revising the hypothesis meaning in science

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., 2. ask a question., 3. propose a hypothesis., 4. make predictions., 5. test the predictions..

• 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..

• 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

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.34(45); 2019 Nov 25

Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and Predicting Implications

Armen yuri gasparyan.

1 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.

Lilit Ayvazyan

2 Department of Medical Chemistry, Yerevan State Medical University, Yerevan, Armenia.

Ulzhan Mukanova

3 Department of Surgical Disciplines, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Marlen Yessirkepov

4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

George D. Kitas

5 Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Scientific hypotheses are essential for progress in rapidly developing academic disciplines. Proposing new ideas and hypotheses require thorough analyses of evidence-based data and predictions of the implications. One of the main concerns relates to the ethical implications of the generated hypotheses. The authors may need to outline potential benefits and limitations of their suggestions and target widely visible publication outlets to ignite discussion by experts and start testing the hypotheses. Not many publication outlets are currently welcoming hypotheses and unconventional ideas that may open gates to criticism and conservative remarks. A few scholarly journals guide the authors on how to structure hypotheses. Reflecting on general and specific issues around the subject matter is often recommended for drafting a well-structured hypothesis article. An analysis of influential hypotheses, presented in this article, particularly Strachan's hygiene hypothesis with global implications in the field of immunology and allergy, points to the need for properly interpreting and testing new suggestions. Envisaging the ethical implications of the hypotheses should be considered both by authors and journal editors during the writing and publishing process.

INTRODUCTION

We live in times of digitization that radically changes scientific research, reporting, and publishing strategies. Researchers all over the world are overwhelmed with processing large volumes of information and searching through numerous online platforms, all of which make the whole process of scholarly analysis and synthesis complex and sophisticated.

Current research activities are diversifying to combine scientific observations with analysis of facts recorded by scholars from various professional backgrounds. 1 Citation analyses and networking on social media are also becoming essential for shaping research and publishing strategies globally. 2 Learning specifics of increasingly interdisciplinary research studies and acquiring information facilitation skills aid researchers in formulating innovative ideas and predicting developments in interrelated scientific fields.

Arguably, researchers are currently offered more opportunities than in the past for generating new ideas by performing their routine laboratory activities, observing individual cases and unusual developments, and critically analyzing published scientific facts. What they need at the start of their research is to formulate a scientific hypothesis that revisits conventional theories, real-world processes, and related evidence to propose new studies and test ideas in an ethical way. 3 Such a hypothesis can be of most benefit if published in an ethical journal with wide visibility and exposure to relevant online databases and promotion platforms.

Although hypotheses are crucially important for the scientific progress, only few highly skilled researchers formulate and eventually publish their innovative ideas per se . Understandably, in an increasingly competitive research environment, most authors would prefer to prioritize their ideas by discussing and conducting tests in their own laboratories or clinical departments, and publishing research reports afterwards. However, there are instances when simple observations and research studies in a single center are not capable of explaining and testing new groundbreaking ideas. Formulating hypothesis articles first and calling for multicenter and interdisciplinary research can be a solution in such instances, potentially launching influential scientific directions, if not academic disciplines.

The aim of this article is to overview the importance and implications of infrequently published scientific hypotheses that may open new avenues of thinking and research.

Despite the seemingly established views on innovative ideas and hypotheses as essential research tools, no structured definition exists to tag the term and systematically track related articles. In 1973, the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) of the U.S. National Library of Medicine introduced “Research Design” as a structured keyword that referred to the importance of collecting data and properly testing hypotheses, and indirectly linked the term to ethics, methods and standards, among many other subheadings.

One of the experts in the field defines “hypothesis” as a well-argued analysis of available evidence to provide a realistic (scientific) explanation of existing facts, fill gaps in public understanding of sophisticated processes, and propose a new theory or a test. 4 A hypothesis can be proven wrong partially or entirely. However, even such an erroneous hypothesis may influence progress in science by initiating professional debates that help generate more realistic ideas. The main ethical requirement for hypothesis authors is to be honest about the limitations of their suggestions. 5

EXAMPLES OF INFLUENTIAL SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

Daily routine in a research laboratory may lead to groundbreaking discoveries provided the daily accounts are comprehensively analyzed and reproduced by peers. The discovery of penicillin by Sir Alexander Fleming (1928) can be viewed as a prime example of such discoveries that introduced therapies to treat staphylococcal and streptococcal infections and modulate blood coagulation. 6 , 7 Penicillin got worldwide recognition due to the inventor's seminal works published by highly prestigious and widely visible British journals, effective ‘real-world’ antibiotic therapy of pneumonia and wounds during World War II, and euphoric media coverage. 8 In 1945, Fleming, Florey and Chain got a much deserved Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery that led to the mass production of the wonder drug in the U.S. and ‘real-world practice’ that tested the use of penicillin. What remained globally unnoticed is that Zinaida Yermolyeva, the outstanding Soviet microbiologist, created the Soviet penicillin, which turned out to be more effective than the Anglo-American penicillin and entered mass production in 1943; that year marked the turning of the tide of the Great Patriotic War. 9 One of the reasons of the widely unnoticed discovery of Zinaida Yermolyeva is that her works were published exclusively by local Russian (Soviet) journals.

The past decades have been marked by an unprecedented growth of multicenter and global research studies involving hundreds and thousands of human subjects. This trend is shaped by an increasing number of reports on clinical trials and large cohort studies that create a strong evidence base for practice recommendations. Mega-studies may help generate and test large-scale hypotheses aiming to solve health issues globally. Properly designed epidemiological studies, for example, may introduce clarity to the hygiene hypothesis that was originally proposed by David Strachan in 1989. 10 David Strachan studied the epidemiology of hay fever in a cohort of 17,414 British children and concluded that declining family size and improved personal hygiene had reduced the chances of cross infections in families, resulting in epidemics of atopic disease in post-industrial Britain. Over the past four decades, several related hypotheses have been proposed to expand the potential role of symbiotic microorganisms and parasites in the development of human physiological immune responses early in life and protection from allergic and autoimmune diseases later on. 11 , 12 Given the popularity and the scientific importance of the hygiene hypothesis, it was introduced as a MeSH term in 2012. 13

Hypotheses can be proposed based on an analysis of recorded historic events that resulted in mass migrations and spreading of certain genetic diseases. As a prime example, familial Mediterranean fever (FMF), the prototype periodic fever syndrome, is believed to spread from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean region and all over Europe due to migrations and religious prosecutions millennia ago. 14 Genetic mutations spearing mild clinical forms of FMF are hypothesized to emerge and persist in the Mediterranean region as protective factors against more serious infectious diseases, particularly tuberculosis, historically common in that part of the world. 15 The speculations over the advantages of carrying the MEditerranean FeVer (MEFV) gene are further strengthened by recorded low mortality rates from tuberculosis among FMF patients of different nationalities living in Tunisia in the first half of the 20th century. 16

Diagnostic hypotheses shedding light on peculiarities of diseases throughout the history of mankind can be formulated using artefacts, particularly historic paintings. 17 Such paintings may reveal joint deformities and disfigurements due to rheumatic diseases in individual subjects. A series of paintings with similar signs of pathological conditions interpreted in a historic context may uncover mysteries of epidemics of certain diseases, which is the case with Ruben's paintings depicting signs of rheumatic hands and making some doctors to believe that rheumatoid arthritis was common in Europe in the 16th and 17th century. 18

WRITING SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

There are author instructions of a few journals that specifically guide how to structure, format, and make submissions categorized as hypotheses attractive. One of the examples is presented by Med Hypotheses , the flagship journal in its field with more than four decades of publishing and influencing hypothesis authors globally. However, such guidance is not based on widely discussed, implemented, and approved reporting standards, which are becoming mandatory for all scholarly journals.

Generating new ideas and scientific hypotheses is a sophisticated task since not all researchers and authors are skilled to plan, conduct, and interpret various research studies. Some experience with formulating focused research questions and strong working hypotheses of original research studies is definitely helpful for advancing critical appraisal skills. However, aspiring authors of scientific hypotheses may need something different, which is more related to discerning scientific facts, pooling homogenous data from primary research works, and synthesizing new information in a systematic way by analyzing similar sets of articles. To some extent, this activity is reminiscent of writing narrative and systematic reviews. As in the case of reviews, scientific hypotheses need to be formulated on the basis of comprehensive search strategies to retrieve all available studies on the topics of interest and then synthesize new information selectively referring to the most relevant items. One of the main differences between scientific hypothesis and review articles relates to the volume of supportive literature sources ( Table 1 ). In fact, hypothesis is usually formulated by referring to a few scientific facts or compelling evidence derived from a handful of literature sources. 19 By contrast, reviews require analyses of a large number of published documents retrieved from several well-organized and evidence-based databases in accordance with predefined search strategies. 20 , 21 , 22

The format of hypotheses, especially the implications part, may vary widely across disciplines. Clinicians may limit their suggestions to the clinical manifestations of diseases, outcomes, and management strategies. Basic and laboratory scientists analysing genetic, molecular, and biochemical mechanisms may need to view beyond the frames of their narrow fields and predict social and population-based implications of the proposed ideas. 23

Advanced writing skills are essential for presenting an interesting theoretical article which appeals to the global readership. Merely listing opposing facts and ideas, without proper interpretation and analysis, may distract the experienced readers. The essence of a great hypothesis is a story behind the scientific facts and evidence-based data.

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors of hypotheses substantiate their arguments by referring to and discerning rational points from published articles that might be overlooked by others. Their arguments may contradict the established theories and practices, and pose global ethical issues, particularly when more or less efficient medical technologies and public health interventions are devalued. The ethical issues may arise primarily because of the careless references to articles with low priorities, inadequate and apparently unethical methodologies, and concealed reporting of negative results. 24 , 25

Misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the published ideas and scientific hypotheses may complicate the issue further. For example, Alexander Fleming, whose innovative ideas of penicillin use to kill susceptible bacteria saved millions of lives, warned of the consequences of uncontrolled prescription of the drug. The issue of antibiotic resistance had emerged within the first ten years of penicillin use on a global scale due to the overprescription that affected the efficacy of antibiotic therapies, with undesirable consequences for millions. 26

The misunderstanding of the hygiene hypothesis that primarily aimed to shed light on the role of the microbiome in allergic and autoimmune diseases resulted in decline of public confidence in hygiene with dire societal implications, forcing some experts to abandon the original idea. 27 , 28 Although that hypothesis is unrelated to the issue of vaccinations, the public misunderstanding has resulted in decline of vaccinations at a time of upsurge of old and new infections.

A number of ethical issues are posed by the denial of the viral (human immunodeficiency viruses; HIV) hypothesis of acquired Immune deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) by Peter Duesberg, who overviewed the links between illicit recreational drugs and antiretroviral therapies with AIDS and refuted the etiological role of HIV. 29 That controversial hypothesis was rejected by several journals, but was eventually published without external peer review at Med Hypotheses in 2010. The publication itself raised concerns of the unconventional editorial policy of the journal, causing major perturbations and more scrutinized publishing policies by journals processing hypotheses.

WHERE TO PUBLISH HYPOTHESES

Although scientific authors are currently well informed and equipped with search tools to draft evidence-based hypotheses, there are still limited quality publication outlets calling for related articles. The journal editors may be hesitant to publish articles that do not adhere to any research reporting guidelines and open gates for harsh criticism of unconventional and untested ideas. Occasionally, the editors opting for open-access publishing and upgrading their ethics regulations launch a section to selectively publish scientific hypotheses attractive to the experienced readers. 30 However, the absence of approved standards for this article type, particularly no mandate for outlining potential ethical implications, may lead to publication of potentially harmful ideas in an attractive format.

A suggestion of simultaneously publishing multiple or alternative hypotheses to balance the reader views and feedback is a potential solution for the mainstream scholarly journals. 31 However, that option alone is hardly applicable to emerging journals with unconventional quality checks and peer review, accumulating papers with multiple rejections by established journals.

A large group of experts view hypotheses with improbable and controversial ideas publishable after formal editorial (in-house) checks to preserve the authors' genuine ideas and avoid conservative amendments imposed by external peer reviewers. 32 That approach may be acceptable for established publishers with large teams of experienced editors. However, the same approach can lead to dire consequences if employed by nonselective start-up, open-access journals processing all types of articles and primarily accepting those with charged publication fees. 33 In fact, pseudoscientific ideas arguing Newton's and Einstein's seminal works or those denying climate change that are hardly testable have already found their niche in substandard electronic journals with soft or nonexistent peer review. 34

CITATIONS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ATTENTION

The available preliminary evidence points to the attractiveness of hypothesis articles for readers, particularly those from research-intensive countries who actively download related documents. 35 However, citations of such articles are disproportionately low. Only a small proportion of top-downloaded hypotheses (13%) in the highly prestigious Med Hypotheses receive on average 5 citations per article within a two-year window. 36

With the exception of a few historic papers, the vast majority of hypotheses attract relatively small number of citations in a long term. 36 Plausible explanations are that these articles often contain a single or only a few citable points and that suggested research studies to test hypotheses are rarely conducted and reported, limiting chances of citing and crediting authors of genuine research ideas.

A snapshot analysis of citation activity of hypothesis articles may reveal interest of the global scientific community towards their implications across various disciplines and countries. As a prime example, Strachan's hygiene hypothesis, published in 1989, 10 is still attracting numerous citations on Scopus, the largest bibliographic database. As of August 28, 2019, the number of the linked citations in the database is 3,201. Of the citing articles, 160 are cited at least 160 times ( h -index of this research topic = 160). The first three citations are recorded in 1992 and followed by a rapid annual increase in citation activity and a peak of 212 in 2015 ( Fig. 1 ). The top 5 sources of the citations are Clin Exp Allergy (n = 136), J Allergy Clin Immunol (n = 119), Allergy (n = 81), Pediatr Allergy Immunol (n = 69), and PLOS One (n = 44). The top 5 citing authors are leading experts in pediatrics and allergology Erika von Mutius (Munich, Germany, number of publications with the index citation = 30), Erika Isolauri (Turku, Finland, n = 27), Patrick G Holt (Subiaco, Australia, n = 25), David P. Strachan (London, UK, n = 23), and Bengt Björksten (Stockholm, Sweden, n = 22). The U.S. is the leading country in terms of citation activity with 809 related documents, followed by the UK (n = 494), Germany (n = 314), Australia (n = 211), and the Netherlands (n = 177). The largest proportion of citing documents are articles (n = 1,726, 54%), followed by reviews (n = 950, 29.7%), and book chapters (n = 213, 6.7%). The main subject areas of the citing items are medicine (n = 2,581, 51.7%), immunology and microbiology (n = 1,179, 23.6%), and biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology (n = 415, 8.3%).

Interestingly, a recent analysis of 111 publications related to Strachan's hygiene hypothesis, stating that the lack of exposure to infections in early life increases the risk of rhinitis, revealed a selection bias of 5,551 citations on Web of Science. 37 The articles supportive of the hypothesis were cited more than nonsupportive ones (odds ratio adjusted for study design, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.6–3.1). A similar conclusion pointing to a citation bias distorting bibliometrics of hypotheses was reached by an earlier analysis of a citation network linked to the idea that β-amyloid, which is involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease, is produced by skeletal muscle of patients with inclusion body myositis. 38 The results of both studies are in line with the notion that ‘positive’ citations are more frequent in the field of biomedicine than ‘negative’ ones, and that citations to articles with proven hypotheses are too common. 39

Social media channels are playing an increasingly active role in the generation and evaluation of scientific hypotheses. In fact, publicly discussing research questions on platforms of news outlets, such as Reddit, may shape hypotheses on health-related issues of global importance, such as obesity. 40 Analyzing Twitter comments, researchers may reveal both potentially valuable ideas and unfounded claims that surround groundbreaking research ideas. 41 Social media activities, however, are unevenly distributed across different research topics, journals and countries, and these are not always objective professional reflections of the breakthroughs in science. 2 , 42

Scientific hypotheses are essential for progress in science and advances in healthcare. Innovative ideas should be based on a critical overview of related scientific facts and evidence-based data, often overlooked by others. To generate realistic hypothetical theories, the authors should comprehensively analyze the literature and suggest relevant and ethically sound design for future studies. They should also consider their hypotheses in the context of research and publication ethics norms acceptable for their target journals. The journal editors aiming to diversify their portfolio by maintaining and introducing hypotheses section are in a position to upgrade guidelines for related articles by pointing to general and specific analyses of the subject, preferred study designs to test hypotheses, and ethical implications. The latter is closely related to specifics of hypotheses. For example, editorial recommendations to outline benefits and risks of a new laboratory test or therapy may result in a more balanced article and minimize associated risks afterwards.

Not all scientific hypotheses have immediate positive effects. Some, if not most, are never tested in properly designed research studies and never cited in credible and indexed publication outlets. Hypotheses in specialized scientific fields, particularly those hardly understandable for nonexperts, lose their attractiveness for increasingly interdisciplinary audience. The authors' honest analysis of the benefits and limitations of their hypotheses and concerted efforts of all stakeholders in science communication to initiate public discussion on widely visible platforms and social media may reveal rational points and caveats of the new ideas.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Kitas GD.
• Methodology: Gasparyan AY, Mukanova U, Ayvazyan L.
• Writing - original draft: Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Yessirkepov M.
• Writing - review & editing: Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Mukanova U, Kitas GD.

Hypothesis n., plural: hypotheses [/haɪˈpɑːθəsɪs/] Definition: Testable scientific prediction

Table of Contents

What Is Hypothesis?

A scientific hypothesis is a foundational element of the scientific method . It’s a testable statement proposing a potential explanation for natural phenomena. The term hypothesis means “little theory” . A hypothesis is a short statement that can be tested and gives a possible reason for a phenomenon or a possible link between two variables . In the setting of scientific research, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation or statement that can be proven wrong and is used to guide experiments and empirical research.

It is an important part of the scientific method because it gives a basis for planning tests, gathering data, and judging evidence to see if it is true and could help us understand how natural things work. Several hypotheses can be tested in the real world, and the results of careful and systematic observation and analysis can be used to support, reject, or improve them.

Researchers and scientists often use the word hypothesis to refer to this educated guess . These hypotheses are firmly established based on scientific principles and the rigorous testing of new technology and experiments .

For example, in astrophysics, the Big Bang Theory is a working hypothesis that explains the origins of the universe and considers it as a natural phenomenon. It is among the most prominent scientific hypotheses in the field.

“The scientific method: steps, terms, and examples” by Scishow:

Biology definition: A hypothesis  is a supposition or tentative explanation for (a group of) phenomena, (a set of) facts, or a scientific inquiry that may be tested, verified or answered by further investigation or methodological experiment. It is like a scientific guess . It’s an idea or prediction that scientists make before they do experiments. They use it to guess what might happen and then test it to see if they were right. It’s like a smart guess that helps them learn new things. A scientific hypothesis that has been verified through scientific experiment and research may well be considered a scientific theory .

Etymology: The word “hypothesis” comes from the Greek word “hupothesis,” which means “a basis” or “a supposition.” It combines “hupo” (under) and “thesis” (placing). Synonym:   proposition; assumption; conjecture; postulate Compare:   theory See also: null hypothesis

Characteristics Of Hypothesis

A useful hypothesis must have the following qualities:

• It should never be written as a question.
• You should be able to test it in the real world to see if it’s right or wrong.
• It needs to be clear and exact.
• It should list the factors that will be used to figure out the relationship.
• It should only talk about one thing. You can make a theory in either a descriptive or form of relationship.
• It shouldn’t go against any natural rule that everyone knows is true. Verification will be done well with the tools and methods that are available.
• It should be written in as simple a way as possible so that everyone can understand it.
• It must explain what happened to make an answer necessary.
• It should be testable in a fair amount of time.
• It shouldn’t say different things.

Sources Of Hypothesis

Sources of hypothesis are:

• Patterns of similarity between the phenomenon under investigation and existing hypotheses.
• Insights derived from prior research, concurrent observations, and insights from opposing perspectives.
• The formulations are derived from accepted scientific theories and proposed by researchers.
• In research, it’s essential to consider hypothesis as different subject areas may require various hypotheses (plural form of hypothesis). Researchers also establish a significance level to determine the strength of evidence supporting a hypothesis.
• Individual cognitive processes also contribute to the formation of hypotheses.

One hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation or phenomenon. It is based on prior knowledge and understanding of the world, and it can be tested by gathering and analyzing data. Observed facts are the data that are collected to test a hypothesis. They can support or refute the hypothesis.

For example, the hypothesis that “eating more fruits and vegetables will improve your health” can be tested by gathering data on the health of people who eat different amounts of fruits and vegetables. If the people who eat more fruits and vegetables are healthier than those who eat less fruits and vegetables, then the hypothesis is supported.

Hypotheses are essential for scientific inquiry. They help scientists to focus their research, to design experiments, and to interpret their results. They are also essential for the development of scientific theories.

Types Of Hypothesis

In research, you typically encounter two types of hypothesis: the alternative hypothesis (which proposes a relationship between variables) and the null hypothesis (which suggests no relationship).

Simple Hypothesis

It illustrates the association between one dependent variable and one independent variable. For instance, if you consume more vegetables, you will lose weight more quickly. Here, increasing vegetable consumption is the independent variable, while weight loss is the dependent variable.

Complex Hypothesis

It exhibits the relationship between at least two dependent variables and at least two independent variables. Eating more vegetables and fruits results in weight loss, radiant skin, and a decreased risk of numerous diseases, including heart disease.

Directional Hypothesis

It shows that a researcher wants to reach a certain goal. The way the factors are related can also tell us about their nature. For example, four-year-old children who eat well over a time of five years have a higher IQ than children who don’t eat well. This shows what happened and how it happened.

Non-directional Hypothesis

When there is no theory involved, it is used. It is a statement that there is a connection between two variables, but it doesn’t say what that relationship is or which way it goes.

Null Hypothesis

It says something that goes against the theory. It’s a statement that says something is not true, and there is no link between the independent and dependent factors. “H 0 ” represents the null hypothesis.

Associative and Causal Hypothesis

When a change in one variable causes a change in the other variable, this is called the associative hypothesis . The causal hypothesis, on the other hand, says that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between two or more factors.

Examples Of Hypothesis

Examples of simple hypotheses:

• Students who consume breakfast before taking a math test will have a better overall performance than students who do not consume breakfast.
• Students who experience test anxiety before an English examination will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety.
• Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone, is a statement that suggests that drivers who talk on the phone while driving are more likely to make mistakes.

Examples of a complex hypothesis:

• Individuals who consume a lot of sugar and don’t get much exercise are at an increased risk of developing depression.
• Younger people who are routinely exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces, according to a new study.
• Increased levels of air pollution led to higher rates of respiratory illnesses, which in turn resulted in increased costs for healthcare for the affected communities.

Examples of Directional Hypothesis:

• The crop yield will go up a lot if the amount of fertilizer is increased.
• Patients who have surgery and are exposed to more stress will need more time to get better.
• Increasing the frequency of brand advertising on social media will lead to a significant increase in brand awareness among the target audience.

Examples of Non-Directional Hypothesis (or Two-Tailed Hypothesis):

• The test scores of two groups of students are very different from each other.
• There is a link between gender and being happy at work.
• There is a correlation between the amount of caffeine an individual consumes and the speed with which they react.

Examples of a null hypothesis:

• Children who receive a new reading intervention will have scores that are different than students who do not receive the intervention.
• The results of a memory recall test will not reveal any significant gap in performance between children and adults.
• There is not a significant relationship between the number of hours spent playing video games and academic performance.

Examples of Associative Hypothesis:

• There is a link between how many hours you spend studying and how well you do in school.
• Drinking sugary drinks is bad for your health as a whole.
• There is an association between socioeconomic status and access to quality healthcare services in urban neighborhoods.

Functions Of Hypothesis

The research issue can be understood better with the help of a hypothesis, which is why developing one is crucial. The following are some of the specific roles that a hypothesis plays: (Rashid, Apr 20, 2022)

• A hypothesis gives a study a point of concentration. It enlightens us as to the specific characteristics of a study subject we need to look into.
• It instructs us on what data to acquire as well as what data we should not collect, giving the study a focal point .
• The development of a hypothesis improves objectivity since it enables the establishment of a focal point.
• A hypothesis makes it possible for us to contribute to the development of the theory. Because of this, we are in a position to definitively determine what is true and what is untrue .

How will Hypothesis help in the Scientific Method?

• The scientific method begins with observation and inquiry about the natural world when formulating research questions. Researchers can refine their observations and queries into specific, testable research questions with the aid of hypothesis. They provide an investigation with a focused starting point.
• Hypothesis generate specific predictions regarding the expected outcomes of experiments or observations. These forecasts are founded on the researcher’s current knowledge of the subject. They elucidate what researchers anticipate observing if the hypothesis is true.
• Hypothesis direct the design of experiments and data collection techniques. Researchers can use them to determine which variables to measure or manipulate, which data to obtain, and how to conduct systematic and controlled research.
• Following the formulation of a hypothesis and the design of an experiment, researchers collect data through observation, measurement, or experimentation. The collected data is used to verify the hypothesis’s predictions.
• Hypothesis establish the criteria for evaluating experiment results. The observed data are compared to the predictions generated by the hypothesis. This analysis helps determine whether empirical evidence supports or refutes the hypothesis.
• The results of experiments or observations are used to derive conclusions regarding the hypothesis. If the data support the predictions, then the hypothesis is supported. If this is not the case, the hypothesis may be revised or rejected, leading to the formulation of new queries and hypothesis.
• The scientific approach is iterative, resulting in new hypothesis and research issues from previous trials. This cycle of hypothesis generation, testing, and refining drives scientific progress.

Importance Of Hypothesis

• Hypothesis are testable statements that enable scientists to determine if their predictions are accurate. This assessment is essential to the scientific method, which is based on empirical evidence.
• Hypothesis serve as the foundation for designing experiments or data collection techniques. They can be used by researchers to develop protocols and procedures that will produce meaningful results.
• Hypothesis hold scientists accountable for their assertions. They establish expectations for what the research should reveal and enable others to assess the validity of the findings.
• Hypothesis aid in identifying the most important variables of a study. The variables can then be measured, manipulated, or analyzed to determine their relationships.
• Hypothesis assist researchers in allocating their resources efficiently. They ensure that time, money, and effort are spent investigating specific concerns, as opposed to exploring random concepts.
• Testing hypothesis contribute to the scientific body of knowledge. Whether or not a hypothesis is supported, the results contribute to our understanding of a phenomenon.
• Hypothesis can result in the creation of theories. When supported by substantive evidence, hypothesis can serve as the foundation for larger theoretical frameworks that explain complex phenomena.
• Beyond scientific research, hypothesis play a role in the solution of problems in a variety of domains. They enable professionals to make educated assumptions about the causes of problems and to devise solutions.

Research Hypotheses: Did you know that a hypothesis refers to an educated guess or prediction about the outcome of a research study?

It’s like a roadmap guiding researchers towards their destination of knowledge. Just like a compass points north, a well-crafted hypothesis points the way to valuable discoveries in the world of science and inquiry.

Choose the best answer. 

Send Your Results (Optional)

Further Reading

• RNA-DNA World Hypothesis
• BYJU’S. (2023). Hypothesis. Retrieved 01 Septermber 2023, from https://byjus.com/physics/hypothesis/#sources-of-hypothesis
• Collegedunia. (2023). Hypothesis. Retrieved 1 September 2023, from https://collegedunia.com/exams/hypothesis-science-articleid-7026#d
• Hussain, D. J. (2022). Hypothesis. Retrieved 01 September 2023, from https://mmhapu.ac.in/doc/eContent/Management/JamesHusain/Research%20Hypothesis%20-Meaning,%20Nature%20&%20Importance-Characteristics%20of%20Good%20%20Hypothesis%20Sem2.pdf
• Media, D. (2023). Hypothesis in the Scientific Method. Retrieved 01 September 2023, from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-hypothesis-2795239#toc-hypotheses-examples
• Rashid, M. H. A. (Apr 20, 2022). Research Methodology. Retrieved 01 September 2023, from https://limbd.org/hypothesis-definitions-functions-characteristics-types-errors-the-process-of-testing-a-hypothesis-hypotheses-in-qualitative-research/#:~:text=Functions%20of%20a%20Hypothesis%3A&text=Specifically%2C%20a%20hypothesis%20serves%20the,providing%20focus%20to%20the%20study.

©BiologyOnline.com. Content provided and moderated by Biology Online Editors.

Last updated on September 8th, 2023

You will also like...

Gene Action – Operon Hypothesis

Water in Plants

Growth and Plant Hormones

Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung

Population Growth and Survivorship

Related articles....

RNA-DNA World Hypothesis?

On Mate Selection Evolution: Are intelligent males more attractive?

Actions of Caffeine in the Brain with Special Reference to Factors That Contribute to Its Widespread Use

Dead Man Walking

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• 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.

1.2: The Scientific Method

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 6840

• Chris Johnson, Matthew D. Affolter, Paul Inkenbrandt, & Cam Mosher
• Salt Lake Community College via OpenGeology

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Modern science is based on the scientific method, a procedure that follows these steps:

• Formulate a question or observe a problem
• Apply objective experimentation and observation
• Analyze collected data and Interpret results
• Devise an evidence-based theory
• Submit findings to peer review and/or publication

This has a long history in human thought but was first fully formed by Ibn al-Haytham over 1,000 years ago. At the forefront of the scientific method are conclusions based on objective evidence, not opinion or hearsay [ 4 ].

Step 1: Observation, Problem, or Research Question

The procedure begins with identifying a problem or research question, such as a geological phenomenon that is not well explained in the scientific community’s collective knowledge. This step usually involves reviewing the scientific literature to understand previous studies that may be related to the question.

Step 2: Hypothesis

Once the problem or question is well defined, the scientist proposes a possible answer, a hypothesis, before conducting an experiment or fieldwork. This hypothesis must be specific, falsifiable, and should be based on other scientific work. Geologists often develop multiple working hypotheses because they usually cannot impose strict experimental controls or have limited opportunities to visit a field location [ 5 ; 6 ; 7 ].

Step 3: Experiment and Hypothesis Revision

The next step is developing an experiment that either supports or refutes the hypothesis. Many people mistakenly think experiments are only done in a lab; however, an experiment can consist of observing natural processes in the field. Regardless of what form an experiment takes, it always includes the systematic gathering of objective data. This data is interpreted to determine whether it contradicts or supports the hypothesis, which may be revised and tested again. When a hypothesis holds up under experimentation, it is ready to be shared with other experts in the field.

Step 4: Peer Review, Publication, and Publication

Scientists share the results of their research by publishing articles in scientific journals, such as Science and Nature . Reputable journals and publishing houses will not publish an experimental study until they have determined its methods are scientifically rigorous and the conclusions are supported by evidence. Before an article is published, it undergoes a rigorous peer review by scientific experts who scrutinize the methods, results, and discussion. Once an article is published, other scientists may attempt to replicate the results. This replication is necessary to confirm the reliability of the study’s reported results. A hypothesis that seemed compelling in one study might be proven false in studies conducted by other scientists. New technology can be applied to published studies, which can aid in confirming or rejecting once-accepted ideas and/or hypotheses.

Step 5: Theory Development

In casual conversation, the word theory implies guesswork or speculation. In the language of science, an explanation or conclusion made in a theory carries much more weight because it is supported by experimental verification and widely accepted by the scientific community. After a hypothesis has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability through documented and independent studies, it eventually becomes accepted as a scientific theory.

While a hypothesis provides a tentative explanation before an experiment, a theory is the best explanation after being confirmed by multiple independent experiments. Confirmation of a theory may take years, or even longer. For example, the continental drift hypothesis first proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912 was initially dismissed. After decades of additional evidence collection by other scientists using more advanced technology, Wegener’s hypothesis was accepted and revised as the theory of plate tectonics.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is another example. Originating from the work of Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century, the theory of evolution has withstood generations of scientific testing for falsifiability. While it has been updated and revised to accommodate knowledge gained by using modern technologies, the theory of evolution continues to be supported by the latest evidence.

• 4. Sabra, A. I. & Others. The optics of Ibn al-Haytham: Books I-III: On direct vision . 1 , (Warburg Institute, University of London, 1989).
• 5. Railsback, B. L. T. C. Chamberlin’s “Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses”: An encapsulation for modern students. Houston Geological Society Bulletin 47 , 68–69 (2004).
• 6. Railsback, B. L. T. C. Chamberlin’s ‘Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses’: An encapsulation for modern students. (1990). Available at: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/r ailsback_chamberlin.html. (Accessed: 29th December 2016)
• 7. Chamberlin, T. C. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 15 , 92–96 (1890).

How Do You Formulate (Important) Hypotheses?

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

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

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

11k Accesses

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

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

Part I. Getting Started

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 2.1

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

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

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

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

Beginning with a Prediction If You Have One

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

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

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

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

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

Three Pathways to Formulating Informed Hypotheses

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

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

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

Developing a Rationale for Your Predictions

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

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

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

Imagining Testing Your Hypotheses

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

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

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

Cycles of Building Rationales and Planning to Test Your Predictions

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

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

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

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

Beginning by Asking Questions to Clarify Your Interests

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

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

Imagining Answers to Your Questions

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

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

Shifting to the Hypothesis Formulation and Testing Path

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

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

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

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

Cycles of Refining Questions and Predicting Answers

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

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

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

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

Beginning with a Research Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 2.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part IV. An Illustrative Dialogue

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

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

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

What were some of your observations?

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

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

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

So then, how did they answer those general questions?

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

OK. Any ideas about what you might do next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part V. Is It Always Possible to Formulate Hypotheses?

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

Can You Always Predict What You Will Find?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for What to Do When You Do Not Have Predictions

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

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

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

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

Should You Always Try to Predict What You Will Find?

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

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

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

Making Your Predictions Explicit Increases Your Chances of Productive Observations

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

Making Your Predictions Explicit Allows You to Guard Against Biases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Your Predictions Explicit Allows You to Plan in Advance

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Costs of Not Making Predictions

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

Part VI. How Do You Formulate Important Hypotheses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise 2.3

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

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

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

Part VIII. The Heart of Scientific Inquiry

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

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

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

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

Download citation

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

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Definition of a Hypothesis

What it is and how it's used in sociology

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology

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

Within social science, a hypothesis can take two forms. It can predict that there is no relationship between two variables, in which case it is a null hypothesis . Or, it can predict the existence of a relationship between variables, which is known as an alternative hypothesis.

In either case, the variable that is thought to either affect or not affect the outcome is known as the independent variable, and the variable that is thought to either be affected or not is the dependent variable.

Researchers seek to determine whether or not their hypothesis, or hypotheses if they have more than one, will prove true. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. Either way, the research is considered successful if one can conclude whether or not a hypothesis is true. 

Null Hypothesis

A researcher has a null hypothesis when she or he believes, based on theory and existing scientific evidence, that there will not be a relationship between two variables. For example, when examining what factors influence a person's highest level of education within the U.S., a researcher might expect that place of birth, number of siblings, and religion would not have an impact on the level of education. This would mean the researcher has stated three null hypotheses.

Alternative Hypothesis

Taking the same example, a researcher might expect that the economic class and educational attainment of one's parents, and the race of the person in question are likely to have an effect on one's educational attainment. Existing evidence and social theories that recognize the connections between wealth and cultural resources , and how race affects access to rights and resources in the U.S. , would suggest that both economic class and educational attainment of the one's parents would have a positive effect on educational attainment. In this case, economic class and educational attainment of one's parents are independent variables, and one's educational attainment is the dependent variable—it is hypothesized to be dependent on the other two.

Conversely, an informed researcher would expect that being a race other than white in the U.S. is likely to have a negative impact on a person's educational attainment. This would be characterized as a negative relationship, wherein being a person of color has a negative effect on one's educational attainment. In reality, this hypothesis proves true, with the exception of Asian Americans , who go to college at a higher rate than whites do. However, Blacks and Hispanics and Latinos are far less likely than whites and Asian Americans to go to college.

Formulating a Hypothesis

Formulating a hypothesis can take place at the very beginning of a research project , or after a bit of research has already been done. Sometimes a researcher knows right from the start which variables she is interested in studying, and she may already have a hunch about their relationships. Other times, a researcher may have an interest in ​a particular topic, trend, or phenomenon, but he may not know enough about it to identify variables or formulate a hypothesis.

Whenever a hypothesis is formulated, the most important thing is to be precise about what one's variables are, what the nature of the relationship between them might be, and how one can go about conducting a study of them.

Updated by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D

• Null Hypothesis Examples
• Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables
• Difference Between Independent and Dependent Variables
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• Understanding Path Analysis
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• What It Means When a Variable Is Spurious
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• How Intervening Variables Work in Sociology
• Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• Structural Equation Modeling

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more variables . An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls. A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Step 1: ask a question.

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2: Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalise more complex constructs.

Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

Step 4: Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

• The relevant variables
• The specific group being studied
• The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if … then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

Step 6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

A hypothesis is not just a guess. It should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (‘ x affects y because …’).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses. In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 31 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, operationalisation | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

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.

• School Guide
• Mathematics
• Number System and Arithmetic
• Trigonometry
• Probability
• Mensuration
• Maths Formulas
• Class 8 Maths Notes
• Class 9 Maths Notes
• Class 10 Maths Notes
• Class 11 Maths Notes
• Class 12 Maths Notes
• Null Hypothesis
• Hypothesis Testing Formula
• Difference Between Hypothesis And Theory
• Real-life Applications of Hypothesis Testing
• Permutation Hypothesis Test in R Programming
• Bayes' Theorem
• Hypothesis in Machine Learning
• Current Best Hypothesis Search
• Understanding Hypothesis Testing
• Hypothesis Testing in R Programming
• Jobathon | Stats | Question 10
• Jobathon | Stats | Question 17
• Testing | Question 1
• Difference between Null and Alternate Hypothesis
• ML | Find S Algorithm
• Python - Pearson's Chi-Square Test

Hypothesis is a testable statement that explains what is happening or observed. It proposes the relation between the various participating variables. Hypothesis is also called Theory, Thesis, Guess, Assumption, or Suggestion. Hypothesis creates a structure that guides the search for knowledge.

In this article, we will learn what is hypothesis, its characteristics, types, and examples. We will also learn how hypothesis helps in scientific research.

What is Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a suggested idea or plan that has little proof, meant to lead to more study. It’s mainly a smart guess or suggested answer to a problem that can be checked through study and trial. In science work, we make guesses called hypotheses to try and figure out what will happen in tests or watching. These are not sure things but rather ideas that can be proved or disproved based on real-life proofs. A good theory is clear and can be tested and found wrong if the proof doesn’t support it.

Hypothesis Meaning

A hypothesis is a proposed statement that is testable and is given for something that happens or observed.

• It is made using what we already know and have seen, and it’s the basis for scientific research.
• A clear guess tells us what we think will happen in an experiment or study.
• It’s a testable clue that can be proven true or wrong with real-life facts and checking it out carefully.
• It usually looks like a “if-then” rule, showing the expected cause and effect relationship between what’s being studied.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some key characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable: An idea (hypothesis) should be made so it can be tested and proven true through doing experiments or watching. It should show a clear connection between things.
• Specific: It needs to be easy and on target, talking about a certain part or connection between things in a study.
• Falsifiable: A good guess should be able to show it’s wrong. This means there must be a chance for proof or seeing something that goes against the guess.
• Logical and Rational: It should be based on things we know now or have seen, giving a reasonable reason that fits with what we already know.
• Predictive: A guess often tells what to expect from an experiment or observation. It gives a guide for what someone might see if the guess is right.
• Concise: It should be short and clear, showing the suggested link or explanation simply without extra confusion.
• Grounded in Research: A guess is usually made from before studies, ideas or watching things. It comes from a deep understanding of what is already known in that area.
• Flexible: A guess helps in the research but it needs to change or fix when new information comes up.
• Relevant: It should be related to the question or problem being studied, helping to direct what the research is about.
• Empirical: Hypotheses come from observations and can be tested using methods based on real-world experiences.

Sources of Hypothesis

Hypotheses can come from different places based on what you’re studying and the kind of research. Here are some common sources from which hypotheses may originate:

• Existing Theories: Often, guesses come from well-known science ideas. These ideas may show connections between things or occurrences that scientists can look into more.
• Observation and Experience: Watching something happen or having personal experiences can lead to guesses. We notice odd things or repeat events in everyday life and experiments. This can make us think of guesses called hypotheses.
• Previous Research: Using old studies or discoveries can help come up with new ideas. Scientists might try to expand or question current findings, making guesses that further study old results.
• Literature Review: Looking at books and research in a subject can help make guesses. Noticing missing parts or mismatches in previous studies might make researchers think up guesses to deal with these spots.
• Problem Statement or Research Question: Often, ideas come from questions or problems in the study. Making clear what needs to be looked into can help create ideas that tackle certain parts of the issue.
• Analogies or Comparisons: Making comparisons between similar things or finding connections from related areas can lead to theories. Understanding from other fields could create new guesses in a different situation.
• Hunches and Speculation: Sometimes, scientists might get a gut feeling or make guesses that help create ideas to test. Though these may not have proof at first, they can be a beginning for looking deeper.
• Technology and Innovations: New technology or tools might make guesses by letting us look at things that were hard to study before.
• Personal Interest and Curiosity: People’s curiosity and personal interests in a topic can help create guesses. Scientists could make guesses based on their own likes or love for a subject.

Types of Hypothesis

Here are some common types of hypotheses:

Simple Hypothesis

Complex hypothesis, directional hypothesis.

• Non-directional Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis (H0)

Alternative hypothesis (h1 or ha), statistical hypothesis, research hypothesis, associative hypothesis, causal hypothesis.

Simple Hypothesis guesses a connection between two things. It says that there is a connection or difference between variables, but it doesn’t tell us which way the relationship goes.

Complex Hypothesis tells us what will happen when more than two things are connected. It looks at how different things interact and may be linked together.

Directional Hypothesis says how one thing is related to another. For example, it guesses that one thing will help or hurt another thing.

Non-Directional Hypothesis

Non-Directional Hypothesis are the one that don’t say how the relationship between things will be. They just say that there is a connection, without telling which way it goes.

Null hypothesis is a statement that says there’s no connection or difference between different things. It implies that any seen impacts are because of luck or random changes in the information.

Alternative Hypothesis is different from the null hypothesis and shows that there’s a big connection or gap between variables. Scientists want to say no to the null hypothesis and choose the alternative one.

Statistical Hypotheis are used in math testing and include making ideas about what groups or bits of them look like. You aim to get information or test certain things using these top-level, common words only.

Research Hypothesis comes from the research question and tells what link is expected between things or factors. It leads the study and chooses where to look more closely.

Associative Hypotheis guesses that there is a link or connection between things without really saying it caused them. It means that when one thing changes, it is connected to another thing changing.

Causal Hypothesis are different from other ideas because they say that one thing causes another. This means there’s a cause and effect relationship between variables involved in the situation. They say that when one thing changes, it directly makes another thing change.

Hypothesis Examples

Following are the examples of hypotheses based on their types:

Simple Hypothesis Example

• Studying more can help you do better on tests.
• Getting more sun makes people have higher amounts of vitamin D.

Complex Hypothesis Example

• How rich you are, how easy it is to get education and healthcare greatly affects the number of years people live.
• A new medicine’s success relies on the amount used, how old a person is who takes it and their genes.

Directional Hypothesis Example

• Drinking more sweet drinks is linked to a higher body weight score.
• Too much stress makes people less productive at work.

Non-directional Hypothesis Example

• Drinking caffeine can affect how well you sleep.
• People often like different kinds of music based on their gender.
• The average test scores of Group A and Group B are not much different.
• There is no connection between using a certain fertilizer and how much it helps crops grow.

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha)

• Patients on Diet A have much different cholesterol levels than those following Diet B.
• Exposure to a certain type of light can change how plants grow compared to normal sunlight.
• The average smarts score of kids in a certain school area is 100.
• The usual time it takes to finish a job using Method A is the same as with Method B.
• Having more kids go to early learning classes helps them do better in school when they get older.
• Using specific ways of talking affects how much customers get involved in marketing activities.
• Regular exercise helps to lower the chances of heart disease.
• Going to school more can help people make more money.
• Playing violent video games makes teens more likely to act aggressively.
• Less clean air directly impacts breathing health in city populations.

Functions of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have many important jobs in the process of scientific research. Here are the key functions of hypotheses:

• Guiding Research: Hypotheses give a clear and exact way for research. They act like guides, showing the predicted connections or results that scientists want to study.
• Formulating Research Questions: Research questions often create guesses. They assist in changing big questions into particular, checkable things. They guide what the study should be focused on.
• Setting Clear Objectives: Hypotheses set the goals of a study by saying what connections between variables should be found. They set the targets that scientists try to reach with their studies.
• Testing Predictions: Theories guess what will happen in experiments or observations. By doing tests in a planned way, scientists can check if what they see matches the guesses made by their ideas.
• Providing Structure: Theories give structure to the study process by arranging thoughts and ideas. They aid scientists in thinking about connections between things and plan experiments to match.
• Focusing Investigations: Hypotheses help scientists focus on certain parts of their study question by clearly saying what they expect links or results to be. This focus makes the study work better.
• Facilitating Communication: Theories help scientists talk to each other effectively. Clearly made guesses help scientists to tell others what they plan, how they will do it and the results expected. This explains things well with colleagues in a wide range of audiences.
• Generating Testable Statements: A good guess can be checked, which means it can be looked at carefully or tested by doing experiments. This feature makes sure that guesses add to the real information used in science knowledge.
• Promoting Objectivity: Guesses give a clear reason for study that helps guide the process while reducing personal bias. They motivate scientists to use facts and data as proofs or disprovals for their proposed answers.
• Driving Scientific Progress: Making, trying out and adjusting ideas is a cycle. Even if a guess is proven right or wrong, the information learned helps to grow knowledge in one specific area.

How Hypothesis help in Scientific Research?

Researchers use hypotheses to put down their thoughts directing how the experiment would take place. Following are the steps that are involved in the scientific method:

• Initiating Investigations: Hypotheses are the beginning of science research. They come from watching, knowing what’s already known or asking questions. This makes scientists make certain explanations that need to be checked with tests.
• Formulating Research Questions: Ideas usually come from bigger questions in study. They help scientists make these questions more exact and testable, guiding the study’s main point.
• Setting Clear Objectives: Hypotheses set the goals of a study by stating what we think will happen between different things. They set the goals that scientists want to reach by doing their studies.
• Designing Experiments and Studies: Assumptions help plan experiments and watchful studies. They assist scientists in knowing what factors to measure, the techniques they will use and gather data for a proposed reason.
• Testing Predictions: Ideas guess what will happen in experiments or observations. By checking these guesses carefully, scientists can see if the seen results match up with what was predicted in each hypothesis.
• Analysis and Interpretation of Data: Hypotheses give us a way to study and make sense of information. Researchers look at what they found and see if it matches the guesses made in their theories. They decide if the proof backs up or disagrees with these suggested reasons why things are happening as expected.
• Encouraging Objectivity: Hypotheses help make things fair by making sure scientists use facts and information to either agree or disagree with their suggested reasons. They lessen personal preferences by needing proof from experience.
• Iterative Process: People either agree or disagree with guesses, but they still help the ongoing process of science. Findings from testing ideas make us ask new questions, improve those ideas and do more tests. It keeps going on in the work of science to keep learning things.

People Also View:

Mathematics Maths Formulas Branches of Mathematics

Summary – Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a testable statement serving as an initial explanation for phenomena, based on observations, theories, or existing knowledge. It acts as a guiding light for scientific research, proposing potential relationships between variables that can be empirically tested through experiments and observations. The hypothesis must be specific, testable, falsifiable, and grounded in prior research or observation, laying out a predictive, if-then scenario that details a cause-and-effect relationship. It originates from various sources including existing theories, observations, previous research, and even personal curiosity, leading to different types, such as simple, complex, directional, non-directional, null, and alternative hypotheses, each serving distinct roles in research methodology. The hypothesis not only guides the research process by shaping objectives and designing experiments but also facilitates objective analysis and interpretation of data, ultimately driving scientific progress through a cycle of testing, validation, and refinement.

FAQs on Hypothesis

What is a hypothesis.

A guess is a possible explanation or forecast that can be checked by doing research and experiments.

What are Components of a Hypothesis?

The components of a Hypothesis are Independent Variable, Dependent Variable, Relationship between Variables, Directionality etc.

What makes a Good Hypothesis?

Testability, Falsifiability, Clarity and Precision, Relevance are some parameters that makes a Good Hypothesis

Can a Hypothesis be Proven True?

You cannot prove conclusively that most hypotheses are true because it’s generally impossible to examine all possible cases for exceptions that would disprove them.

How are Hypotheses Tested?

Hypothesis testing is used to assess the plausibility of a hypothesis by using sample data

Can Hypotheses change during Research?

Yes, you can change or improve your ideas based on new information discovered during the research process.

What is the Role of a Hypothesis in Scientific Research?

Hypotheses are used to support scientific research and bring about advancements in knowledge.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Geeks Premier League 2023
• Maths-Class-12
• Geeks Premier League
• School Learning

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

Title: explanation-based belief revision: moving beyond minimalism to explanatory understanding.

Abstract: In belief revision, agents typically modify their beliefs when they receive some new piece of information that is in conflict with them. The guiding principle behind most belief revision frameworks is that of minimalism, which advocates minimal changes to existing beliefs. However, minimalism may not necessarily capture the nuanced ways in which human agents reevaluate and modify their beliefs. In contrast, the explanatory hypothesis indicates that people are inherently driven to seek explanations for inconsistencies, thereby striving for explanatory coherence rather than minimal changes when revising beliefs. Our contribution in this paper is two-fold. Motivated by the explanatory hypothesis, we first present a novel, yet simple belief revision operator that, given a belief base and an explanation for an explanandum, it revises the belief bases in a manner that preserves the explanandum and is not necessarily minimal. We call this operator explanation-based belief revision. Second, we conduct two human-subject studies to empirically validate our approach and investigate belief revision behavior in real-world scenarios. Our findings support the explanatory hypothesis and provide insights into the strategies people employ when resolving inconsistencies.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

share this!

May 27, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Rethinking the sun's cycles: New physical model reinforces planetary hypothesis

by Simon Schmitt, Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres

Researchers at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) and the University of Latvia have posited the first comprehensive physical explanation for the sun's various activity cycles. It identifies vortex-shaped currents on the sun, known as Rossby waves, as mediators between the tidal influences of Venus, Earth as well as Jupiter and the sun's magnetic activity.

The researchers therefore present a consistent model for solar cycles of different lengths—and another strong argument to support the previously controversial planetary hypothesis. The results have now been published in the journal Solar Physics .

Although the sun, being near to us, is the best researched star, many questions about its physics have not yet been completely answered. These include the rhythmic fluctuations in solar activity . The most famous of these is that, on average, the sun reaches a radiation maximum every eleven years—which experts refer to as the Schwabe cycle.

This cycle of activity occurs because the sun's magnetic field changes during this period and eventually reverses polarity. This, in itself, is not unusual for a star—if it weren't for the fact that the Schwabe cycle is remarkably stable.

The Schwabe cycle is overlaid by other, less obvious fluctuations in activity ranging from a few hundred days to several hundred years, each named after their discoverers. Although there have already been various attempts to explain these cycles and mathematical calculations, there is still no comprehensive physical model.

Planets set the beat

For some years, Dr. Frank Stefani of HZDR's Institute of Fluid Dynamics has been an advocate of the "planetary hypothesis" because it is clear that the planets' gravity exerts a tidal effect on the sun, similar to that of the moon on the Earth. This effect is strongest every 11.07 years: whenever the three planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter are aligned with the sun in a particularly striking line, comparable to a spring tide on Earth when there is a new or full moon. This coincides conspicuously with the Schwabe cycle.

The sun's magnetic field is formed by complex movements of the electrically conducting plasma inside the sun. "You can think of it like a gigantic dynamo. While this solar dynamo generates an approximately 11-year activity cycle in its own right, we think the planets' influence then intervenes in the workings of this dynamo, repeatedly giving it a little push and thus forcing the unusually stable 11.07-year rhythm on the sun," Stefani explains.

Several years ago, he and his colleagues discovered strong evidence of a clocked process of this kind in the available observation data. They were also able to correlate various solar cycles with the movement of the planets just using mathematical methods. At first, however, the correlation could not be sufficiently explained physically.

Rossby waves on the sun act as intermediaries

"We have now found the underlying physical mechanism. We know how much energy is required to synchronize the dynamo, and we know that this energy can be transferred to the sun by so-called Rossby waves. The great thing is that we can now not only explain the Schwabe cycle and longer solar cycles but also the shorter Rieger cycles that we hadn't even considered previously," says Stefani.

Rossby waves are vortex-shaped currents on the sun similar to the large-scale wave movements in the Earth's atmosphere that control high- and low-pressure systems.

The researchers calculated that the tidal forces during the spring tides of two of each of the three planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter had exactly the right properties to activate Rossby waves—an insight with many consequences.

First of all, these Rossby waves then achieve sufficiently high speeds to give the solar dynamo the necessary impetus. Second, this occurs every 118, 193 and 299 days in accordance with the Rieger cycles that have been observed on the sun. And thirdly, all additional solar cycles can be calculated on this basis.

All cycles explained by a single model

This is where mathematics comes in: The superimposition of the three short Rieger cycles automatically produces the prominent 11.07-year Schwabe cycle. And the model even predicts long-term fluctuations of the sun because the movement of the sun around the solar system's center of gravity causes a so-called beat period of 193 years on the basis of the Schwabe cycle.

This corresponds to the order of magnitude of another cycle that has been observed, the Suess-de Vries cycle.

In this context, the researchers discovered an impressive correlation between the 193-year period that had been calculated and periodic fluctuations in climate data. This is another robust argument for the planetary hypothesis because "the sharp Suess-de Vries peak at 193 years can hardly be explained without phase stability in the Schwabe cycle, which is only present in a clocked process," Stefani estimates.

Does this mean the question as to whether the sun follows the planets' beat has finally been answered? Stefani says, "We'll probably only be 100% certain when we have more data. But the arguments in favor of a process clocked by the planets are now very strong."

Journal information: Solar Physics

Provided by Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Saturday Citations: The sound of music, sneaky birds, better training for LLMs. Plus: Diversity improves research

8 hours ago

Study investigates a massive 'spider' pulsar

9 hours ago

Greener, more effective termite control: Natural compound attracts wood eaters

11 hours ago

Shear genius: Researchers find way to scale up wonder material, which could do wonders for the Earth

New vestiges of the first life on Earth discovered in Saudi Arabia

May 31, 2024

Mussels downstream of wastewater treatment plant contain radium, study reports

A new way to see viruses in action: Super-resolution microscopy provides a nano-scale look

Martian meteorites deliver a trove of information on red planet's structure

New imager acquires amplitude and phase information without digital processing

AI helps scientists understand cosmic explosions

Relevant physicsforums posts, from finite to infinite.

2 hours ago

Spectral Data Availibility

3 hours ago

The James Webb Space Telescope

4 hours ago

Solar Activity and Space Weather Update thread

19 hours ago

Will we ever communicate with extraterrestial life in a reasonable time frame?

Some photos of the moon.

May 30, 2024

More from Astronomy and Astrophysics

Related Stories

The sun's clock: New calculations support and expand planetary hypothesis

Jun 14, 2021

Study corroborates the influence of planetary tidal forces on solar activity

May 28, 2019

Solar activity likely to peak next year, new study suggests

Nov 28, 2023

Coronal holes during the solar maximum

Jan 11, 2021

Revealing the secrets of the sun: How magnetic structures drive coronal rotation

Dec 13, 2023

Fast changes between the solar seasons resolved by new sun clock

Aug 17, 2021

Recommended for you

Dark matter could make our galaxy's innermost stars immortal

X-ray binary Swift J1727.8-1613 has a large relativistic jet, observations show

News from 'El Gordo': Study suggests dark matter may have collisional properties after all

Glimpses of a volcanic world: New telescope images of Jupiter's moon Io rival those from spacecraft

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Gene variants foretell the biology of future breast cancers

A Stanford Medicine study of thousands of breast cancers has found that the gene sequences we inherit at conception are powerful predictors of the breast cancer type we might develop decades later and how deadly it might be.

The study challenges the dogma that most cancers arise as the result of random mutations that accumulate during our lifetimes. Instead, it points to the active involvement of gene sequences we inherit from our parents -- what's known as your germline genome -- in determining whether cells bearing potential cancer-causing mutations are recognized and eliminated by the immune system or skitter under the radar to become nascent cancers.

"Apart from a few highly penetrant genes that confer significant cancer risk, the role of heredity factors remains poorly understood, and most malignancies are assumed to result from random errors during cell division or bad luck," said Christina Curtis, PhD, the RZ Cao Professor of Medicine and a professor of genetics and of biomedical data science. "This would imply that tumor initiation is random, but that is not what we observe. Rather, we find that the path to tumor development is constrained by hereditary factors and immunity. This new result unearths a new class of biomarkers to forecast tumor progression and an entirely new way of understanding breast cancer origins."

Curtis is the senior author of the study, which will be published May 31 in Science . Postdoctoral scholar Kathleen Houlahan, PhD, is the lead author of the research.

"Back in 2015, we had posited that some tumors are 'born to be bad' -- meaning that their malignant and even metastatic potential is determined early in the disease course," Curtis said. "We and others have since corroborated this finding across multiple tumors, but these findings cast a whole new light on just how early this happens."

A new take on cancer's origin

The study, which gives a nuanced and powerful new understanding of the interplay between newly arisen cancer cells and the immune system, is likely to help researchers and clinicians better predict and combat breast tumors.

Currently, only a few high-profile cancer-associated mutations in genes are regularly used to predict cancers. Those include BRCA1 and BRCA2, which occur in about one of every 500 women and confer an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer, and rarer mutations in a gene called TP53 that causes a disease called Li Fraumeni syndrome, which predisposes to childhood and adult-onset tumors.

The findings indicate there are tens or hundreds of additional gene variants -- identifiable in healthy people -- pulling the strings that determine why some people remain cancer-free throughout their lives.

"Our findings not only explain which subtype of breast cancer an individual is likely to develop," Houlahan said, "but they also hint at how aggressive and prone to metastasizing that subtype will be. Beyond that, we anticipate that these inherited variants may influence a person's risk of developing breast cancer."

The genes we inherit from our parents are known as our germline genome. They're mirrors of our parents' genetic makeup, and they can vary among people in small ways that give some of us blue eyes, brown hair or type O blood. Some inherited genes include mutations that confer increased cancer risk from the get-go, such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53. But identifying other germline mutations strongly associated with future cancers has proven difficult.

In contrast, most cancer-associated genes are part of what's known as our somatic genome. As we live our lives, our cells divide and die in the tens of millions. Each time the DNA in a cell is copied, mistakes happen and mutations can accumulate. DNA in tumors is often compared with the germline genomes in blood or normal tissues in an individual to pinpoint which changes likely led to the cell's cancerous transformation.

Classifying breast cancers

In 2012, Curtis began a deep dive -- assisted by machine learning -- into the types of somatic mutations that occur in thousands of breast cancers. She was eventually able to categorize the disease into 11 subtypes with varying prognoses and risk of recurrence, finding that four of the 11 groups were significantly more likely to recur even 10 or 20 years after diagnosis -- critical information for clinicians making treatment decisions and discussing long-term prognoses with their patients.

Prior studies had shown that people with inherited BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations tend to develop a subtype of breast cancer known as triple negative breast cancer. This correlation implies some behind-the-scenes shenanigans by the germline genome that affects what subtype of breast cancer someone might develop.

"We wanted to understand how inherited DNA might sculpt how a tumor evolves," Houlahan said. To do so, they took a close look at the immune system.

It's a quirk of biology that even healthy cells routinely decorate their outer membranes with small chunks of the proteins they have bobbing in their cytoplasm -- an outward display that reflects their inner style.

The foundations for this display are what's known as HLA proteins, and they are highly variable among individuals. Like fashion police, immune cells called T cells prowl the body looking for any suspicious or overly flashy bling (called epitopes) that might signal something is amiss inside the cell. A cell infected with a virus will display bits of viral proteins; a sick or cancerous cell will adorn itself with abnormal proteins. These faux pas trigger the T cells to destroy the offenders.

Houlahan and Curtis decided to focus on oncogenes, normal genes that, when mutated, can free a cell from regulatory pathways meant to keep it on the straight and narrow. Often, these mutations take the form of multiple copies of the normal gene, arranged nose to tail along the DNA -- the result of a kind of genomic stutter called amplification. Amplifications in specific oncogenes drive different cancer pathways and were used to differentiate one breast cancer subtype from another in Curtis' original studies.

The importance of bling

The researchers wondered whether highly recognizable epitopes would be more likely to attract T cells' attention than other, more modest displays (think golf-ball-sized, dangly turquoise earrings versus a simple silver stud). If so, a cell that had inherited a flashy version of an oncogene might be less able to pull off its amplification without alerting the immune system than a cell with a more modest version of the same gene. (One pair of overly gaudy turquoise earrings can be excused; five pairs might cause a patrolling fashionista T cell to switch from tutting to terminating.)

The researchers studied nearly 6,000 breast tumors spanning various stages of disease to learn whether the subtype of each tumor correlated with the patients' germline oncogene sequences. They found that people who had inherited an oncogene with a high germline epitope burden (read: lots of bling) -- and an HLA type that can display that epitope prominently -- were significantly less likely to develop breast cancer subtypes in which that oncogene is amplified.

There was a surprise, though. The researchers found that cancers with a large germline epitope burden that manage to escape the roving immune cells early in their development tended to be more aggressive and have a poorer prognosis than their more subdued peers.

"At the early, pre-invasive stage, a high germline epitope burden is protective against cancer," Houlahan said. "But once it's been forced to wrestle with the immune system and come up with mechanisms to overcome it, tumors with high germline epitope burden are more aggressive and prone to metastasis. The pattern flips during tumor progression."

"Basically, there is a tug of war between tumor and immune cells," Curtis said. "In the preinvasive setting, the nascent tumor may initially be more susceptible to immune surveillance and destruction. Indeed, many tumors are likely eliminated in this manner and go unnoticed. However, the immune system does not always win. Some tumor cells may not be eliminated and those that persist develop ways to evade immune recognition and destruction. Our findings shed light on this opaque process and may inform the optimal timing of therapeutic intervention, as well as how to make an immunologically cold tumor become hot, rendering it more sensitive to therapy."

The researchers envision a future when the germline genome is used to further stratify the 11 breast cancer subtypes identified by Curtis to guide treatment decisions and improve prognoses and monitoring for recurrence. The study's findings may also give additional clues in the hunt for personalized cancer immunotherapies and may enable clinicians to one day predict a healthy person's risk of cancer from a simple blood sample.

"We started with a bold hypothesis," Curtis said. "The field had not thought about tumor origins and evolution in this way. We're examining other cancers through this new lens of heredity and acquired factors and tumor-immune co-evolution."

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grants DP1-CA238296 and U54CA261719), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub.

• Breast Cancer
• Brain Tumor
• Lung Cancer
• Colon Cancer
• Diseases and Conditions
• Ovarian Cancer
• Breast cancer
• Monoclonal antibody therapy
• Mammography
• Breast implant
• Colorectal cancer
• Breast reconstruction

Story Source:

Materials provided by Stanford Medicine . Original written by Krista Conger. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Kathleen E. Houlahan, Aziz Khan, Noah F. Greenwald, Cristina Sotomayor Vivas, Robert B. West, Michael Angelo, Christina Curtis. Germline-mediated immunoediting sculpts breast cancer subtypes and metastatic proclivity . Science , 2024; 384 (6699) DOI: 10.1126/science.adh8697

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Resting Brain: Neurons Rehearse for Future
• Observing Single Molecules
• A Greener, More Effective Way to Kill Termites
• One Bright Spot Among Melting Glaciers
• Martian Meteorites Inform Red Planet's Structure
• Volcanic Events On Jupiter's Moon Io: High Res
• What Negative Adjectives Mean to Your Brain
• 'Living Bioelectronics' Can Sense and Heal Skin
• Extinct Saber-Toothed Cat On Texas Coast
• Some Black Holes Survive in Globular Clusters

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.