science a hypothesis is useful only if it can be

What is a scientific hypothesis?

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

Hypothesis basics

What makes a hypothesis testable.

• Types of hypotheses
• Hypothesis versus theory

Additional resources

Bibliography.

A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method . Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research. 

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).

A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," according to California State University, Bakersfield .

Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:

• If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas.
• If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities.
• If ultraviolet light can damage the eyes, then maybe this light can cause blindness.

A useful hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. That means that it should be possible to prove it wrong. A theory that can't be proved wrong is nonscientific, according to Karl Popper's 1963 book " Conjectures and Refutations ."

An example of an untestable statement is, "Dogs are better than cats." That's because the definition of "better" is vague and subjective. However, an untestable statement can be reworded to make it testable. For example, the previous statement could be changed to this: "Owning a dog is associated with higher levels of physical fitness than owning a cat." With this statement, the researcher can take measures of physical fitness from dog and cat owners and compare the two.

Types of scientific hypotheses

In an experiment, researchers generally state their hypotheses in two ways. The null hypothesis predicts that there will be no relationship between the variables tested, or no difference between the experimental groups. The alternative hypothesis predicts the opposite: that there will be a difference between the experimental groups. This is usually the hypothesis scientists are most interested in, according to the University of Miami .

For example, a null hypothesis might state, "There will be no difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't." The alternative hypothesis would state, "There will be a difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't."

If the results of the experiment show a relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis has been rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, according to the book " Research Methods in Psychology " (​​BCcampus, 2015). 

There are other ways to describe an alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis above does not specify a direction of the effect, only that there will be a difference between the two groups. That type of prediction is called a two-tailed hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction — for example, that people who take a protein supplement will gain more muscle than people who don't — it is called a one-tailed hypothesis, according to William M. K. Trochim , a professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University.

Sometimes, errors take place during an experiment. These errors can happen in one of two ways. A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. This is also known as a false positive. A type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This is also known as a false negative, according to the University of California, Berkeley . 

A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proved correct 100% of the time. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though the findings confirm the hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, the hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100% of the time.

Scientific theory vs. scientific hypothesis

The best hypotheses are simple. They deal with a relatively narrow set of phenomena. But theories are broader; they generally combine multiple hypotheses into a general explanation for a wide range of phenomena, according to the University of California, Berkeley . For example, a hypothesis might state, "If animals adapt to suit their environments, then birds that live on islands with lots of seeds to eat will have differently shaped beaks than birds that live on islands with lots of insects to eat." After testing many hypotheses like these, Charles Darwin formulated an overarching theory: the theory of evolution by natural selection.

"Theories are the ways that we make sense of what we observe in the natural world," Tanner said. "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." 

• Read more about writing a hypothesis, from the American Medical Writers Association.
• Find out why a hypothesis isn't always necessary in science, from The American Biology Teacher.
• Learn about null and alternative hypotheses, from Prof. Essa on YouTube .

Encyclopedia Britannica. Scientific Hypothesis. Jan. 13, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Routledge, 1959.

California State University, Bakersfield, "Formatting a testable hypothesis." https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm  

Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," Routledge, 1963.

Price, P., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I., "Research Methods of Psychology — 2nd Canadian Edition," BCcampus, 2015.‌

University of Miami, "The Scientific Method" http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/161/evolution/161app1_scimethod.pdf  

William M.K. Trochim, "Research Methods Knowledge Base," https://conjointly.com/kb/hypotheses-explained/  

University of California, Berkeley, "Multiple Hypothesis Testing and False Discovery Rate" https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~hhuang/STAT141/Lecture-FDR.pdf  

University of California, Berkeley, "Science at multiple levels" https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

'Uncharted territory': El Niño to flip to La Niña in what could be the hottest year on record

What's the largest waterfall in the world?

Scientists may have pinpointed the true origin of the Hope Diamond and other pristine gemstones

Most Popular

• 2 Nightmare fish may explain how our 'fight or flight' response evolved
• 3 Lyrid meteor shower 2024: How to watch stunning shooting stars and 'fireballs' during the event's peak this week
• 4 Scientists are one step closer to knowing the mass of ghostly neutrinos — possibly paving the way to new physics
• 5 What's the largest waterfall in the world?
• 2 Enormous dinosaur dubbed Shiva 'The Destroyer' is one of the biggest ever discovered
• 3 2,500-year-old skeletons with legs chopped off may be elites who received 'cruel' punishment in ancient China
• 4 Rare 'porcelain gallbladder' found in 100-year-old unmarked grave at Mississippi mental asylum cemetery

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Biology library

Course: biology library   >   unit 1, the scientific method.

• Controlled experiments
• The scientific method and experimental design

Introduction

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis , or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Scientific method example: Failure to toast

1. make an observation..

• Observation: the toaster won't toast.

2. Ask a question.

• Question: Why won't my toaster toast?

3. Propose a hypothesis.

• Hypothesis: Maybe the outlet is broken.

4. Make predictions.

• Prediction: If I plug the toaster into a different outlet, then it will toast the bread.

5. Test the predictions.

• Test of prediction: Plug the toaster into a different outlet and try again.
• If the toaster does toast, then the hypothesis is supported—likely correct.
• If the toaster doesn't toast, then the hypothesis is not supported—likely wrong.

Logical possibility

Practical possibility, building a body of evidence, 6. iterate..

• Iteration time!
• If the hypothesis was supported, we might do additional tests to confirm it, or revise it to be more specific. For instance, we might investigate why the outlet is broken.
• If the hypothesis was not supported, we would come up with a new hypothesis. For instance, the next hypothesis might be that there's a broken wire in the toaster.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• 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.

3.14: Experiments and Hypotheses

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 43504

Now we’ll focus on the methods of scientific inquiry. Science often involves making observations and developing hypotheses. Experiments and further observations are often used to test the hypotheses.

A scientific experiment is a carefully organized procedure in which the scientist intervenes in a system to change something, then observes the result of the change. Scientific inquiry often involves doing experiments, though not always. For example, a scientist studying the mating behaviors of ladybugs might begin with detailed observations of ladybugs mating in their natural habitats. While this research may not be experimental, it is scientific: it involves careful and verifiable observation of the natural world. The same scientist might then treat some of the ladybugs with a hormone hypothesized to trigger mating and observe whether these ladybugs mated sooner or more often than untreated ones. This would qualify as an experiment because the scientist is now making a change in the system and observing the effects.

Forming a Hypothesis

When conducting scientific experiments, researchers develop hypotheses to guide experimental design. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation that is both testable and falsifiable. You must be able to test your hypothesis, and it must be possible to prove your hypothesis true or false.

For example, Michael observes that maple trees lose their leaves in the fall. He might then propose a possible explanation for this observation: “cold weather causes maple trees to lose their leaves in the fall.” This statement is testable. He could grow maple trees in a warm enclosed environment such as a greenhouse and see if their leaves still dropped in the fall. The hypothesis is also falsifiable. If the leaves still dropped in the warm environment, then clearly temperature was not the main factor in causing maple leaves to drop in autumn.

In the Try It below, you can practice recognizing scientific hypotheses. As you consider each statement, try to think as a scientist would: can I test this hypothesis with observations or experiments? Is the statement falsifiable? If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” the statement is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Practice Questions

Determine whether each following statement is a scientific hypothesis.

Air pollution from automobile exhaust can trigger symptoms in people with asthma.

• No. This statement is not testable or falsifiable.
• No. This statement is not testable.
• No. This statement is not falsifiable.
• Yes. This statement is testable and falsifiable.

[reveal-answer q=”429550″] Show Answer [/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”429550″]d: Yes. This statement is testable and falsifiable. This could be tested with a number of different kinds of observations and experiments, and it is possible to gather evidence that indicates that air pollution is not linked with asthma.

[/hidden-answer]

Natural disasters, such as tornadoes, are punishments for bad thoughts and behaviors.

[reveal-answer q=”74245″]Show Answer[/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”74245″]

a: No. This statement is not testable or falsifiable. “Bad thoughts and behaviors” are excessively vague and subjective variables that would be impossible to measure or agree upon in a reliable way. The statement might be “falsifiable” if you came up with a counterexample: a “wicked” place that was not punished by a natural disaster. But some would question whether the people in that place were really wicked, and others would continue to predict that a natural disaster was bound to strike that place at some point. There is no reason to suspect that people’s immoral behavior affects the weather unless you bring up the intervention of a supernatural being, making this idea even harder to test.

Testing a Vaccine

Let’s examine the scientific process by discussing an actual scientific experiment conducted by researchers at the University of Washington. These researchers investigated whether a vaccine may reduce the incidence of the human papillomavirus (HPV). The experimental process and results were published in an article titled, “ A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine .”

Preliminary observations made by the researchers who conducted the HPV experiment are listed below:

• Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted virus in the United States.
• There are about 40 different types of HPV. A significant number of people that have HPV are unaware of it because many of these viruses cause no symptoms.
• Some types of HPV can cause cervical cancer.
• About 4,000 women a year die of cervical cancer in the United States.

Practice Question

Researchers have developed a potential vaccine against HPV and want to test it. What is the first testable hypothesis that the researchers should study?

• HPV causes cervical cancer.
• People should not have unprotected sex with many partners.
• People who get the vaccine will not get HPV.
• The HPV vaccine will protect people against cancer.

[reveal-answer q=”20917″] Show Answer [/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”20917″]Hypothesis A is not the best choice because this information is already known from previous studies. Hypothesis B is not testable because scientific hypotheses are not value statements; they do not include judgments like “should,” “better than,” etc. Scientific evidence certainly might support this value judgment, but a hypothesis would take a different form: “Having unprotected sex with many partners increases a person’s risk for cervical cancer.” Before the researchers can test if the vaccine protects against cancer (hypothesis D), they want to test if it protects against the virus. This statement will make an excellent hypothesis for the next study. The researchers should first test hypothesis C—whether or not the new vaccine can prevent HPV.[/hidden-answer]

Experimental Design

You’ve successfully identified a hypothesis for the University of Washington’s study on HPV: People who get the HPV vaccine will not get HPV.

The next step is to design an experiment that will test this hypothesis. There are several important factors to consider when designing a scientific experiment. First, scientific experiments must have an experimental group. This is the group that receives the experimental treatment necessary to address the hypothesis.

The experimental group receives the vaccine, but how can we know if the vaccine made a difference? Many things may change HPV infection rates in a group of people over time. To clearly show that the vaccine was effective in helping the experimental group, we need to include in our study an otherwise similar control group that does not get the treatment. We can then compare the two groups and determine if the vaccine made a difference. The control group shows us what happens in the absence of the factor under study.

However, the control group cannot get “nothing.” Instead, the control group often receives a placebo. A placebo is a procedure that has no expected therapeutic effect—such as giving a person a sugar pill or a shot containing only plain saline solution with no drug. Scientific studies have shown that the “placebo effect” can alter experimental results because when individuals are told that they are or are not being treated, this knowledge can alter their actions or their emotions, which can then alter the results of the experiment.

Moreover, if the doctor knows which group a patient is in, this can also influence the results of the experiment. Without saying so directly, the doctor may show—through body language or other subtle cues—his or her views about whether the patient is likely to get well. These errors can then alter the patient’s experience and change the results of the experiment. Therefore, many clinical studies are “double blind.” In these studies, neither the doctor nor the patient knows which group the patient is in until all experimental results have been collected.

Both placebo treatments and double-blind procedures are designed to prevent bias. Bias is any systematic error that makes a particular experimental outcome more or less likely. Errors can happen in any experiment: people make mistakes in measurement, instruments fail, computer glitches can alter data. But most such errors are random and don’t favor one outcome over another. Patients’ belief in a treatment can make it more likely to appear to “work.” Placebos and double-blind procedures are used to level the playing field so that both groups of study subjects are treated equally and share similar beliefs about their treatment.

The scientists who are researching the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine will test their hypothesis by separating 2,392 young women into two groups: the control group and the experimental group. Answer the following questions about these two groups.

• This group is given a placebo.
• This group is deliberately infected with HPV.
• This group is given nothing.
• This group is given the HPV vaccine.

[reveal-answer q=”918962″] Show Answers [/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”918962″]

• a: This group is given a placebo. A placebo will be a shot, just like the HPV vaccine, but it will have no active ingredient. It may change peoples’ thinking or behavior to have such a shot given to them, but it will not stimulate the immune systems of the subjects in the same way as predicted for the vaccine itself.
• d: This group is given the HPV vaccine. The experimental group will receive the HPV vaccine and researchers will then be able to see if it works, when compared to the control group.

Experimental Variables

A variable is a characteristic of a subject (in this case, of a person in the study) that can vary over time or among individuals. Sometimes a variable takes the form of a category, such as male or female; often a variable can be measured precisely, such as body height. Ideally, only one variable is different between the control group and the experimental group in a scientific experiment. Otherwise, the researchers will not be able to determine which variable caused any differences seen in the results. For example, imagine that the people in the control group were, on average, much more sexually active than the people in the experimental group. If, at the end of the experiment, the control group had a higher rate of HPV infection, could you confidently determine why? Maybe the experimental subjects were protected by the vaccine, but maybe they were protected by their low level of sexual contact.

To avoid this situation, experimenters make sure that their subject groups are as similar as possible in all variables except for the variable that is being tested in the experiment. This variable, or factor, will be deliberately changed in the experimental group. The one variable that is different between the two groups is called the independent variable. An independent variable is known or hypothesized to cause some outcome. Imagine an educational researcher investigating the effectiveness of a new teaching strategy in a classroom. The experimental group receives the new teaching strategy, while the control group receives the traditional strategy. It is the teaching strategy that is the independent variable in this scenario. In an experiment, the independent variable is the variable that the scientist deliberately changes or imposes on the subjects.

Dependent variables are known or hypothesized consequences; they are the effects that result from changes or differences in an independent variable. In an experiment, the dependent variables are those that the scientist measures before, during, and particularly at the end of the experiment to see if they have changed as expected. The dependent variable must be stated so that it is clear how it will be observed or measured. Rather than comparing “learning” among students (which is a vague and difficult to measure concept), an educational researcher might choose to compare test scores, which are very specific and easy to measure.

In any real-world example, many, many variables MIGHT affect the outcome of an experiment, yet only one or a few independent variables can be tested. Other variables must be kept as similar as possible between the study groups and are called control variables . For our educational research example, if the control group consisted only of people between the ages of 18 and 20 and the experimental group contained people between the ages of 30 and 35, we would not know if it was the teaching strategy or the students’ ages that played a larger role in the results. To avoid this problem, a good study will be set up so that each group contains students with a similar age profile. In a well-designed educational research study, student age will be a controlled variable, along with other possibly important factors like gender, past educational achievement, and pre-existing knowledge of the subject area.

What is the independent variable in this experiment?

• Sex (all of the subjects will be female)
• Presence or absence of the HPV vaccine
• Presence or absence of HPV (the virus)

[reveal-answer q=”68680″]Show Answer[/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”68680″]Answer b. Presence or absence of the HPV vaccine. This is the variable that is different between the control and the experimental groups. All the subjects in this study are female, so this variable is the same in all groups. In a well-designed study, the two groups will be of similar age. The presence or absence of the virus is what the researchers will measure at the end of the experiment. Ideally the two groups will both be HPV-free at the start of the experiment.

List three control variables other than age.

[practice-area rows=”3″][/practice-area] [reveal-answer q=”903121″]Show Answer[/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”903121″]Some possible control variables would be: general health of the women, sexual activity, lifestyle, diet, socioeconomic status, etc.

What is the dependent variable in this experiment?

• Sex (male or female)
• Rates of HPV infection
• Age (years)

[reveal-answer q=”907103″]Show Answer[/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”907103″]Answer b. Rates of HPV infection. The researchers will measure how many individuals got infected with HPV after a given period of time.[/hidden-answer]

Contributors and Attributions

• Revision and adaptation. Authored by : Shelli Carter and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Scientific Inquiry. Provided by : Open Learning Initiative. Located at : https://oli.cmu.edu/jcourse/workbook/activity/page?context=434a5c2680020ca6017c03488572e0f8 . Project : Introduction to Biology (Open + Free). License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

• Understanding Science 101
• Misconceptions
• Testing ideas with evidence is at the heart of the process of science.
• Scientific testing involves figuring out what we would  expect  to observe if an idea were correct and comparing that expectation to what we  actually  observe.

Misconception:  Science proves ideas.

Misconception:  Science can only disprove ideas.

Correction:  Science neither proves nor disproves. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, but may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.  Read more about it.

Testing scientific ideas

Testing ideas about childbed fever.

As a simple example of how scientific testing works, consider the case of Ignaz Semmelweis, who worked as a doctor on a maternity ward in the 1800s. In his ward, an unusually high percentage of new mothers died of what was then called childbed fever. Semmelweis considered many possible explanations for this high death rate. Two of the many ideas that he considered were (1) that the fever was caused by mothers giving birth lying on their backs (as opposed to on their sides) and (2) that the fever was caused by doctors’ unclean hands (the doctors often performed autopsies immediately before examining women in labor). He tested these ideas by considering what expectations each idea generated. If it were true that childbed fever were caused by giving birth on one’s back, then changing procedures so that women labored on their sides should lead to lower rates of childbed fever. Semmelweis tried changing the position of labor, but the incidence of fever did not decrease; the actual observations did not match the expected results. If, however, childbed fever were caused by doctors’ unclean hands, having doctors wash their hands thoroughly with a strong disinfecting agent before attending to women in labor should lead to lower rates of childbed fever. When Semmelweis tried this, rates of fever plummeted; the actual observations matched the expected results, supporting the second explanation.

Testing in the tropics

Let’s take a look at another, very different, example of scientific testing: investigating the origins of coral atolls in the tropics. Consider the atoll Eniwetok (Anewetak) in the Marshall Islands — an oceanic ring of exposed coral surrounding a central lagoon. From the 1800s up until today, scientists have been trying to learn what supports atoll structures beneath the water’s surface and exactly how atolls form. Coral only grows near the surface of the ocean where light penetrates, so Eniwetok could have formed in several ways:

Hypothesis 2: The coral that makes up Eniwetok might have grown in a ring atop an underwater mountain already near the surface. The key to this hypothesis is the idea that underwater mountains don’t sink; instead the remains of dead sea animals (shells, etc.) accumulate on underwater mountains, potentially assisted by tectonic uplifting. Eventually, the top of the mountain/debris pile would reach the depth at which coral grow, and the atoll would form.

Which is a better explanation for Eniwetok? Did the atoll grow atop a sinking volcano, forming an underwater coral tower, or was the mountain instead built up until it neared the surface where coral were eventually able to grow? Which of these explanations is best supported by the evidence? We can’t perform an experiment to find out. Instead, we must figure out what expectations each hypothesis generates, and then collect data from the world to see whether our observations are a better match with one of the two ideas.

If Eniwetok grew atop an underwater mountain, then we would expect the atoll to be made up of a relatively thin layer of coral on top of limestone or basalt. But if it grew upwards around a subsiding island, then we would expect the atoll to be made up of many hundreds of feet of coral on top of volcanic rock. When geologists drilled into Eniwetok in 1951 as part of a survey preparing for nuclear weapons tests, the drill bored through more than 4000 feet (1219 meters) of coral before hitting volcanic basalt! The actual observation contradicted the underwater mountain explanation and matched the subsiding island explanation, supporting that idea. Of course, many other lines of evidence also shed light on the origins of coral atolls, but the surprising depth of coral on Eniwetok was particularly convincing to many geologists.

• Take a sidetrip

Visit the NOAA website to see an animation of coral atoll formation according to Hypothesis 1.

• Teaching resources

Scientists test hypotheses and theories. They are both scientific explanations for what we observe in the natural world, but theories deal with a much wider range of phenomena than do hypotheses. To learn more about the differences between hypotheses and theories, jump ahead to  Science at multiple levels .

• Use our  web interactive  to help students document and reflect on the process of science.
• Learn strategies for building lessons and activities around the Science Flowchart: Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 Grades 13-16
• Find lesson plans for introducing the Science Flowchart to your students in: Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-16
• Get  graphics and pdfs of the Science Flowchart  to use in your classroom. Translations are available in Spanish, French, Japanese, and Swahili.

Observation beyond our eyes

The logic of scientific arguments

Subscribe to our newsletter

• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool

Scientific Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law

Understanding the Difference Between Basic Scientific Terms

Hero Images / Getty Images

• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, "theory," "law," and "hypothesis" don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is "just a theory," meaning it's a supposition that may or may not be true. In science, however, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. This hypothesis can be disproven if you observe a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying 1,000 detergents, there might be one more you haven't tried that could be different.

Scientists often construct models to help explain complex concepts. These can be physical models like a model volcano or atom  or conceptual models like predictive weather algorithms. A model doesn't contain all the details of the real deal, but it should include observations known to be valid.

Example: The  Bohr model shows electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus, much the same way as the way planets revolve around the sun. In reality, the movement of electrons is complicated but the model makes it clear that protons and neutrons form a nucleus and electrons tend to move around outside the nucleus.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say that it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908, in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It was theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon , and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this theory, generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

A scientific law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it's made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you the means to explain "why." The word "law" is used less and less in science, as many laws are only true under limited circumstances.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity . Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no "proof" or absolute "truth" in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is "proof" in science. Some work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define the terms hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What's important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

• Theory Definition in Science
• Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
• What Is a Scientific or Natural Law?
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• The Continental Drift Theory: Revolutionary and Significant
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• Hypothesis Definition (Science)
• Definition of a Hypothesis
• Processual Archaeology
• The Basics of Physics in Scientific Study
• What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science?
• Tips on Winning the Debate on Evolution
• Geological Thinking: Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses
• 5 Common Misconceptions About Evolution
• Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning

Theories, Hypotheses, and Laws: Definitions, examples, and their roles in science

by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne E. Egger, Ph.D.

Listen to this reading

Did you know that the idea of evolution had been part of Western thought for more than 2,000 years before Charles Darwin was born? Like many theories, the theory of evolution was the result of the work of many different scientists working in different disciplines over a period of time.

A scientific theory is an explanation inferred from multiple lines of evidence for some broad aspect of the natural world and is logical, testable, and predictive.

As new evidence comes to light, or new interpretations of existing data are proposed, theories may be revised and even change; however, they are not tenuous or speculative.

A scientific hypothesis is an inferred explanation of an observation or research finding; while more exploratory in nature than a theory, it is based on existing scientific knowledge.

A scientific law is an expression of a mathematical or descriptive relationship observed in nature.

Imagine yourself shopping in a grocery store with a good friend who happens to be a chemist. Struggling to choose between the many different types of tomatoes in front of you, you pick one up, turn to your friend, and ask her if she thinks the tomato is organic . Your friend simply chuckles and replies, "Of course it's organic!" without even looking at how the fruit was grown. Why the amused reaction? Your friend is highlighting a simple difference in vocabulary. To a chemist, the term organic refers to any compound in which hydrogen is bonded to carbon. Tomatoes (like all plants) are abundant in organic compounds – thus your friend's laughter. In modern agriculture, however, organic has come to mean food items grown or raised without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other additives.

So who is correct? You both are. Both uses of the word are correct, though they mean different things in different contexts. There are, of course, lots of words that have more than one meaning (like bat , for example), but multiple meanings can be especially confusing when two meanings convey very different ideas and are specific to one field of study.

• Scientific theories

The term theory also has two meanings, and this double meaning often leads to confusion. In common language, the term theory generally refers to speculation or a hunch or guess. You might have a theory about why your favorite sports team isn't playing well, or who ate the last cookie from the cookie jar. But these theories do not fit the scientific use of the term. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated and comprehensive set of ideas that explains a phenomenon in nature. A scientific theory is based on large amounts of data and observations that have been collected over time. Scientific theories can be tested and refined by additional research , and they allow scientists to make predictions. Though you may be correct in your hunch, your cookie jar conjecture doesn't fit this more rigorous definition.

All scientific disciplines have well-established, fundamental theories . For example, atomic theory describes the nature of matter and is supported by multiple lines of evidence from the way substances behave and react in the world around us (see our series on Atomic Theory ). Plate tectonic theory describes the large scale movement of the outer layer of the Earth and is supported by evidence from studies about earthquakes , magnetic properties of the rocks that make up the seafloor , and the distribution of volcanoes on Earth (see our series on Plate Tectonic Theory ). The theory of evolution by natural selection , which describes the mechanism by which inherited traits that affect survivability or reproductive success can cause changes in living organisms over generations , is supported by extensive studies of DNA , fossils , and other types of scientific evidence (see our Charles Darwin series for more information). Each of these major theories guides and informs modern research in those fields, integrating a broad, comprehensive set of ideas.

So how are these fundamental theories developed, and why are they considered so well supported? Let's take a closer look at some of the data and research supporting the theory of natural selection to better see how a theory develops.

Comprehension Checkpoint

• The development of a scientific theory: Evolution and natural selection

The theory of evolution by natural selection is sometimes maligned as Charles Darwin 's speculation on the origin of modern life forms. However, evolutionary theory is not speculation. While Darwin is rightly credited with first articulating the theory of natural selection, his ideas built on more than a century of scientific research that came before him, and are supported by over a century and a half of research since.

• The Fixity Notion: Linnaeus

Figure 1: Cover of the 1760 edition of Systema Naturae .

Research about the origins and diversity of life proliferated in the 18th and 19th centuries. Carolus Linnaeus , a Swedish botanist and the father of modern taxonomy (see our module Taxonomy I for more information), was a devout Christian who believed in the concept of Fixity of Species , an idea based on the biblical story of creation. The Fixity of Species concept said that each species is based on an ideal form that has not changed over time. In the early stages of his career, Linnaeus traveled extensively and collected data on the structural similarities and differences between different species of plants. Noting that some very different plants had similar structures, he began to piece together his landmark work, Systema Naturae, in 1735 (Figure 1). In Systema , Linnaeus classified organisms into related groups based on similarities in their physical features. He developed a hierarchical classification system , even drawing relationships between seemingly disparate species (for example, humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees) based on the physical similarities that he observed between these organisms. Linnaeus did not explicitly discuss change in organisms or propose a reason for his hierarchy, but by grouping organisms based on physical characteristics, he suggested that species are related, unintentionally challenging the Fixity notion that each species is created in a unique, ideal form.

• The age of Earth: Leclerc and Hutton

Also in the early 1700s, Georges-Louis Leclerc, a French naturalist, and James Hutton , a Scottish geologist, began to develop new ideas about the age of the Earth. At the time, many people thought of the Earth as 6,000 years old, based on a strict interpretation of the events detailed in the Christian Old Testament by the influential Scottish Archbishop Ussher. By observing other planets and comets in the solar system , Leclerc hypothesized that Earth began as a hot, fiery ball of molten rock, mostly consisting of iron. Using the cooling rate of iron, Leclerc calculated that Earth must therefore be at least 70,000 years old in order to have reached its present temperature.

Hutton approached the same topic from a different perspective, gathering observations of the relationships between different rock formations and the rates of modern geological processes near his home in Scotland. He recognized that the relatively slow processes of erosion and sedimentation could not create all of the exposed rock layers in only a few thousand years (see our module The Rock Cycle ). Based on his extensive collection of data (just one of his many publications ran to 2,138 pages), Hutton suggested that the Earth was far older than human history – hundreds of millions of years old.

While we now know that both Leclerc and Hutton significantly underestimated the age of the Earth (by about 4 billion years), their work shattered long-held beliefs and opened a window into research on how life can change over these very long timescales.

• Fossil studies lead to the development of a theory of evolution: Cuvier

Figure 2: Illustration of an Indian elephant jaw and a mammoth jaw from Cuvier's 1796 paper.

With the age of Earth now extended by Leclerc and Hutton, more researchers began to turn their attention to studying past life. Fossils are the main way to study past life forms, and several key studies on fossils helped in the development of a theory of evolution . In 1795, Georges Cuvier began to work at the National Museum in Paris as a naturalist and anatomist. Through his work, Cuvier became interested in fossils found near Paris, which some claimed were the remains of the elephants that Hannibal rode over the Alps when he invaded Rome in 218 BCE . In studying both the fossils and living species , Cuvier documented different patterns in the dental structure and number of teeth between the fossils and modern elephants (Figure 2) (Horner, 1843). Based on these data , Cuvier hypothesized that the fossil remains were not left by Hannibal, but were from a distinct species of animal that once roamed through Europe and had gone extinct thousands of years earlier: the mammoth. The concept of species extinction had been discussed by a few individuals before Cuvier, but it was in direct opposition to the Fixity of Species concept – if every organism were based on a perfectly adapted, ideal form, how could any cease to exist? That would suggest it was no longer ideal.

While his work provided critical evidence of extinction , a key component of evolution , Cuvier was highly critical of the idea that species could change over time. As a result of his extensive studies of animal anatomy, Cuvier had developed a holistic view of organisms , stating that the

number, direction, and shape of the bones that compose each part of an animal's body are always in a necessary relation to all the other parts, in such a way that ... one can infer the whole from any one of them ...

In other words, Cuvier viewed each part of an organism as a unique, essential component of the whole organism. If one part were to change, he believed, the organism could not survive. His skepticism about the ability of organisms to change led him to criticize the whole idea of evolution , and his prominence in France as a scientist played a large role in discouraging the acceptance of the idea in the scientific community.

• Studies of invertebrates support a theory of change in species: Lamarck

Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a contemporary of Cuvier's at the National Museum in Paris, studied invertebrates like insects and worms. As Lamarck worked through the museum's large collection of invertebrates, he was impressed by the number and variety of organisms . He became convinced that organisms could, in fact, change through time, stating that

... time and favorable conditions are the two principal means which nature has employed in giving existence to all her productions. We know that for her time has no limit, and that consequently she always has it at her disposal.

This was a radical departure from both the fixity concept and Cuvier's ideas, and it built on the long timescale that geologists had recently established. Lamarck proposed that changes that occurred during an organism 's lifetime could be passed on to their offspring, suggesting, for example, that a body builder's muscles would be inherited by their children.

As it turned out, the mechanism by which Lamarck proposed that organisms change over time was wrong, and he is now often referred to disparagingly for his "inheritance of acquired characteristics" idea. Yet despite the fact that some of his ideas were discredited, Lamarck established a support for evolutionary theory that others would build on and improve.

• Rock layers as evidence for evolution: Smith

In the early 1800s, a British geologist and canal surveyor named William Smith added another component to the accumulating evidence for evolution . Smith observed that rock layers exposed in different parts of England bore similarities to one another: These layers (or strata) were arranged in a predictable order, and each layer contained distinct groups of fossils . From this series of observations , he developed a hypothesis that specific groups of animals followed one another in a definite sequence through Earth's history, and this sequence could be seen in the rock layers. Smith's hypothesis was based on his knowledge of geological principles , including the Law of Superposition.

The Law of Superposition states that sediments are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest sediments deposited first, or at the bottom, and newer layers deposited on top. The concept was first expressed by the Persian scientist Avicenna in the 11th century, but was popularized by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno in the 17th century. Note that the law does not state how sediments are deposited; it simply describes the relationship between the ages of deposited sediments.

Figure 3: Engraving from William Smith's 1815 monograph on identifying strata by fossils.

Smith backed up his hypothesis with extensive drawings of fossils uncovered during his research (Figure 3), thus allowing other scientists to confirm or dispute his findings. His hypothesis has, in fact, been confirmed by many other scientists and has come to be referred to as the Law of Faunal Succession. His work was critical to the formation of evolutionary theory as it not only confirmed Cuvier's work that organisms have gone extinct , but it also showed that the appearance of life does not date to the birth of the planet. Instead, the fossil record preserves a timeline of the appearance and disappearance of different organisms in the past, and in doing so offers evidence for change in organisms over time.

• The theory of evolution by natural selection: Darwin and Wallace

It was into this world that Charles Darwin entered: Linnaeus had developed a taxonomy of organisms based on their physical relationships, Leclerc and Hutton demonstrated that there was sufficient time in Earth's history for organisms to change, Cuvier showed that species of organisms have gone extinct , Lamarck proposed that organisms change over time, and Smith established a timeline of the appearance and disappearance of different organisms in the geological record .

Figure 4: Title page of the 1859 Murray edition of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin collected data during his work as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle starting in 1831. He took extensive notes on the geology of the places he visited; he made a major find of fossils of extinct animals in Patagonia and identified an extinct giant ground sloth named Megatherium . He experienced an earthquake in Chile that stranded beds of living mussels above water, where they would be preserved for years to come.

Perhaps most famously, he conducted extensive studies of animals on the Galápagos Islands, noting subtle differences in species of mockingbird, tortoise, and finch that were isolated on different islands with different environmental conditions. These subtle differences made the animals highly adapted to their environments .

This broad spectrum of data led Darwin to propose an idea about how organisms change "by means of natural selection" (Figure 4). But this idea was not based only on his work, it was also based on the accumulation of evidence and ideas of many others before him. Because his proposal encompassed and explained many different lines of evidence and previous work, they formed the basis of a new and robust scientific theory regarding change in organisms – the theory of evolution by natural selection .

Darwin's ideas were grounded in evidence and data so compelling that if he had not conceived them, someone else would have. In fact, someone else did. Between 1858 and 1859, Alfred Russel Wallace , a British naturalist, wrote a series of letters to Darwin that independently proposed natural selection as the means for evolutionary change. The letters were presented to the Linnean Society of London, a prominent scientific society at the time (see our module on Scientific Institutions and Societies ). This long chain of research highlights that theories are not just the work of one individual. At the same time, however, it often takes the insight and creativity of individuals to put together all of the pieces and propose a new theory . Both Darwin and Wallace were experienced naturalists who were familiar with the work of others. While all of the work leading up to 1830 contributed to the theory of evolution , Darwin's and Wallace's theory changed the way that future research was focused by presenting a comprehensive, well-substantiated set of ideas, thus becoming a fundamental theory of biological research.

• Expanding, testing, and refining scientific theories
• Genetics and evolution: Mendel and Dobzhansky

Since Darwin and Wallace first published their ideas, extensive research has tested and expanded the theory of evolution by natural selection . Darwin had no concept of genes or DNA or the mechanism by which characteristics were inherited within a species . A contemporary of Darwin's, the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel , first presented his own landmark study, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, in 1865 in which he provided the basic patterns of genetic inheritance , describing which characteristics (and evolutionary changes) can be passed on in organisms (see our Genetics I module for more information). Still, it wasn't until much later that a "gene" was defined as the heritable unit.

In 1937, the Ukrainian born geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky published Genetics and the Origin of Species , a seminal work in which he described genes themselves and demonstrated that it is through mutations in genes that change occurs. The work defined evolution as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool" ( Dobzhansky, 1982 ). These studies and others in the field of genetics have added to Darwin's work, expanding the scope of the theory .

• Evolution under a microscope: Lenski

More recently, Dr. Richard Lenski, a scientist at Michigan State University, isolated a single Escherichia coli bacterium in 1989 as the first step of the longest running experimental test of evolutionary theory to date – a true test meant to replicate evolution and natural selection in the lab.

After the single microbe had multiplied, Lenski isolated the offspring into 12 different strains , each in their own glucose-supplied culture, predicting that the genetic make-up of each strain would change over time to become more adapted to their specific culture as predicted by evolutionary theory . These 12 lines have been nurtured for over 40,000 bacterial generations (luckily bacterial generations are much shorter than human generations) and exposed to different selective pressures such as heat , cold, antibiotics, and infection with other microorganisms. Lenski and colleagues have studied dozens of aspects of evolutionary theory with these genetically isolated populations . In 1999, they published a paper that demonstrated that random genetic mutations were common within the populations and highly diverse across different individual bacteria . However, "pivotal" mutations that are associated with beneficial changes in the group are shared by all descendants in a population and are much rarer than random mutations, as predicted by the theory of evolution by natural selection (Papadopoulos et al., 1999).

• Punctuated equilibrium: Gould and Eldredge

While established scientific theories like evolution have a wealth of research and evidence supporting them, this does not mean that they cannot be refined as new information or new perspectives on existing data become available. For example, in 1972, biologist Stephen Jay Gould and paleontologist Niles Eldredge took a fresh look at the existing data regarding the timing by which evolutionary change takes place. Gould and Eldredge did not set out to challenge the theory of evolution; rather they used it as a guiding principle and asked more specific questions to add detail and nuance to the theory. This is true of all theories in science: they provide a framework for additional research. At the time, many biologists viewed evolution as occurring gradually, causing small incremental changes in organisms at a relatively steady rate. The idea is referred to as phyletic gradualism , and is rooted in the geological concept of uniformitarianism . After reexamining the available data, Gould and Eldredge came to a different explanation, suggesting that evolution consists of long periods of stability that are punctuated by occasional instances of dramatic change – a process they called punctuated equilibrium .

Like Darwin before them, their proposal is rooted in evidence and research on evolutionary change, and has been supported by multiple lines of evidence. In fact, punctuated equilibrium is now considered its own theory in evolutionary biology. Punctuated equilibrium is not as broad of a theory as natural selection . In science, some theories are broad and overarching of many concepts, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection; others focus on concepts at a smaller, or more targeted, scale such as punctuated equilibrium. And punctuated equilibrium does not challenge or weaken the concept of natural selection; rather, it represents a change in our understanding of the timing by which change occurs in organisms , and a theory within a theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection now includes both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium to describe the rate at which change proceeds.

• Hypotheses and laws: Other scientific concepts

One of the challenges in understanding scientific terms like theory is that there is not a precise definition even within the scientific community. Some scientists debate over whether certain proposals merit designation as a hypothesis or theory , and others mistakenly use the terms interchangeably. But there are differences in these terms. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. Hypotheses , just like theories , are based on observations from research . For example, LeClerc did not hypothesize that Earth had cooled from a molten ball of iron as a random guess; rather, he developed this hypothesis based on his observations of information from meteorites.

A scientist often proposes a hypothesis before research confirms it as a way of predicting the outcome of study to help better define the parameters of the research. LeClerc's hypothesis allowed him to use known parameters (the cooling rate of iron) to do additional work. A key component of a formal scientific hypothesis is that it is testable and falsifiable. For example, when Richard Lenski first isolated his 12 strains of bacteria , he likely hypothesized that random mutations would cause differences to appear within a period of time in the different strains of bacteria. But when a hypothesis is generated in science, a scientist will also make an alternative hypothesis , an explanation that explains a study if the data do not support the original hypothesis. If the different strains of bacteria in Lenski's work did not diverge over the indicated period of time, perhaps the rate of mutation was slower than first thought.

So you might ask, if theories are so well supported, do they eventually become laws? The answer is no – not because they aren't well-supported, but because theories and laws are two very different things. Laws describe phenomena, often mathematically. Theories, however, explain phenomena. For example, in 1687 Isaac Newton proposed a Theory of Gravitation, describing gravity as a force of attraction between two objects. As part of this theory, Newton developed a Law of Universal Gravitation that explains how this force operates. This law states that the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those objects. Newton 's Law does not explain why this is true, but it describes how gravity functions (see our Gravity: Newtonian Relationships module for more detail). In 1916, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity to explain the mechanism by which gravity has its effect. Einstein's work challenges Newton's theory, and has been found after extensive testing and research to more accurately describe the phenomenon of gravity. While Einstein's work has replaced Newton's as the dominant explanation of gravity in modern science, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is still used as it reasonably (and more simply) describes the force of gravity under many conditions. Similarly, the Law of Faunal Succession developed by William Smith does not explain why organisms follow each other in distinct, predictable ways in the rock layers, but it accurately describes the phenomenon.

Theories, hypotheses , and laws drive scientific progress

Theories, hypotheses , and laws are not simply important components of science, they drive scientific progress. For example, evolutionary biology now stands as a distinct field of science that focuses on the origins and descent of species . Geologists now rely on plate tectonics as a conceptual model and guiding theory when they are studying processes at work in Earth's crust . And physicists refer to atomic theory when they are predicting the existence of subatomic particles yet to be discovered. This does not mean that science is "finished," or that all of the important theories have been discovered already. Like evolution , progress in science happens both gradually and in short, dramatic bursts. Both types of progress are critical for creating a robust knowledge base with data as the foundation and scientific theories giving structure to that knowledge.

Table of Contents

• Theories, hypotheses, and laws drive scientific progress

Activate glossary term highlighting to easily identify key terms within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on these terms to view their definitions.

Activate NGSS annotations to easily identify NGSS standards within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on them to view these standards.

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
• R Soc Open Sci
• v.10(8); 2023 Aug
• PMC10465209

On the scope of scientific hypotheses

William hedley thompson.

1 Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

2 Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

3 Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

4 Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Associated Data

This article has no additional data.

Hypotheses are frequently the starting point when undertaking the empirical portion of the scientific process. They state something that the scientific process will attempt to evaluate, corroborate, verify or falsify. Their purpose is to guide the types of data we collect, analyses we conduct, and inferences we would like to make. Over the last decade, metascience has advocated for hypotheses being in preregistrations or registered reports, but how to formulate these hypotheses has received less attention. Here, we argue that hypotheses can vary in specificity along at least three independent dimensions: the relationship, the variables, and the pipeline. Together, these dimensions form the scope of the hypothesis. We demonstrate how narrowing the scope of a hypothesis in any of these three ways reduces the hypothesis space and that this reduction is a type of novelty. Finally, we discuss how this formulation of hypotheses can guide researchers to formulate the appropriate scope for their hypotheses and should aim for neither too broad nor too narrow a scope. This framework can guide hypothesis-makers when formulating their hypotheses by helping clarify what is being tested, chaining results to previous known findings, and demarcating what is explicitly tested in the hypothesis.

1.  Introduction

Hypotheses are an important part of the scientific process. However, surprisingly little attention is given to hypothesis-making compared to other skills in the scientist's skillset within current discussions aimed at improving scientific practice. Perhaps this lack of emphasis is because the formulation of the hypothesis is often considered less relevant, as it is ultimately the scientific process that will eventually decide the veracity of the hypothesis. However, there are more hypotheses than scientific studies as selection occurs at various stages: from funder selection and researcher's interests. So which hypotheses are worthwhile to pursue? Which hypotheses are the most effective or pragmatic for extending or enhancing our collective knowledge? We consider the answer to these questions by discussing how broad or narrow a hypothesis can or should be (i.e. its scope).

We begin by considering that the two statements below are both hypotheses and vary in scope:

• H 1 : For every 1 mg decrease of x , y will increase by, on average, 2.5 points.
• H 2 : Changes in x 1 or x 2 correlate with y levels in some way.

Clearly, the specificity of the two hypotheses is very different. H 1 states a precise relationship between two variables ( x and y ), while H 2 specifies a vaguer relationship and does not specify which variables will show the relationship. However, they are both still hypotheses about how x and y relate to each other. This claim of various degrees of the broadness of hypotheses is, in and of itself, not novel. In Epistemetrics, Rescher [ 1 ], while drawing upon the physicist Duhem's work, develops what he calls Duhem's Law. This law considers a trade-off between certainty or precision in statements about physics when evaluating them. Duhem's Law states that narrower hypotheses, such as H 1 above, are more precise but less likely to be evaluated as true than broader ones, such as H 2 above. Similarly, Popper, when discussing theories, describes the reverse relationship between content and probability of a theory being true, i.e. with increased content, there is a decrease in probability and vice versa [ 2 ]. Here we will argue that it is important that both H 1 and H 2 are still valid scientific hypotheses, and their appropriateness depends on certain scientific questions.

The question of hypothesis scope is relevant since there are multiple recent prescriptions to improve science, ranging from topics about preregistrations [ 3 ], registered reports [ 4 ], open science [ 5 ], standardization [ 6 ], generalizability [ 7 ], multiverse analyses [ 8 ], dataset reuse [ 9 ] and general questionable research practices [ 10 ]. Within each of these issues, there are arguments to demarcate between confirmatory and exploratory research or normative prescriptions about how science should be done (e.g. science is ‘bad’ or ‘worse’ if code/data are not open). Despite all these discussions and improvements, much can still be done to improve hypothesis-making. A recent evaluation of preregistered studies in psychology found that over half excluded the preregistered hypotheses [ 11 ]. Further, evaluations of hypotheses in ecology showed that most hypotheses are not explicitly stated [ 12 , 13 ]. Other research has shown that obfuscated hypotheses are more prevalent in retracted research [ 14 ]. There have been recommendations for simpler hypotheses in psychology to avoid misinterpretations and misspecifications [ 15 ]. Finally, several evaluations of preregistration practices have found that a significant proportion of articles do not abide by their stated hypothesis or add additional hypotheses [ 11 , 16 – 18 ]. In sum, while multiple efforts exist to improve scientific practice, our hypothesis-making could improve.

One of our intentions is to provide hypothesis-makers with tools to assist them when making hypotheses. We consider this useful and timely as, with preregistrations becoming more frequent, the hypothesis-making process is now open and explicit . However, preregistrations are difficult to write [ 19 ], and preregistered articles can change or omit hypotheses [ 11 ] or they are vague and certain degrees of freedom hard to control for [ 16 – 18 ]. One suggestion has been to do less confirmatory research [ 7 , 20 ]. While we agree that all research does not need to be confirmatory, we also believe that not all preregistrations of confirmatory work must test narrow hypotheses. We think there is a possible point of confusion that the specificity in preregistrations, where researcher degrees of freedom should be stated, necessitates the requirement that the hypothesis be narrow. Our belief that this confusion is occurring is supported by the study Akker et al . [ 11 ] where they found that 18% of published psychology studies changed their preregistered hypothesis (e.g. its direction), and 60% of studies selectively reported hypotheses in some way. It is along these lines that we feel the framework below can be useful to help formulate appropriate hypotheses to mitigate these identified issues.

We consider this article to be a discussion of the researcher's different choices when formulating hypotheses and to help link hypotheses over time. Here we aim to deconstruct what aspects there are in the hypothesis about their specificity. Throughout this article, we intend to be neutral to many different philosophies of science relating to the scientific method (i.e. how one determines the veracity of a hypothesis). Our idea of neutrality here is that whether a researcher adheres to falsification, verification, pragmatism, or some other philosophy of science, then this framework can be used when formulating hypotheses. 1

The framework this article advocates for is that there are (at least) three dimensions that hypotheses vary along regarding their narrowness and broadness: the selection of relationships, variables, and pipelines. We believe this discussion is fruitful for the current debate regarding normative practices as some positions make, sometimes implicit, commitments about which set of hypotheses the scientific community ought to consider good or permissible. We proceed by outlining a working definition of ‘scientific hypothesis' and then discuss how it relates to theory. Then, we justify how hypotheses can vary along the three dimensions. Using this framework, we then discuss the scopes in relation to appropriate hypothesis-making and an argument about what constitutes a scientifically novel hypothesis. We end the article with practical advice for researchers who wish to use this framework.

2.  The scientific hypothesis

In this section, we will describe a functional and descriptive role regarding how scientists use hypotheses. Jeong & Kwon [ 21 ] investigated and summarized the different uses the concept of ‘hypothesis’ had in philosophical and scientific texts. They identified five meanings: assumption, tentative explanation, tentative cause, tentative law, and prediction. Jeong & Kwon [ 21 ] further found that researchers in science and philosophy used all the different definitions of hypotheses, although there was some variance in frequency between fields. Here we see, descriptively , that the way researchers use the word ‘hypothesis’ is diverse and has a wide range in specificity and function. However, whichever meaning a hypothesis has, it aims to be true, adequate, accurate or useful in some way.

Not all hypotheses are ‘scientific hypotheses'. For example, consider the detective trying to solve a crime and hypothesizing about the perpetrator. Such a hypothesis still aims to be true and is a tentative explanation but differs from the scientific hypothesis. The difference is that the researcher, unlike the detective, evaluates the hypothesis with the scientific method and submits the work for evaluation by the scientific community. Thus a scientific hypothesis entails a commitment to evaluate the statement with the scientific process . 2 Additionally, other types of hypotheses can exist. As discussed in more detail below, scientific theories generate not only scientific hypotheses but also contain auxiliary hypotheses. The latter refers to additional assumptions considered to be true and not explicitly evaluated. 3

Next, the scientific hypothesis is generally made antecedent to the evaluation. This does not necessitate that the event (e.g. in archaeology) or the data collection (e.g. with open data reuse) must be collected before the hypothesis is made, but that the evaluation of the hypothesis cannot happen before its formulation. This claim state does deny the utility of exploratory hypothesis testing of post hoc hypotheses (see [ 25 ]). However, previous results and exploration can generate new hypotheses (e.g. via abduction [ 22 , 26 – 28 ], which is the process of creating hypotheses from evidence), which is an important part of science [ 29 – 32 ], but crucially, while these hypotheses are important and can be the conclusion of exploratory work, they have yet to be evaluated (by whichever method of choice). Hence, they still conform to the antecedency requirement. A further way to justify the antecedency is seen in the practice of formulating a post hoc hypothesis, and considering it to have been evaluated is seen as a questionable research practice (known as ‘hypotheses after results are known’ or HARKing [ 33 ]). 4

While there is a varying range of specificity, is the hypothesis a critical part of all scientific work, or is it reserved for some subset of investigations? There are different opinions regarding this. Glass and Hall, for example, argue that the term only refers to falsifiable research, and model-based research uses verification [ 36 ]. However, this opinion does not appear to be the consensus. Osimo and Rumiati argue that any model based on or using data is never wholly free from hypotheses, as hypotheses can, even implicitly, infiltrate the data collection [ 37 ]. For our definition, we will consider hypotheses that can be involved in different forms of scientific evaluation (i.e. not just falsification), but we do not exclude the possibility of hypothesis-free scientific work.

Finally, there is a debate about whether theories or hypotheses should be linguistic or formal [ 38 – 40 ]. Neither side in this debate argues that verbal or formal hypotheses are not possible, but instead, they discuss normative practices. Thus, for our definition, both linguistic and formal hypotheses are considered viable.

Considering the above discussion, let us summarize the scientific process and the scientific hypothesis: a hypothesis guides what type of data are sampled and what analysis will be done. With the new observations, evidence is analysed or quantified in some way (often using inferential statistics) to judge the hypothesis's truth value, utility, credibility, or likelihood. The following working definition captures the above:

• Scientific hypothesis : an implicit or explicit statement that can be verbal or formal. The hypothesis makes a statement about some natural phenomena (via an assumption, explanation, cause, law or prediction). The scientific hypothesis is made antecedent to performing a scientific process where there is a commitment to evaluate it.

For simplicity, we will only use the term ‘hypothesis’ for ‘scientific hypothesis' to refer to the above definition for the rest of the article except when it is necessary to distinguish between other types of hypotheses. Finally, this definition could further be restrained in multiple ways (e.g. only explicit hypotheses are allowed, or assumptions are never hypotheses). However, if the definition is more (or less) restrictive, it has little implication for the argument below.

3.  The hypothesis, theory and auxiliary assumptions

While we have a definition of the scientific hypothesis, we have yet to link it with how it relates to scientific theory, where there is frequently some interconnection (i.e. a hypothesis tests a scientific theory). Generally, for this paper, we believe our argument applies regardless of how scientific theory is defined. Further, some research lacks theory, sometimes called convenience or atheoretical studies [ 41 ]. Here a hypothesis can be made without a wider theory—and our framework fits here too. However, since many consider hypotheses to be defined or deducible from scientific theory, there is an important connection between the two. Therefore, we will briefly clarify how hypotheses relate to common formulations of scientific theory.

A scientific theory is generally a set of axioms or statements about some objects, properties and their relations relating to some phenomena. Hypotheses can often be deduced from the theory. Additionally, a theory has boundary conditions. The boundary conditions specify the domain of the theory stating under what conditions it applies (e.g. all things with a central neural system, humans, women, university teachers) [ 42 ]. Boundary conditions of a theory will consequently limit all hypotheses deduced from the theory. For example, with a boundary condition ‘applies to all humans’, then the subsequent hypotheses deduced from the theory are limited to being about humans. While this limitation of the hypothesis by the theory's boundary condition exists, all the considerations about a hypothesis scope detailed below still apply within the boundary conditions. Finally, it is also possible (depending on the definition of scientific theory) for a hypothesis to test the same theory under different boundary conditions. 5

The final consideration relating scientific theory to scientific hypotheses is auxiliary hypotheses. These hypotheses are theories or assumptions that are considered true simultaneously with the theory. Most philosophies of science from Popper's background knowledge [ 24 ], Kuhn's paradigms during normal science [ 44 ], and Laktos' protective belt [ 45 ] all have their own versions of this auxiliary or background information that is required for the hypothesis to test the theory. For example, Meelh [ 46 ] auxiliary theories/assumptions are needed to go from theoretical terms to empirical terms (e.g. neural activity can be inferred from blood oxygenation in fMRI research or reaction time to an indicator of cognition) and auxiliary theories about instruments (e.g. the experimental apparatus works as intended) and more (see also Other approaches to categorizing hypotheses below). As noted in the previous section, there is a difference between these auxiliary hypotheses, regardless of their definition, and the scientific hypothesis defined above. Recall that our definition of the scientific hypothesis included a commitment to evaluate it. There are no such commitments with auxiliary hypotheses, but rather they are assumed to be correct to test the theory adequately. This distinction proves to be important as auxiliary hypotheses are still part of testing a theory but are separate from the hypothesis to be evaluated (discussed in more detail below).

4.  The scope of hypotheses

In the scientific hypothesis section, we defined the hypothesis and discussed how it relates back to the theory. In this section, we want to defend two claims about hypotheses:

• (A1) Hypotheses can have different scopes . Some hypotheses are narrower in their formulation, and some are broader.
• (A2) The scope of hypotheses can vary along three dimensions relating to relationship selection , variable selection , and pipeline selection .

A1 may seem obvious, but it is important to establish what is meant by narrower and broader scope. When a hypothesis is very narrow, it is specific. For example, it might be specific about the type of relationship between some variables. In figure 1 , we make four different statements regarding the relationship between x and y . The narrowest hypothesis here states ‘there is a positive linear relationship with a magnitude of 0.5 between x and y ’ ( figure 1 a ), and the broadest hypothesis states ‘there is a relationship between x and y ’ ( figure 1 d ). Note that many other hypotheses are possible that are not included in this example (such as there being no relationship).

Examples of narrow and broad hypotheses between x and y . Circles indicate a set of possible relationships with varying slopes that can pivot or bend.

We see that the narrowest of these hypotheses claims a type of relationship (linear), a direction of the relationship (positive) and a magnitude of the relationship (0.5). As the hypothesis becomes broader, the specific magnitude disappears ( figure 1 b ), the relationship has additional options than just being linear ( figure 1 c ), and finally, the direction of the relationship disappears. Crucially, all the examples in figure 1 can meet the above definition of scientific hypotheses. They are all statements that can be evaluated with the same scientific method. There is a difference between these statements, though— they differ in the scope of the hypothesis . Here we have justified A1.

Within this framework, when we discuss whether a hypothesis is narrower or broader in scope, this is a relation between two hypotheses where one is a subset of the other. This means that if H 1 is narrower than H 2 , and if H 1 is true, then H 2 is also true. This can be seen in figure 1 a–d . Suppose figure 1 a , the narrowest of all the hypotheses, is true. In that case, all the other broader statements are also true (i.e. a linear correlation of 0.5 necessarily entails that there is also a positive linear correlation, a linear correlation, and some relationship). While this property may appear trivial, it entails that it is only possible to directly compare the hypothesis scope between two hypotheses (i.e. their broadness or narrowness) where one is the subset of the other. 6

4.1. Sets, disjunctions and conjunctions of elements

The above restraint defines the scope as relations between sets. This property helps formalize the framework of this article. Below, when we discuss the different dimensions that can impact the scope, these become represented as a set. Each set contains elements. Each element is a permissible situation that allows the hypothesis to be accepted. We denote elements as lower case with italics (e.g. e 1 , e 2 , e 3 ) and sets as bold upper case (e.g. S ). Each of the three different dimensions discussed below will be formalized as sets, while the total number of elements specifies their scope.

Let us reconsider the above restraint about comparing hypotheses as narrower or broader. This can be formally shown if:

• e 1 , e 2 , e 3 are elements of S 1 ; and
• e 1 and e 2 are elements of S 2 ,

then S 2 is narrower than S 1 .

Each element represents specific propositions that, if corroborated, would support the hypothesis. Returning to figure 1 a , b , the following statements apply to both:

• ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.5’.

Whereas the following two apply to figure 1 b but not figure 1 a :

• ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.4’ ( figure 1 b ).
• ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.3’ ( figure 1 b ).

Figure 1 b allows for a considerably larger number of permissible situations (which is obvious as it allows for any positive linear relationship). When formulating the hypothesis in figure 1 b , we do not need to specify every single one of these permissible relationships. We can simply specify all possible positive slopes, which entails the set of permissible elements it includes.

That broader hypotheses have more elements in their sets entails some important properties. When we say S contains the elements e 1 , e 2 , and e 3 , the hypothesis is corroborated if e 1 or e 2 or e 3 is the case. This means that the set requires only one of the elements to be corroborated for the hypothesis to be considered correct (i.e. the positive linear relationship needs to be 0.3 or 0.4 or 0.5). Contrastingly, we will later see cases when conjunctions of elements occur (i.e. both e 1 and e 2 are the case). When a conjunction occurs, in this formulation, the conjunction itself becomes an element in the set (i.e. ‘ e 1 and e 2 ’ is a single element). Figure 2 illustrates how ‘ e 1 and e 2 ’ is narrower than ‘ e 1 ’, and ‘ e 1 ’ is narrower than ‘ e 1 or e 2 ’. 7 This property relating to the conjunction being narrower than individual elements is explained in more detail in the pipeline selection section below.

Scope as sets. Left : four different sets (grey, red, blue and purple) showing different elements which they contain. Right : a list of each colour explaining which set is a subset of the other (thereby being ‘narrower’).

4.2. Relationship selection

We move to A2, which is to show the different dimensions that a hypothesis scope can vary along. We have already seen an example of the first dimension of a hypothesis in figure 1 , the relationship selection . Let R denote the set of all possible configurations of relationships that are permissible for the hypothesis to be considered true. For example, in the narrowest formulation above, there was one allowed relationship for the hypothesis to be true. Consequently, the size of R (denoted | R |) is one. As discussed above, in the second narrowest formulation ( figure 1 b ), R has more possible relationships where it can still be considered true:

• r 1 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.1’
• r 2 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.2’
• r 3 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.3’.

Additionally, even broader hypotheses will be compatible with more types of relationships. In figure 1 c , d , nonlinear and negative relationships are also possible relationships included in R . For this broader statement to be affirmed, more elements are possible to be true. Thus if | R | is greater (i.e. contains more possible configurations for the hypothesis to be true), then the hypothesis is broader. Thus, the scope of relating to the relationship selection is specified by | R |. Finally, if |R H1 | > |R H2 | , then H 1 is broader than H 2 regarding the relationship selection.

Figure 1 is an example of the relationship narrowing. That the relationship became linear is only an example and does not necessitate a linear relationship or that this scope refers only to correlations. An alternative example of a relationship scope is a broad hypothesis where there is no knowledge about the distribution of some data. In such situations, one may assume a uniform relationship or a Cauchy distribution centred at zero. Over time the specific distribution can be hypothesized. Thereafter, the various parameters of the distribution can be hypothesized. At each step, the hypothesis of the distribution gets further specified to narrower formulations where a smaller set of possible relationships are included (see [ 47 , 48 ] for a more in-depth discussion about how specific priors relate to more narrow tests). Finally, while figure 1 was used to illustrate the point of increasingly narrow relationship hypotheses, it is more likely to expect the narrowest relationship, within fields such as psychology, to have considerable uncertainty and be formulated with confidence or credible intervals (i.e. we will rarely reach point estimates).

4.3. Variable selection

We have demonstrated that relationship selection can affect the scope of a hypothesis. Additionally, at least two other dimensions can affect the scope of a hypothesis: variable selection and pipeline selection . The variable selection in figure 1 was a single bivariate relationship (e.g. x 's relationship with y ). However, it is not always the case that we know which variables will be involved. For example, in neuroimaging, we can be confident that one or more brain regions will be processing some information following a stimulus. Still, we might not be sure which brain region(s) this will be. Consequently, our hypothesis becomes broader because we have selected more variables. The relationship selection may be identical for each chosen variable, but the variable selection becomes broader. We can consider the following three hypotheses to be increasing in their scope:

• H 1 : x relates to y with relationship R .
• H 2 : x 1 or x 2 relates to y with relationship R .
• H 3 : x 1 or x 2 or x 3 relates to y with relationship R .

For H 1 –H 3 above, we assume that R is the same. Further, we assume that there is no interaction between these variables.

In the above examples, we have multiple x ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , … , x n ). Again, we can symbolize the variable selection as a non-empty set XY , containing either a single variable or many variables. Our motivation for designating it XY is that the variable selection can include multiple possibilities for both the independent variable ( x ) and the dependent variable ( y ). Like with relationship selection, we can quantify the broadness between two hypotheses with the size of the set XY . Consequently, | XY | denotes the total scope concerning variable selection. Thus, in the examples above | XY H1 | < | XY H2 | < | XY H3 |. Like with relationship selection, hypotheses that vary in | XY | still meet the definition of a hypothesis. 8

An obvious concern for many is that a broader XY is much easier to evaluate as correct. Generally, when | XY 1 | > | XY 2 |, there is a greater chance of spurious correlations when evaluating XY 1 . This concern is an issue relating to the evaluation of hypotheses (e.g. applying statistics to the evaluation), which will require additional assumptions relating to how to evaluate the hypotheses. Strategies to deal with this apply some correction or penalization for multiple statistical testing [ 49 ] or partial pooling and regularizing priors [ 50 , 51 ]. These strategies aim to evaluate a broader variable selection ( x 1 or x 2 ) on equal or similar terms to a narrow variable selection ( x 1 ).

4.4. Pipeline selection

Scientific studies require decisions about how to perform the analysis. This scope considers transformations applied to the raw data ( XY raw ) to achieve some derivative ( XY ). These decisions can also involve selection procedures that drop observations deemed unreliable, standardizing, correcting confounding variables, or different philosophies. We can call the array of decisions and transformations used as the pipeline . A hypothesis varies in the number of pipelines:

• H 1 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 .
• H 2 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 or pipeline p 2 .
• H 3 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 or pipeline p 2 , or pipeline p 3 .

Importantly, the pipeline here considers decisions regarding how the hypothesis shapes the data collection and transformation. We do not consider this to include decisions made regarding the assumptions relating to the statistical inference as those relate to operationalizing the evaluation of the hypothesis and not part of the hypothesis being evaluated (these assumptions are like auxiliary hypotheses, which are assumed to be true but not explicitly evaluated).

Like with variable selection ( XY ) and relationship selection ( R ), we can see that pipelines impact the scope of hypotheses. Again, we can symbolize the pipeline selection with a set P . As previously, | P | will denote the dimension of the pipeline selection. In the case of pipeline selection, we are testing the same variables, looking for the same relationship, but processing the variables or relationships with different pipelines to evaluate the relationship. Consequently, | P H1 | < | P H2 | < | P H3 |.

These issues regarding pipelines have received attention as the ‘garden of forking paths' [ 52 ]. Here, there are calls for researchers to ensure that their entire pipeline has been specified. Additionally, recent work has highlighted the diversity of results based on multiple analytical pipelines [ 53 , 54 ]. These results are often considered a concern, leading to calls that results should be pipeline resistant.

The wish for pipeline-resistant methods entails that hypotheses, in their narrowest form, are possible for all pipelines. Consequently, a narrower formulation will entail that this should not impact the hypothesis regardless of which pipeline is chosen. Thus the conjunction of pipelines is narrower than single pipelines. Consider the following three scenarios:

• H 3 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 and pipeline p 2 .

In this instance, since H 1 is always true if H 3 is true, thus H 3 is a narrower formulation than H 1 . Consequently, | P H3 | < | P H1 | < | P H2 |. Decreasing the scope of the pipeline dimension also entails the increase in conjunction of pipelines (i.e. creating pipeline-resistant methods) rather than just the reduction of disjunctional statements.

4.5. Combining the dimensions

In summary, we then have three different dimensions that independently affect the scope of the hypothesis. We have demonstrated the following general claim regarding hypotheses:

• The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P .

And that the broadness and narrowness of a hypothesis depend on how large the three sets XY , R and P are. With this formulation, we can conclude that hypotheses have a scope that can be determined with a 3-tuple argument of (| R |, | XY |, | P |).

While hypotheses can be formulated along these three dimensions and generally aim to be reduced, it does not entail that these dimensions behave identically. For example, the relationship dimensions aim to reduce the number of elements as far as possible (e.g. to an interval). Contrastingly, for both variables and pipeline, the narrower hypothesis can reduce to single variables/pipelines or become narrower still and become conjunctions where all variables/pipelines need to corroborate the hypothesis (i.e. regardless of which method one follows, the hypothesis is correct).

5.  Additional possible dimensions

No commitment is being made about the exhaustive nature of there only being three dimensions that specify the hypothesis scope. Other dimensions may exist that specify the scope of a hypothesis. For example, one might consider the pipeline dimension as two different dimensions. The first would consider the experimental pipeline dimension regarding all variables relating to the experimental setup to collect data, and the latter would be the analytical pipeline dimension regarding the data analysis of any given data snapshot. Another possible dimension is adding the number of situations or contexts under which the hypothesis is valid. For example, any restraint such as ‘in a vacuum’, ‘under the speed of light’, or ‘in healthy human adults' could be considered an additional dimension of the hypothesis. There is no objection to whether these should be additional dimensions of the hypothesis. However, as stated above, these usually follow from the boundary conditions of the theory.

6.  Specifying the scope versus assumptions

We envision that this framework can help hypothesis-makers formulate hypotheses (in research plans, registered reports, preregistrations etc.). Further, using this framework while formulating hypotheses can help distinguish between auxiliary hypotheses and parts of the scientific hypothesis being tested. When writing preregistrations, it can frequently occur that some step in the method has two alternatives (e.g. a preprocessing step), and there is not yet reason to choose one over the other, and the researcher needs to make a decision. These following scenarios are possible:

• 1. Narrow pipeline scope . The researcher evaluates the hypothesis with both pipeline variables (i.e. H holds for both p 1 and p 2 where p 1 and p 2 can be substituted with each other in the pipeline).
• 2. Broad pipeline scope. The researcher evaluates the hypothesis with both pipeline variables, and only one needs to be correct (i.e. H holds for either p 1 or p 2 where p 1 and p 2 can be substituted with each other in the pipeline). The result of this experiment may help motivate choosing either p 1 or p 2 in future studies.
• 3. Auxiliary hypothesis. Based on some reason (e.g. convention), the researcher assumes p 1 and evaluates H assuming p 1 is true.

Here we see that the same pipeline step can be part of either the auxiliary hypotheses or the pipeline scope. This distinction is important because if (3) is chosen, the decision becomes an assumption that is not explicitly tested by the hypothesis. Consequently, a researcher confident in the hypothesis may state that the auxiliary hypothesis p 1 was incorrect, and they should retest their hypothesis using different assumptions. In the cases where this decision is part of the pipeline scope, the hypothesis is intertwined with this decision, removing the eventual wiggle-room to reject auxiliary hypotheses that were assumed. Furthermore, starting with broader pipeline hypotheses that gradually narrow down can lead to a more well-motivated protocol for approaching the problem. Thus, this framework can help researchers while writing their hypotheses in, for example, preregistrations because they can consider when they are committing to a decision, assuming it, or when they should perhaps test a broader hypothesis with multiple possible options (discussed in more detail in §11 below).

7.  The reduction of scope in hypothesis space

Having established that different scopes of a hypothesis are possible, we now consider how the hypotheses change over time. In this section, we consider how the scope of the hypothesis develops ideally within science.

Consider a new research question. A large number of hypotheses are possible. Let us call this set of all possible hypotheses the hypothesis space . Hypotheses formulated within this space can be narrower or broader based on the dimensions discussed previously ( figure 3 ).

Example of hypothesis space. The hypothesis scope is expressed as cuboids in three dimensions (relationship ( R ), variable ( XY ), pipeline ( P )). The hypothesis space is the entire possible space within the three dimensions. Three hypotheses are shown in the hypothesis space (H 1 , H 2 , H 3 ). H 2 and H 3 are subsets of H 1 .

After the evaluation of the hypothesis with the scientific process, the hypothesis will be accepted or rejected. 9 The evaluation could be done through falsification or via verification, depending on the philosophy of science commitments. Thereafter, other narrower formulations of the hypothesis can be formulated by reducing the relationship, variable or pipeline scope. If a narrower hypothesis is accepted, more specific details about the subject matter are known, or a theory has been refined in greater detail. A narrower hypothesis will entail a more specific relationship, variable or pipeline detailed in the hypothesis. Consequently, hypotheses linked to each other in this way will become narrower over time along one or more dimensions. Importantly, considering that the conjunction of elements is narrower than single elements for pipelines and variables, this process of narrower hypotheses will lead to more general hypotheses (i.e. they have to be applied in all conditions and yield less flexibility when they do not apply). 10

Considering that the scopes of hypotheses were defined as sets above, some properties can be deduced from this framework about how narrower hypotheses relate to broader hypotheses. Let us consider three hypotheses (H 1 , H 2 , and H 3 ; figure 3 ). H 2 and H 3 are non-overlapping subsets of H 1 . Thus H 2 and H 3 are both narrower in scope than H 1 . Thus the following is correct:

• P1: If H 1 is false, then H 2 is false, and H 2 does not need to be evaluated.
• P2: If H 2 is true, then the broader H 1 is true, and H 1 does not need to be evaluated.
• P3: If H 1 is true and H 2 is false, some other hypothesis H 3 of similar scope to H 2 is possible.

For example, suppose H 1 is ‘there is a relationship between x and y ’, H 2 is ‘there is a positive relationship between x and y ’, and H 3 is ‘a negative relationship between x and y ’. In that case, it becomes apparent how each of these follows. 11 Logically, many deductions from set theory are possible but will not be explored here. Instead, we will discuss two additional consequences of hypothesis scopes: scientific novelty and applications for the researcher who formulates a hypothesis.

P1–P3 have been formulated as hypotheses being true or false. In practice, hypotheses are likely evaluated probabilistically (e.g. ‘H 1 is likely’ or ‘there is evidence in support of H 1 ’). In these cases, P1–P3 can be rephrased to account for this by substituting true/false with statements relating to evidence. For example, P2 could read: ‘If there is evidence in support of H 2 , then there is evidence in support of H 1 , and H 1 does not need to be evaluated’.

8.  Scientific novelty as the reduction of scope

Novelty is a key concept that repeatedly occurs in multiple aspects of the scientific enterprise, from funding to publishing [ 55 ]. Generally, scientific progress establishes novel results based on some new hypothesis. Consequently, the new hypothesis for the novel results must be narrower than previously established knowledge (i.e. the size of the scopes is reduced). Otherwise, the result is trivial and already known (see P2 above). Thus, scientific work is novel if the scientific process produces a result based on hypotheses with either a smaller | R |, | XY |, or | P | compared to previous work.

This framework of dimensions of the scope of a hypothesis helps to demarcate when a hypothesis and the subsequent result are novel. If previous studies have established evidence for R 1 (e.g. there is a positive relationship between x and y ), a hypothesis will be novel if and only if it is narrower than R 1 . Thus, if R 2 is narrower in scope than R 1 (i.e. | R 2 | < | R 1 |), R 2 is a novel hypothesis.

Consider the following example. Study 1 hypothesizes, ‘There is a positive relationship between x and y ’. It identifies a linear relationship of 0.6. Next, Study 2 hypothesizes, ‘There is a specific linear relationship between x and y that is 0.6’. Study 2 also identifies the relationship of 0.6. Since this was a narrower hypothesis, Study 2 is novel despite the same result. Frequently, researchers claim that they are the first to demonstrate a relationship. Being the first to demonstrate a relationship is not the final measure of novelty. Having a narrower hypothesis than previous researchers is a sign of novelty as it further reduces the hypothesis space.

Finally, it should be noted that novelty is not the only objective of scientific work. Other attributes, such as improving the certainty of a current hypothesis (e.g. through replications), should not be overlooked. Additional scientific explanations and improved theories are other aspects. Additionally, this definition of novelty relating to hypothesis scope does not exclude other types of novelty (e.g. new theories or paradigms).

9.  How broad should a hypothesis be?

Given the previous section, it is elusive to conclude that the hypothesis should be as narrow as possible as it entails maximal knowledge gain and scientific novelty when formulating hypotheses. Indeed, many who advocate for daring or risky tests seem to hold this opinion. For example, Meehl [ 46 ] argues that we should evaluate theories based on point (or interval) prediction, which would be compatible with very narrow versions of relationships. We do not necessarily think that this is the most fruitful approach. In this section, we argue that hypotheses should aim to be narrower than current knowledge , but too narrow may be problematic .

Let us consider the idea of confirmatory analyses. These studies will frequently keep the previous hypothesis scopes regarding P and XY but aim to become more specific regarding R (i.e. using the same method and the same variables to detect a more specific relationship). A very daring or narrow hypothesis is to minimize R to include the fewest possible relationships. However, it becomes apparent that simply pursuing specificness or daringness is insufficient for selecting relevant hypotheses. Consider a hypothetical scenario where a researcher believes virtual reality use leads people to overestimate the amount of exercise they have done. If unaware of previous studies on this project, an apt hypothesis is perhaps ‘increased virtual reality usage correlates with a less accuracy of reported exercise performed’ (i.e. R is broad). However, a more specific and more daring hypothesis would be to specify the relationship further. Thus, despite not knowing if there is a relationship at all, a more daring hypothesis could be: ‘for every 1 h of virtual reality usage, there will be, on average, a 0.5% decrease in the accuracy of reported exercise performed’ (i.e. R is narrow). We believe it would be better to establish the broader hypothesis in any scenario here for the first experiment. Otherwise, if we fail to confirm the more specific formulation, we could reformulate another equally narrow relative to the broader hypothesis. This process of tweaking a daring hypothesis could be pursued ad infinitum . Such a situation will neither quickly identify the true hypothesis nor effectively use limited research resources.

By first discounting a broader hypothesis that there is no relationship, it will automatically discard all more specific formulations of that relationship in the hypothesis space. Returning to figure 3 , it will be better to establish H 1 before attempting H 2 or H 3 to ensure the correct area in the hypothesis space is being investigated. To provide an analogy: when looking for a needle among hay, first identify which farm it is at, then which barn, then which haystack, then which part of the haystack it is at before we start picking up individual pieces of hay. Thus, it is preferable for both pragmatic and cost-of-resource reasons to formulate sufficiently broad hypotheses to navigate the hypothesis space effectively.

Conversely, formulating too broad a relationship scope in a hypothesis when we already have evidence for narrower scope would be superfluous research (unless the evidence has been called into question by, for example, not being replicated). If multiple studies have supported the hypothesis ‘there is a 20-fold decrease in mortality after taking some medication M’, it would be unnecessary to ask, ‘Does M have any effect?’.

Our conclusion is that the appropriate scope of a hypothesis, and its three dimensions, follow a Goldilocks-like principle where too broad is superfluous and not novel, while too narrow is unnecessary or wasteful. Considering the scope of one's hypothesis and how it relates to previous hypotheses' scopes ensures one is asking appropriate questions.

Finally, there has been a recent trend in psychology that hypotheses should be formal [ 38 , 56 – 60 ]. Formal theories are precise since they are mathematical formulations entailing that their interpretations are clear (non-ambiguous) compared to linguistic theories. However, this literature on formal theories often refers to ‘precise predictions’ and ‘risky testing’ while frequently referencing Meehl, who advocates for narrow hypotheses (e.g. [ 38 , 56 , 59 ]). While perhaps not intended by any of the proponents, one interpretation of some of these positions is that hypotheses derived from formal theories will be narrow hypotheses (i.e. the quality of being ‘precise’ can mean narrow hypotheses with risky tests and non-ambiguous interpretations simultaneously). However, the benefit from the clarity (non-ambiguity) that formal theories/hypotheses bring also applies to broad formal hypotheses as well. They can include explicit but formalized versions of uncertain relationships, multiple possible pipelines, and large sets of variables. For example, a broad formal hypothesis can contain a hyperparameter that controls which distribution the data fit (broad relationship scope), or a variable could represent a set of formalized explicit pipelines (broad pipeline scope) that will be tested. In each of these instances, it is possible to formalize non-ambiguous broad hypotheses from broad formal theories that do not yet have any justification for being overly narrow. In sum, our argumentation here stating that hypotheses should not be too narrow is not an argument against formal theories but rather that hypotheses (derived from formal theories) do not necessarily have to be narrow.

10.  Other approaches to categorizing hypotheses

The framework we present here is a way of categorizing hypotheses into (at least) three dimensions regarding the hypothesis scope, which we believe is accessible to researchers and help link scientific work over time while also trying to remain neutral with regard to a specific philosophy of science. Our proposal does not aim to be antagonistic or necessarily contradict other categorizing schemes—but we believe that our framework provides benefits.

One recent categorization scheme is the Theoretical (T), Auxiliary (A), Statistical (S) and Inferential (I) assumption model (together becoming the TASI model) [ 61 , 62 ]. Briefly, this model considers theory to generate theoretical hypotheses. To translate from theoretical unobservable terms (e.g. personality, anxiety, mass), auxiliary assumptions are needed to generate an empirical hypothesis. Statistical assumptions are often needed to test the empirical hypothesis (e.g. what is the distribution, is it skewed or not) [ 61 , 62 ]. Finally, additional inferential assumptions are needed to generalize to a larger population (e.g. was there a random and independent sampling from defined populations). The TASI model is insightful and helpful in highlighting the distance between a theory and the observation that would corroborate/contradict it. Part of its utility is to bring auxiliary hypotheses into the foreground, to improve comparisons between studies and improve theory-based interventions [ 63 , 64 ].

We do agree with the importance of being aware of or stating the auxiliary hypotheses, but there are some differences between the frameworks. First, the number of auxiliary assumptions in TASI can be several hundred [ 62 ], whereas our framework will consider some of them as part of the pipeline dimension. Consider the following four assumptions: ‘the inter-stimulus interval is between 2000 ms and 3000 ms', ‘the data will be z-transformed’, ‘subjects will perform correctly’, and ‘the measurements were valid’. According to the TASI model, all these will be classified similarly as auxiliary assumptions. Contrarily, within our framework, it is possible to consider the first two as part of the pipeline dimension and the latter two as auxiliary assumptions, and consequently, the first two become integrated as part of the hypothesis being tested and the latter two auxiliary assumptions. A second difference between the frameworks relates to non-theoretical studies (convenience, applied or atheoretical). Our framework allows for the possibility that the hypothesis space generated by theoretical and convenience studies can interact and inform each other within the same framework . Contrarily, in TASI, the theory assumptions no longer apply, and a different type of hypothesis model is needed; these assumptions must be replaced by another group of assumptions (where ‘substantive application assumptions' replace the T and the A, becoming SSI) [ 61 ]. Finally, part of our rationale for our framework is to be able to link and track hypotheses and hypothesis development together over time, so our classification scheme has different utility.

Another approach which has some similar utility to this framework is theory construction methodology (TCM) [ 57 ]. The similarity here is that TCM aims to be a practical guide to improve theory-making in psychology. It is an iterative process which relates theory, phenomena and data. Here hypotheses are not an explicit part of the model. However, what is designated as ‘proto theory’ could be considered a hypothesis in our framework as they are a product of abduction, shaping the theory space. Alternatively, what is deduced to evaluate the theory can also be considered a hypothesis. We consider both possible and that our framework can integrate with these two steps, especially since TCM does not have clear guidelines for how to do each step.

11.  From theory to practice: implementing this framework

We believe that many practising researchers can relate to many aspects of this framework. But, how can a researcher translate the above theoretical framework to their work? The utility of this framework lies in bringing these three scopes of a hypothesis together and explaining how each can be reduced. We believe researchers can use this framework to describe their current practices more clearly. Here we discuss how it can be helpful for researchers when formulating, planning, preregistering, and discussing the evaluation of their scientific hypotheses. These practical implications are brief, and future work can expand on the connection between the full interaction between hypothesis space and scope. Furthermore, both authors have the most experience in cognitive neuroscience, and some of the practical implications may revolve around this type of research and may not apply equally to other fields.

11.1. Helping to form hypotheses

Abduction, according to Peirce, is a hypothesis-making exercise [ 22 , 26 – 28 ]. Given some observations, a general testable explanation of the phenomena is formed. However, when making the hypothesis, this statement will have a scope (either explicitly or implicitly). Using our framework, the scope can become explicit. The hypothesis-maker can start with ‘The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P ’ as a scaffold to form the hypothesis. From here, the hypothesis-maker can ‘fill in the blanks’, explicitly adding each of the scopes. Thus, when making a hypothesis via abduction and using our framework, the hypothesis will have an explicit scope when it is made. By doing this, there is less chance that a formulated hypothesis is unclear, ambiguous, and needs amending at a later stage.

11.2. Assisting to clearly state hypotheses

A hypothesis is not just formulated but also communicated. Hypotheses are stated in funding applications, preregistrations, registered reports, and academic articles. Further, preregistered hypotheses are often omitted or changed in the final article [ 11 ], and hypotheses are not always explicitly stated in articles [ 12 ]. How can this framework help to make better hypotheses? Similar to the previous point, filling in the details of ‘The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P ’ is an explicit way to communicate the hypothesis. Thinking about each of these dimensions should entail an appropriate explicit scope and, hopefully, less variation between preregistered and reported hypotheses. The hypothesis does not need to be a single sentence, and details of XY and P will often be developed in the methods section of the text. However, using this template as a starting point can help ensure the hypothesis is stated, and the scope of all three dimensions has been communicated.

11.3. Helping to promote explicit and broad hypotheses instead of vague hypotheses

There is an important distinction between vague hypotheses and broad hypotheses, and this framework can help demarcate between them. A vague statement would be: ‘We will quantify depression in patients after treatment’. Here there is uncertainty relating to how the researcher will go about doing the experiment (i.e. how will depression be quantified?). However, a broad statement can be uncertain, but the uncertainty is part of the hypothesis: ‘Two different mood scales (S 1 or S 2 ) will be given to patients and test if only one (or both) changed after treatment’. This latter statement is transparently saying ‘S 1 or S 2 ’ is part of a broad hypothesis—the uncertainty is whether the two different scales are quantifying the same construct. We keep this uncertainty within the broad hypothesis, which will get evaluated, whereas a vague hypothesis has uncertainty as part of the interpretation of the hypothesis. This framework can be used when formulating hypotheses to help be broad (where needed) but not vague.

11.4. Which hypothesis should be chosen?

When considering the appropriate scope above, we argued for a Goldilocks-like principle of determining the hypothesis that is not too broad or too narrow. However, when writing, for example, a preregistration, how does one identify this sweet spot? There is no easy or definite universal answer to this question. However, one possible way is first to identify the XY , R , and P of previous hypotheses. From here, identify what a non-trivial step is to improve our knowledge of the research area. So, for example, could you be more specific about the exact nature of the relationship between the variables? Does the pipeline correspond to today's scientific standards, or were some suboptimal decisions made? Is there another population that you think the previous result also applies to? Do you think that maybe a more specific construct or subpopulation might explain the previous result? Could slightly different constructs (perhaps easier to quantify) be used to obtain a similar relationship? Are there even more constructs to which this relationship should apply simultaneously? Are you certain of the direction of the relationship? Answering affirmatively to any of these questions will likely make a hypothesis narrower and connect to previous research while being clear and explicit. Moreover, depending on the research question, answering any of these may be sufficiently narrow to be a non-trivial innovation. However, there are many other ways to make a hypothesis narrower than these guiding questions.

11.5. The confirmatory–exploratory continuum

Research is often dichotomized into confirmatory (testing a hypothesis) or exploratory (without a priori hypotheses). With this framework, researchers can consider how their research acts on some hypothesis space. Confirmatory and exploratory work has been defined in terms of how each interacts with the researcher's degrees of freedom (where confirmatory aims to reduce while exploratory utilizes them [ 30 ]). Both broad confirmatory and narrow exploratory research are possible using this definition and possible within this framework. How research interacts with the hypothesis space helps demarcate it. For example, if a hypothesis reduces the scope, it becomes more confirmatory, and trying to understand data given the current scope would be more exploratory work. This further could help demarcate when exploration is useful. Future theoretical work can detail how different types of research impact the hypothesis space in more detail.

11.6. Understanding when multiverse analyses are needed

Researchers writing a preregistration may face many degrees of freedom they have to choose from, and different researchers may motivate different choices. If, when writing such a preregistration, there appears to be little evidential support for certain degrees of freedom over others, the researcher is left with the option to either make more auxiliary assumptions or identify when an investigation into the pipeline scope is necessary by conducting a multiverse analysis that tests the impact of the different degrees of freedom on the result (see [ 8 ]). Thus, when applying this framework to explicitly state what pipeline variables are part of the hypothesis or an auxiliary assumption, the researcher can identify when it might be appropriate to conduct a multiverse analysis because they are having difficulty formulating hypotheses.

11.7. Describing novelty

Academic journals and research funders often ask for novelty, but the term ‘novelty’ can be vague and open to various interpretations [ 55 ]. This framework can be used to help justify the novelty of research. For example, consider a scenario where a previous study has established a psychological construct (e.g. well-being) that correlates with a certain outcome measure (e.g. long-term positive health outcomes). This framework can be used to explicitly justify novelty by (i) providing a more precise understanding of the relationship (e.g. linear or linear–plateau) or (ii) identifying more specific variables related to well-being or health outcomes. Stating how some research is novel is clearer than merely stating that the work is novel. This practice might even help journals and funders identify what type of novelty they would like to reward. In sum, this framework can help identify and articulate how research is novel.

11.8. Help to identify when standardization of pipelines is beneficial or problematic to a field

Many consider standardization in a field to be important for ensuring the comparability of results. Standardization of methods and tools entails that the pipeline P is identical (or at least very similar) across studies. However, in such cases, the standardized pipeline becomes an auxiliary assumption representing all possible pipelines. Therefore, while standardized pipelines have their benefits, this assumption becomes broader without validating (e.g. via multiverse analysis) which pipelines a standardized P represents. In summary, because this framework helps distinguish between auxiliary assumptions and explicit parts of the hypothesis and identifies when a multiverse analysis is needed, it can help determine when standardizations of pipelines are representative (narrower hypotheses) or assumptive (broader hypotheses).

12.  Conclusion

Here, we have argued that the scope of a hypothesis is made up of three dimensions: the relationship ( R ), variable ( XY ) and pipeline ( P ) selection. Along each of these dimensions, the scope can vary. Different types of scientific enterprises will often have hypotheses that vary the size of the scopes. We have argued that this focus on the scope of the hypothesis along these dimensions helps the hypothesis-maker formulate their hypotheses for preregistrations while also helping demarcate auxiliary hypotheses (assumed to be true) from the hypothesis (those being evaluated during the scientific process).

Hypotheses are an essential part of the scientific process. Considering what type of hypothesis is sufficient or relevant is an essential job of the researcher that we think has been overlooked. We hope this work promotes an understanding of what a hypothesis is and how its formulation and reduction in scope is an integral part of scientific progress. We hope it also helps clarify how broad hypotheses need not be vague or inappropriate.

Finally, we applied this idea of scopes to scientific progress and considered how to formulate an appropriate hypothesis. We have also listed several ways researchers can practically implement this framework today. However, there are other practicalities of this framework that future work should explore. For example, it could be used to differentiate and demarcate different scientific contributions (e.g. confirmatory studies, exploration studies, validation studies) with how their hypotheses interact with the different dimensions of the hypothesis space. Further, linking hypotheses over time within this framework can be a foundation for open hypothesis-making by promoting explicit links to previous work and detailing the reduction of the hypothesis space. This framework helps quantify the contribution to the hypothesis space of different studies and helps clarify what aspects of hypotheses can be relevant at different times.

Acknowledgements

We thank Filip Gedin, Kristoffer Sundberg, Jens Fust, and James Steele for valuable feedback on earlier versions of this article. We also thank Mark Rubin and an unnamed reviewer for valuable comments that have improved the article.

1 While this is our intention, we cannot claim that every theory has been accommodated.

2 Similar requirements of science being able to evaluate the hypothesis can be found in pragmatism [ 22 ], logical positivism [ 23 ] and falsification [ 24 ].

3 Although when making inferences about a failed evaluation of a scientific hypothesis it is possible, due to underdetermination, to reject the auxiliary hypothesis instead of rejecting the hypothesis. However, that rejection occurs at a later inference stage. The evaluation using the scientific method aims to test the scientific hypothesis, not the auxiliary assumptions.

4 Although some have argued that this practice is not as problematic or questionable (see [ 34 , 35 ]).

5 Alternatively, theories sometimes expand their boundary conditions. A theory that was previously about ‘humans' can be used with a more inclusive boundary condition. Thus it is possible for the hypothesis-maker to use a theory about humans (decision making) and expand it to fruit flies or plants (see [ 43 ]).

6 A similarity exists here with Popper, where he uses set theory in a similar way to compare theories (not hypotheses). Popper also discusses how theories with overlapping sets but neither is a subset are also comparable (see [ 24 , §§32–34]). We do not exclude this possibility but can require additional assumptions.

7 When this could be unclear, we place the element within quotation marks.

8 Here, we have assumed that there is no interaction between these variables in variable selection. If an interaction between x 1 and x 2 is hypothesized, this should be viewed as a different variable compared to ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’. The motivation behind this is because the hypothesis ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’ is not a superset of the interaction (i.e. ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’ is not necessarily true when the interaction is true). The interaction should, in this case, be considered a third variable (e.g. I( x 1 , x 2 )) and the hypothesis ‘ x 1 or x 2 or I( x 1 , x 2 )’ is broader than ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’.

9 Or possibly ambiguous or inconclusive.

10 This formulation of scope is compatible with different frameworks from the philosophy of science. For example, by narrowing the scope would in a Popperian terminology mean prohibiting more basic statements (thus a narrower hypothesis has a higher degree of falsifiability). The reduction of scope in the relational dimension would in Popperian terminology mean increase in precision (e.g. a circle is more precise than an ellipse since circles are a subset of possible ellipses), whereas reduction in variable selection and pipeline dimension would mean increase universality (e.g. ‘all heavenly bodies' is more universal than just ‘planets') [ 24 ]. For Meehl the reduction of the relationship dimension would amount to decreasing the relative tolerance of a theory to the Spielraum [ 46 ] .

11 If there is no relationship between x and y , we do not need to test if there is a positive relationship. If we know there is a positive relationship between x and y , we do not need to test if there is a relationship. If we know there is a relationship but there is not a positive relationship, then it is possible that they have a negative relationship.

Data accessibility

Declaration of ai use.

We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.

Authors' contributions

W.H.T.: conceptualization, investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; S.S.: investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

Both authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

We received no funding for this study.

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, what is a hypothesis and how do i write one.

General Education

Think about something strange and unexplainable in your life. Maybe you get a headache right before it rains, or maybe you think your favorite sports team wins when you wear a certain color. If you wanted to see whether these are just coincidences or scientific fact, you would form a hypothesis, then create an experiment to see whether that hypothesis is true or not.

But what is a hypothesis, anyway? If you’re not sure about what a hypothesis is--or how to test for one!--you’re in the right place. This article will teach you everything you need to know about hypotheses, including: 

• Defining the term “hypothesis” 
• Providing hypothesis examples 
• Giving you tips for how to write your own hypothesis

So let’s get started!

What Is a Hypothesis?

Merriam Webster defines a hypothesis as “an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument.” In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess . Scientists make a reasonable assumption--or a hypothesis--then design an experiment to test whether it’s true or not. Keep in mind that in science, a hypothesis should be testable. You have to be able to design an experiment that tests your hypothesis in order for it to be valid. 

As you could assume from that statement, it’s easy to make a bad hypothesis. But when you’re holding an experiment, it’s even more important that your guesses be good...after all, you’re spending time (and maybe money!) to figure out more about your observation. That’s why we refer to a hypothesis as an educated guess--good hypotheses are based on existing data and research to make them as sound as possible.

Hypotheses are one part of what’s called the scientific method .  Every (good) experiment or study is based in the scientific method. The scientific method gives order and structure to experiments and ensures that interference from scientists or outside influences does not skew the results. It’s important that you understand the concepts of the scientific method before holding your own experiment. Though it may vary among scientists, the scientific method is generally made up of six steps (in order):

• Observation
• Asking questions
• Forming a hypothesis
• Analyze the data
• Communicate your results

You’ll notice that the hypothesis comes pretty early on when conducting an experiment. That’s because experiments work best when they’re trying to answer one specific question. And you can’t conduct an experiment until you know what you’re trying to prove!

Independent and Dependent Variables 

After doing your research, you’re ready for another important step in forming your hypothesis: identifying variables. Variables are basically any factor that could influence the outcome of your experiment . Variables have to be measurable and related to the topic being studied.

There are two types of variables:  independent variables and dependent variables. I ndependent variables remain constant . For example, age is an independent variable; it will stay the same, and researchers can look at different ages to see if it has an effect on the dependent variable. 

Speaking of dependent variables... dependent variables are subject to the influence of the independent variable , meaning that they are not constant. Let’s say you want to test whether a person’s age affects how much sleep they need. In that case, the independent variable is age (like we mentioned above), and the dependent variable is how much sleep a person gets. 

Variables will be crucial in writing your hypothesis. You need to be able to identify which variable is which, as both the independent and dependent variables will be written into your hypothesis. For instance, in a study about exercise, the independent variable might be the speed at which the respondents walk for thirty minutes, and the dependent variable would be their heart rate. In your study and in your hypothesis, you’re trying to understand the relationship between the two variables.

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

The best hypotheses start by asking the right questions . For instance, if you’ve observed that the grass is greener when it rains twice a week, you could ask what kind of grass it is, what elevation it’s at, and if the grass across the street responds to rain in the same way. Any of these questions could become the backbone of experiments to test why the grass gets greener when it rains fairly frequently.

As you’re asking more questions about your first observation, make sure you’re also making more observations . If it doesn’t rain for two weeks and the grass still looks green, that’s an important observation that could influence your hypothesis. You'll continue observing all throughout your experiment, but until the hypothesis is finalized, every observation should be noted.

Finally, you should consult secondary research before writing your hypothesis . Secondary research is comprised of results found and published by other people. You can usually find this information online or at your library. Additionally, m ake sure the research you find is credible and related to your topic. If you’re studying the correlation between rain and grass growth, it would help you to research rain patterns over the past twenty years for your county, published by a local agricultural association. You should also research the types of grass common in your area, the type of grass in your lawn, and whether anyone else has conducted experiments about your hypothesis. Also be sure you’re checking the quality of your research . Research done by a middle school student about what minerals can be found in rainwater would be less useful than an article published by a local university.

Writing Your Hypothesis

Once you’ve considered all of the factors above, you’re ready to start writing your hypothesis. Hypotheses usually take a certain form when they’re written out in a research report.

When you boil down your hypothesis statement, you are writing down your best guess and not the question at hand . This means that your statement should be written as if it is fact already, even though you are simply testing it.

The reason for this is that, after you have completed your study, you'll either accept or reject your if-then or your null hypothesis. All hypothesis testing examples should be measurable and able to be confirmed or denied. You cannot confirm a question, only a statement! 

In fact, you come up with hypothesis examples all the time! For instance, when you guess on the outcome of a basketball game, you don’t say, “Will the Miami Heat beat the Boston Celtics?” but instead, “I think the Miami Heat will beat the Boston Celtics.” You state it as if it is already true, even if it turns out you’re wrong. You do the same thing when writing your hypothesis.

Additionally, keep in mind that hypotheses can range from very specific to very broad.  These hypotheses can be specific, but if your hypothesis testing examples involve a broad range of causes and effects, your hypothesis can also be broad.  

The Two Types of Hypotheses

Now that you understand what goes into a hypothesis, it’s time to look more closely at the two most common types of hypothesis: the if-then hypothesis and the null hypothesis.

#1: If-Then Hypotheses

First of all, if-then hypotheses typically follow this formula:

If ____ happens, then ____ will happen.

The goal of this type of hypothesis is to test the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variable. It’s fairly simple, and each hypothesis can vary in how detailed it can be. We create if-then hypotheses all the time with our daily predictions. Here are some examples of hypotheses that use an if-then structure from daily life: 

• If I get enough sleep, I’ll be able to get more work done tomorrow.
• If the bus is on time, I can make it to my friend’s birthday party. 
• If I study every night this week, I’ll get a better grade on my exam. 

In each of these situations, you’re making a guess on how an independent variable (sleep, time, or studying) will affect a dependent variable (the amount of work you can do, making it to a party on time, or getting better grades). 

You may still be asking, “What is an example of a hypothesis used in scientific research?” Take one of the hypothesis examples from a real-world study on whether using technology before bed affects children’s sleep patterns. The hypothesis read s:

“We hypothesized that increased hours of tablet- and phone-based screen time at bedtime would be inversely correlated with sleep quality and child attention.”

It might not look like it, but this is an if-then statement. The researchers basically said, “If children have more screen usage at bedtime, then their quality of sleep and attention will be worse.” The sleep quality and attention are the dependent variables and the screen usage is the independent variable. (Usually, the independent variable comes after the “if” and the dependent variable comes after the “then,” as it is the independent variable that affects the dependent variable.) This is an excellent example of how flexible hypothesis statements can be, as long as the general idea of “if-then” and the independent and dependent variables are present.

#2: Null Hypotheses

Your if-then hypothesis is not the only one needed to complete a successful experiment, however. You also need a null hypothesis to test it against. In its most basic form, the null hypothesis is the opposite of your if-then hypothesis . When you write your null hypothesis, you are writing a hypothesis that suggests that your guess is not true, and that the independent and dependent variables have no relationship .

One null hypothesis for the cell phone and sleep study from the last section might say: 

“If children have more screen usage at bedtime, their quality of sleep and attention will not be worse.” 

In this case, this is a null hypothesis because it’s asking the opposite of the original thesis! 

Conversely, if your if-then hypothesis suggests that your two variables have no relationship, then your null hypothesis would suggest that there is one. So, pretend that there is a study that is asking the question, “Does the amount of followers on Instagram influence how long people spend on the app?” The independent variable is the amount of followers, and the dependent variable is the time spent. But if you, as the researcher, don’t think there is a relationship between the number of followers and time spent, you might write an if-then hypothesis that reads:

“If people have many followers on Instagram, they will not spend more time on the app than people who have less.”

In this case, the if-then suggests there isn’t a relationship between the variables. In that case, one of the null hypothesis examples might say:

“If people have many followers on Instagram, they will spend more time on the app than people who have less.”

You then test both the if-then and the null hypothesis to gauge if there is a relationship between the variables, and if so, how much of a relationship. 

4 Tips to Write the Best Hypothesis

If you’re going to take the time to hold an experiment, whether in school or by yourself, you’re also going to want to take the time to make sure your hypothesis is a good one. The best hypotheses have four major elements in common: plausibility, defined concepts, observability, and general explanation.

#1: Plausibility

At first glance, this quality of a hypothesis might seem obvious. When your hypothesis is plausible, that means it’s possible given what we know about science and general common sense. However, improbable hypotheses are more common than you might think. 

Imagine you’re studying weight gain and television watching habits. If you hypothesize that people who watch more than  twenty hours of television a week will gain two hundred pounds or more over the course of a year, this might be improbable (though it’s potentially possible). Consequently, c ommon sense can tell us the results of the study before the study even begins.

Improbable hypotheses generally go against  science, as well. Take this hypothesis example: 

“If a person smokes one cigarette a day, then they will have lungs just as healthy as the average person’s.” 

This hypothesis is obviously untrue, as studies have shown again and again that cigarettes negatively affect lung health. You must be careful that your hypotheses do not reflect your own personal opinion more than they do scientifically-supported findings. This plausibility points to the necessity of research before the hypothesis is written to make sure that your hypothesis has not already been disproven.

#2: Defined Concepts

The more advanced you are in your studies, the more likely that the terms you’re using in your hypothesis are specific to a limited set of knowledge. One of the hypothesis testing examples might include the readability of printed text in newspapers, where you might use words like “kerning” and “x-height.” Unless your readers have a background in graphic design, it’s likely that they won’t know what you mean by these terms. Thus, it’s important to either write what they mean in the hypothesis itself or in the report before the hypothesis.

Here’s what we mean. Which of the following sentences makes more sense to the common person?

If the kerning is greater than average, more words will be read per minute.

If the space between letters is greater than average, more words will be read per minute.

For people reading your report that are not experts in typography, simply adding a few more words will be helpful in clarifying exactly what the experiment is all about. It’s always a good idea to make your research and findings as accessible as possible. 

Good hypotheses ensure that you can observe the results. 

#3: Observability

In order to measure the truth or falsity of your hypothesis, you must be able to see your variables and the way they interact. For instance, if your hypothesis is that the flight patterns of satellites affect the strength of certain television signals, yet you don’t have a telescope to view the satellites or a television to monitor the signal strength, you cannot properly observe your hypothesis and thus cannot continue your study.

Some variables may seem easy to observe, but if you do not have a system of measurement in place, you cannot observe your hypothesis properly. Here’s an example: if you’re experimenting on the effect of healthy food on overall happiness, but you don’t have a way to monitor and measure what “overall happiness” means, your results will not reflect the truth. Monitoring how often someone smiles for a whole day is not reasonably observable, but having the participants state how happy they feel on a scale of one to ten is more observable. 

In writing your hypothesis, always keep in mind how you'll execute the experiment.

#4: Generalizability 

Perhaps you’d like to study what color your best friend wears the most often by observing and documenting the colors she wears each day of the week. This might be fun information for her and you to know, but beyond you two, there aren’t many people who could benefit from this experiment. When you start an experiment, you should note how generalizable your findings may be if they are confirmed. Generalizability is basically how common a particular phenomenon is to other people’s everyday life.

Let’s say you’re asking a question about the health benefits of eating an apple for one day only, you need to realize that the experiment may be too specific to be helpful. It does not help to explain a phenomenon that many people experience. If you find yourself with too specific of a hypothesis, go back to asking the big question: what is it that you want to know, and what do you think will happen between your two variables?

Hypothesis Testing Examples

We know it can be hard to write a good hypothesis unless you’ve seen some good hypothesis examples. We’ve included four hypothesis examples based on some made-up experiments. Use these as templates or launch pads for coming up with your own hypotheses.

Experiment #1: Students Studying Outside (Writing a Hypothesis)

You are a student at PrepScholar University. When you walk around campus, you notice that, when the temperature is above 60 degrees, more students study in the quad. You want to know when your fellow students are more likely to study outside. With this information, how do you make the best hypothesis possible?

You must remember to make additional observations and do secondary research before writing your hypothesis. In doing so, you notice that no one studies outside when it’s 75 degrees and raining, so this should be included in your experiment. Also, studies done on the topic beforehand suggested that students are more likely to study in temperatures less than 85 degrees. With this in mind, you feel confident that you can identify your variables and write your hypotheses:

If-then: “If the temperature in Fahrenheit is less than 60 degrees, significantly fewer students will study outside.”

Null: “If the temperature in Fahrenheit is less than 60 degrees, the same number of students will study outside as when it is more than 60 degrees.”

These hypotheses are plausible, as the temperatures are reasonably within the bounds of what is possible. The number of people in the quad is also easily observable. It is also not a phenomenon specific to only one person or at one time, but instead can explain a phenomenon for a broader group of people.

To complete this experiment, you pick the month of October to observe the quad. Every day (except on the days where it’s raining)from 3 to 4 PM, when most classes have released for the day, you observe how many people are on the quad. You measure how many people come  and how many leave. You also write down the temperature on the hour. 

After writing down all of your observations and putting them on a graph, you find that the most students study on the quad when it is 70 degrees outside, and that the number of students drops a lot once the temperature reaches 60 degrees or below. In this case, your research report would state that you accept or “failed to reject” your first hypothesis with your findings.

Experiment #2: The Cupcake Store (Forming a Simple Experiment)

Let’s say that you work at a bakery. You specialize in cupcakes, and you make only two colors of frosting: yellow and purple. You want to know what kind of customers are more likely to buy what kind of cupcake, so you set up an experiment. Your independent variable is the customer’s gender, and the dependent variable is the color of the frosting. What is an example of a hypothesis that might answer the question of this study?

Here’s what your hypotheses might look like: 

If-then: “If customers’ gender is female, then they will buy more yellow cupcakes than purple cupcakes.”

Null: “If customers’ gender is female, then they will be just as likely to buy purple cupcakes as yellow cupcakes.”

This is a pretty simple experiment! It passes the test of plausibility (there could easily be a difference), defined concepts (there’s nothing complicated about cupcakes!), observability (both color and gender can be easily observed), and general explanation ( this would potentially help you make better business decisions ).

Experiment #3: Backyard Bird Feeders (Integrating Multiple Variables and Rejecting the If-Then Hypothesis)

While watching your backyard bird feeder, you realized that different birds come on the days when you change the types of seeds. You decide that you want to see more cardinals in your backyard, so you decide to see what type of food they like the best and set up an experiment. 

However, one morning, you notice that, while some cardinals are present, blue jays are eating out of your backyard feeder filled with millet. You decide that, of all of the other birds, you would like to see the blue jays the least. This means you'll have more than one variable in your hypothesis. Your new hypotheses might look like this: 

If-then: “If sunflower seeds are placed in the bird feeders, then more cardinals will come than blue jays. If millet is placed in the bird feeders, then more blue jays will come than cardinals.”

Null: “If either sunflower seeds or millet are placed in the bird, equal numbers of cardinals and blue jays will come.”

Through simple observation, you actually find that cardinals come as often as blue jays when sunflower seeds or millet is in the bird feeder. In this case, you would reject your “if-then” hypothesis and “fail to reject” your null hypothesis . You cannot accept your first hypothesis, because it’s clearly not true. Instead you found that there was actually no relation between your different variables. Consequently, you would need to run more experiments with different variables to see if the new variables impact the results.

Experiment #4: In-Class Survey (Including an Alternative Hypothesis)

You’re about to give a speech in one of your classes about the importance of paying attention. You want to take this opportunity to test a hypothesis you’ve had for a while: 

If-then: If students sit in the first two rows of the classroom, then they will listen better than students who do not.

Null: If students sit in the first two rows of the classroom, then they will not listen better or worse than students who do not.

You give your speech and then ask your teacher if you can hand out a short survey to the class. On the survey, you’ve included questions about some of the topics you talked about. When you get back the results, you’re surprised to see that not only do the students in the first two rows not pay better attention, but they also scored worse than students in other parts of the classroom! Here, both your if-then and your null hypotheses are not representative of your findings. What do you do?

This is when you reject both your if-then and null hypotheses and instead create an alternative hypothesis . This type of hypothesis is used in the rare circumstance that neither of your hypotheses is able to capture your findings . Now you can use what you’ve learned to draft new hypotheses and test again! 

Key Takeaways: Hypothesis Writing

The more comfortable you become with writing hypotheses, the better they will become. The structure of hypotheses is flexible and may need to be changed depending on what topic you are studying. The most important thing to remember is the purpose of your hypothesis and the difference between the if-then and the null . From there, in forming your hypothesis, you should constantly be asking questions, making observations, doing secondary research, and considering your variables. After you have written your hypothesis, be sure to edit it so that it is plausible, clearly defined, observable, and helpful in explaining a general phenomenon.

Writing a hypothesis is something that everyone, from elementary school children competing in a science fair to professional scientists in a lab, needs to know how to do. Hypotheses are vital in experiments and in properly executing the scientific method . When done correctly, hypotheses will set up your studies for success and help you to understand the world a little better, one experiment at a time.

What’s Next?

If you’re studying for the science portion of the ACT, there’s definitely a lot you need to know. We’ve got the tools to help, though! Start by checking out our ultimate study guide for the ACT Science subject test. Once you read through that, be sure to download our recommended ACT Science practice tests , since they’re one of the most foolproof ways to improve your score. (And don’t forget to check out our expert guide book , too.)

If you love science and want to major in a scientific field, you should start preparing in high school . Here are the science classes you should take to set yourself up for success.

If you’re trying to think of science experiments you can do for class (or for a science fair!), here’s a list of 37 awesome science experiments you can do at home

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Scientific Method: Step 3: HYPOTHESIS

• Step 1: QUESTION
• Step 2: RESEARCH
• Step 3: HYPOTHESIS
• Step 4: EXPERIMENT
• Step 5: DATA
• Step 6: CONCLUSION

Step 3: State your hypothesis

Now it's time to state your hypothesis . The hypothesis is an educated guess as to what will happen during your experiment. 

The hypothesis is often written using the words "IF" and "THEN." For example, " If I do not study, then I will fail the test." The "if' and "then" statements reflect your independent and dependent variables . 

The hypothesis should relate back to your original question and must be testable .

A word about variables...

Your experiment will include variables to measure and to explain any cause and effect. Below you will find some useful links describing the different types of variables.

• "What are independent and dependent variables" NCES
• [VIDEO] Biology: Independent vs. Dependent Variables (Nucleus Medical Media) Video explaining independent and dependent variables, with examples.

Resource Links

• What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research? (Elsevier)
• Hypothesis brochure from Penn State/Berks

• << Previous: Step 2: RESEARCH
• Next: Step 4: EXPERIMENT >>
• Last Updated: Jan 26, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://harford.libguides.com/scientific_method

Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide pp 17–49 Cite as

How Do You Formulate (Important) Hypotheses?

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  
• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

11k Accesses

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

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

Cite 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