The hypothesis is one of the most important sections of a research paper. It lays out your proposed answer to the research question being explored. A strong, well-written hypothesis is the foundation for the rest of the paper. Here are the key steps to take when forming and writing the hypothesis section:
Understand the purpose of the hypothesis. The primary goal of the hypothesis is to make an informed prediction about the expected outcome or relationship between variables being studied based on existing literature and theories. It proposes a tentative explanation for a phenomenon that can potentially be tested. The hypothesis should specify exactly what will be demonstrated and proven through the analysis and results reported in the paper.
Clearly define variables. When developing the hypothesis, it’s important to clearly operationalize the key variables being studied. Define them precisely so there is no ambiguity or room for misinterpretation. For example, don’t just state “people will be happier,” but specify exactly which population is being referred to and how “happiness” will be defined and measured. Variables need to be measurable and quantifiable so results can be objectively analyzed to either support or refute the hypothesis.
Formulate the relationship predicted. The core of the hypothesis states the expected relationship between variables. Express this in an “if…then…” statement format that connects independent and dependent variables. For example, “If daily meditation is practiced (independent variable), then reported levels of stress (dependent variable) will decrease over time.” The hypothesis should be testable by demonstrating the direction and strength of the predicted effect or association between variables.
Link to existing theory or literature. Effective hypotheses are grounded in and extend established theory or prior research on the topic. Cite relevant studies, models, or frameworks that provide a logical rationale for why the predicted relationship exists. Discuss how the hypothesis both aligns with and advances existing knowledge. This establishes credibility and context by demonstrating thoughtful consideration of literature, rather than just intuition or conjecture.
Account for reasonable alternatives. When proposing a relationship, acknowledge there could be other plausible explanations besides the one predicted. Discuss competing hypotheses rationally by outlining alternative outcomes that could result and why the current hypothesis is believed to be most likely. This shows critical thinking rather than narrow assumptions and prepares the reader for potential unexpected findings if results don’t fully support the initial prediction.
Use tentative language. While confident in the hypothesis, avoid definitive or absolute language since the prediction has not been proven yet. Phrases like “it is hypothesized that…” or “the expectation is…” establish tentativeness pending results. Definitive terms like “will” should be replaced with “may” or “expected to” to acknowledge room for uncertainty or complexity unaccounted for in the model.
Tailor language to audience. Scientific hypotheses are more formally and objectively written than those for other disciplines. Consider adapting language based on target publication or academic level. Graduate theses or journal submissions require more rigorous terminology while conference or capstone papers permit some explanatory context for non-specialist readers. Word choice and level of detail when referencing theory both depend on audience needs and norms within a field of study.
Articulate testable predictions. To provide a clear framework for analysis and make the hypothesis empirically falsifiable, specify exactly what results would support versus contradict the prediction. For example, “a significant positive correlation or direct relationship between variables A and B at the p < .05 level would support the hypothesis, while no correlation or an inverse relationship would refute it." Well-defined operationalization and predictions allow for objective evaluation of study findings. Specify variables in parsimonious manner. Keep the hypothesis focused and succinct by including only key variables expected to have a demonstrable effect based on importance in existing theory or conceptual framework. Other potentially confounding factors can be statistically controlled for in analysis but don't necessarily need to be included in the original prediction statement. Parsimony helps highlight the most salient relationships while avoiding overly complex models difficult to adequately assess.
Revise based on feedback. Many hypotheses require refinement based on input from others, such as dissertation committee members, peers, or advisors. Thoughtfully consider suggestions to improve variable definitions, justify theoretical rationale, address alternative perspectives, or clarify language and expectations. Iterative feedback often strengthens hypotheses by accounting for limitations or assumptions not initially apparent. Be open and responsive to revise and enhance the hypotheses as warranted. Present clearly and concisely. Hypotheses should be prominently placed in their own titled section early in the paper to establish direction. While thoroughness is important, aim to convey the core prediction statement succinctly within a paragraph or two. Lengthy justifications or complex multi-part hypotheses can detract from clarity and reader comprehension of what will actually be tested. Use headings, numbers, and other formatting as needed for enhanced organization and accessibility. The hypothesis sets the stage for the research undertaken, so taking time to develop it carefully based on literature, conceptual understanding, methodology, and reader insight leads to a stronger theoretical foundation and more meaningful conclusions. With rigorous attention to elements like variable specification, relationship prediction logic, alternate viewpoints, and empirical definition, the hypothesis provides a thoughtful roadmap for the subsequent study, analysis, interpretation of results, and potential contributions.
Andrew Stroud