL, Chi I, Cummins RA, Lee TM, Chou KL, Chung LW. The SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) pandemic in Hong Kong: effects on the subjective wellbeing of elderly and younger people. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12(6):746–60.

Sun Y, Yan T. The use of public health indicators to assess individual happiness in post-disaster recovery. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4101.

Wong H, Huang Y, Fu Y, Zhang Y. Impacts of structural social capital and cognitive social capital on the psychological status of survivors of the yaan Earthquake. Appl Res Qual Life. 2018;14:1411–33.

Xiao H, Zhang Y, Kong D, Li S, Yang N. Social capital and sleep quality in individuals who self-isolated for 14 days during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in January 2020 in China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923921.

PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Matsuyama Y, Aida J, Hase A, Sato Y, Koyama S, Tsuboya T, et al. Do community- and individual-level social relationships contribute to the mental health of disaster survivors? A multilevel prospective study after the great East Japan earthquake. Soc Sci Med. 2016;151:187–95.

Ozaki A, Horiuchi S, Kobayashi Y, Inoue M, Aida J, Leppold C, Yamaoka K. Beneficial roles of social support for mental health vary in the Japanese population depending on disaster experience: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2018;246(4):213–23.

Sato K, Amemiya A, Haseda M, Takagi D, Kanamori M, Kondo K, et al. Post-disaster changes in Social Capital and Mental Health: a natural experiment from the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(9):910–21.

Tsuchiya N, Nakaya N, Nakamura T, Narita A, Kogure M, Aida J, Tsuji I, Hozawa A, Tomita H. Impact of social capital on psychological distress and interaction with house destruction and displacement after the great East Japan earthquake of 2011. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017;71(1):52–60.

Brockie L, Miller E. Understanding older adults’ resilience during the Brisbane floods: social capital, life experience, and optimism. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2017;11(1):72–9.

Caldwell K, Boyd CP. Coping and resilience in farming families affected by drought. Rural Remote Health. 2009;9(2):1088.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Huang Y, Tan NT, Liu J. Support, sense of community, and psychological status in the survivors of the Yaan earthquake. J Community Psychol. 2016;44(7):919–36.

Wind T, Fordham M, Komproe H. Social capital and post-disaster mental health. Glob Health Action. 2011;4(1):6351.

Wind T, Komproe IH. The mechanisms that associate community social capital with post-disaster mental health: a multilevel model. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(9):1715–20.

Hogg D, Kingham S, Wilson TM, Ardagh M. The effects of spatially varying earthquake impacts on mood and anxiety symptom treatments among long-term Christchurch residents following the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquakes, New Zealand. Health Place. 2016;41:78–88.

Flores EC, Carnero AM, Bayer AM. Social capital and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder among survivors of the 2007 earthquake in Pisco, Peru. Soc Sci Med. 2014;101:9–17.

Rafiey H, Alipour F, LeBeau R, Salimi Y, Ahmadi S. Exploring the buffering role of social capital in the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms among Iranian earthquake survivors. Psychol Trauma. 2019;14(6):1040–6.

Babcicky P, Seebauer S. The two faces of social capital in private Flood mitigation: opposing effects on risk perception, self-efficacy and coping capacity. J Risk Res. 2017;20(8):1017–37.

Bakic H, Ajdukovic D. Stability and change post-disaster: dynamic relations between individual, interpersonal and community resources and psychosocial functioning. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2019;10(1):1614821.

Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93–114.

Lindberg K, Swearingen T. A reflective thrive-oriented community resilience scale. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;65(3–4):467–78.

Leykin D, Lahad M, Cohen O, Goldberg A, Aharonson-Daniel L. Conjoint community resiliency assessment measure-28/10 items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): a self-report tool for assessing community resilience. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;52:313–23.

Sherrieb K, Norris FH, Galea S. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Soc Indic Res. 2010;99:227–47.

Ehsan AM, De Silva MJ. Social capital and common mental disorder: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(10):1021–8.

Pfefferbaum B, Van Horn RL, Pfefferbaum RL. A conceptual framework to enhance community resilience using social capital. Clin Soc Work J. 2017;45(2):102–10.

Carmen E, Fazey I, Ross H, Bedinger M, Smith FM, Prager K, et al. Building community resilience in a context of climate change: the role of social capital. Ambio. 2022;51(6):1371–87.

Humbert C, Joseph J. Introduction: the politics of resilience: problematising current approaches. Resilience. 2019;7(3):215–23.

Tanner T, Bahadur A, Moench M. Challenges for resilience policy and practice. Working paper: 519. 2017.

Vadivel R, Shoib S, El Halabi S, El Hayek S, Essam L, Bytyçi DG. Mental health in the post-COVID-19 era: challenges and the way forward. Gen Psychiatry. 2021;34(1):e100424.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pryor M. Social Capital Harmonised Standard. London: Government Statistical Service. 2021. Accessible at: https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/policystore/social-capital/ .

Public Health England NE. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing. 2015.

Hawe P. Capturing the meaning of ‘community’ in community intervention evaluation: some contributions from community psychology. Health Promot Int. 1994;9(3):199–210.

Uphoff EP, Pickett KE, Cabieses B, Small N, Wright J. A systematic review of the relationships between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health: a contribution to understanding the psychosocial pathway of health inequalities. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:1–12.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between Public Health England, King’s College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, Public Health England, the UK Health Security Agency or the Department of Health and Social Care [Grant number: NIHR20008900]. Part of this work has been funded by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Department of Health and Social Care, as part of a Collaborative Agreement with Leeds Beckett University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, Evaluation & Translation Directorate, Science Group, UK Health Security Agency, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG, UK

C. E. Hall, H. Wehling, R. Amlôt & D. Weston

Health Protection Research Unit, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

C. E. Hall, S. K. Brooks & N. Greenberg

School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Portland Building, PD519, Portland Place, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK

J. Stansfield & J. South

King’s Centre for Military Health Research, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

N. Greenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DW, JSo and JSt had the main idea for the review. The search strategy and eligibility criteria were devised by CH, DW, JSo and JSt. CH conducted the database searches. CH and DW conducted duplicate, title and abstract and full text screening in accordance with inclusion criteria. CH conducted data extraction, CH and DW carried out the analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. All authors provided critical revision of intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to D. Weston .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., additional file 3., additional file 4., additional file 5., 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hall, C.E., Wehling, H., Stansfield, J. et al. Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental health in public health emergency and disaster response: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 23 , 2482 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17242-x

Download citation

Received : 04 April 2022

Accepted : 16 November 2023

Published : 12 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17242-x

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

• Mental health
• Community cohesion
• Public health emergency

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Yes, we’re divided. But new AP-NORC poll shows Americans still agree on most core American values

Most U.S. adults share many core values on what it means to be an American despite the country’s deep political polarization according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

FILE - The Capitol is seen as water sprinklers soak the National Mall on a hot summer morning in Washington, July 15, 2022. A new poll finds that most Americans share many core values on what it means to be an American despite the country’s deep political polarization. The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 9 in 10 U.S. adults say the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law and the right to privacy are important or very important to the U.S.’s identity as a nation.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite the country’s deep political polarization, most Americans share many core beliefs about what it means to be an American, according to a new poll.

The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 9 in 10 U.S. adults say the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law and the right to privacy are extremely important or very important to the United States’ identity as a nation. The survey also found that 84% feel the same way about the freedom of religion.

The results, which included perspectives on a number of different freedoms and rights, have only small variances between Republicans and Democrats except on the right to bear arms, which Republicans are more likely to see as core to the nation’s identity. The overall findings are striking because they come at a time of extreme partisanship when political agreements seem rare and concerns are heightened over the potential for violence during a volatile presidential election year.

“If you get a bunch of normal people at random and put them in a room together and chat about issues, there’s a lot more convergence than you might imagine,” said Michael Albertus, a political science professor at the University of Chicago.

A more pessimistic assessment of the country was reflected in another finding — that only about 3 in 10 Americans believe the nation’s democracy is functioning well. About half say the U.S. is a poorly functioning democracy, while 14% say the U.S. is not a democracy.

The tension between the broad consensus on the country’s fundamental values and discontent with how well its form of government is working is not a surprise, experts say.

“Part of it is really our leaders are not reflecting the electorate, and they behave in a way that’s much more polarized than what the electorate is,” said Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University.

Most Americans, she said, “are pretty moderate, but they’ve been riled up to hate people of the other party for being different from them culturally, racially and religiously.”

The AP-NORC poll also found broad agreement on the importance of some key values for the U.S.’s identity as a country. About three-quarters of U.S. adults agree that a democratically elected government is extremely or very important, and about 8 in 10 think the same about the ability of people living in the U.S. to get good jobs and achieve the American dream.

But what achieving that dream means — and which values are most fundamental to American culture — isn’t something all Americans agree on.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans — 71% to 38% — to believe that the ability to come to the U.S. from elsewhere in the world to escape violence or find economic opportunities is core to the country’s identity. A majority of Republicans, 58%, think a culture grounded in Christian values and beliefs is an essential characteristic, compared to only 18% of Democrats.

Juan Sierra, 51, a naturalized citizen whose family immigrated from the Dominican Republic after a hurricane destroyed his father’s cement business, said it is very important to him that the U.S. be seen as a place of opportunity.

The Capitol is seen as water sprinklers soak the National Mall on a hot summer morning in Washington, July 15, 2022. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The industrial technician in Port St. Lucie, Florida, said he believes democracy is working and will continue to do so “as long as there are good people in government.”

Sierra also said it was extremely important that people have freedom of religion, although he had concerns over the nation’s identity being tied to Christianity.

“We’re seeing what happens right now when laws are passed and decisions are made based on someone’s religion,” he said, citing the Alabama Supreme Court ruling in February that frozen embryos can be considered children and be afforded legal protections, a decision that temporarily halted IVF procedures in the state.

Susan Johnson, a 76-year-old Republican living in the Dallas suburbs, said the nation’s standing as a beacon to others who need refuge is very important, but said that could not override concerns about border security.

“We need people working,” she said. “We just need them to come the right way.”

Johnson also said she believes it’s extremely important that the nation’s identity be grounded in spirituality.

“Whether or not you’re Mormon or a Muslim or a Christian, they just have to have some higher power to reach up to,” she said. “The country is going to fall apart if we don’t believe in God.”

The poll found few divisions on democracy as a system in theory, but it identified one notable gap: younger Americans between the ages of 18 to 29 were less likely than those 60 and older to say the U.S. is a well-functioning democracy. They’re also less likely than older Americans to believe that some characteristics are essential to the U.S.’s character as a nation, including having a democratically elected government. About 6 in 10 younger adults see this as important, compared to about 9 in 10 older adults.

Palakjot Singh, a 21-year-old college student in Fresno, California, identified himself as a Republican and said he had a better quality of life when Donald Trump was president. He said the U.S. is not a well-functioning democracy in part because people are not open to debating different points of view compared to previous generations.

“There is not good communication,” he said. “Nobody is sitting together trying to get to one point.”

Howard Lavine, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, said the generational split is understandable. Many younger people don’t remember a time when those with opposing views and from different political backgrounds could get together and “come over to your house.” Their frame of reference is the hyper partisanship of the Trump years, he said.

Joe Lagle, 55, a retired Air Force veteran in Colorado Springs who said he has not voted for either President Joe Biden or Trump, said the nation’s various rights are “all important” but believes they are being eroded by intolerance and well-meaning but shortsighted people.

Mike Maloy, 41, an engineer in Greensboro, North Carolina, said having those rights and freedoms “doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. is a functioning democracy.”

“Everything is run by a handful of people and their corporations,” he said. “That’s not a democracy.”

A Democrat, Maloy cited as an example this year’s presidential primary in North Carolina, when Biden was the lone candidate on the ballot. He called that “frustrating” and said the result was that voters “had no choice.”

The poll of 1,282 adults was conducted March 21-25, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Associated Press polling writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here . The AP is solely responsible for all content.

How Do You Formulate (Important) Hypotheses?

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

10k Accesses

Building on the ideas in Chap. 1, we describe formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses as a continuing cycle of clarifying what you want to study, making predictions about what you might find together with developing your reasons for these predictions, imagining tests of these predictions, revising your predictions and rationales, and so on. Many resources feed this process, including reading what others have found about similar phenomena, talking with colleagues, conducting pilot studies, and writing drafts as you revise your thinking. Although you might think you cannot predict what you will find, it is always possible—with enough reading and conversations and pilot studies—to make some good guesses. And, once you guess what you will find and write out the reasons for these guesses you are on your way to scientific inquiry. As you refine your hypotheses, you can assess their research importance by asking how connected they are to problems your research community really wants to solve.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. Getting Started

We want to begin by addressing a question you might have had as you read the title of this chapter. You are likely to hear, or read in other sources, that the research process begins by asking research questions . For reasons we gave in Chap. 1 , and more we will describe in this and later chapters, we emphasize formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. However, it is important to know that asking and answering research questions involve many of the same activities, so we are not describing a completely different process.

We acknowledge that many researchers do not actually begin by formulating hypotheses. In other words, researchers rarely get a researchable idea by writing out a well-formulated hypothesis. Instead, their initial ideas for what they study come from a variety of sources. Then, after they have the idea for a study, they do lots of background reading and thinking and talking before they are ready to formulate a hypothesis. So, for readers who are at the very beginning and do not yet have an idea for a study, let’s back up. Where do research ideas come from?

There are no formulas or algorithms that spawn a researchable idea. But as you begin the process, you can ask yourself some questions. Your answers to these questions can help you move forward.

What are you curious about? What are you passionate about? What have you wondered about as an educator? These are questions that look inward, questions about yourself.

What do you think are the most pressing educational problems? Which problems are you in the best position to address? What change(s) do you think would help all students learn more productively? These are questions that look outward, questions about phenomena you have observed.

What are the main areas of research in the field? What are the big questions that are being asked? These are questions about the general landscape of the field.

What have you read about in the research literature that caught your attention? What have you read that prompted you to think about extending the profession’s knowledge about this? What have you read that made you ask, “I wonder why this is true?” These are questions about how you can build on what is known in the field.

What are some research questions or testable hypotheses that have been identified by other researchers for future research? This, too, is a question about how you can build on what is known in the field. Taking up such questions or hypotheses can help by providing some existing scaffolding that others have constructed.

What research is being done by your immediate colleagues or your advisor that is of interest to you? These are questions about topics for which you will likely receive local support.

Exercise 2.1

Brainstorm some answers for each set of questions. Record them. Then step back and look at the places of intersection. Did you have similar answers across several questions? Write out, as clearly as you can, the topic that captures your primary interest, at least at this point. We will give you a chance to update your responses as you study this book.

Part II. Paths from a General Interest to an Informed Hypothesis

There are many different paths you might take from conceiving an idea for a study, maybe even a vague idea, to formulating a prediction that leads to an informed hypothesis that can be tested. We will explore some of the paths we recommend.

We will assume you have completed Exercise 2.1 in Part I and have some written answers to the six questions that preceded it as well as a statement that describes your topic of interest. This very first statement could take several different forms: a description of a problem you want to study, a question you want to address, or a hypothesis you want to test. We recommend that you begin with one of these three forms, the one that makes most sense to you. There is an advantage to using all three and flexibly choosing the one that is most meaningful at the time and for a particular study. You can then move from one to the other as you think more about your research study and you develop your initial idea. To get a sense of how the process might unfold, consider the following alternative paths.

Beginning with a Prediction If You Have One

Sometimes, when you notice an educational problem or have a question about an educational situation or phenomenon, you quickly have an idea that might help solve the problem or answer the question. Here are three examples.

You are a teacher, and you noticed a problem with the way the textbook presented two related concepts in two consecutive lessons. Almost as soon as you noticed the problem, it occurred to you that the two lessons could be taught more effectively in the reverse order. You predicted better outcomes if the order was reversed, and you even had a preliminary rationale for why this would be true.

You are a graduate student and you read that students often misunderstand a particular aspect of graphing linear functions. You predicted that, by listening to small groups of students working together, you could hear new details that would help you understand this misconception.

You are a curriculum supervisor and you observed sixth-grade classrooms where students were learning about decimal fractions. After talking with several experienced teachers, you predicted that beginning with percentages might be a good way to introduce students to decimal fractions.

We begin with the path of making predictions because we see the other two paths as leading into this one at some point in the process (see Fig. 2.1 ). Starting with this path does not mean you did not sense a problem you wanted to solve or a question you wanted to answer.

Three Pathways to Formulating Informed Hypotheses

Notice that your predictions can come from a variety of sources—your own experience, reading, and talking with colleagues. Most likely, as you write out your predictions you also think about the educational problem for which your prediction is a potential solution. Writing a clear description of the problem will be useful as you proceed. Notice also that it is easy to change each of your predictions into a question. When you formulate a prediction, you are actually answering a question, even though the question might be implicit. Making that implicit question explicit can generate a first draft of the research question that accompanies your prediction. For example, suppose you are the curriculum supervisor who predicts that teaching percentages first would be a good way to introduce decimal fractions. In an obvious shift in form, you could ask, “In what ways would teaching percentages benefit students’ initial learning of decimal fractions?”

There are advantages to starting with the prediction form if you can make an educated guess about what you will find. Making a prediction forces you to think now about several things you will need to think about at some point anyway. It is better to think about them earlier rather than later. If you state your prediction clearly and explicitly, you can begin to ask yourself three questions about your prediction: Why do I expect to observe what I am predicting? Why did I make that prediction? (These two questions essentially ask what your rationale is for your prediction.) And, how can I test to see if it’s right? This is where the benefits of making predictions begin.

Asking yourself why you predicted what you did, and then asking yourself why you answered the first “why” question as you did, can be a powerful chain of thought that lays the groundwork for an increasingly accurate prediction and an increasingly well-reasoned rationale. For example, suppose you are the curriculum supervisor above who predicted that beginning by teaching percentages would be a good way to introduce students to decimal fractions. Why did you make this prediction? Maybe because students are familiar with percentages in everyday life so they could use what they know to anchor their thinking about hundredths. Why would that be helpful? Because if students could connect hundredths in percentage form with hundredths in decimal fraction form, they could bring their meaning of percentages into decimal fractions. But how would that help? If students understood that a decimal fraction like 0.35 meant 35 of 100, then they could use their understanding of hundredths to explore the meaning of tenths, thousandths, and so on. Why would that be useful? By continuing to ask yourself why you gave the previous answer, you can begin building your rationale and, as you build your rationale, you will find yourself revisiting your prediction, often making it more precise and explicit. If you were the curriculum supervisor and continued the reasoning in the previous sentences, you might elaborate your prediction by specifying the way in which percentages should be taught in order to have a positive effect on particular aspects of students’ understanding of decimal fractions.

Developing a Rationale for Your Predictions

Keeping your initial predictions in mind, you can read what others already know about the phenomenon. Your reading can now become targeted with a clear purpose.

By reading and talking with colleagues, you can develop more complete reasons for your predictions. It is likely that you will also decide to revise your predictions based on what you learn from your reading. As you develop sound reasons for your predictions, you are creating your rationales, and your predictions together with your rationales become your hypotheses. The more you learn about what is already known about your research topic, the more refined will be your predictions and the clearer and more complete your rationales. We will use the term more informed hypotheses to describe this evolution of your hypotheses.

Developing more informed hypotheses is a good thing because it means: (1) you understand the reasons for your predictions; (2) you will be able to imagine how you can test your hypotheses; (3) you can more easily convince your colleagues that they are important hypotheses—they are hypotheses worth testing; and (4) at the end of your study, you will be able to more easily interpret the results of your test and to revise your hypotheses to demonstrate what you have learned by conducting the study.

Imagining Testing Your Hypotheses

Because we have tied together predictions and rationales to constitute hypotheses, testing hypotheses means testing predictions and rationales. Testing predictions means comparing empirical observations, or findings, with the predictions. Testing rationales means using these comparisons to evaluate the adequacy or soundness of the rationales.

Imagining how you might test your hypotheses does not mean working out the details for exactly how you would test them. Rather, it means thinking ahead about how you could do this. Recall the descriptor of scientific inquiry: “experience carefully planned in advance” (Fisher, 1935). Asking whether predictions are testable and whether rationales can be evaluated is simply planning in advance.

You might read that testing hypotheses means simply assessing whether predictions are correct or incorrect. In our view, it is more useful to think of testing as a means of gathering enough information to compare your findings with your predictions, revise your rationales, and propose more accurate predictions. So, asking yourself whether hypotheses can be tested means asking whether information could be collected to assess the accuracy of your predictions and whether the information will show you how to revise your rationales to sharpen your predictions.

Cycles of Building Rationales and Planning to Test Your Predictions

Scientific reasoning is a dialogue between the possible and the actual, an interplay between hypotheses and the logical expectations they give rise to: there is a restless to-and-fro motion of thought, the formulation and rectification of hypotheses (Medawar, 1982 , p.72).

As you ask yourself about how you could test your predictions, you will inevitably revise your rationales and sharpen your predictions. Your hypotheses will become more informed, more targeted, and more explicit. They will make clearer to you and others what, exactly, you plan to study.

When will you know that your hypotheses are clear and precise enough? Because of the way we define hypotheses, this question asks about both rationales and predictions. If a rationale you are building lets you make a number of quite different predictions that are equally plausible rather than a single, primary prediction, then your hypothesis needs further refinement by building a more complete and precise rationale. Also, if you cannot briefly describe to your colleagues a believable way to test your prediction, then you need to phrase it more clearly and precisely.

Each time you strengthen your rationales, you might need to adjust your predictions. And, each time you clarify your predictions, you might need to adjust your rationales. The cycle of going back and forth to keep your predictions and rationales tightly aligned has many payoffs down the road. Every decision you make from this point on will be in the interests of providing a transparent and convincing test of your hypotheses and explaining how the results of your test dictate specific revisions to your hypotheses. As you make these decisions (described in the succeeding chapters), you will probably return to clarify your hypotheses even further. But, you will be in a much better position, at each point, if you begin with well-informed hypotheses.

Beginning by Asking Questions to Clarify Your Interests

Instead of starting with predictions, a second path you might take devotes more time at the beginning to asking questions as you zero in on what you want to study. Some researchers suggest you start this way (e.g., Gournelos et al., 2019 ). Specifically, with this second path, the first statement you write to express your research interest would be a question. For example, you might ask, “Why do ninth-grade students change the way they think about linear equations after studying quadratic equations?” or “How do first graders solve simple arithmetic problems before they have been taught to add and subtract?”

The first phrasing of your question might be quite general or vague. As you think about your question and what you really want to know, you are likely to ask follow-up questions. These questions will almost always be more specific than your first question. The questions will also express more clearly what you want to know. So, the question “How do first graders solve simple arithmetic problems before they have been taught to add and subtract” might evolve into “Before first graders have been taught to solve arithmetic problems, what strategies do they use to solve arithmetic problems with sums and products below 20?” As you read and learn about what others already know about your questions, you will continually revise your questions toward clearer and more explicit and more precise versions that zero in on what you really want to know. The question above might become, “Before they are taught to solve arithmetic problems, what strategies do beginning first graders use to solve arithmetic problems with sums and products below 20 if they are read story problems and given physical counters to help them keep track of the quantities?”

Imagining Answers to Your Questions

If you monitor your own thinking as you ask questions, you are likely to begin forming some guesses about answers, even to the early versions of the questions. What do students learn about quadratic functions that influences changes in their proportional reasoning when dealing with linear functions? It could be that if you analyze the moments during instruction on quadratic equations that are extensions of the proportional reasoning involved in solving linear equations, there are times when students receive further experience reasoning proportionally. You might predict that these are the experiences that have a “backward transfer” effect (Hohensee, 2014 ).

These initial guesses about answers to your questions are your first predictions. The first predicted answers are likely to be hunches or fuzzy, vague guesses. This simply means you do not know very much yet about the question you are asking. Your first predictions, no matter how unfocused or tentative, represent the most you know at the time about the question you are asking. They help you gauge where you are in your thinking.

Shifting to the Hypothesis Formulation and Testing Path

Research questions can play an important role in the research process. They provide a succinct way of capturing your research interests and communicating them to others. When colleagues want to know about your work, they will often ask “What are your research questions?” It is good to have a ready answer.

However, research questions have limitations. They do not capture the three images of scientific inquiry presented in Chap. 1 . Due, in part, to this less expansive depiction of the process, research questions do not take you very far. They do not provide a guide that leads you through the phases of conducting a study.

Consequently, when you can imagine an answer to your research question, we recommend that you move onto the hypothesis formulation and testing path. Imagining an answer to your question means you can make plausible predictions. You can now begin clarifying the reasons for your predictions and transform your early predictions into hypotheses (predictions along with rationales). We recommend you do this as soon as you have guesses about the answers to your questions because formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses offers a tool that puts you squarely on the path of scientific inquiry. It is a tool that can guide you through the entire process of conducting a research study.

This does not mean you are finished asking questions. Predictions are often created as answers to questions. So, we encourage you to continue asking questions to clarify what you want to know. But your target shifts from only asking questions to also proposing predictions for the answers and developing reasons the answers will be accurate predictions. It is by predicting answers, and explaining why you made those predictions, that you become engaged in scientific inquiry.

Cycles of Refining Questions and Predicting Answers

An example might provide a sense of how this process plays out. Suppose you are reading about Vygotsky’s ( 1987 ) zone of proximal development (ZPD), and you realize this concept might help you understand why your high school students had trouble learning exponential functions. Maybe they were outside this zone when you tried to teach exponential functions. In order to recognize students who would benefit from instruction, you might ask, “How can I identify students who are within the ZPD around exponential functions?” What would you predict? Maybe students in this ZPD are those who already had knowledge of related functions. You could write out some reasons for this prediction, like “students who understand linear and quadratic functions are more likely to extend their knowledge to exponential functions.” But what kind of data would you need to test this? What would count as “understanding”? Are linear and quadratic the functions you should assess? Even if they are, how could you tell whether students who scored well on tests of linear and quadratic functions were within the ZPD of exponential functions? How, in the end, would you measure what it means to be in this ZPD? So, asking a series of reasonable questions raised some red flags about the way your initial question was phrased, and you decide to revise it.

You set the stage for revising your question by defining ZPD as the zone within which students can solve an exponential function problem by making only one additional conceptual connection between what they already know and exponential functions. Your revised question is, “Based on students’ knowledge of linear and quadratic functions, which students are within the ZPD of exponential functions?” This time you know what kind of data you need: the number of conceptual connections students need to bridge from their knowledge of related functions to exponential functions. How can you collect these data? Would you need to see into the minds of the students? Or, are there ways to test the number of conceptual connections someone makes to move from one topic to another? Do methods exist for gathering these data? You decide this is not realistic, so you now have a choice: revise the question further or move your research in a different direction.

Notice that we do not use the term research question for all these early versions of questions that begin clarifying for yourself what you want to study. These early versions are too vague and general to be called research questions. In this book, we save the term research question for a question that comes near the end of the work and captures exactly what you want to study . By the time you are ready to specify a research question, you will be thinking about your study in terms of hypotheses and tests. When your hypotheses are in final form and include clear predictions about what you will find, it will be easy to state the research questions that accompany your predictions.

To reiterate one of the key points of this chapter: hypotheses carry much more information than research questions. Using our definition, hypotheses include predictions about what the answer might be to the question plus reasons for why you think so. Unlike research questions, hypotheses capture all three images of scientific inquiry presented in Chap. 1 (planning, observing and explaining, and revising one’s thinking). Your hypotheses represent the most you know, at the moment, about your research topic. The same cannot be said for research questions.

Beginning with a Research Problem

When you wrote answers to the six questions at the end of Part I of this chapter, you might have identified a research interest by stating it as a problem. This is the third path you might take to begin your research. Perhaps your description of your problem might look something like this: “When I tried to teach my middle school students by presenting them with a challenging problem without showing them how to solve similar problems, they didn’t exert much effort trying to find a solution but instead waited for me to show them how to solve the problem.” You do not have a specific question in mind, and you do not have an idea for why the problem exists, so you do not have a prediction about how to solve it. Writing a statement of this problem as clearly as possible could be the first step in your research journey.

As you think more about this problem, it will feel natural to ask questions about it. For example, why did some students show more initiative than others? What could I have done to get them started? How could I have encouraged the students to keep trying without giving away the solution? You are now on the path of asking questions—not research questions yet, but questions that are helping you focus your interest.

As you continue to think about these questions, reflect on your own experience, and read what others know about this problem, you will likely develop some guesses about the answers to the questions. They might be somewhat vague answers, and you might not have lots of confidence they are correct, but they are guesses that you can turn into predictions. Now you are on the hypothesis-formulation-and-testing path. This means you are on the path of asking yourself why you believe the predictions are correct, developing rationales for the predictions, asking what kinds of empirical observations would test your predictions, and refining your rationales and predictions as you read the literature and talk with colleagues.

A simple diagram that summarizes the three paths we have described is shown in Fig. 2.1 . Each row of arrows represents one pathway for formulating an informed hypothesis. The dotted arrows in the first two rows represent parts of the pathways that a researcher may have implicitly travelled through already (without an intent to form a prediction) but that ultimately inform the researcher’s development of a question or prediction.

Part III. One Researcher’s Experience Launching a Scientific Inquiry

Martha was in her third year of her doctoral program and beginning to identify a topic for her dissertation. Based on (a) her experience as a high school mathematics teacher and a curriculum supervisor, (b) the reading she has done to this point, and (c) her conversations with her colleagues, she has developed an interest in what kinds of professional development experiences (let’s call them learning opportunities [LOs] for teachers) are most effective. Where does she go from here?

Exercise 2.2

Before you continue reading, please write down some suggestions for Martha about where she should start.

A natural thing for Martha to do at this point is to ask herself some additional questions, questions that specify further what she wants to learn: What kinds of LOs do most teachers experience? How do these experiences change teachers’ practices and beliefs? Are some LOs more effective than others? What makes them more effective?

To focus her questions and decide what she really wants to know, she continues reading but now targets her reading toward everything she can find that suggests possible answers to these questions. She also talks with her colleagues to get more ideas about possible answers to these or related questions. Over several weeks or months, she finds herself being drawn to questions about what makes LOs effective, especially for helping teachers teach more conceptually. She zeroes in on the question, “What makes LOs for teachers effective for improving their teaching for conceptual understanding?”

This question is more focused than her first questions, but it is still too general for Martha to define a research study. How does she know it is too general? She uses two criteria. First, she notices that the predictions she makes about the answers to the question are all over the place; they are not constrained by the reasons she has assembled for her predictions. One prediction is that LOs are more effective when they help teachers learn content. Martha makes this guess because previous research suggests that effective LOs for teachers include attention to content. But this rationale allows lots of different predictions. For example, LOs are more effective when they focus on the content teachers will teach; LOs are more effective when they focus on content beyond what teachers will teach so teachers see how their instruction fits with what their students will encounter later; and LOs are more effective when they are tailored to the level of content knowledge participants have when they begin the LOs. The rationale she can provide at this point does not point to a particular prediction.

A second measure Martha uses to decide her question is too general is that the predictions she can make regarding the answers seem very difficult to test. How could she test, for example, whether LOs should focus on content beyond what teachers will teach? What does “content beyond what teachers teach” mean? How could you tell whether teachers use their new knowledge of later content to inform their teaching?

Before anticipating what Martha’s next question might be, it is important to pause and recognize how predicting the answers to her questions moved Martha into a new phase in the research process. As she makes predictions, works out the reasons for them, and imagines how she might test them, she is immersed in scientific inquiry. This intellectual work is the main engine that drives the research process. Also notice that revisions in the questions asked, the predictions made, and the rationales built represent the updated thinking (Chap. 1 ) that occurs as Martha continues to define her study.

Based on all these considerations and her continued reading, Martha revises the question again. The question now reads, “Do LOs that engage middle school mathematics teachers in studying mathematics content help teachers teach this same content with more of a conceptual emphasis?” Although she feels like the question is more specific, she realizes that the answer to the question is either “yes” or “no.” This, by itself, is a red flag. Answers of “yes” or “no” would not contribute much to understanding the relationships between these LOs for teachers and changes in their teaching. Recall from Chap. 1 that understanding how things work, explaining why things work, is the goal of scientific inquiry.

Martha continues by trying to understand why she believes the answer is “yes.” When she tries to write out reasons for predicting “yes,” she realizes that her prediction depends on a variety of factors. If teachers already have deep knowledge of the content, the LOs might not affect them as much as other teachers. If the LOs do not help teachers develop their own conceptual understanding, they are not likely to change their teaching. By trying to build the rationale for her prediction—thus formulating a hypothesis—Martha realizes that the question still is not precise and clear enough.

Martha uses what she learned when developing the rationale and rephrases the question as follows: “ Under what conditions do LOs that engage middle school mathematics teachers in studying mathematics content help teachers teach this same content with more of a conceptual emphasis?” Through several additional cycles of thinking through the rationale for her predictions and how she might test them, Martha specifies her question even further: “Under what conditions do middle school teachers who lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions benefit from LOs that engage them in conceptual learning of linear functions as assessed by changes in their teaching toward a more conceptual emphasis on linear functions?”

Each version of Martha’s question has become more specific. This has occurred as she has (a) identified a starting condition for the teachers—they lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions, (b) specified the mathematics content as linear functions, and (c) included a condition or purpose of the LO—it is aimed at conceptual learning.

Because of the way Martha’s question is now phrased, her predictions will require thinking about the conditions that could influence what teachers learn from the LOs and how this learning could affect their teaching. She might predict that if teachers engaged in LOs that extended over multiple sessions, they would develop deeper understanding which would, in turn, prompt changes in their teaching. Or she might predict that if the LOs included examples of how their conceptual learning could translate into different instructional activities for their students, teachers would be more likely to change their teaching. Reasons for these predictions would likely come from research about the effects of professional development on teachers’ practice.

As Martha thinks about testing her predictions, she realizes it will probably be easier to measure the conditions under which teachers are learning than the changes in the conceptual emphasis in their instruction. She makes a note to continue searching the literature for ways to measure the “conceptualness” of teaching.

As she refines her predictions and expresses her reasons for the predictions, she formulates a hypothesis (in this case several hypotheses) that will guide her research. As she makes predictions and develops the rationales for these predictions, she will probably continue revising her question. She might decide, for example, that she is not interested in studying the condition of different numbers of LO sessions and so decides to remove this condition from consideration by including in her question something like “. . . over five 2-hour sessions . . .”

At this point, Martha has developed a research question, articulated a number of predictions, and developed rationales for them. Her current question is: “Under what conditions do middle school teachers who lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions benefit from five 2-hour LO sessions that engage them in conceptual learning of linear functions as assessed by changes in their teaching toward a more conceptual emphasis on linear functions?” Her hypothesis is:

Prediction: Participating teachers will show changes in their teaching with a greater emphasis on conceptual understanding, with larger changes on linear function topics directly addressed in the LOs than on other topics.

Brief Description of Rationale: (1) Past research has shown correlations between teachers’ specific mathematics knowledge of a topic and the quality of their teaching of that topic. This does not mean an increase in knowledge causes higher quality teaching but it allows for that possibility. (2) Transfer is usually difficult for teachers, but the examples developed during the LO sessions will help them use what they learned to teach for conceptual understanding. This is because the examples developed during the LO sessions are much like those that will be used by the teachers. So larger changes will be found when teachers are teaching the linear function topics addressed in the LOs.

Notice it is more straightforward to imagine how Martha could test this prediction because it is more precise than previous predictions. Notice also that by asking how to test a particular prediction, Martha will be faced with a decision about whether testing this prediction will tell her something she wants to learn. If not, she can return to the research question and consider how to specify it further and, perhaps, constrain further the conditions that could affect the data.

As Martha formulates her hypotheses and goes through multiple cycles of refining her question(s), articulating her predictions, and developing her rationales, she is constantly building the theoretical framework for her study. Because the theoretical framework is the topic for Chap. 3 , we will pause here and pick up Martha’s story in the next chapter. Spoiler alert: Martha’s experience contains some surprising twists and turns.

Before leaving Martha, however, we point out two aspects of the process in which she has been engaged. First, it can be useful to think about the process as identifying (1) the variables targeted in her predictions, (2) the mechanisms she believes explain the relationships among the variables, and (3) the definitions of all the terms that are special to her educational problem. By variables, we mean things that can be measured and, when measured, can take on different values. In Martha’s case, the variables are the conceptualness of teaching and the content topics addressed in the LOs. The mechanisms are cognitive processes that enable teachers to see the relevance of what they learn in PD to their own teaching and that enable the transfer of learning from one setting to another. Definitions are the precise descriptions of how the important ideas relevant to the research are conceptualized. In Martha’s case, definitions must be provided for terms like conceptual understanding, linear functions, LOs, each of the topics related to linear functions, instructional setting, and knowledge transfer.

A second aspect of the process is a practice that Martha acquired as part of her graduate program, a practice that can go unnoticed. Martha writes out, in full sentences, her thinking as she wrestles with her research question, her predictions of the answers, and the rationales for her predictions. Writing is a tool for organizing thinking and we recommend you use it throughout the scientific inquiry process. We say more about this at the end of the chapter.

Here are the questions Martha wrote as she developed a clearer sense of what question she wanted to answer and what answer she predicted. The list shows the increasing refinement that occurred as she continued to read, think, talk, and write.

Early questions: What kinds of LOs do most teachers experience? How do these experiences change teachers’ practices and beliefs? Are some LOs more effective than others? What makes them more effective?

First focused question: What makes LOs for teachers effective for improving their teaching for conceptual understanding?

Question after trying to predict the answer and imagining how to test the prediction: Do LOs that engage middle school mathematics teachers in studying mathematics content help teachers teach this same content with more of a conceptual emphasis?

Question after developing an initial rationale for her prediction: Under what conditions do LOs that engage middle school mathematics teachers in studying mathematics content help teachers teach this same content with more of a conceptual emphasis?

Question after developing a more precise prediction and richer rationale: Under what conditions do middle school teachers who lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions benefit from five 2-hour LO sessions that engage them in conceptual learning of linear functions as assessed by changes in their teaching toward a more conceptual emphasis on linear functions?

Part IV. An Illustrative Dialogue

The story of Martha described the major steps she took to refine her thinking. However, there is a lot of work that went on behind the scenes that wasn’t part of the story. For example, Martha had conversations with fellow students and professors that sharpened her thinking. What do these conversations look like? Because they are such an important part of the inquiry process, it will be helpful to “listen in” on the kinds of conversations that students might have with their advisors.

Here is a dialogue between a beginning student, Sam (S), and their advisor, Dr. Avery (A). They are meeting to discuss data Sam collected for a course project. The dialogue below is happening very early on in Sam’s conceptualization of the study, prior even to systematic reading of the literature.

Thanks for meeting with me today. As you know, I was able to collect some data for a course project a few weeks ago, but I’m having trouble analyzing the data, so I need your help. Let me try to explain the problem. As you know, I wanted to understand what middle-school teachers do to promote girls’ achievement in a mathematics class. I conducted four observations in each of three teachers’ classrooms. I also interviewed each teacher once about the four lessons I observed, and I interviewed two girls from each of the teachers’ classes. Obviously, I have a ton of data. But when I look at all these data, I don’t really know what I learned about my topic. When I was observing the teachers, I thought I might have observed some ways the teachers were promoting girls’ achievement, but then I wasn’t sure how to interpret my data. I didn’t know if the things I was observing were actually promoting girls’ achievement.

What were some of your observations?

Well, in a couple of my classroom observations, teachers called on girls to give an answer, even when the girls didn’t have their hands up. I thought that this might be a way that teachers were promoting the girls’ achievement. But then the girls didn’t say anything about that when I interviewed them and also the teachers didn’t do it in every class. So, it’s hard to know what effect, if any, this might have had on their learning or their motivation to learn. I didn’t want to ask the girls during the interview specifically about the teacher calling on them, and without the girls bringing it up themselves, I didn’t know if it had any effect.

Well, why didn’t you want to ask the girls about being called on?

Because I wanted to leave it as open as possible; I didn’t want to influence what they were going to say. I didn’t want to put words in their mouths. I wanted to know what they thought the teacher was doing that promoted their mathematical achievement and so I only asked the girls general questions, like “Do you think the teacher does things to promote girls’ mathematical achievement?” and “Can you describe specific experiences you have had that you believe do and do not promote your mathematical achievement?”

So then, how did they answer those general questions?

Well, with very general answers, such as that the teacher knows their names, offers review sessions, grades their homework fairly, gives them opportunities to earn extra credit, lets them ask questions, and always answers their questions. Nothing specific that helps me know what teaching actions specifically target girls’ mathematics achievement.

OK. Any ideas about what you might do next?

Well, I remember that when I was planning this data collection for my course, you suggested I might want to be more targeted and specific about what I was looking for. I can see now that more targeted questions would have made my data more interpretable in terms of connecting teaching actions to the mathematical achievement of girls. But I just didn’t want to influence what the girls would say.

Yes, I remember when you were planning your course project, you wanted to keep it open. You didn’t want to miss out on discovering something new and interesting. What do you think now about this issue?

Well, I still don’t want to put words in their mouths. I want to know what they think. But I see that if I ask really open questions, I have no guarantee they will talk about what I want them to talk about. I guess I still like the idea of an open study, but I see that it’s a risky approach. Leaving the questions too open meant I didn’t constrain their responses and there were too many ways they could interpret and answer the questions. And there are too many ways I could interpret their responses.

By this point in the dialogue, Sam has realized that open data (i.e., data not testing a specific prediction) is difficult to interpret. In the next part, Dr. Avery explains why collecting open data was not helping Sam achieve goals for her study that had motivated collecting open data in the first place.

Yes, I totally agree. Even for an experienced researcher, it can be difficult to make sense of this kind of open, messy data. However, if you design a study with a more specific focus, you can create questions for participants that are more targeted because you will be interested in their answers to these specific questions. Let’s reflect back on your data collection. What can you learn from it for the future?

When I think about it now, I realize that I didn’t think about the distinction between all the different constructs at play in my study, and I didn’t choose which one I was focusing on. One construct was the teaching moves that teachers think could be promoting achievement. Another is what teachers deliberately do to promote girls’ mathematics achievement, if anything. Another was the teaching moves that actually do support girls’ mathematics achievement. Another was what teachers were doing that supported girls’ mathematics achievement versus the mathematics achievement of all students. Another was students’ perception of what their teacher was doing to promote girls’ mathematics achievement. I now see that any one of these constructs could have been the focus of a study and that I didn’t really decide which of these was the focus of my course project prior to collecting data.

So, since you told me that the topic of this course project is probably what you’ll eventually want to study for your dissertation, which of these constructs are you most interested in?

I think I’m more interested in the teacher moves that teachers deliberately do to promote girls’ achievement. But I’m still worried about asking teachers directly and getting too specific about what they do because I don’t want to bias what they will say. And I chose qualitative methods and an exploratory design because I thought it would allow for a more open approach, an approach that helps me see what’s going on and that doesn’t bias or predetermine the results.

Well, it seems to me you are conflating three issues. One issue is how to conduct an unbiased study. Another issue is how specific to make your study. And the third issue is whether or not to choose an exploratory or qualitative study design. Those three issues are not the same. For example, designing a study that’s more open or more exploratory is not how researchers make studies fair and unbiased. In fact, it would be quite easy to create an open study that is biased. For example, you could ask very open questions and then interpret the responses in a way that unintentionally, and even unknowingly, aligns with what you were hoping the findings would say. Actually, you could argue that by adding more specificity and narrowing your focus, you’re creating constraints that prevent bias. The same goes for an exploratory or qualitative study; they can be biased or unbiased. So, let’s talk about what is meant by getting more specific. Within your new focus on what teachers deliberately do, there are many things that would be interesting to look at, such as teacher moves that address math anxiety, moves that allow girls to answer questions more frequently, moves that are specifically fitted to student thinking about specific mathematical content, and so on. What are one or two things that are most interesting to you? One way to answer this question is by thinking back to where your interest in this topic began.

In the preceding part of the dialogue, Dr. Avery explained how the goals Sam had for their study were not being met with open data. In the next part, Sam begins to articulate a prediction, which Sam and Dr. Avery then sharpen.

Actually, I became interested in this topic because of an experience I had in college when I was in a class of mostly girls. During whole class discussions, we were supposed to critically evaluate each other’s mathematical thinking, but we were too polite to do that. Instead, we just praised each other’s work. But it was so different in our small groups. It seemed easier to critique each other’s thinking and to push each other to better solutions in small groups. I began wondering how to get girls to be more critical of each other’s thinking in a whole class discussion in order to push everyone’s thinking.

Okay, this is great information. Why not use this idea to zoom-in on a more manageable and interpretable study? You could look specifically at how teachers support girls in critically evaluating each other’s thinking during whole class discussions. That would be a much more targeted and specific topic. Do you have predictions about what teachers could do in that situation, keeping in mind that you are looking specifically at girls’ mathematical achievement, not students in general?

Well, what I noticed was that small groups provided more social and emotional support for girls, whereas the whole class discussion did not provide that same support. The girls felt more comfortable critiquing each other’s thinking in small groups. So, I guess I predict that when the social and emotional supports that are present in small groups are extended to the whole class discussion, girls would be more willing to evaluate each other’s mathematical thinking critically during whole class discussion . I guess ultimately, I’d like to know how the whole class discussion could be used to enhance, rather than undermine, the social and emotional support that is present in the small groups.

Okay, then where would you start? Would you start with a study of what the teachers say they will do during whole class discussion and then observe if that happens during whole class discussion?

But part of my prediction also involves the small groups. So, I’d also like to include small groups in my study if possible. If I focus on whole groups, I won’t be exploring what I am interested in. My interest is broader than just the whole class discussion.

That makes sense, but there are many different things you could look at as part of your prediction, more than you can do in one study. For instance, if your prediction is that when the social and emotional supports that are present in small groups are extended to whole class discussions, girls would be more willing to evaluate each other’s mathematical thinking critically during whole class discussions , then you could ask the following questions: What are the social and emotional supports that are present in small groups?; In which small groups do they exist?; Is it groups that are made up only of girls?; Does every small group do this, and for groups that do this, when do these supports get created?; What kinds of small group activities that teachers ask them to work on are associated with these supports?; Do the same social and emotional supports that apply to small groups even apply to whole group discussion?

All your questions make me realize that my prediction about extending social and emotional supports to whole class discussions first requires me to have a better understanding of the social and emotional supports that exist in small groups. In fact, I first need to find out whether those supports commonly exist in small groups or is that just my experience working in small groups. So, I think I will first have to figure out what small groups do to support each other and then, in a later study, I could ask a teacher to implement those supports during whole class discussions and find out how you can do that. Yeah, now I’m seeing that.

The previous part of the dialogue illustrates how continuing to ask questions about one’s initial prediction is a good way to make it more and more precise (and researchable). In the next part, we see how developing a precise prediction has the added benefit of setting the researcher up for future studies.

Yes, I agree that for your first study, you should probably look at small groups. In other words, you should focus on only a part of your prediction for now, namely the part that says there are social and emotional supports in small groups that support girls in critiquing each other’s thinking . That begins to sharpen the focus of your prediction, but you’ll want to continue to refine it. For example, right now, the question that this prediction leads to is a question with a yes or no answer, but what you’ve said so far suggests to me that you are looking for more than that.

Yes, I want to know more than just whether there are supports. I’d like to know what kinds. That’s why I wanted to do a qualitative study.

Okay, this aligns more with my thinking about research as being prediction driven. It’s about collecting data that would help you revise your existing predictions into better ones. What I mean is that you would focus on collecting data that would allow you to refine your prediction, make it more nuanced, and go beyond what is already known. Does that make sense, and if so, what would that look like for your prediction?

Oh yes, I like that. I guess that would mean that, based on the data I collect for this next study, I could develop a more refined prediction that, for example, more specifically identifies and differentiates between different kinds of social and emotional supports that are present in small groups, or maybe that identifies the kinds of small groups that they occur in, or that predicts when and how frequently or infrequently they occur, or about the features of the small group tasks in which they occur, etc. I now realize that, although I chose qualitative research to make my study be more open, really the reason qualitative research fits my purposes is because it will allow me to explore fine-grained aspects of social and emotional supports that may exist for girls in small groups.

Yes, exactly! And then, based on the data you collect, you can include in your revised prediction those new fine-grained aspects. Furthermore, you will have a story to tell about your study in your written report, namely the story about your evolving prediction. In other words, your written report can largely tell how you filled out and refined your prediction as you learned more from carrying out the study. And even though you might not use them right away, you are also going to be able to develop new predictions that you would not have even thought of about social and emotional supports in small groups and your aim of extending them to whole-class discussions, had you not done this study. That will set you up to follow up on those new predictions in future studies. For example, you might have more refined ideas after you collect the data about the goals for critiquing student thinking in small groups versus the goals for critiquing student thinking during whole class discussion. You might even begin to think that some of the social and emotional supports you observe are not even replicable or even applicable to or appropriate for whole-class discussions, because the supports play different roles in different contexts. So, to summarize what I’m saying, what you look at in this study, even though it will be very focused, sets you up for a research program that will allow you to more fully investigate your broader interest in this topic, where each new study builds on your prior body of work. That’s why it is so important to be explicit about the best place to start this research, so that you can build on it.

I see what you are saying. We started this conversation talking about my course project data. What I think I should have done was figure out explicitly what I needed to learn with that study with the intention of then taking what I learned and using it as the basis for the next study. I didn’t do that, and so I didn’t collect data that pushed forward my thinking in ways that would guide my next study. It would be as if I was starting over with my next study.

Sam and Dr. Avery have just explored how specifying a prediction reveals additional complexities that could become fodder for developing a systematic research program. Next, we watch Sam beginning to recognize the level of specificity required for a prediction to be testable.

One thing that would have really helped would have been if you had had a specific prediction going into your data collection for your course project.

Well, I didn’t really have much of an explicit prediction in mind when I designed my methods.

Think back, you must have had some kind of prediction, even if it was implicit.

Well, yes, I guess I was predicting that teachers would enact moves that supported girls’ mathematical achievement. And I observed classrooms to identify those teacher moves, I interviewed teachers to ask them about the moves I observed, and I interviewed students to see if they mentioned those moves as promoting their mathematical achievement. The goal of my course project was to identify teacher moves that support girls’ mathematical achievement. And my specific research question was: What teacher moves support girls’ mathematical achievement?

So, really you were asking the teacher and students to show and tell you what those moves are and the effects of those moves, as a result putting the onus on your participants to provide the answers to your research question for you. I have an idea, let’s try a thought experiment. You come up with data collection methods for testing the prediction that there are social and emotional supports in small groups that support girls in critiquing each other’s thinking that still puts the onus on the participants. And then I’ll see if I can think of data collection methods that would not put the onus on the participants.

Hmm, well. .. I guess I could simply interview girls who participated in small groups and ask them “are there social and emotional supports that you use in small groups that support your group in critiquing each other’s thinking and if so, what are they?” In that case, I would be putting the onus on them to be aware of the social dynamics of small groups and to have thought about these constructs as much as I have. Okay now can you continue the thought experiment? What might the data collection methods look like if I didn’t put the onus on the participants?

First, I would pick a setting in which it was only girls at this point to reduce the number of variables. Then, personally I would want to observe a lot of groups of girls interacting in groups around tasks. I would be looking for instances when the conversation about students’ ideas was shut down and instances when the conversation about students’ ideas involved critiquing of ideas and building on each other’s thinking. I would also look at what happened just before and during those instances, such as: did the student continue to talk after their thinking was critiqued, did other students do anything to encourage the student to build on their own thinking (i.e., constructive criticism) or how did they support or shut down continued participation. In fact, now that I think about it, “critiquing each other’s thinking” can be defined in a number of different ways. I could mean just commenting on someone’s thinking, judging correctness and incorrectness, constructive criticism that moves the thinking forward, etc. If you put the onus on the participants to answer your research question, you are stuck with their definition, and they won’t have thought about this very much, if at all.

I think that what you are also saying is that my definitions would affect my data collection. If I think that critiquing each other’s thinking means that the group moves their thinking forward toward more valid and complete mathematical solutions, then I’m going to focus on different moves than if I define it another way, such as just making a comment on each other’s thinking and making each other feel comfortable enough to keep participating. In fact, am I going to look at individual instances of critiquing or look at entire sequences in which the critiquing leads to a goal? This seems like a unit of analysis question, and I would need to develop a more nuanced prediction that would make explicit what that unit of analysis is.

I agree, your definition of “critiquing each other’s thinking” could entirely change what you are predicting. One prediction could be based on defining critiquing as a one-shot event in which someone makes one comment on another person’s thinking. In this case the prediction would be that there are social and emotional supports in small groups that support girls in making an evaluative comment on another student’s thinking. Another prediction could be based on defining critiquing as a back-and-forth process in which the thinking gets built on and refined. In that case, the prediction would be something like that there are social and emotional supports in small groups that support girls in critiquing each other’s thinking in ways that do not shut down the conversation but that lead to sustained conversations that move each other toward more valid and complete solutions.

Well, I think I am more interested in the second prediction because it is more compatible with my long-term interests, which are that I’m interested in extending small group supports to whole class discussions. The second prediction is more appropriate for eventually looking at girls in whole class discussion. During whole class discussion, the teacher tries to get a sustained conversation going that moves the students’ thinking forward. So, if I learn about small group supports that lead to sustained conversations that move each other toward more valid and complete solutions , those supports might transfer to whole class discussions.

In the previous part of the dialogue, Dr. Avery and Sam showed how narrowing down a prediction to one that is testable requires making numerous important decisions, including how to define the constructs referred to in the prediction. In the final part of the dialogue, Dr. Avery and Sam begin to outline the reading Sam will have to do to develop a rationale for the specific prediction.

Do you see how your prediction and definitions are getting more and more specific? You now need to read extensively to further refine your prediction.

Well, I should probably read about micro dynamics of small group interactions, anything about interactions in small groups, and what is already known about small group interactions that support sustained conversations that move students’ thinking toward more valid and complete solutions. I guess I could also look at research on whole-class discussion methods that support sustained conversations that move the class to more mathematically valid and complete solutions, because it might give me ideas for what to look for in the small groups. I might also need to focus on research about how learners develop understandings about a particular subject matter so that I know what “more valid and complete solutions” look like. I also need to read about social and emotional supports but focus on how they support students cognitively, rather than in other ways.

Sounds good, let’s get together after you have processed some of this literature and we can talk about refining your prediction based on what you read and also the methods that will best suit testing that prediction.

Great! Thanks for meeting with me. I feel like I have a much better set of tools that push my own thinking forward and allow me to target something specific that will lead to more interpretable data.

Part V. Is It Always Possible to Formulate Hypotheses?

In Chap. 1 , we noted you are likely to read that research does not require formulating hypotheses. Some sources describe doing research without making predictions and developing rationales for these predictions. Some researchers say you cannot always make predictions—you do not know enough about the situation. In fact, some argue for the value of not making predictions (e.g., Glaser & Holton, 2004 ; Merton, 1968 ; Nemirovsky, 2011 ). These are important points of view, so we will devote this section to discussing them.

Can You Always Predict What You Will Find?

One reason some researchers say you do not need to make predictions is that it can be difficult to imagine what you will find. This argument comes up most often for descriptive studies. Suppose you want to describe the nature of a situation you do not know much about. Can you still make a prediction about what you will find? We believe that, although you do not know exactly what you will find, you probably have a hunch or, at a minimum, a very fuzzy idea. It would be unusual to ask a question about a situation you want to know about without at least a fuzzy inkling of what you might find. The original question just would not occur to you. We acknowledge you might have only a vague idea of what you will find and you might not have much confidence in your prediction. However, we expect if you monitor your own thinking you will discover you have developed a suspicion along the way, regardless how vague the suspicion might be. Through the cyclic process we discussed above, that suspicion or hunch gradually evolves and turns into a prediction.

The Benefits of Making Predictions Even When They Are Wrong: An Example from the 1970s

One of us was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin in the late 1970s, assigned as a research assistant to a project that was investigating young children’s thinking about simple arithmetic. A new curriculum was being written, and the developers wanted to know how to introduce the earliest concepts and skills to kindergarten and first-grade children. The directors of the project did not know what to expect because, at the time, there was little research on five- and six-year-olds’ pre-instruction strategies for adding and subtracting.

After consulting what literature was available, talking with teachers, analyzing the nature of different types of addition and subtraction problems, and debating with each other, the research team formulated some hypotheses about children’s performance. Following the usual assumptions at the time and recognizing the new curriculum would introduce the concepts, the researchers predicted that, before instruction, most children would not be able to solve the problems. Based on the rationale that some young children did not yet recognize the simple form for written problems (e.g., 5 + 3 = ___), the researchers predicted that the best chance for success would be to read problems as stories (e.g., Jesse had 5 apples and then found 3 more. How many does she have now?). They reasoned that, even though children would have difficulty on all the problems, some story problems would be easier because the semantic structure is easier to follow. For example, they predicted the above story about adding 3 apples to 5 would be easier than a problem like, “Jesse had some apples in the refrigerator. She put in 2 more and now has 6. How many were in the refrigerator at the beginning?” Based on the rationale that children would need to count to solve the problems and that it can be difficult to keep track of the numbers, they predicted children would be more successful if they were given counters. Finally, accepting the common reasoning that larger numbers are more difficult than smaller numbers, they predicted children would be more successful if all the numbers in a problem were below 10.

Although these predictions were not very precise and the rationales were not strongly convincing, these hypotheses prompted the researchers to design the study to test their predictions. This meant they would collect data by presenting a variety of problems under a variety of conditions. Because the goal was to describe children’s thinking, problems were presented to students in individual interviews. Problems with different semantic structures were included, counters were available for some problems but not others, and some problems had sums to 9 whereas others had sums to 20 or more.

The punchline of this story is that gathering data under these conditions, prompted by the predictions, made all the difference in what the researchers learned. Contrary to predictions, children could solve addition and subtraction problems before instruction. Counters were important because almost all the solution strategies were based on counting which meant that memory was an issue because many strategies require counting in two ways simultaneously. For example, subtracting 4 from 7 was usually solved by counting down from 7 while counting up from 1 to 4 to keep track of counting down. Because children acted out the stories with their counters, the semantic structure of the story was also important. Stories that were easier to read and write were also easier to solve.

To make a very long story very short, other researchers were, at about the same time, reporting similar results about children’s pre-instruction arithmetic capabilities. A clear pattern emerged regarding the relative difficulty of different problem types (semantic structures) and the strategies children used to solve each type. As the data were replicated, the researchers recognized that kindergarten and first-grade teachers could make good use of this information when they introduced simple arithmetic. This is how Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) was born (Carpenter et al., 1989 ; Fennema et al., 1996 ).

To reiterate, the point of this example is that the study conducted to describe children’s thinking would have looked quite different if the researchers had made no predictions. They would have had no reason to choose the particular problems and present them under different conditions. The fact that some of the predictions were completely wrong is not the point. The predictions created the conditions under which the predictions were tested which, in turn, created learning opportunities for the researchers that would not have existed without the predictions. The lesson is that even research that aims to simply describe a phenomenon can benefit from hypotheses. As signaled in Chap. 1 , this also serves as another example of “failing productively.”

Suggestions for What to Do When You Do Not Have Predictions

There likely are exceptions to our claim about being able to make a prediction about what you will find. For example, there could be rare cases where researchers truly have no idea what they will find and can come up with no predictions and even no hunches. And, no research has been reported on related phenomena that would offer some guidance. If you find yourself in this position, we suggest one of three approaches: revise your question, conduct a pilot study, or choose another question.

Because there are many advantages to making predictions explicit and then writing out the reasons for these predictions, one approach is to adjust your question just enough to allow you to make a prediction. Perhaps you can build on descriptions that other researchers have provided for related situations and consider how you can extend this work. Building on previous descriptions will enable you to make predictions about the situation you want to describe.

A second approach is to conduct a small pilot study or, better, a series of small pilot studies to develop some preliminary ideas of what you might find. If you can identify a small sample of participants who are similar to those in your study, you can try out at least some of your research plans to help make and refine your predictions. As we detail later, you can also use pilot studies to check whether key aspects of your methods (e.g., tasks, interview questions, data collection methods) work as you expect.

A third approach is to return to your list of interests and choose one that has been studied previously. Sometimes this is the wisest choice. It is very difficult for beginning researchers to conduct research in brand-new areas where no hunches or predictions are possible. In addition, the contributions of this research can be limited. Recall the earlier story about one of us “failing productively” by completing a dissertation in a somewhat new area. If, after an exhaustive search, you find that no one has investigated the phenomenon in which you are interested or even related phenomena, it can be best to move in a different direction. You will read recommendations in other sources to find a “gap” in the research and develop a study to “fill the gap.” This can be helpful advice if the gap is very small. However, if the gap is large, too large to predict what you might find, the study will present severe challenges. It will be more productive to extend work that has already been done than to launch into an entirely new area.

Should You Always Try to Predict What You Will Find?

In short, our answer to the question in the heading is “yes.” But this calls for further explanation.

Suppose you want to observe a second-grade classroom in order to investigate how students talk about adding and subtracting whole numbers. You might think, “I don’t want to bias my thinking; I want to be completely open to what I see in the classroom.” Sam shared a similar point of view at the beginning of the dialogue: “I wanted to leave it as open as possible; I didn’t want to influence what they were going to say.” Some researchers say that beginning your research study by making predictions is inappropriate precisely because it will bias your observations and results. The argument is that by bringing a set of preconceptions, you will confirm what you expected to find and be blind to other observations and outcomes. The following quote illustrates this view: “The first step in gaining theoretical sensitivity is to enter the research setting with as few predetermined ideas as possible—especially logically deducted, a priori hypotheses. In this posture, the analyst is able to remain sensitive to the data by being able to record events and detect happenings without first having them filtered through and squared with pre-existing hypotheses and biases” (Glaser, 1978, pp. 2–3).

We take a different point of view. In fact, we believe there are several compelling reasons for making your predictions explicit.

Making Your Predictions Explicit Increases Your Chances of Productive Observations

Because your predictions are an extension of what is already known, they prepare you to identify more nuanced relationships that can advance our understanding of a phenomenon. For example, rather than simply noticing, in a general sense, that students talking about addition and subtraction leads them to better understandings, you might, based on your prediction, make the specific observation that talking about addition and subtraction in a particular way helps students to think more deeply about a particular concept related to addition and subtraction. Going into a study without predictions can bring less sensitivity rather than more to the study of a phenomenon. Drawing on knowledge about related phenomena by reading the literature and conducting pilot studies allows you to be much more sensitive and your observations to be more productive.

Making Your Predictions Explicit Allows You to Guard Against Biases

Some genres and methods of educational research are, in fact, rooted in philosophical traditions (e.g., Husserl, 1929/ 1973 ) that explicitly call for researchers to temporarily “bracket” or set aside existing theory as well as their prior knowledge and experience to better enter into the experience of the participants in the research. However, this does not mean ignoring one’s own knowledge and experience or turning a blind eye to what has been learned by others. Much more than the simplistic image of emptying one’s mind of preconceptions and implicit biases (arguably an impossible feat to begin with), the goal is to be as reflective as possible about one’s prior knowledge and conceptions and as transparent as possible about how they may guide observations and shape interpretations (Levitt et al., 2018 ).

We believe it is better to be honest about the predictions you are almost sure to have because then you can deliberately plan to minimize the chances they will influence what you find and how you interpret your results. For starters, it is important to recognize that acknowledging you have some guesses about what you will find does not make them more influential. Because you are likely to have them anyway, we recommend being explicit about what they are. It is easier to deal with biases that are explicit than those that lurk in the background and are not acknowledged.

What do we mean by “deal with biases”? Some journals require you to include a statement about your “positionality” with respect to the participants in your study and the observations you are making to gather data. Formulating clear hypotheses is, in our view, a direct response to this request. The reasons for your predictions are your explicit statements about your positionality. Often there are methodological strategies you can use to protect the study from undue influences of bias. In other words, making your vague predictions explicit can help you design your study so you minimize the bias of your findings.

Making Your Predictions Explicit Can Help You See What You Did Not Predict

Making your predictions explicit does not need to blind you to what is different than expected. It does not need to force you to see only what you want to see. Instead, it can actually increase your sensitivity to noticing features of the situation that are surprising, features you did not predict. Results can stand out when you did not expect to see them.

In contrast, not bringing your biases to consciousness might subtly shift your attention away from these unexpected results in ways that you are not aware of. This path can lead to claiming no biases and no unexpected findings without being conscious of them. You cannot observe everything, and some things inevitably will be overlooked. If you have predicted what you will see, you can design your study so that the unexpected results become more salient rather than less.

Returning to the example of observing a second-grade classroom, we note that the field already knows a great deal about how students talk about addition and subtraction. Being cognizant of what others have observed allows you to enter the classroom with some clear predictions about what will happen. The rationales for these predictions are based on all the related knowledge you have before stepping into the classroom, and the predictions and rationales help you to better deal with what you see. This is partly because you are likely to be surprised by the things you did not anticipate. There is almost always something that will surprise you because your predictions will almost always be incomplete or too general. This sensitivity to the unanticipated—the sense of surprise that sparks your curiosity—is an indication of your openness to the phenomenon you are studying.

Making Your Predictions Explicit Allows You to Plan in Advance

Recall from Chap. 1 the descriptor of scientific inquiry: “Experience carefully planned in advance.” If you make no predictions about what might happen, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to plan your study in advance. Again, you cannot observe everything, so you must make decisions about what you will observe. What kind of data will you plan to collect? Why would you collect these data instead of others? If you have no idea what to expect, on what basis will you make these consequential decisions? Even if your predictions are vague and your rationales for the predictions are a bit shaky, at least they provide a direction for your plan. They allow you to explain why you are planning this study and collecting these data. They allow you to “carefully plan in advance.”

Making Your Predictions Explicit Allows You to Put Your Rationales in Harm’s Way

Rationales are developed to justify the predictions. Rationales represent your best reasoning about the research problem you are studying. How can you tell whether your reasoning is sound? You can try it out with colleagues. However, the best way to test it is to put it in “harm’s way” (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003 p. 10). And the best approach to putting your reasoning in harm’s way is to test the predictions it generates. Regardless if you are conducting a qualitative or quantitative study, rationales can be improved only if they generate testable predictions. This is possible only if predictions are explicit and precise. As we described earlier, rationales are evaluated for their soundness and refined in light of the specific differences between predictions and empirical observations.

Making Your Predictions Explicit Forces You to Organize and Extend Your (and the Field’s) Thinking

By writing out your predictions (even hunches or fuzzy guesses) and by reflecting on why you have these predictions and making these reasons explicit for yourself, you are advancing your thinking about the questions you really want to answer. This means you are making progress toward formulating your research questions and your final hypotheses. Making more progress in your own thinking before you conduct your study increases the chances your study will be of higher quality and will be exactly the study you intended. Making predictions, developing rationales, and imagining tests are tools you can use to push your thinking forward before you even collect data.

Suppose you wonder how preservice teachers in your university’s teacher preparation program will solve particular kinds of math problems. You are interested in this question because you have noticed several PSTs solve them in unexpected ways. As you ask the question you want to answer, you make predictions about what you expect to see. When you reflect on why you made these predictions, you realize that some PSTs might use particular solution strategies because they were taught to use some of them in an earlier course, and they might believe you expect them to solve the problems in these ways. By being explicit about why you are making particular predictions, you realize that you might be answering a different question than you intend (“How much do PSTs remember from previous courses?” or even “To what extent do PSTs believe different instructors have similar expectations?”). Now you can either change your question or change the design of your study (i.e., the sample of students you will use) or both. You are advancing your thinking by being explicit about your predictions and why you are making them.

The Costs of Not Making Predictions

Avoiding making predictions, for whatever reason, comes with significant costs. It prevents you from learning very much about your research topic. It would require not reading related research, not talking with your colleagues, and not conducting pilot studies because, if you do, you are likely to find a prediction creeping into your thinking. Not doing these things would forego the benefits of advancing your thinking before you collect data. It would amount to conducting the study with as little forethought as possible.

Part VI. How Do You Formulate Important Hypotheses?

We provided a partial answer in Chap. 1 to the question of a hypothesis’ importance when we encouraged considering the ultimate goal to which a study’s findings might contribute. You might want to reread Part III of Chap. 1 where we offered our opinions about the purposes of doing research. We also recommend reading the March 2019 editorial in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (Cai et al., 2019b ) in which we address what constitutes important educational research.

As we argued in Chap. 1 and in the March 2019 editorial, a worthy ultimate goal for educational research is to improve the learning opportunities for all students. However, arguments can be made for other ultimate goals as well. To gauge the importance of your hypotheses, think about how clearly you can connect them to a goal the educational community considers important. In addition, given the descriptors of scientific inquiry proposed in Chap. 1 , think about how testing your hypotheses will help you (and the community) understand what you are studying. Will you have a better explanation for the phenomenon after your study than before?

Although we address the question of importance again, and in more detail, in Chap. 5 , it is useful to know here that you can determine the significance or importance of your hypotheses when you formulate them. The importance need not depend on the data you collect or the results you report. The importance can come from the fact that, based on the results of your study, you will be able to offer revised hypotheses that help the field better understand an important issue. In large part, it is these revised hypotheses rather than the data that determine a study’s importance.

A critical caveat to this discussion is that few hypotheses are self-evidently important. They are important only if you make the case for their importance. Even if you follow closely the guidelines we suggest for formulating an important hypothesis, you must develop an argument that convinces others. This argument will be presented in the research paper you write.

Consider Martha’s hypothesis presented earlier. When we left Martha, she predicted that “Participating teachers will show changes in their teaching with a greater emphasis on conceptual understanding with larger changes on linear function topics directly addressed in the LOs than on other topics.” For researchers and educators not intimately familiar with this area of research, it is not apparent why someone should spend a year or more conducting a dissertation to test this prediction. Her rationale, summarized earlier, begins to describe why this could be an important hypothesis. But it is by writing a clear argument that explains her rationale to readers that she will convince them of its importance.

How Martha fills in her rationale so she can create a clear written argument for its importance is taken up in Chap. 3 . As we indicated, Martha’s work in this regard led her to make some interesting decisions, in part due to her own assessment of what was important.

Part VII. Beginning to Write the Research Paper for Your Study

It is common to think that researchers conduct a study and then, after the data are collected and analyzed, begin writing the paper about the study. We recommend an alternative, especially for beginning researchers. We believe it is better to write drafts of the paper at the same time you are planning and conducting your study. The paper will gradually evolve as you work through successive phases of the scientific inquiry process. Consequently, we will call this paper your evolving research paper .

You will use your evolving research paper to communicate your study, but you can also use writing as a tool for thinking and organizing your thinking while planning and conducting the study. Used as a tool for thinking, you can write drafts of your ideas to check on the clarity of your thinking, and then you can step back and reflect on how to clarify it further. Be sure to avoid jargon and general terms that are not well defined. Ask yourself whether someone not in your field, maybe a sibling, a parent, or a friend, would be able to understand what you mean. You are likely to write multiple drafts with lots of scribbling, crossing out, and revising.

Used as a tool for communicating, writing the best version of what you know before moving to the next phase will help you record your decisions and the reasons for them before you forget important details. This best-version-for-now paper also provides the basis for your thinking about the next phase of your scientific inquiry.

At this point in the process, you will be writing your (research) questions, the answers you predict, and the rationales for your predictions. The predictions you make should be direct answers to your research questions and should flow logically from (or be directly supported by) the rationales you present. In addition, you will have a written statement of the study’s purpose or, said another way, an argument for the importance of the hypotheses you will be testing. It is in the early sections of your paper that you will convince your audience about the importance of your hypotheses.

In our experience, presenting research questions is a more common form of stating the goal of a research study than presenting well-formulated hypotheses. Authors sometimes present a hypothesis, often as a simple prediction of what they might find. The hypothesis is then forgotten and not used to guide the analysis or interpretations of the findings. In other words, authors seldom use hypotheses to do the kind of work we describe. This means that many research articles you read will not treat hypotheses as we suggest. We believe these are missed opportunities to present research in a more compelling and informative way. We intend to provide enough guidance in the remaining chapters for you to feel comfortable organizing your evolving research paper around formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses.

While we were editing one of the leading research journals in mathematics education ( JRME ), we conducted a study of reviewers’ critiques of papers submitted to the journal. Two of the five most common concerns were: (1) the research questions were unclear, and (2) the answers to the questions did not make a substantial contribution to the field. These are likely to be major concerns for the reviewers of all research journals. We hope the knowledge and skills you have acquired working through this chapter will allow you to write the opening to your evolving research paper in a way that addresses these concerns. Much of the chapter should help make your research questions clear, and the prior section on formulating “important hypotheses” will help you convey the contribution of your study.

Exercise 2.3

Look back at your answers to the sets of questions before part II of this chapter.

Think about how you would argue for the importance of your current interest.

Write your interest in the form of (1) a research problem, (2) a research question, and (3) a prediction with the beginnings of a rationale. You will update these as you read the remaining chapters.

Part VIII. The Heart of Scientific Inquiry

In this chapter, we have described the process of formulating hypotheses. This process is at the heart of scientific inquiry. It is where doing research begins. Conducting research always involves formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. This is true regardless of your research questions and whether you are using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Without engaging in this process in a deliberate, intense, relentless way, your study will reveal less than it could. By engaging in this process, you are maximizing what you, and others, can learn from conducting your study.

In the next chapter, we build on the ideas we have developed in the first two chapters to describe the purpose and nature of theoretical frameworks . The term theoretical framework, along with closely related terms like conceptual framework, can be somewhat mysterious for beginning researchers and can seem like a requirement for writing a paper rather than an aid for conducting research. We will show how theoretical frameworks grow from formulating hypotheses—from developing rationales for the predicted answers to your research questions. We will propose some practical suggestions for building theoretical frameworks and show how useful they can be. In addition, we will continue Martha’s story from the point at which we paused earlier—developing her theoretical framework.

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019b). Posing significant research questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26 (4), 385–531.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 403–434.

Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1316

Gournelos, T., Hammonds, J. R., & Wilson, M. A. (2019). Doing academic research: A practical guide to research methods and analysis . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hohensee, C. (2014). Backward transfer: An investigation of the influence of quadratic functions instruction on students’ prior ways of reasoning about linear functions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16 (2), 135–174.

Husserl, E. (1973). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology (D. Cairns, Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff. (Original work published 1929).

Google Scholar  

Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force report. American Psychologist, 73 (1), 26–46.

Medawar, P. (1982). Pluto’s republic [no typo]. Oxford University Press.

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (Enlarged edition). Free Press.

Nemirovsky, R. (2011). Episodic feelings and transfer of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20 (2), 308–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528316

Vygotsky, L. (1987). The development of scientific concepts in childhood: The design of a working hypothesis. In A. Kozulin (Ed.), Thought and language (pp. 146–209). The MIT Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). How Do You Formulate (Important) Hypotheses?. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_2

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research