roles of research hypothesis

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

The Craft of Writing a Strong Hypothesis

Table of Contents

Writing a hypothesis is one of the essential elements of a scientific research paper. It needs to be to the point, clearly communicating what your research is trying to accomplish. A blurry, drawn-out, or complexly-structured hypothesis can confuse your readers. Or worse, the editor and peer reviewers.

A captivating hypothesis is not too intricate. This blog will take you through the process so that, by the end of it, you have a better idea of how to convey your research paper's intent in just one sentence.

What is a Hypothesis?

The first step in your scientific endeavor, a hypothesis, is a strong, concise statement that forms the basis of your research. It is not the same as a thesis statement , which is a brief summary of your research paper .

The sole purpose of a hypothesis is to predict your paper's findings, data, and conclusion. It comes from a place of curiosity and intuition . When you write a hypothesis, you're essentially making an educated guess based on scientific prejudices and evidence, which is further proven or disproven through the scientific method.

The reason for undertaking research is to observe a specific phenomenon. A hypothesis, therefore, lays out what the said phenomenon is. And it does so through two variables, an independent and dependent variable.

The independent variable is the cause behind the observation, while the dependent variable is the effect of the cause. A good example of this is “mixing red and blue forms purple.” In this hypothesis, mixing red and blue is the independent variable as you're combining the two colors at your own will. The formation of purple is the dependent variable as, in this case, it is conditional to the independent variable.

Different Types of Hypotheses‌

Types of hypotheses

Some would stand by the notion that there are only two types of hypotheses: a Null hypothesis and an Alternative hypothesis. While that may have some truth to it, it would be better to fully distinguish the most common forms as these terms come up so often, which might leave you out of context.

Apart from Null and Alternative, there are Complex, Simple, Directional, Non-Directional, Statistical, and Associative and casual hypotheses. They don't necessarily have to be exclusive, as one hypothesis can tick many boxes, but knowing the distinctions between them will make it easier for you to construct your own.

1. Null hypothesis

A null hypothesis proposes no relationship between two variables. Denoted by H 0 , it is a negative statement like “Attending physiotherapy sessions does not affect athletes' on-field performance.” Here, the author claims physiotherapy sessions have no effect on on-field performances. Even if there is, it's only a coincidence.

2. Alternative hypothesis

Considered to be the opposite of a null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis is donated as H1 or Ha. It explicitly states that the dependent variable affects the independent variable. A good  alternative hypothesis example is “Attending physiotherapy sessions improves athletes' on-field performance.” or “Water evaporates at 100 °C. ” The alternative hypothesis further branches into directional and non-directional.

• Directional hypothesis: A hypothesis that states the result would be either positive or negative is called directional hypothesis. It accompanies H1 with either the ‘<' or ‘>' sign.
• Non-directional hypothesis: A non-directional hypothesis only claims an effect on the dependent variable. It does not clarify whether the result would be positive or negative. The sign for a non-directional hypothesis is ‘≠.'

3. Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement made to reflect the relation between exactly two variables. One independent and one dependent. Consider the example, “Smoking is a prominent cause of lung cancer." The dependent variable, lung cancer, is dependent on the independent variable, smoking.

4. Complex hypothesis

In contrast to a simple hypothesis, a complex hypothesis implies the relationship between multiple independent and dependent variables. For instance, “Individuals who eat more fruits tend to have higher immunity, lesser cholesterol, and high metabolism.” The independent variable is eating more fruits, while the dependent variables are higher immunity, lesser cholesterol, and high metabolism.

5. Associative and casual hypothesis

Associative and casual hypotheses don't exhibit how many variables there will be. They define the relationship between the variables. In an associative hypothesis, changing any one variable, dependent or independent, affects others. In a casual hypothesis, the independent variable directly affects the dependent.

6. Empirical hypothesis

Also referred to as the working hypothesis, an empirical hypothesis claims a theory's validation via experiments and observation. This way, the statement appears justifiable and different from a wild guess.

Say, the hypothesis is “Women who take iron tablets face a lesser risk of anemia than those who take vitamin B12.” This is an example of an empirical hypothesis where the researcher  the statement after assessing a group of women who take iron tablets and charting the findings.

7. Statistical hypothesis

The point of a statistical hypothesis is to test an already existing hypothesis by studying a population sample. Hypothesis like “44% of the Indian population belong in the age group of 22-27.” leverage evidence to prove or disprove a particular statement.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Writing a hypothesis is essential as it can make or break your research for you. That includes your chances of getting published in a journal. So when you're designing one, keep an eye out for these pointers:

• A research hypothesis has to be simple yet clear to look justifiable enough.
• It has to be testable — your research would be rendered pointless if too far-fetched into reality or limited by technology.
• It has to be precise about the results —what you are trying to do and achieve through it should come out in your hypothesis.
• A research hypothesis should be self-explanatory, leaving no doubt in the reader's mind.
• If you are developing a relational hypothesis, you need to include the variables and establish an appropriate relationship among them.
• A hypothesis must keep and reflect the scope for further investigations and experiments.

Separating a Hypothesis from a Prediction

Outside of academia, hypothesis and prediction are often used interchangeably. In research writing, this is not only confusing but also incorrect. And although a hypothesis and prediction are guesses at their core, there are many differences between them.

A hypothesis is an educated guess or even a testable prediction validated through research. It aims to analyze the gathered evidence and facts to define a relationship between variables and put forth a logical explanation behind the nature of events.

Predictions are assumptions or expected outcomes made without any backing evidence. They are more fictionally inclined regardless of where they originate from.

For this reason, a hypothesis holds much more weight than a prediction. It sticks to the scientific method rather than pure guesswork. "Planets revolve around the Sun." is an example of a hypothesis as it is previous knowledge and observed trends. Additionally, we can test it through the scientific method.

Whereas "COVID-19 will be eradicated by 2030." is a prediction. Even though it results from past trends, we can't prove or disprove it. So, the only way this gets validated is to wait and watch if COVID-19 cases end by 2030.

Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis

Quick tips on writing a hypothesis

1.  Be clear about your research question

A hypothesis should instantly address the research question or the problem statement. To do so, you need to ask a question. Understand the constraints of your undertaken research topic and then formulate a simple and topic-centric problem. Only after that can you develop a hypothesis and further test for evidence.

2. Carry out a recce

Once you have your research's foundation laid out, it would be best to conduct preliminary research. Go through previous theories, academic papers, data, and experiments before you start curating your research hypothesis. It will give you an idea of your hypothesis's viability or originality.

Making use of references from relevant research papers helps draft a good research hypothesis. SciSpace Discover offers a repository of over 270 million research papers to browse through and gain a deeper understanding of related studies on a particular topic. Additionally, you can use SciSpace Copilot , your AI research assistant, for reading any lengthy research paper and getting a more summarized context of it. A hypothesis can be formed after evaluating many such summarized research papers. Copilot also offers explanations for theories and equations, explains paper in simplified version, allows you to highlight any text in the paper or clip math equations and tables and provides a deeper, clear understanding of what is being said. This can improve the hypothesis by helping you identify potential research gaps.

3. Create a 3-dimensional hypothesis

Variables are an essential part of any reasonable hypothesis. So, identify your independent and dependent variable(s) and form a correlation between them. The ideal way to do this is to write the hypothetical assumption in the ‘if-then' form. If you use this form, make sure that you state the predefined relationship between the variables.

In another way, you can choose to present your hypothesis as a comparison between two variables. Here, you must specify the difference you expect to observe in the results.

4. Write the first draft

Now that everything is in place, it's time to write your hypothesis. For starters, create the first draft. In this version, write what you expect to find from your research.

Clearly separate your independent and dependent variables and the link between them. Don't fixate on syntax at this stage. The goal is to ensure your hypothesis addresses the issue.

5. Proof your hypothesis

After preparing the first draft of your hypothesis, you need to inspect it thoroughly. It should tick all the boxes, like being concise, straightforward, relevant, and accurate. Your final hypothesis has to be well-structured as well.

Research projects are an exciting and crucial part of being a scholar. And once you have your research question, you need a great hypothesis to begin conducting research. Thus, knowing how to write a hypothesis is very important.

Now that you have a firmer grasp on what a good hypothesis constitutes, the different kinds there are, and what process to follow, you will find it much easier to write your hypothesis, which ultimately helps your research.

Now it's easier than ever to streamline your research workflow with SciSpace Discover . Its integrated, comprehensive end-to-end platform for research allows scholars to easily discover, write and publish their research and fosters collaboration.

It includes everything you need, including a repository of over 270 million research papers across disciplines, SEO-optimized summaries and public profiles to show your expertise and experience.

If you found these tips on writing a research hypothesis useful, head over to our blog on Statistical Hypothesis Testing to learn about the top researchers, papers, and institutions in this domain.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is the definition of hypothesis.

According to the Oxford dictionary, a hypothesis is defined as “An idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts, but that has not yet been proved to be true or correct”.

2. What is an example of hypothesis?

The hypothesis is a statement that proposes a relationship between two or more variables. An example: "If we increase the number of new users who join our platform by 25%, then we will see an increase in revenue."

3. What is an example of null hypothesis?

A null hypothesis is a statement that there is no relationship between two variables. The null hypothesis is written as H0. The null hypothesis states that there is no effect. For example, if you're studying whether or not a particular type of exercise increases strength, your null hypothesis will be "there is no difference in strength between people who exercise and people who don't."

4. What are the types of research?

• Fundamental research

• Applied research

• Qualitative research

• Quantitative research

• Mixed research

• Exploratory research

• Longitudinal research

• Cross-sectional research

• Field research

• Laboratory research

• Fixed research

• Flexible research

• Action research

• Policy research

• Classification research

• Comparative research

• Causal research

• Inductive research

• Deductive research

5. How to write a hypothesis?

• Your hypothesis should be able to predict the relationship and outcome.

• Avoid wordiness by keeping it simple and brief.

• Your hypothesis should contain observable and testable outcomes.

• Your hypothesis should be relevant to the research question.

6. What are the 2 types of hypothesis?

• Null hypotheses are used to test the claim that "there is no difference between two groups of data".

• Alternative hypotheses test the claim that "there is a difference between two data groups".

7. Difference between research question and research hypothesis?

A research question is a broad, open-ended question you will try to answer through your research. A hypothesis is a statement based on prior research or theory that you expect to be true due to your study. Example - Research question: What are the factors that influence the adoption of the new technology? Research hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between age, education and income level with the adoption of the new technology.

8. What is plural for hypothesis?

The plural of hypothesis is hypotheses. Here's an example of how it would be used in a statement, "Numerous well-considered hypotheses are presented in this part, and they are supported by tables and figures that are well-illustrated."

9. What is the red queen hypothesis?

The red queen hypothesis in evolutionary biology states that species must constantly evolve to avoid extinction because if they don't, they will be outcompeted by other species that are evolving. Leigh Van Valen first proposed it in 1973; since then, it has been tested and substantiated many times.

10. Who is known as the father of null hypothesis?

The father of the null hypothesis is Sir Ronald Fisher. He published a paper in 1925 that introduced the concept of null hypothesis testing, and he was also the first to use the term itself.

11. When to reject null hypothesis?

You need to find a significant difference between your two populations to reject the null hypothesis. You can determine that by running statistical tests such as an independent sample t-test or a dependent sample t-test. You should reject the null hypothesis if the p-value is less than 0.05.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Research Hypothesis: How to Write it, Types, and Examples

Any research begins with a research question and a research hypothesis . A research question alone may not suffice to design the experiment(s) needed to answer it. A hypothesis is central to the scientific method. But what is a hypothesis ? A hypothesis is a testable statement that proposes a possible explanation to a phenomenon, and it may include a prediction. Next, you may ask what is a research hypothesis ? Simply put, a research hypothesis is a prediction or educated guess about the relationship between the variables that you want to investigate.  

It is important to be thorough when developing your research hypothesis. Shortcomings in the framing of a hypothesis can affect the study design and the results. A better understanding of the research hypothesis definition and characteristics of a good hypothesis will make it easier for you to develop your own hypothesis for your research. Let’s dive in to know more about the types of research hypothesis , how to write a research hypothesis , and some research hypothesis examples .  

Table of Contents

What is a hypothesis ?  

A hypothesis is based on the existing body of knowledge in a study area. Framed before the data are collected, a hypothesis states the tentative relationship between independent and dependent variables, along with a prediction of the outcome.  

What is a research hypothesis ?  

Young researchers starting out their journey are usually brimming with questions like “ What is a hypothesis ?” “ What is a research hypothesis ?” “How can I write a good research hypothesis ?”   

A research hypothesis is a statement that proposes a possible explanation for an observable phenomenon or pattern. It guides the direction of a study and predicts the outcome of the investigation. A research hypothesis is testable, i.e., it can be supported or disproven through experimentation or observation.     

Characteristics of a good hypothesis  

Here are the characteristics of a good hypothesis :  

• Clearly formulated and free of language errors and ambiguity  
• Concise and not unnecessarily verbose  
• Has clearly defined variables  
• Testable and stated in a way that allows for it to be disproven  
• Can be tested using a research design that is feasible, ethical, and practical   
• Specific and relevant to the research problem  
• Rooted in a thorough literature search  
• Can generate new knowledge or understanding.  

How to create an effective research hypothesis  

A study begins with the formulation of a research question. A researcher then performs background research. This background information forms the basis for building a good research hypothesis . The researcher then performs experiments, collects, and analyzes the data, interprets the findings, and ultimately, determines if the findings support or negate the original hypothesis.  

Let’s look at each step for creating an effective, testable, and good research hypothesis :  

• Identify a research problem or question: Start by identifying a specific research problem.   
• Review the literature: Conduct an in-depth review of the existing literature related to the research problem to grasp the current knowledge and gaps in the field.   
• Formulate a clear and testable hypothesis : Based on the research question, use existing knowledge to form a clear and testable hypothesis . The hypothesis should state a predicted relationship between two or more variables that can be measured and manipulated. Improve the original draft till it is clear and meaningful.  
• State the null hypothesis: The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no relationship between the variables you are studying.   
• Define the population and sample: Clearly define the population you are studying and the sample you will be using for your research.  
• Select appropriate methods for testing the hypothesis: Select appropriate research methods, such as experiments, surveys, or observational studies, which will allow you to test your research hypothesis .  

Remember that creating a research hypothesis is an iterative process, i.e., you might have to revise it based on the data you collect. You may need to test and reject several hypotheses before answering the research problem.  

How to write a research hypothesis  

When you start writing a research hypothesis , you use an “if–then” statement format, which states the predicted relationship between two or more variables. Clearly identify the independent variables (the variables being changed) and the dependent variables (the variables being measured), as well as the population you are studying. Review and revise your hypothesis as needed.  

An example of a research hypothesis in this format is as follows:  

“ If [athletes] follow [cold water showers daily], then their [endurance] increases.”  

Population: athletes  

Independent variable: daily cold water showers  

Dependent variable: endurance  

You may have understood the characteristics of a good hypothesis . But note that a research hypothesis is not always confirmed; a researcher should be prepared to accept or reject the hypothesis based on the study findings.  

Research hypothesis checklist  

Following from above, here is a 10-point checklist for a good research hypothesis :  

• Testable: A research hypothesis should be able to be tested via experimentation or observation.  
• Specific: A research hypothesis should clearly state the relationship between the variables being studied.  
• Based on prior research: A research hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and previous research in the field.  
• Falsifiable: A research hypothesis should be able to be disproven through testing.  
• Clear and concise: A research hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner.  
• Logical: A research hypothesis should be logical and consistent with current understanding of the subject.  
• Relevant: A research hypothesis should be relevant to the research question and objectives.  
• Feasible: A research hypothesis should be feasible to test within the scope of the study.  
• Reflects the population: A research hypothesis should consider the population or sample being studied.  
• Uncomplicated: A good research hypothesis is written in a way that is easy for the target audience to understand.  

By following this research hypothesis checklist , you will be able to create a research hypothesis that is strong, well-constructed, and more likely to yield meaningful results.  

Types of research hypothesis  

Different types of research hypothesis are used in scientific research:  

1. Null hypothesis:

A null hypothesis states that there is no change in the dependent variable due to changes to the independent variable. This means that the results are due to chance and are not significant. A null hypothesis is denoted as H0 and is stated as the opposite of what the alternative hypothesis states.   

Example: “ The newly identified virus is not zoonotic .”  

2. Alternative hypothesis:

This states that there is a significant difference or relationship between the variables being studied. It is denoted as H1 or Ha and is usually accepted or rejected in favor of the null hypothesis.  

Example: “ The newly identified virus is zoonotic .”  

3. Directional hypothesis :

This specifies the direction of the relationship or difference between variables; therefore, it tends to use terms like increase, decrease, positive, negative, more, or less.   

Example: “ The inclusion of intervention X decreases infant mortality compared to the original treatment .”   

4. Non-directional hypothesis:

While it does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables, a non-directional hypothesis states the existence of a relationship or difference between variables but not the direction, nature, or magnitude of the relationship. A non-directional hypothesis may be used when there is no underlying theory or when findings contradict previous research.  

Example, “ Cats and dogs differ in the amount of affection they express .”  

5. Simple hypothesis :

A simple hypothesis only predicts the relationship between one independent and another independent variable.  

Example: “ Applying sunscreen every day slows skin aging .”  

6 . Complex hypothesis :

A complex hypothesis states the relationship or difference between two or more independent and dependent variables.   

Example: “ Applying sunscreen every day slows skin aging, reduces sun burn, and reduces the chances of skin cancer .” (Here, the three dependent variables are slowing skin aging, reducing sun burn, and reducing the chances of skin cancer.)  

7. Associative hypothesis:  

An associative hypothesis states that a change in one variable results in the change of the other variable. The associative hypothesis defines interdependency between variables.  

Example: “ There is a positive association between physical activity levels and overall health .”  

8 . Causal hypothesis:

A causal hypothesis proposes a cause-and-effect interaction between variables.  

Example: “ Long-term alcohol use causes liver damage .”  

Note that some of the types of research hypothesis mentioned above might overlap. The types of hypothesis chosen will depend on the research question and the objective of the study.  

Research hypothesis examples  

Here are some good research hypothesis examples :  

“The use of a specific type of therapy will lead to a reduction in symptoms of depression in individuals with a history of major depressive disorder.”  

“Providing educational interventions on healthy eating habits will result in weight loss in overweight individuals.”  

“Plants that are exposed to certain types of music will grow taller than those that are not exposed to music.”  

“The use of the plant growth regulator X will lead to an increase in the number of flowers produced by plants.”  

Characteristics that make a research hypothesis weak are unclear variables, unoriginality, being too general or too vague, and being untestable. A weak hypothesis leads to weak research and improper methods.   

Some bad research hypothesis examples (and the reasons why they are “bad”) are as follows:  

“This study will show that treatment X is better than any other treatment . ” (This statement is not testable, too broad, and does not consider other treatments that may be effective.)  

“This study will prove that this type of therapy is effective for all mental disorders . ” (This statement is too broad and not testable as mental disorders are complex and different disorders may respond differently to different types of therapy.)  

“Plants can communicate with each other through telepathy . ” (This statement is not testable and lacks a scientific basis.)  

Importance of testable hypothesis  

If a research hypothesis is not testable, the results will not prove or disprove anything meaningful. The conclusions will be vague at best. A testable hypothesis helps a researcher focus on the study outcome and understand the implication of the question and the different variables involved. A testable hypothesis helps a researcher make precise predictions based on prior research.  

To be considered testable, there must be a way to prove that the hypothesis is true or false; further, the results of the hypothesis must be reproducible.  

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on research hypothesis  

1. What is the difference between research question and research hypothesis ?  

A research question defines the problem and helps outline the study objective(s). It is an open-ended statement that is exploratory or probing in nature. Therefore, it does not make predictions or assumptions. It helps a researcher identify what information to collect. A research hypothesis , however, is a specific, testable prediction about the relationship between variables. Accordingly, it guides the study design and data analysis approach.

2. When to reject null hypothesis ?

A null hypothesis should be rejected when the evidence from a statistical test shows that it is unlikely to be true. This happens when the test statistic (e.g., p -value) is less than the defined significance level (e.g., 0.05). Rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the alternative hypothesis is true; it simply means that the evidence found is not compatible with the null hypothesis.  

3. How can I be sure my hypothesis is testable?  

A testable hypothesis should be specific and measurable, and it should state a clear relationship between variables that can be tested with data. To ensure that your hypothesis is testable, consider the following:  

• Clearly define the key variables in your hypothesis. You should be able to measure and manipulate these variables in a way that allows you to test the hypothesis.  
• The hypothesis should predict a specific outcome or relationship between variables that can be measured or quantified.   
• You should be able to collect the necessary data within the constraints of your study.  
• It should be possible for other researchers to replicate your study, using the same methods and variables.   
• Your hypothesis should be testable by using appropriate statistical analysis techniques, so you can draw conclusions, and make inferences about the population from the sample data.  
• The hypothesis should be able to be disproven or rejected through the collection of data.  

4. How do I revise my research hypothesis if my data does not support it?  

If your data does not support your research hypothesis , you will need to revise it or develop a new one. You should examine your data carefully and identify any patterns or anomalies, re-examine your research question, and/or revisit your theory to look for any alternative explanations for your results. Based on your review of the data, literature, and theories, modify your research hypothesis to better align it with the results you obtained. Use your revised hypothesis to guide your research design and data collection. It is important to remain objective throughout the process.  

5. I am performing exploratory research. Do I need to formulate a research hypothesis?  

As opposed to “confirmatory” research, where a researcher has some idea about the relationship between the variables under investigation, exploratory research (or hypothesis-generating research) looks into a completely new topic about which limited information is available. Therefore, the researcher will not have any prior hypotheses. In such cases, a researcher will need to develop a post-hoc hypothesis. A post-hoc research hypothesis is generated after these results are known.  

6. How is a research hypothesis different from a research question?

A research question is an inquiry about a specific topic or phenomenon, typically expressed as a question. It seeks to explore and understand a particular aspect of the research subject. In contrast, a research hypothesis is a specific statement or prediction that suggests an expected relationship between variables. It is formulated based on existing knowledge or theories and guides the research design and data analysis.

7. Can a research hypothesis change during the research process?

Yes, research hypotheses can change during the research process. As researchers collect and analyze data, new insights and information may emerge that require modification or refinement of the initial hypotheses. This can be due to unexpected findings, limitations in the original hypotheses, or the need to explore additional dimensions of the research topic. Flexibility is crucial in research, allowing for adaptation and adjustment of hypotheses to align with the evolving understanding of the subject matter.

8. How many hypotheses should be included in a research study?

The number of research hypotheses in a research study varies depending on the nature and scope of the research. It is not necessary to have multiple hypotheses in every study. Some studies may have only one primary hypothesis, while others may have several related hypotheses. The number of hypotheses should be determined based on the research objectives, research questions, and the complexity of the research topic. It is important to ensure that the hypotheses are focused, testable, and directly related to the research aims.

9. Can research hypotheses be used in qualitative research?

Yes, research hypotheses can be used in qualitative research, although they are more commonly associated with quantitative research. In qualitative research, hypotheses may be formulated as tentative or exploratory statements that guide the investigation. Instead of testing hypotheses through statistical analysis, qualitative researchers may use the hypotheses to guide data collection and analysis, seeking to uncover patterns, themes, or relationships within the qualitative data. The emphasis in qualitative research is often on generating insights and understanding rather than confirming or rejecting specific research hypotheses through statistical testing.

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Journal Turnaround Time: Researcher.Life and Scholarly Intelligence Join Hands to Empower Researchers with Publication Time Insights 

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

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Research Hypothesis: What It Is, Types + How to Develop?

A research study starts with a question. Researchers worldwide ask questions and create research hypotheses. The effectiveness of research relies on developing a good research hypothesis. Examples of research hypotheses can guide researchers in writing effective ones.

In this blog, we’ll learn what a research hypothesis is, why it’s important in research, and the different types used in science. We’ll also guide you through creating your research hypothesis and discussing ways to test and evaluate it.

What is a Research Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is like a guess or idea that you suggest to check if it’s true. A research hypothesis is a statement that brings up a question and predicts what might happen.

It’s really important in the scientific method and is used in experiments to figure things out. Essentially, it’s an educated guess about how things are connected in the research.

A research hypothesis usually includes pointing out the independent variable (the thing they’re changing or studying) and the dependent variable (the result they’re measuring or watching). It helps plan how to gather and analyze data to see if there’s evidence to support or deny the expected connection between these variables.

Importance of Hypothesis in Research

Hypotheses are really important in research. They help design studies, allow for practical testing, and add to our scientific knowledge. Their main role is to organize research projects, making them purposeful, focused, and valuable to the scientific community. Let’s look at some key reasons why they matter:

• A research hypothesis helps test theories.

A hypothesis plays a pivotal role in the scientific method by providing a basis for testing existing theories. For example, a hypothesis might test the predictive power of a psychological theory on human behavior.

• It serves as a great platform for investigation activities.

It serves as a launching pad for investigation activities, which offers researchers a clear starting point. A research hypothesis can explore the relationship between exercise and stress reduction.

• Hypothesis guides the research work or study.

A well-formulated hypothesis guides the entire research process. It ensures that the study remains focused and purposeful. For instance, a hypothesis about the impact of social media on interpersonal relationships provides clear guidance for a study.

• Hypothesis sometimes suggests theories.

In some cases, a hypothesis can suggest new theories or modifications to existing ones. For example, a hypothesis testing the effectiveness of a new drug might prompt a reconsideration of current medical theories.

• It helps in knowing the data needs.

A hypothesis clarifies the data requirements for a study, ensuring that researchers collect the necessary information—a hypothesis guiding the collection of demographic data to analyze the influence of age on a particular phenomenon.

• The hypothesis explains social phenomena.

Hypotheses are instrumental in explaining complex social phenomena. For instance, a hypothesis might explore the relationship between economic factors and crime rates in a given community.

• Hypothesis provides a relationship between phenomena for empirical Testing.

Hypotheses establish clear relationships between phenomena, paving the way for empirical testing. An example could be a hypothesis exploring the correlation between sleep patterns and academic performance.

• It helps in knowing the most suitable analysis technique.

A hypothesis guides researchers in selecting the most appropriate analysis techniques for their data. For example, a hypothesis focusing on the effectiveness of a teaching method may lead to the choice of statistical analyses best suited for educational research.

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a specific idea that you can test in a study. It often comes from looking at past research and theories. A good hypothesis usually starts with a research question that you can explore through background research. For it to be effective, consider these key characteristics:

• Clear and Focused Language: A good hypothesis uses clear and focused language to avoid confusion and ensure everyone understands it.
• Related to the Research Topic: The hypothesis should directly relate to the research topic, acting as a bridge between the specific question and the broader study.
• Testable: An effective hypothesis can be tested, meaning its prediction can be checked with real data to support or challenge the proposed relationship.
• Potential for Exploration: A good hypothesis often comes from a research question that invites further exploration. Doing background research helps find gaps and potential areas to investigate.
• Includes Variables: The hypothesis should clearly state both the independent and dependent variables, specifying the factors being studied and the expected outcomes.
• Ethical Considerations: Check if variables can be manipulated without breaking ethical standards. It’s crucial to maintain ethical research practices.
• Predicts Outcomes: The hypothesis should predict the expected relationship and outcome, acting as a roadmap for the study and guiding data collection and analysis.
• Simple and Concise: A good hypothesis avoids unnecessary complexity and is simple and concise, expressing the essence of the proposed relationship clearly.
• Clear and Assumption-Free: The hypothesis should be clear and free from assumptions about the reader’s prior knowledge, ensuring universal understanding.
• Observable and Testable Results: A strong hypothesis implies research that produces observable and testable results, making sure the study’s outcomes can be effectively measured and analyzed.

When you use these characteristics as a checklist, it can help you create a good research hypothesis. It’ll guide improving and strengthening the hypothesis, identifying any weaknesses, and making necessary changes. Crafting a hypothesis with these features helps you conduct a thorough and insightful research study.

Types of Research Hypotheses

The research hypothesis comes in various types, each serving a specific purpose in guiding the scientific investigation. Knowing the differences will make it easier for you to create your own hypothesis. Here’s an overview of the common types:

01. Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states that there is no connection between two considered variables or that two groups are unrelated. As discussed earlier, a hypothesis is an unproven assumption lacking sufficient supporting data. It serves as the statement researchers aim to disprove. It is testable, verifiable, and can be rejected.

For example, if you’re studying the relationship between Project A and Project B, assuming both projects are of equal standard is your null hypothesis. It needs to be specific for your study.

02. Alternative Hypothesis

The alternative hypothesis is basically another option to the null hypothesis. It involves looking for a significant change or alternative that could lead you to reject the null hypothesis. It’s a different idea compared to the null hypothesis.

When you create a null hypothesis, you’re making an educated guess about whether something is true or if there’s a connection between that thing and another variable. If the null view suggests something is correct, the alternative hypothesis says it’s incorrect. 

For instance, if your null hypothesis is “I’m going to be $1000 richer,” the alternative hypothesis would be “I’m not going to get $1000 or be richer.”

03. Directional Hypothesis

The directional hypothesis predicts the direction of the relationship between independent and dependent variables. They specify whether the effect will be positive or negative.

If you increase your study hours, you will experience a positive association with your exam scores. This hypothesis suggests that as you increase the independent variable (study hours), there will also be an increase in the dependent variable (exam scores).

04. Non-directional Hypothesis

The non-directional hypothesis predicts the existence of a relationship between variables but does not specify the direction of the effect. It suggests that there will be a significant difference or relationship, but it does not predict the nature of that difference.

For example, you will find no notable difference in test scores between students who receive the educational intervention and those who do not. However, once you compare the test scores of the two groups, you will notice an important difference.

05. Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis predicts a relationship between one dependent variable and one independent variable without specifying the nature of that relationship. It’s simple and usually used when we don’t know much about how the two things are connected.

For example, if you adopt effective study habits, you will achieve higher exam scores than those with poor study habits.

06. Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is an idea that specifies a relationship between multiple independent and dependent variables. It is a more detailed idea than a simple hypothesis.

While a simple view suggests a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship between two things, a complex hypothesis involves many factors and how they’re connected to each other.

For example, when you increase your study time, you tend to achieve higher exam scores. The connection between your study time and exam performance is affected by various factors, including the quality of your sleep, your motivation levels, and the effectiveness of your study techniques.

If you sleep well, stay highly motivated, and use effective study strategies, you may observe a more robust positive correlation between the time you spend studying and your exam scores, unlike those who may lack these factors.

07. Associative Hypothesis

An associative hypothesis proposes a connection between two things without saying that one causes the other. Basically, it suggests that when one thing changes, the other changes too, but it doesn’t claim that one thing is causing the change in the other.

For example, you will likely notice higher exam scores when you increase your study time. You can recognize an association between your study time and exam scores in this scenario.

Your hypothesis acknowledges a relationship between the two variables—your study time and exam scores—without asserting that increased study time directly causes higher exam scores. You need to consider that other factors, like motivation or learning style, could affect the observed association.

08. Causal Hypothesis

A causal hypothesis proposes a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables. It suggests that changes in one variable directly cause changes in another variable.

For example, when you increase your study time, you experience higher exam scores. This hypothesis suggests a direct cause-and-effect relationship, indicating that the more time you spend studying, the higher your exam scores. It assumes that changes in your study time directly influence changes in your exam performance.

09. Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement based on things we can see and measure. It comes from direct observation or experiments and can be tested with real-world evidence. If an experiment proves a theory, it supports the idea and shows it’s not just a guess. This makes the statement more reliable than a wild guess.

For example, if you increase the dosage of a certain medication, you might observe a quicker recovery time for patients. Imagine you’re in charge of a clinical trial. In this trial, patients are given varying dosages of the medication, and you measure and compare their recovery times. This allows you to directly see the effects of different dosages on how fast patients recover.

This way, you can create a research hypothesis: “Increasing the dosage of a certain medication will lead to a faster recovery time for patients.”

10. Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement or assumption about a population parameter that is the subject of an investigation. It serves as the basis for statistical analysis and testing. It is often tested using statistical methods to draw inferences about the larger population.

In a hypothesis test, statistical evidence is collected to either reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis or fail to reject the null hypothesis due to insufficient evidence.

For example, let’s say you’re testing a new medicine. Your hypothesis could be that the medicine doesn’t really help patients get better. So, you collect data and use statistics to see if your guess is right or if the medicine actually makes a difference.

If the data strongly shows that the medicine does help, you say your guess was wrong, and the medicine does make a difference. But if the proof isn’t strong enough, you can stick with your original guess because you didn’t get enough evidence to change your mind.

How to Develop a Research Hypotheses?

Step 1: identify your research problem or topic..

Define the area of interest or the problem you want to investigate. Make sure it’s clear and well-defined.

Start by asking a question about your chosen topic. Consider the limitations of your research and create a straightforward problem related to your topic. Once you’ve done that, you can develop and test a hypothesis with evidence.

Step 2: Conduct a literature review

Review existing literature related to your research problem. This will help you understand the current state of knowledge in the field, identify gaps, and build a foundation for your hypothesis. Consider the following questions:

• What existing research has been conducted on your chosen topic?
• Are there any gaps or unanswered questions in the current literature?
• How will the existing literature contribute to the foundation of your research?

Step 3: Formulate your research question

Based on your literature review, create a specific and concise research question that addresses your identified problem. Your research question should be clear, focused, and relevant to your field of study.

Step 4: Identify variables

Determine the key variables involved in your research question. Variables are the factors or phenomena that you will study and manipulate to test your hypothesis.

• Independent Variable: The variable you manipulate or control.
• Dependent Variable: The variable you measure to observe the effect of the independent variable.

Step 5: State the Null hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no significant difference or effect. It serves as a baseline for comparison with the alternative hypothesis.

Step 6: Select appropriate methods for testing the hypothesis

Choose research methods that align with your study objectives, such as experiments, surveys, or observational studies. The selected methods enable you to test your research hypothesis effectively.

Creating a research hypothesis usually takes more than one try. Expect to make changes as you collect data. It’s normal to test and say no to a few hypotheses before you find the right answer to your research question.

Testing and Evaluating Hypotheses

Testing hypotheses is a really important part of research. It’s like the practical side of things. Here, real-world evidence will help you determine how different things are connected. Let’s explore the main steps in hypothesis testing:

• State your research hypothesis.

Before testing, clearly articulate your research hypothesis. This involves framing both a null hypothesis, suggesting no significant effect or relationship, and an alternative hypothesis, proposing the expected outcome.

• Collect data strategically.

Plan how you will gather information in a way that fits your study. Make sure your data collection method matches the things you’re studying.

Whether through surveys, observations, or experiments, this step demands precision and adherence to the established methodology. The quality of data collected directly influences the credibility of study outcomes.

• Perform an appropriate statistical test.

Choose a statistical test that aligns with the nature of your data and the hypotheses being tested. Whether it’s a t-test, chi-square test, ANOVA, or regression analysis, selecting the right statistical tool is paramount for accurate and reliable results.

• Decide if your idea was right or wrong.

Following the statistical analysis, evaluate the results in the context of your null hypothesis. You need to decide if you should reject your null hypothesis or not.

• Share what you found.

When discussing what you found in your research, be clear and organized. Say whether your idea was supported or not, and talk about what your results mean. Also, mention any limits to your study and suggest ideas for future research.

The Role of QuestionPro to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

QuestionPro is a survey and research platform that provides tools for creating, distributing, and analyzing surveys. It plays a crucial role in the research process, especially when you’re in the initial stages of hypothesis development. Here’s how QuestionPro can help you to develop a good research hypothesis:

• Survey design and data collection: You can use the platform to create targeted questions that help you gather relevant data.
• Exploratory research: Through surveys and feedback mechanisms on QuestionPro, you can conduct exploratory research to understand the landscape of a particular subject.
• Literature review and background research: QuestionPro surveys can collect sample population opinions, experiences, and preferences. This data and a thorough literature evaluation can help you generate a well-grounded hypothesis by improving your research knowledge.
• Identifying variables: Using targeted survey questions, you can identify relevant variables related to their research topic.
• Testing assumptions: You can use surveys to informally test certain assumptions or hypotheses before formalizing a research hypothesis.
• Data analysis tools: QuestionPro provides tools for analyzing survey data. You can use these tools to identify the collected data’s patterns, correlations, or trends.
• Refining your hypotheses: As you collect data through QuestionPro, you can adjust your hypotheses based on the real-world responses you receive.

A research hypothesis is like a guide for researchers in science. It’s a well-thought-out idea that has been thoroughly tested. This idea is crucial as researchers can explore different fields, such as medicine, social sciences, and natural sciences. The research hypothesis links theories to real-world evidence and gives researchers a clear path to explore and make discoveries.

QuestionPro Research Suite is a helpful tool for researchers. It makes creating surveys, collecting data, and analyzing information easily. It supports all kinds of research, from exploring new ideas to forming hypotheses. With a focus on using data, it helps researchers do their best work.

Are you interested in learning more about QuestionPro Research Suite? Take advantage of QuestionPro’s free trial to get an initial look at its capabilities and realize the full potential of your research efforts.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

Experimental vs Observational Studies: Differences & Examples

Sep 5, 2024

Interactive Forms: Key Features, Benefits, Uses + Design Tips

Sep 4, 2024

Closed-Loop Management: The Key to Customer Centricity

Sep 3, 2024

Net Trust Score: Tool for Measuring Trust in Organization

Sep 2, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

• A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
• It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
• A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
• Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
• For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
• Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

• Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

• Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
• However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

• Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
• Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
• Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
• Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
• Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

• The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
• The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

• Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
• Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
• Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
• Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
• Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
• Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
• Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
• Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis? A plain-language explainer + examples

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA)  | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

If you’re new to the world of research, or it’s your first time writing a dissertation or thesis, you’re probably noticing that the words “research hypothesis” and “scientific hypothesis” are used quite a bit, and you’re wondering what they mean in a research context .

“Hypothesis” is one of those words that people use loosely, thinking they understand what it means. However, it has a very specific meaning within academic research. So, it’s important to understand the exact meaning before you start hypothesizing. 

Research Hypothesis 101

• What is a hypothesis ?
• What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
• Requirements for a research hypothesis
• Definition of a research hypothesis
• The null hypothesis

What is a hypothesis?

Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.

But that’s not good enough…

Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what’ s being assessed (who or what variables are involved ) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).

Let’s stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more specific and clear.

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

As you can see, the statement is very specific as it identifies the variables involved (sleep hours and test grades), the parties involved (two groups of students), as well as the predicted relationship type (a positive relationship). There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about who or what is involved in the statement, and the expected outcome is clear.

Contrast that to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – and you can see the difference. “Sleep” and “academic performance” are both comparatively vague , and there’s no indication of what the expected relationship direction is (more sleep or less sleep). As you can see, specificity and clarity are key.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

A statement must be testable to qualify as a research hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be a way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If it’s not testable, it’s not a hypothesis – simple as that.

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.  

We could test this statement by undertaking a quantitative study involving two groups of students, one that gets 8 or more hours of sleep per night for a fixed period, and one that gets less. We could then compare the standardised test results for both groups to see if there’s a statistically significant difference. 

Again, if you compare this to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – you can see that it would be quite difficult to test that statement, primarily because it isn’t specific enough. How much sleep? By who? What type of academic performance?

So, remember the mantra – if you can’t test it, it’s not a hypothesis 🙂

Defining A Research Hypothesis

You’re still with us? Great! Let’s recap and pin down a clear definition of a hypothesis.

A research hypothesis (or scientific hypothesis) is a statement about an expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific and testable.

So, when you write up hypotheses for your dissertation or thesis, make sure that they meet all these criteria. If you do, you’ll not only have rock-solid hypotheses but you’ll also ensure a clear focus for your entire research project.

What about the null hypothesis?

You may have also heard the terms null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis, or H-zero thrown around. At a simple level, the null hypothesis is the counter-proposal to the original hypothesis.

For example, if the hypothesis predicts that there is a relationship between two variables (for example, sleep and academic performance), the null hypothesis would predict that there is no relationship between those variables.

At a more technical level, the null hypothesis proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations and that any differences are due to chance alone.

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

If you have any questions, be sure to leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help you. If you need hands-on help developing and testing your hypotheses, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey.

17 Comments

Very useful information. I benefit more from getting more information in this regard.

Very great insight,educative and informative. Please give meet deep critics on many research data of public international Law like human rights, environment, natural resources, law of the sea etc

In a book I read a distinction is made between null, research, and alternative hypothesis. As far as I understand, alternative and research hypotheses are the same. Can you please elaborate? Best Afshin

This is a self explanatory, easy going site. I will recommend this to my friends and colleagues.

Very good definition. How can I cite your definition in my thesis? Thank you. Is nul hypothesis compulsory in a research?

It’s a counter-proposal to be proven as a rejection

Please what is the difference between alternate hypothesis and research hypothesis?

It is a very good explanation. However, it limits hypotheses to statistically tasteable ideas. What about for qualitative researches or other researches that involve quantitative data that don’t need statistical tests?

In qualitative research, one typically uses propositions, not hypotheses.

could you please elaborate it more

I’ve benefited greatly from these notes, thank you.

This is very helpful

well articulated ideas are presented here, thank you for being reliable sources of information

Excellent. Thanks for being clear and sound about the research methodology and hypothesis (quantitative research)

I have only a simple question regarding the null hypothesis. – Is the null hypothesis (Ho) known as the reversible hypothesis of the alternative hypothesis (H1? – How to test it in academic research?

this is very important note help me much more

Hi” best wishes to you and your very nice blog” 

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

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 .

Example: Hypothesis

Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, other interesting articles, 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 types of variables .

• An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
• A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias  will affect your results.

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 .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize 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.

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

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.

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 .

• H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
• H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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).

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

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.

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 Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

How to Write a Hypothesis: A Step-by-Step Guide

Introduction

An overview of the research hypothesis, different types of hypotheses, variables in a hypothesis, how to formulate an effective research hypothesis, designing a study around your hypothesis.

The scientific method can derive and test predictions as hypotheses. Empirical research can then provide support (or lack thereof) for the hypotheses. Even failure to find support for a hypothesis still represents a valuable contribution to scientific knowledge. Let's look more closely at the idea of the hypothesis and the role it plays in research.

As much as the term exists in everyday language, there is a detailed development that informs the word "hypothesis" when applied to research. A good research hypothesis is informed by prior research and guides research design and data analysis , so it is important to understand how a hypothesis is defined and understood by researchers.

What is the simple definition of a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about an outcome between two or more variables . It functions as a navigational tool in the research process, directing what you aim to predict and how.

What is the hypothesis for in research?

In research, a hypothesis serves as the cornerstone for your empirical study. It not only lays out what you aim to investigate but also provides a structured approach for your data collection and analysis.

Essentially, it bridges the gap between the theoretical and the empirical, guiding your investigation throughout its course.

What is an example of a hypothesis?

If you are studying the relationship between physical exercise and mental health, a suitable hypothesis could be: "Regular physical exercise leads to improved mental well-being among adults."

This statement constitutes a specific and testable hypothesis that directly relates to the variables you are investigating.

What makes a good hypothesis?

A good hypothesis possesses several key characteristics. Firstly, it must be testable, allowing you to analyze data through empirical means, such as observation or experimentation, to assess if there is significant support for the hypothesis. Secondly, a hypothesis should be specific and unambiguous, giving a clear understanding of the expected relationship between variables. Lastly, it should be grounded in existing research or theoretical frameworks , ensuring its relevance and applicability.

Understanding the types of hypotheses can greatly enhance how you construct and work with hypotheses. While all hypotheses serve the essential function of guiding your study, there are varying purposes among the types of hypotheses. In addition, all hypotheses stand in contrast to the null hypothesis, or the assumption that there is no significant relationship between the variables .

Here, we explore various kinds of hypotheses to provide you with the tools needed to craft effective hypotheses for your specific research needs. Bear in mind that many of these hypothesis types may overlap with one another, and the specific type that is typically used will likely depend on the area of research and methodology you are following.

Null hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no effect or relationship between the variables being studied. In statistical terms, it serves as the default assumption that any observed differences are due to random chance.

For example, if you're studying the effect of a drug on blood pressure, the null hypothesis might state that the drug has no effect.

Alternative hypothesis

Contrary to the null hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis suggests that there is a significant relationship or effect between variables.

Using the drug example, the alternative hypothesis would posit that the drug does indeed affect blood pressure. This is what researchers aim to prove.

Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis makes a prediction about the relationship between two variables, and only two variables.

For example, "Increased study time results in better exam scores." Here, "study time" and "exam scores" are the only variables involved.

Complex hypothesis

A complex hypothesis, as the name suggests, involves more than two variables. For instance, "Increased study time and access to resources result in better exam scores." Here, "study time," "access to resources," and "exam scores" are all variables.

This hypothesis refers to multiple potential mediating variables. Other hypotheses could also include predictions about variables that moderate the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable .

Directional hypothesis

A directional hypothesis specifies the direction of the expected relationship between variables. For example, "Eating more fruits and vegetables leads to a decrease in heart disease."

Here, the direction of heart disease is explicitly predicted to decrease, due to effects from eating more fruits and vegetables. All hypotheses typically specify the expected direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, such that researchers can test if this prediction holds in their data analysis .

Statistical hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is one that is testable through statistical methods, providing a numerical value that can be analyzed. This is commonly seen in quantitative research .

For example, "There is a statistically significant difference in test scores between students who study for one hour and those who study for two."

Empirical hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is derived from observations and is tested through empirical methods, often through experimentation or survey data . Empirical hypotheses may also be assessed with statistical analyses.

For example, "Regular exercise is correlated with a lower incidence of depression," could be tested through surveys that measure exercise frequency and depression levels.

Causal hypothesis

A causal hypothesis proposes that one variable causes a change in another. This type of hypothesis is often tested through controlled experiments.

For example, "Smoking causes lung cancer," assumes a direct causal relationship.

Associative hypothesis

Unlike causal hypotheses, associative hypotheses suggest a relationship between variables but do not imply causation.

For instance, "People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer," notes an association but doesn't claim that smoking causes lung cancer directly.

Relational hypothesis

A relational hypothesis explores the relationship between two or more variables but doesn't specify the nature of the relationship.

For example, "There is a relationship between diet and heart health," leaves the nature of the relationship (causal, associative, etc.) open to interpretation.

Logical hypothesis

A logical hypothesis is based on sound reasoning and logical principles. It's often used in theoretical research to explore abstract concepts, rather than being based on empirical data.

For example, "If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal," employs logical reasoning to make its point.

Let ATLAS.ti take you from research question to key insights

Get started with a free trial and see how ATLAS.ti can make the most of your data.

In any research hypothesis, variables play a critical role. These are the elements or factors that the researcher manipulates, controls, or measures. Understanding variables is essential for crafting a clear, testable hypothesis and for the stages of research that follow, such as data collection and analysis.

In the realm of hypotheses, there are generally two types of variables to consider: independent and dependent. Independent variables are what you, as the researcher, manipulate or change in your study. It's considered the cause in the relationship you're investigating. For instance, in a study examining the impact of sleep duration on academic performance, the independent variable would be the amount of sleep participants get.

Conversely, the dependent variable is the outcome you measure to gauge the effect of your manipulation. It's the effect in the cause-and-effect relationship. The dependent variable thus refers to the main outcome of interest in your study. In the same sleep study example, the academic performance, perhaps measured by exam scores or GPA, would be the dependent variable.

Beyond these two primary types, you might also encounter control variables. These are variables that could potentially influence the outcome and are therefore kept constant to isolate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables . For example, in the sleep and academic performance study, control variables could include age, diet, or even the subject of study.

By clearly identifying and understanding the roles of these variables in your hypothesis, you set the stage for a methodologically sound research project. It helps you develop focused research questions, design appropriate experiments or observations, and carry out meaningful data analysis . It's a step that lays the groundwork for the success of your entire study.

Crafting a strong, testable hypothesis is crucial for the success of any research project. It sets the stage for everything from your study design to data collection and analysis . Below are some key considerations to keep in mind when formulating your hypothesis:

• Be specific : A vague hypothesis can lead to ambiguous results and interpretations . Clearly define your variables and the expected relationship between them.
• Ensure testability : A good hypothesis should be testable through empirical means, whether by observation , experimentation, or other forms of data analysis.
• Ground in literature : Before creating your hypothesis, consult existing research and theories. This not only helps you identify gaps in current knowledge but also gives you valuable context and credibility for crafting your hypothesis.
• Use simple language : While your hypothesis should be conceptually sound, it doesn't have to be complicated. Aim for clarity and simplicity in your wording.
• State direction, if applicable : If your hypothesis involves a directional outcome (e.g., "increase" or "decrease"), make sure to specify this. You also need to think about how you will measure whether or not the outcome moved in the direction you predicted.
• Keep it focused : One of the common pitfalls in hypothesis formulation is trying to answer too many questions at once. Keep your hypothesis focused on a specific issue or relationship.
• Account for control variables : Identify any variables that could potentially impact the outcome and consider how you will control for them in your study.
• Be ethical : Make sure your hypothesis and the methods for testing it comply with ethical standards , particularly if your research involves human or animal subjects.

Designing your study involves multiple key phases that help ensure the rigor and validity of your research. Here we discuss these crucial components in more detail.

Literature review

Starting with a comprehensive literature review is essential. This step allows you to understand the existing body of knowledge related to your hypothesis and helps you identify gaps that your research could fill. Your research should aim to contribute some novel understanding to existing literature, and your hypotheses can reflect this. A literature review also provides valuable insights into how similar research projects were executed, thereby helping you fine-tune your own approach.

Research methods

Choosing the right research methods is critical. Whether it's a survey, an experiment, or observational study, the methodology should be the most appropriate for testing your hypothesis. Your choice of methods will also depend on whether your research is quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods. Make sure the chosen methods align well with the variables you are studying and the type of data you need.

Preliminary research

Before diving into a full-scale study, it’s often beneficial to conduct preliminary research or a pilot study . This allows you to test your research methods on a smaller scale, refine your tools, and identify any potential issues. For instance, a pilot survey can help you determine if your questions are clear and if the survey effectively captures the data you need. This step can save you both time and resources in the long run.

Data analysis

Finally, planning your data analysis in advance is crucial for a successful study. Decide which statistical or analytical tools are most suited for your data type and research questions . For quantitative research, you might opt for t-tests, ANOVA, or regression analyses. For qualitative research , thematic analysis or grounded theory may be more appropriate. This phase is integral for interpreting your results and drawing meaningful conclusions in relation to your research question.

Turn data into evidence for insights with ATLAS.ti

Powerful analysis for your research paper or presentation is at your fingertips starting with a free trial.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam 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."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Privacy Policy

Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example...

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Research Techniques – Methods, Types and Examples

Public Health Notes

Your partner for better health, hypothesis in research: definition, types and importance .

April 21, 2020 Kusum Wagle Epidemiology 0

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

• Hypothesis is a logical prediction of certain occurrences without the support of empirical confirmation or evidence.
• In scientific terms, it is a tentative theory or testable statement about the relationship between two or more variables i.e. independent and dependent variable.

Different Types of Hypothesis:

1. Simple Hypothesis:

• A Simple hypothesis is also known as composite hypothesis.
• In simple hypothesis all parameters of the distribution are specified.
• It predicts relationship between two variables i.e. the dependent and the independent variable

2. Complex Hypothesis:

• A Complex hypothesis examines relationship between two or more independent variables and two or more dependent variables.

3. Working or Research Hypothesis:

• A research hypothesis is a specific, clear prediction about the possible outcome of a scientific research study based on specific factors of the population.

4. Null Hypothesis:

• A null hypothesis is a general statement which states no relationship between two variables or two phenomena. It is usually denoted by H 0 .

5. Alternative Hypothesis:

• An alternative hypothesis is a statement which states some statistical significance between two phenomena. It is usually denoted by H 1 or H A .

6. Logical Hypothesis:

• A logical hypothesis is a planned explanation holding limited evidence.

7. Statistical Hypothesis:

• A statistical hypothesis, sometimes called confirmatory data analysis, is an assumption about a population parameter.

Although there are different types of hypothesis, the most commonly and used hypothesis are Null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis . So, what is the difference between null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis? Let’s have a look:

Major Differences Between Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis:

Importance of Hypothesis:

• It ensures the entire research methodologies are scientific and valid.
• It helps to assume the probability of research failure and progress.
• It helps to provide link to the underlying theory and specific research question.
• It helps in data analysis and measure the validity and reliability of the research.
• It provides a basis or evidence to prove the validity of the research.
• It helps to describe research study in concrete terms rather than theoretical terms.

Characteristics of Good Hypothesis:

• Should be simple.
• Should be specific.
• Should be stated in advance.

References and For More Information:

https://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/StatisticalReasoning1/PDFs/2009/BiostatisticsLecture4.pdf

https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-type-i-and-type-ii-errors.html

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ap-statistics/tests-significance-ap/error-probabilities-power/a/consequences-errors-significance

https://stattrek.com/hypothesis-test/hypothesis-testing.aspx

http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A2917.html

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-hypothesis-definition-lesson-quiz.html

https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-null-and-alternative-hypothesis.html

https://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics-2/understanding-hypothesis-tests-why-we-need-to-use-hypothesis-tests-in-statistics

• Characteristics of Good Hypothesis
• complex hypothesis
• example of alternative hypothesis
• example of null hypothesis
• how is null hypothesis different to alternative hypothesis
• Importance of Hypothesis
• null hypothesis vs alternate hypothesis
• simple hypothesis
• Types of Hypotheses
• what is alternate hypothesis
• what is alternative hypothesis
• what is hypothesis?
• what is logical hypothesis
• what is null hypothesis
• what is research hypothesis
• what is statistical hypothesis
• why is hypothesis necessary

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

The story of a research study begins by asking a question. Researchers all around the globe are asking curious questions and formulating research hypothesis. However, whether the research study provides an effective conclusion depends on how well one develops a good research hypothesis. Research hypothesis examples could help researchers get an idea as to how to write a good research hypothesis.

This blog will help you understand what is a research hypothesis, its characteristics and, how to formulate a research hypothesis

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

Hypothesis is an assumption or an idea proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested. It is a precise, testable statement of what the researchers predict will be outcome of the study.  Hypothesis usually involves proposing a relationship between two variables: the independent variable (what the researchers change) and the dependent variable (what the research measures).

What is a Research Hypothesis?

Research hypothesis is a statement that introduces a research question and proposes an expected result. It is an integral part of the scientific method that forms the basis of scientific experiments. Therefore, you need to be careful and thorough when building your research hypothesis. A minor flaw in the construction of your hypothesis could have an adverse effect on your experiment. In research, there is a convention that the hypothesis is written in two forms, the null hypothesis, and the alternative hypothesis (called the experimental hypothesis when the method of investigation is an experiment).

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

As the hypothesis is specific, there is a testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. You may consider drawing hypothesis from previously published research based on the theory.

A good research hypothesis involves more effort than just a guess. In particular, your hypothesis may begin with a question that could be further explored through background research.

To help you formulate a promising research hypothesis, you should ask yourself the following questions:

• Is the language clear and focused?
• What is the relationship between your hypothesis and your research topic?
• Is your hypothesis testable? If yes, then how?
• What are the possible explanations that you might want to explore?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate your variables without hampering the ethical standards?
• Does your research predict the relationship and outcome?
• Is your research simple and concise (avoids wordiness)?
• Is it clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
• Is your research observable and testable results?
• Is it relevant and specific to the research question or problem?

The questions listed above can be used as a checklist to make sure your hypothesis is based on a solid foundation. Furthermore, it can help you identify weaknesses in your hypothesis and revise it if necessary.

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

A testable hypothesis is not a simple statement. It is rather an intricate statement that needs to offer a clear introduction to a scientific experiment, its intentions, and the possible outcomes. However, there are some important things to consider when building a compelling hypothesis.

1. State the problem that you are trying to solve.

Make sure that the hypothesis clearly defines the topic and the focus of the experiment.

2. Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement.

Follow this template: If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.

3. Define the variables

Independent variables are the ones that are manipulated, controlled, or changed. Independent variables are isolated from other factors of the study.

Dependent variables , as the name suggests are dependent on other factors of the study. They are influenced by the change in independent variable.

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

Evaluate assumptions, predictions, and evidence rigorously to refine your understanding.

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

It predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable.

2. Complex Hypothesis

It predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables.

3. Directional Hypothesis

It specifies the expected direction to be followed to determine the relationship between variables and is derived from theory. Furthermore, it implies the researcher’s intellectual commitment to a particular outcome.

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

It does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables. The non-directional hypothesis is used when there is no theory involved or when findings contradict previous research.

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

The associative hypothesis defines interdependency between variables. A change in one variable results in the change of the other variable. On the other hand, the causal hypothesis proposes an effect on the dependent due to manipulation of the independent variable.

6. Null Hypothesis

Null hypothesis states a negative statement to support the researcher’s findings that there is no relationship between two variables. There will be no changes in the dependent variable due the manipulation of the independent variable. Furthermore, it states results are due to chance and are not significant in terms of supporting the idea being investigated.

7. Alternative Hypothesis

It states that there is a relationship between the two variables of the study and that the results are significant to the research topic. An experimental hypothesis predicts what changes will take place in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated. Also, it states that the results are not due to chance and that they are significant in terms of supporting the theory being investigated.

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

Research Hypothesis Example 1 The greater number of coal plants in a region (independent variable) increases water pollution (dependent variable). If you change the independent variable (building more coal factories), it will change the dependent variable (amount of water pollution).

Research Hypothesis Example 2 What is the effect of diet or regular soda (independent variable) on blood sugar levels (dependent variable)? If you change the independent variable (the type of soda you consume), it will change the dependent variable (blood sugar levels)

You should not ignore the importance of the above steps. The validity of your experiment and its results rely on a robust testable hypothesis. Developing a strong testable hypothesis has few advantages, it compels us to think intensely and specifically about the outcomes of a study. Consequently, it enables us to understand the implication of the question and the different variables involved in the study. Furthermore, it helps us to make precise predictions based on prior research. Hence, forming a hypothesis would be of great value to the research. Here are some good examples of testable hypotheses.

More importantly, you need to build a robust testable research hypothesis for your scientific experiments. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of experimentation.

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

To devise and perform an experiment using scientific method, you need to make sure that your hypothesis is testable. To be considered testable, some essential criteria must be met:

• There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is true.
• There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is false.
• The results of the hypothesis must be reproducible.

Without these criteria, the hypothesis and the results will be vague. As a result, the experiment will not prove or disprove anything significant.

What are your experiences with building hypotheses for scientific experiments? What challenges did you face? How did you overcome these challenges? Please share your thoughts with us in the comments section.

Frequently Asked Questions

The steps to write a research hypothesis are: 1. Stating the problem: Ensure that the hypothesis defines the research problem 2. Writing a hypothesis as an 'if-then' statement: Include the action and the expected outcome of your study by following a ‘if-then’ structure. 3. Defining the variables: Define the variables as Dependent or Independent based on their dependency to other factors. 4. Scrutinizing the hypothesis: Identify the type of your hypothesis

Hypothesis testing is a statistical tool which is used to make inferences about a population data to draw conclusions for a particular hypothesis.

Hypothesis in statistics is a formal statement about the nature of a population within a structured framework of a statistical model. It is used to test an existing hypothesis by studying a population.

Research hypothesis is a statement that introduces a research question and proposes an expected result. It forms the basis of scientific experiments.

The different types of hypothesis in research are: • Null hypothesis: Null hypothesis is a negative statement to support the researcher’s findings that there is no relationship between two variables. • Alternate hypothesis: Alternate hypothesis predicts the relationship between the two variables of the study. • Directional hypothesis: Directional hypothesis specifies the expected direction to be followed to determine the relationship between variables. • Non-directional hypothesis: Non-directional hypothesis does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables. • Simple hypothesis: Simple hypothesis predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable. • Complex hypothesis: Complex hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. • Associative and casual hypothesis: Associative and casual hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. • Empirical hypothesis: Empirical hypothesis can be tested via experiments and observation. • Statistical hypothesis: A statistical hypothesis utilizes statistical models to draw conclusions about broader populations.

Wow! You really simplified your explanation that even dummies would find it easy to comprehend. Thank you so much.

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

I enjoy reading the post. Hypotheses are actually an intrinsic part in a study. It bridges the research question and the methodology of the study.

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

It very interesting to read the topic, can you guide me any specific example of hypothesis process establish throw the Demand and supply of the specific product in market

Nicely explained

It is really a useful for me Kindly give some examples of hypothesis

It was a well explained content ,can you please give me an example with the null and alternative hypothesis illustrated

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

Explained well and in simple terms. Quick read! Thank you

It awesome. It has really positioned me in my research project

Brief and easily digested

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Industry News

COPE Forum Discussion Highlights Challenges and Urges Clarity in Institutional Authorship Standards

The COPE forum discussion held in December 2023 initiated with a fundamental question — is…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right…

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Publishing Research
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: Hello everyone, this is Dr. Wallace. Have you ever wondered why so much time and emphasis is placed on understanding research questions, hypothesis statements, and variables in a research methodology course? Let's face it, when you look at these three items in a research proposal, they do not take up a lot of space. We spend more time discussing our research methodology, data collection and analysis, and prior research on our topic than we do on these three components in a research proposal. However, these three components are the foundation upon which any good research study is conducted. I want to take a few minutes and explain, at a high level, the role of each in a research proposal and study, and then show you how they are connected to each other. I think the best way to examine this subject is to begin with an example research topic. I can then demonstrate how these three components are connected by using this research topic as an example. Let's keep things easy and formulate a very simple topic. For the purposes of our lesson, I am going to say that I want to examine the effects of a thermostat on room temperatures. Now, with this research topic established, let's begin by looking at our three components. Okay, let's kick things off by looking at research questions. What is a research question? The research question is the way we succinctly define what we hope the research study will show us. We have identified a problem or issue that we think is important to study. Now, the research question specifically identifies what part of that issue or problem we hope to answer or address. As implied by its name, our research question is presented in the form of a question. The type of question we are asking is often driven by the type of study we are conducting in our research methodology. Using our example topic, a potential research question that we might ask is, how does changing the thermostat setting impact a room's temperature? Now that we have a research question, let's go take a look at the role of the hypothesis. So, what is a hypothesis? A hypothesis is a prediction of what we believe the study will find, or put another way, the answer to the research question. A hypothesis is an empirical statement that can be verified based upon observation or experience. It is testable to be true or false through the research study findings. You will also sometimes hear reference to a null hypothesis, but let's save that for another lesson. Now, let's return to our research topic example and create a hypothesis. The hypothesis for our example study might be, changing the temperature setting on a thermostat, up or down, will cause the room temperature, where the thermostat is located, to change in the same way. We have made a prediction of how we think the research study will answer our question. Okay, let's move to the final piece of the puzzle, variables. Variables, my Achilles heel during my doctoral study days. That's right, I'll be the first to admit that this simple concept gave me a hard time when I was a student. Let me take a shot at breaking down variables as simply as possible in one slide. There are two types of variables, dependent and independent, also referred to as DV or IV. Okay, so what's the difference? Let's see if I can make this as simple as possible. The dependent variable is what we watch to see if a change is occurring, while the independent variable is the thing we manipulate to influence a change in the dependent variable. I understand this can get confusing. Perhaps if we go back to our example research topic, things will become a bit clearer. In this research study, the thermostat setting is my independent variable, because it is the thing I have the power to change or alter. I am going to manipulate the independent variable to see if it creates a change in my dependent variable. The thermostat setting influences the room temperature, which is my dependent variable. The room temperature is my dependent variable because it is the thing I am watching to see if a change occurs when I alter the independent variable. Now, I manipulate my thermostat setting by moving it to a different temperature. I have just made a change that I predicted would influence my dependent variable. I will now watch my dependent variable, the room temperature, to see if a change occurs that matches the change I made to the thermostat setting, my independent variable. This is what I predicted with my hypothesis, so I want to watch how the room temperature, my dependent variable, is impacted when I make changes to the thermostat setting, my independent variable. Okay, now that we have a high-level understanding of these three components of a research proposal and study, let's see how they all work together. Let's connect those dots. The research question or questions that we create for the study specified what we want to answer or find out in the study. In other words, they put meaning to why our study is important. The hypothesis is our prediction of what we believe the study will find, or put another way, our predicted answer to the research questions. With the hypothesis, you are looking into your magic ball and telling everyone what you think the research study will find when all is said and done. In many cases, the research questions and hypothesis will be closely related, with the primary difference being that the hypothesis is presented as a statement, while the research questions are, well to put this plainly, formatted as a question. Now let's see how the variables complete our puzzle. The independent and dependent variables are the components of our study that we manipulate and watch for outcomes. Since our hypothesis made a prediction, it is only logical that our variables have to be included in the hypothesis. Our hypothesis is where we show the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. While this is the logical flow for building many research studies, I cannot overstress the fact that a research proposal is a constantly evolving process. Until we have locked down all components of the research proposal and are ready to conduct the study, it is entirely possible that you may go back and tweak or change any one of these components based upon new information you uncover or updates that you make to one of the three components. Don't let this worry you though, because this is a natural occurrence when working the kinks out of your research strategy. Let's conclude by summarizing what we have covered. The research question is our way of stating what we hope the study will find or help us learn. Our hypothesis is our prediction statement of what we think the research study findings will show. Finally, our variables are the aspects of the study that we manipulate and observe to determine whether our hypothesis was correct. Thank you for taking the time to view this lesson. I hope the information that I have presented helps clarify why understanding research questions, hypothesis, and variables is so important in research methodology and how these three work together to establish a strong foundation for a research study.

Talk to Our counsellor: 9916082261

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

DEFINTITIONS

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

TYPES OF HYPOTHESIS

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

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

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

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

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

USES OF HYPOTHESIS

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

ROLE  OF HYPOTHESIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

STAGES OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING

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

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

Request a call back.

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

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

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

© 2022 Achievers IAS Classes

Click Here To Download Brochure

• Data Science
• Data Analysis
• Data Visualization
• Machine Learning
• Deep Learning
• Computer Vision
• Artificial Intelligence
• AI ML DS Interview Series
• AI ML DS Projects series
• Data Engineering
• Web Scrapping

Why hypothesis testing is important in research ?

Hypothesis Testing allows researchers to evaluate the validity of their assumptions and draw conclusions based on evidence. It provides a framework for making predictions and determining whether observed results are statistically significant or just occurred by chance. By applying various statistical tests, researchers can measure the strength of the evidence and quantify the uncertainty associated with their findings.

Table of Content

Importance of Hypothesis Testing in Research

Types of hypothesis tests, common errors in hypothesis testing, interpreting the results of hypothesis tests, examples of hypothesis testing in different fields, tools and software for conducting hypothesis tests.

Understanding the importance of hypothesis testing is essential for conducting rigorous and reliable research. It enables researchers to make well-informed decisions, support or challenge existing theories, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields. So, whether you are a scientist, a market analyst, or a student working on a research project, grasp the power of hypothesis testing and elevate the impact of your data analysis.

Hypothesis testing is the cornerstone of the scientific method and plays a vital role in the research process. It allows researchers to make informed decisions and draw reliable conclusions from their data. By formulating a hypothesis and then testing it against the observed data, researchers can determine whether their initial assumptions are supported or refuted. This systematic approach is crucial for advancing knowledge and understanding in various fields, from medicine and psychology to economics and engineering. Hypothesis testing enables researchers to move beyond mere observations and anecdotal evidence, and instead rely on statistical analysis to quantify the strength of their findings. It helps them differentiate between genuine effects and random fluctuations, ensuring that the conclusions drawn are based on rigorous and objective analysis.

Moreover, hypothesis testing is not limited to academic research; it is equally important in the business world, where data-driven decision-making is essential for success. Marketers, for instance, can use hypothesis testing to evaluate the effectiveness of their advertising campaigns, while financial analysts can use it to assess the performance of investment strategies. By incorporating hypothesis testing into their decision-making processes, organizations can make more informed choices and optimize their operations.

Understanding the Null and Alternative Hypotheses

At the heart of hypothesis testing lies the distinction between the null hypothesis (H0) and the alternative hypothesis (H1). The null hypothesis represents the status quo or the assumption that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables being studied. Conversely, the alternative hypothesis suggests that there is a meaningful difference or relationship that is worth investigating.

Researchers begin by formulating their null and alternative hypotheses based on their research question and existing knowledge. For example, in a study examining the effect of a new drug on blood pressure, the null hypothesis might be that the drug has no effect on blood pressure, while the alternative hypothesis would be that the drug does have an effect on blood pressure.

Steps Involved in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a structured process that involves several key steps:

• Clearly define the research question and formulate the null and alternative hypotheses.
• Select an appropriate statistical test based on the nature of the data and research question.
• Collect and organize data, ensuring it meets the assumptions required for the chosen test.
• Calculate the test statistic and compare it to the critical value or p-value to determine significance.
• Interpret the results and draw conclusions about the research question.
• One-Sample Tests : These tests compare the mean or proportion of a single sample to a known or hypothesized value. Examples include the one-sample t-test and the one-sample z-test.
• Two-Sample Tests: These tests compare the means or proportions of two independent samples. Examples include the two-sample t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and the chi-square test of independence.
• Paired Tests: These tests compare the means or proportions of two related or paired samples, such as before-and-after measurements or matched pairs. Examples include the paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
• ANOVA Tests : These tests compare the means of three or more independent samples. Examples include one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, and repeated-measures ANOVA.
• Correlation and Regression Tests: These tests examine the relationship between two or more variables. Examples include Pearson’s correlation, Spearman’s rank correlation, and linear regression analysis.

While hypothesis testing is a powerful tool for data analysis, it is not immune to errors. Two common types of errors in hypothesis testing are Type I errors and Type II errors.

Type I Error

A Type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is true, but it is incorrectly rejected. The probability of making a Type I error is typically denoted by the significance level (α), which is the threshold used to determine statistical significance.

Type II Error

Conversely, a Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is false, but it is not rejected. In this case, the researcher fails to detect a significant effect that is actually present. The probability of making a Type II error is denoted by β.

When a hypothesis test is conducted, the researcher is provided with a p-value, which represents the probability of obtaining the observed results if the null hypothesis is true. If the p-value is less than the chosen significance level (typically 0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis is supported.

• Medicine and Pharmacology: Researchers use hypothesis testing to evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs, treatments, or interventions. For example, a clinical trial might test the null hypothesis that a new drug has no effect on a health outcome.
• Psychology and Behavioral Sciences: Psychologists use hypothesis testing to investigate human behavior, cognition, and social phenomena. For instance, a researcher might hypothesize that a new therapy has no effect on depression symptoms.
• Economics and Finance: Economists use hypothesis testing to evaluate market performance, economic policies, and investment strategies. For example, testing the hypothesis that interest rates have no effect on the stock market.
• Engineering and Technology: Engineers use hypothesis testing to optimize product designs, test system reliability, and evaluate new technologies. For example, testing a new manufacturing process to reduce defects.
• Environmental Science: Environmental scientists use hypothesis testing to evaluate the impact of human activities, conservation efforts, and climate change effects.

Various tools are available for conducting hypothesis tests:

• IBM SPSS Statistics : A user-friendly statistical software widely used for hypothesis testing.
• R : An open-source programming language for statistical computing, offering packages like stats , ggplot2 , and dplyr for hypothesis testing.
• Online Tools : Websites such as StatisticsHowTo.com offer hypothesis test calculators for quick analyses.

Hypothesis testing is a crucial tool for researchers across many disciplines. It allows them to make informed decisions, support or challenge theories, and contribute to knowledge advancement. By understanding and mastering hypothesis testing techniques, researchers can significantly enhance their data analysis impact.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• AI-ML-DS Blogs
• Machine Learning Blogs
• Best Twitch Extensions for 2024: Top Tools for Viewers and Streamers
• Discord Emojis List 2024: Copy and Paste
• Best Adblockers for Twitch TV: Enjoy Ad-Free Streaming in 2024
• PS4 vs. PS5: Which PlayStation Should You Buy in 2024?
• 10 Best Free VPN Services in 2024

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

The Role of Research: To Learn, to Solve, to Inspire

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Taking a peek into the unknown is the job of professors. With their research, they ask the big, knotty questions, the questions at the limits of human understanding for which answers are not easily found.

“It is challenging,” says Joanna Carey , associate professor of environmental science and the Debi and Andy Butler Term Chair. “Basically, our job is to figure out knowledge that nobody knows yet.”

Babson College may not be a large research institution, but its professors still produce a sizable amount of research in a wide range of fields, from medicine and the environment, to history and culture, to technology and innovation, to business and entrepreneurship. In this article, five Babson professors discuss their diverse work, giving a greater appreciation of the breadth and significance of research at the College.

BABSON MAGAZINE : Read the complete Summer 2024 issue .

Their research, along with that of their colleagues, flourishes in a supportive environment. The College helps fund research endeavors and trips to academic conferences, while giving professors the freedom to pursue their scholarly interests.

Alumni donors, meanwhile, have funded numerous term chairs, which allow professors to spend more time on their research, and professors at the tight-knit school frequently collaborate across disciplines. “We challenge each other to solve problems in different ways,” says Dessislava Pachamanova , professor of analytics and computational finance and the Zwerling Family Endowed Term Chair.

The end result is research that influences and inspires, that makes an impact around the globe, that helps us understand the world and our place in it.

Professors’ research also makes its way into the classroom. “The research they’re doing outside of the classroom informs and strengthens their approach within it,” says Babson President Stephen Spinelli Jr. MBA’92, PhD . “That value proposition enhances our academic rigor and ensures Babson remains at the forefront of emerging trends in entrepreneurship and beyond.”

‘I Have Always Been Fascinated by Nature.’

Imagine a stream trickling down a mountain, as it makes its way to a river, which widens as it reaches the sea. That water is majestic and immense, and it carries with it many things on its journey. “Every time I see a river, I think, ‘That’s a lot of material being moved,’ ” says Joanna Carey, associate professor of environmental science and the Debi and Andy Butler Term Chair.

One of those things in the water is silicon, the second most abundant element in Earth’s crust and a frequent subject of Carey’s research. Silicon moves from the crust, into plants, into rivers, and finally, into the ocean.

Following that path and examining watery places such as rivers, marshes, and estuaries, Carey’s research demonstrates how human activity is causing drastic changes in the amount of silicon as it cycles through the world. Those changes have a story to tell about land use, about the food chain, about carbon dioxide levels, and about our planet as it warms.

Consider the microscopic but mighty diatoms, for instance, an abundant alga that requires silicon to grow. What will the changing levels of silicon mean for these organisms responsible for more than 20% of the oxygen produced every year on Earth?

“They are really important,” Carey says. “Their importance on a global scale can’t be overestimated.”

For the last few years, Carey has led a team that created and examined the largest data set in the world on river silicon chemistry with funding from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. She’ll soon be looking at data from all seven continents for a project funded by the United States Geological Survey.

To be a scientist now, trying to bring a clearer understanding of climate change’s formidable and far-reaching impact, is to perform critical work.

“It is very fundamental science,” Carey says. “There is an urgency in what we are doing.”

Much is at stake, including the future of the students she teaches in the classroom. “This is an issue they will deal with their whole lives,” Carey says.

‘Research Has Always Felt Natural to Me.’

Technology evolves fast. For those in the workplace, that speed can feel overwhelming. “There is a lot of risk of people falling behind,” says Ruben Mancha , associate professor of information systems.

Those workers falling behind are a major concern of Mancha’s research. He looks at how organizations can adopt technology and transform how they operate in a responsible way, by considering the many human implications of the changes they’re implementing. “What is different about my framing is that responsibility,” he says. “It’s focused on the human side. It’s a people-first approach.”

New tech, such as an artificial intelligence tool like ChatGPT, actually can have a positive effect on employees’ workdays, taking on tedious tasks and freeing them to focus on more essential matters.

This benefit only works, though, if workers are confident using these tools. The line between those who are tech literate and those who are not is a stark one. “Those who can work with the technology will use it,” Mancha says. “Those who can’t will be replaced.”

In his research, Mancha examines two ways that organizations can not only guide employees through technological changes but also empower them. One way is by introducing them to low-code development platforms, which offer a much easier way to code, thus enabling many more employees to become developers. The second way is to launch a sustained and effective program for upskilling, creating a workforce that is competent and confident with tech.

Such measures do more than train an employee in the latest and greatest. They also change a workforce’s mindset. Give employees a new program they know how to use, and suddenly they have greater power to transform and innovate. “It changes how people see themselves and how they use technology,” Mancha says. “It’s about bringing the innovation culture to the enterprise.”

Mancha hopes decision makers in business will take his research to heart, and he’s excited to share it with students in the classroom. Before becoming a professor, he worked as a lab scientist in biotech. Research is something that comes naturally to him.

“It is my way of thinking,” he says.

‘I Like to Solve Problems.’

Unfortunately, the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross is seemingly never-ending. The essential organization operates in war zones—in Ukraine, in the Gaza Strip, and in conflict areas far removed from the world’s spotlight. “There are fires everywhere,” says Dessislava Pachamanova, professor of analytics and computational finance and the Zwerling Family Endowed Term Chair.

The work is not only relentless, but it is also costly and logistically challenging. Because of the alarming number of conflicts around the world in recent years, the organization faced a substantial funding shortfall. As a result, a team composed of Pachamanova, other researchers, and supply chain coordinators within the organization sought to determine how to best allocate medical supplies for where they need to go.

This was a tricky thing to figure out. Ship too many supplies, and costly medications may sit unused and expire. Ship too little, and people may not receive the critical, lifesaving supplies they need. For more than a year, Pachamanova and the group looked at the issue.

Ultimately, they developed an inventory management decision support system that was rolled out across a dozen medical distribution centers in Africa, the Middle East, and Ukraine in 2023. By reducing the inventory levels of medical supplies by nearly a quarter with virtually no negative effect on service, the system saved the Red Cross a significant amount of money while facilitating a collaborative planning process across the organization. “The Red Cross considers it a great success,” Pachamanova says.

This is exactly the type of result she is seeking with her research. “I am looking for impact. That is the main thing that drives me,” says Pachamanova, who has applied her expertise in optimization, analytics, machine learning, and simulation to fields as diverse as finance, logistics, and health care.

Pachamanova wants to incorporate her experience working with the Red Cross in a new Babson class she is designing. “I want to introduce students to this kind of experience,” she says, “where you go in, you understand the big problem, but identifying how to start a solution is very hard, and you won’t know where you’ll end up.”

‘I Like Asking Questions and Looking for Answers.’

A company is not an island. Its actions are not secluded. Rather, they ripple outward. A company’s supply chain, its partners, its manufacturing, its customers—all of these relationships, all of these connections, operate within one intertwined system that has an impact on communities and the environment.

The research of Sinan Erzurumlu , professor of innovation and operations management, concerns itself with these systems in which organizations operate. Lying at the intersection of business, society, and the environment, his work focuses on how companies can make decisions that are both sustainable and innovative.

When looking at a company’s actions in his research, Erzurumlu typically asks a direct question: Who does this benefit? “It could benefit a community. It could benefit the planet,” he says. “That perspective drives me a lot.”

The goal is to build a more sustainable future, but talking and researching about sustainability, such an immense, complex, and daunting challenge, is not easy. “I think sustainability is a human mindset problem,” Erzurumlu says. “It’s not just reducing carbon emissions. It’s about changing that mindset. We need to make that transition to a sustainable future. Convincing people to do that is a hard job.”

Large organizations also can’t simply transition into sustainable businesses overnight. Making integral changes is like trying to turn a cargo ship. “It’s a process,” Erzurumlu says. “They can’t make the turn immediately.”

In one recent research article he co-authored, Erzurumlu looked at the systems-thinking approach that three companies—retailers of household products, fashion, and beverages, respectively—took to sustainability. The companies, among other measures, sought to limit the water they used in their operations, reduce the use of hazardous chemicals, and collect waste to recycle and remake into new products.

He hopes other companies can learn from their efforts. He also hopes such research will give his students real-world insights about sustainability. “I think teaching is as important as being a researcher,” he says. “I see the classroom as an outlet for my research. Teaching about my research is an extension of my scholarly identity.”

‘Research Is a Great Opportunity to Better Understand Hard Problems.’

Hospitals are full of caring, smart people striving to deliver the best treatment possible. Helping them with that mission is what Wiljeana Glover tries to achieve in her research. 

To conduct her research, Glover likes to leave her desk and work on site, embedded with those on the front lines of health care. “When I can, I am physically going into hospitals, observing, getting to know clinicians,” says the Stephen C. and Carmella R. Kletjian Foundation Distinguished Professor of Global Healthcare Entrepreneurship. 

“That is fun for me and helps me understand how they do the work they do.”  

Glover often works with hospitals and clinics to understand how they identify and implement improvements, whether a new procedure or innovation. The goal is to make sure that these improvements support patients equitably. Equity in care, for people of color, for women, can remain elusive.  

Clinicians typically see her as a partner. “In some cases, they see me as part of their innovation or improvement team,” Glover says. “They appreciate the insights they are receiving along the way.” 

In a recent research article she co-authored, Glover looked at quality improvement efforts at medical centers and how those organizations can make a sustained commitment to addressing equity. Data measurement, team composition, and the need for ongoing actions were all examined. “How do we not think of equity as a one off?” Glover says. “How do we build in equitable practice? How does it become part of the way we do things?” 

Glover also serves as the founding faculty director of Babson’s Kerry Murphy Healey Center for Health Innovation and Entrepreneurship. In addition to studying equity, the center’s affiliated faculty conducts research on healthcare startups, the impact of artificial intelligence and analytics, and entrepreneurial training for clinicians and scientists. 

Glover praises the spirit of collaboration she sees in her fellow faculty members, who share ideas with one another and work together on research. “It is one of my favorite things about doing research at Babson,” she says. “It really is a part of the secret sauce of research here.”

Posted in Insights , Outcomes

Tagged Entrepreneurship Education , Faculty , Research , Babson Magazine

More from Babson Magazine »

Related Stories

Latest stories.

From Babson to Nasdaq: Karen Snow ’93 on Her Journey to the Top of Global Finance

Young Entrepreneurs Drive ‘Bright Future,’ GEM U.S. Report Shows

Babson College Climbs to No. 2 in Wall Street Journal’s Rankings of the Best Colleges in the U.S.

More babson.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Value creation in technology-driven ecosystems: role of coopetition in industrial networks.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. approaches to coopetition, 2.2. value creation mechanisms in coopetition networks (research gap 1), 2.3. the role of technology in coopetition networks (research gap 2), 2.4. approaching coopetition through service-dominant logic, 2.5. the role of technology in value networks, 3. research design of a technology-driven framework for coopetition networks, 3.1. framing networks and ecosystems, 3.2. framing coopetition and value creation, 3.3. systemic convergence on coopetition, networks, and value co-creation, 4. addressing research gaps in the light of s-d logic, 4.1. value creation mechanisms in coopetition networks, 4.2. the role of technology in coopetition networks, 4.3. framing technology-driven coopetition networks, 5. experimental technology-driven coopetition network and hypothesis testing, 5.1. implementation of the experimental technology-driven coopetition network, 5.2. evaluation metrics, 5.3. data collection, results, and discussion, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Meena, A.; Dhir, S.; Sushil, S. A review of coopetition and future research agenda. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2023 , 38 , 118–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rouyre, A.; Fernandez, A.-S.; Bruyaka, O. Big problems require large collective actions: Managing multilateral coopetition in strategic innovation networks. Technovation 2024 , 132 , 102968. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Crick, J. The dark side of coopetition: When collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2019 , 35 , 318–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reeves, M.; Lotan, H.; Legrand, J.; Jacobides, M.G. How Business Ecosystems Rise (and Often Fall). MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2019 , 27–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corbo, L.; Kraus, S.; Vlačić, B.; Dabić, M.; Caputo, A.; Pellegrini, M.M. Coopetition and innovation: A review and research agenda. Technovation 2023 , 122 , 102624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bouncken, R.; Kumar, A.; Connell, J.; Bhattacharyya, A.; He, K. Coopetition for corporate responsibility and sustainability: Does it influence firm performance? Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2023 , 30 , 128–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, Q.; Gao, Y.; Xia, N.; Zhang, S.; Tao, G. Coopetition and organizational performance outcomes: A meta-analysis of the main and moderator effects. J. Bus. Res. 2023 , 154 , 113363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargo, S.L.; Fehrer, J.A.; Wieland, H.; Nariswari, A. The nature and fundamental elements of digital service innovation. J. Serv. Manag. 2023 , 35 , 227–252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jaakkola, E.; Kaartemo, V.; Siltaloppi, J.; Vargo, S.L. Advancing service-dominant logic with systems thinking. J. Bus. Res. 2024 , 177 , 114592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• da Silva, A.; Cardoso, A.J.M. Co-Opetition and the Industrial Internet of Things: A Strategic Framework for Operational Efficiency in the Portuguese Ornamental Stone Sector. Adm. Sci. Adm. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nalebuff, B.J.; Brandenburger, A.M. Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strat. Leadersh. 1997 , 25 , 28–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manzhynski, S.; Biedenbach, G.; Manzhynski, S.; Biedenbach, G. The knotted paradox of coopetition for sustainability: Investigating the interplay between core paradox properties. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2023 , 110 , 31–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gnyawali, D.R.; Song, Y. Pursuit of rigor in research: Illustration from coopetition literature. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016 , 57 , 12–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gernsheimer, O.; Kanbach, D.K.; Gast, J. Coopetition research—A systematic literature review on recent accomplishments and trajectories. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021 , 96 , 113–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Devece, C.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.E.; Palacios-Marqués, D. Coopetition as the new trend in inter-firm alliances: Literature review and research patterns. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2019 , 13 , 207–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klimas, P.; Ahmadian, A.A.; Soltani, M.; Shahbazi, M.; Hamidizadeh, A. Coopetition, Where Do You Come From? Identification, Categorization, and Configuration of Theoretical Roots of Coopetition. SAGE Open 2023 , 13 , 215824402210850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raza-Ullah, T.; Bengtsson, M.; Kock, S. The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014 , 43 , 189–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spiller, P.T. A Tribute to Oliver Williamson: Regulation: A Transaction Cost Perspective. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2010 , 52 , 147–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parkhe, A.; Wasserman, S.; Ralston, D.A. New Frontiers in Network Theory Development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006 , 31 , 560–568. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burga, R.; Rezania, D. Project accountability: An exploratory case study using actor–network theory. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017 , 35 , 1024–1036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Crick, J. Moderators affecting the relationship between coopetition and company performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2019 , 34 , 518–531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kleinaltenkamp, M.; Kleinaltenkamp, M.J.; Karpen, I.O. Resource entanglement and indeterminacy: Advancing the service-dominant logic through the philosophy of Karen Barad. Mark. Theory 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amit, R.; Zott, C. Value creation in E-business. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001 , 22 , 493–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargo, S.L. Conceptual reconciliation for clarity and impact. AMS Rev. 2023 , 13 , 169–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargo, S.; Akaka, M.; Vaughan, C. Conceptualizing Value: A Service-ecosystem View. J. Creat. Value 2017 , 3 , 117–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Greer, C.R.; Lusch, R.F.; Vargo, S.L. A service perspective. Key managerial insights from service-dominant (S-D) logic. Organ. Dyn. 2016 , 45 , 28–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. J. Mark. 2004 , 68 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lusch, R.F.; Vargo, S.L.; Tanniru, M. Service, value networks and learning. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2010 , 38 , 19–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Normann, R.; Ramírez, R. From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993 , 71 , 65–77. Available online: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9309166477&site=eds-live (accessed on 4 June 2024).
• Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Inversions of service-dominant logic. Mark. Theory 2014 , 14 , 239–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elo, J.; Lumivalo, J.; Tuunanen, T.; Vargo, S.L. Enabling Value Co-Creation in Partner Collaboration Ecosystems: An Institutional Work Perspective. In Proceedings of the 57th Hawaii International Conference on System Science and Engineering, Online, 3–6 January 2024; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/106412 (accessed on 2 June 2024).
• Siltaloppi, J.; Koskela-Huotari, K.; Vargo, S.L. Institutional complexity as a driver for innovation in service ecosystems. Serv. Sci. 2016 , 8 , 333–343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bouncken, R.B.; Plüschke, B.D.; Pesch, R.; Kraus, S. Entrepreneurial orientation in vertical alliances: Joint product innovation and learning from allies. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2016 , 10 , 381–409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Autio, E.; Thomas, L.D.W. Innovation Ecosystems: Implications for Innovation Management ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Antai, I. A theory of the competing supply chain: Alternatives for development. Int. Bus. Res. 2010 , 4 , 74–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Contarinis, S.; Pallikaris, A.; Nakos, B. The value of marine spatial open data infrastructures-potentials of IHO S-100 standard to become the universal marine data model. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020 , 8 , 564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Imschloss, M.; Schwemmle, M. Value creation in post-pandemic retailing: A conceptual framework and implications. J. Bus. Econ. 2023 , 94 , 851–889. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mariotti, J. The value network. Exec. Excell. 2002 , 19 , 18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Service-dominant logic 2025. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2017 , 34 , 46–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mustak, M.; Plé, L. A critical analysis of service ecosystems research: Rethinking its premises to move forward. J. Serv. Mark. 2020 , 34 , 399–413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Breidbach, C.F.; Maglio, P.P. Technology-enabled value co-creation: An empirical analysis of actors, resources, and practices. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016 , 56 , 73–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargo, S.L.; Wieland, H.; O’Brien, M. Service-dominant logic as a unifying theoretical framework for the re-institutionalization of the marketing discipline. J. Bus. Res. 2023 , 164 , 113965. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arthur, W.B. The Nature of Technology ; Penguin Books Ltd.: London, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthies, B.D.; D’Amato, D.; Berghäll, S.; Ekholm, T.; Hoen, H.F.; Holopainen, J.; Korhonen, J.E.; Lähtinen, K.; Mattila, O.; Toppinen, A.; et al. An ecosystem service-dominant logic?—Integrating the ecosystem service approach and the service-dominant logic. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 124 , 51–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lusch, R.F.; Nambisan, S. Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective. MIS Q. 2015 , 39 , 155–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wieland, H.; Hartmann, N.; Vargo, S. Business models as service strategy. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017 , 45 , 925–943. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jaakkola, E. Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Rev. 2020 , 10 , 18–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• da Silva, A.; Dionisio, A.; Almeida, I. Enabling Cyber-Physical Systems for Industry 4.0 operations: A Service Science Perspective. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2020 , 9 , 838–846. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartmann, N.N.; Wieland, H.; Vargo, S.L. Converging on a New Theoretical Foundation for Selling. J. Mark. 2018 , 82 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gnyawali, D.R.; Ryan Charleton, T. Nuances in the Interplay of Competition and Cooperation: Towards a Theory of Coopetition. J. Manag. 2018 , 44 , 2511–2534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lusch, R.F.; Vargo, S.L.; Gustafsson, A. Fostering a trans-disciplinary perspectives of service ecosystems. J. Bus. Res. 2016 , 69 , 2957–2963. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruokolainen, T.; Kutvonen, L. Managing interoperability knowledge in open service ecosystems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), Washington, DC, USA, 1–4 September 2009; pp. 203–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruokolainen, T.; Ruohomaa, S.; Kutvonen, L. Solving service ecosystem governance. In Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), Helsinki, Finland, 29 August–2 September 2011; pp. 18–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. It’s all B2B… and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2011 , 40 , 181–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koskela-Huotari, K.; Vink, J.; Edvardsson, B. The institutional turn in service research: Taking stock and moving ahead. J. Serv. Mark. 2020 , 34 , 373–387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• CSeepana, C.; Paulraj, A.; Huq, F.A. The architecture of coopetition: Strategic intent, ambidextrous managers, and knowledge sharing. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020 , 91 , 100–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akaka, M.; Schau, H.; Vargo, S. How Practice Diffusion Drives IoT Technology Adoption and Institutionalization of Solutions in Service Ecosystems. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 3–6 January 2023; pp. 1427–1435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scott, W. Institutions and Organizations ; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawrence, T.; Suddaby, R. Institutions and Institutional Work. In The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies: Chapter 6 ; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vargo, S.; Lusch, R. Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2016 , 44 , 5–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rindfleisch, A.; Moorman, C. Interfirm Cooperation and Customer Orientation. J. Mark. Res. 2003 , 40 , 421–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargo, S.; Lusch, R. The SAGE Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic ; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scott, W. Institutions and Organizations—Ideas, Interests, and Identities ; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• SBarile, S.; Lusch, R.; Reynoso, J.; Saviano, M.; Spohrer, J. Systems, Networks, and Ecosystems in Service Research. J. Serv. Manag. 2016 , 34 , 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chandler, J.D.; Danatzis, I.; Wernicke, C.; Akaka, M.A.; Reynolds, D. How Does Innovation Emerge in a Service Ecosystem? J. Serv. Res. 2019 , 22 , 75–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uribe, J.; Sytch, M.; Kim, Y.H. When Friends Become Foes: Collaboration as a Catalyst for Conflict. Adm. Sci. Q. 2020 , 65 , 751–794. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di Bella, L.; Katsinis, A.; Lagüera-González, J.; Odenthal, L.; Hell, M.; Lozar, B. Annual Report on European SMEs 2022/2023 ; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Razmdoost, K.; Alinaghian, L.; Chandler, J.D.; Mele, C. Service ecosystem boundary and boundary work. J. Bus. Res. 2023 , 156 , 113489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargo, S.L.; Peters, L.; Kjellberg, H.; Koskela-Huotari, K.; Nenonen, S.; Polese, F.; Sarno, D.; Vaughan, C. Emergence in marketing: An institutional and ecosystem framework. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2023 , 51 , 2–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carvalho, J.M.F.; Lisboa, J.V. Ornamental stone potential areas for land use planning: A case study in a limestone massif from Portugal. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018 , 77 , 206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, A.; Marques Cardoso, A. BIM-based Supply Chain in AEC—Threats on the Portuguese Stone sector. In Proceedings of the 7th Globalstone Congress, Batalha, Portugal, 18–23 June 2023; ISBN 978-972-778-327-4. Available online: https://repositorio.lneg.pt/bitstream/10400.9/4150/1/GSC2023_PT%20Natural%20Stones-Commercial%20Names%20harmonization.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2024).
• Silva, A.; Pata, A. Value Creation in Technology Service Ecosystems—Empirical Case Study. In Innovations in Industrial Engeneering II ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 26–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Z.-S.; Wang, Z.-R.; Deveci, M.; Ding, W.; Pedrycz, W.; Skibniewski, M.J. Optimization-based probabilistic decision support for assessing building information modelling (BIM) maturity considering multiple objectives. Inf. Fusion 2024 , 102 , 102026. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shao, S.; Cao, D. Contagion of BIM Implementation Practices in Interproject Networks: An Empirical Study in China. J. Manag. Eng. 2024 , 40 , 05023009. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lakshmanan, R.; Nyamekye, P.; Virolainen, V.-M.; Piili, H. The convergence of lean management and additive manufacturing: Case of manufacturing industries. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2023 , 13 , 100620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

da Silva, A.; Cardoso, A.J.M. Value Creation in Technology-Driven Ecosystems: Role of Coopetition in Industrial Networks. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024 , 19 , 2343-2359. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19030113

da Silva A, Cardoso AJM. Value Creation in Technology-Driven Ecosystems: Role of Coopetition in Industrial Networks. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research . 2024; 19(3):2343-2359. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19030113

da Silva, Agostinho, and António J. Marques Cardoso. 2024. "Value Creation in Technology-Driven Ecosystems: Role of Coopetition in Industrial Networks" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 19, no. 3: 2343-2359. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19030113

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

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
• Microb Biotechnol
• v.15(11); 2022 Nov

On the role of hypotheses in science

Harald brüssow.

1 Laboratory of Gene Technology, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven Belgium

Associated Data

Scientific research progresses by the dialectic dialogue between hypothesis building and the experimental testing of these hypotheses. Microbiologists as biologists in general can rely on an increasing set of sophisticated experimental methods for hypothesis testing such that many scientists maintain that progress in biology essentially comes with new experimental tools. While this is certainly true, the importance of hypothesis building in science should not be neglected. Some scientists rely on intuition for hypothesis building. However, there is also a large body of philosophical thinking on hypothesis building whose knowledge may be of use to young scientists. The present essay presents a primer into philosophical thoughts on hypothesis building and illustrates it with two hypotheses that played a major role in the history of science (the parallel axiom and the fifth element hypothesis). It continues with philosophical concepts on hypotheses as a calculus that fits observations (Copernicus), the need for plausibility (Descartes and Gilbert) and for explicatory power imposing a strong selection on theories (Darwin, James and Dewey). Galilei introduced and James and Poincaré later justified the reductionist principle in hypothesis building. Waddington stressed the feed‐forward aspect of fruitful hypothesis building, while Poincaré called for a dialogue between experiment and hypothesis and distinguished false, true, fruitful and dangerous hypotheses. Theoretical biology plays a much lesser role than theoretical physics because physical thinking strives for unification principle across the universe while biology is confronted with a breathtaking diversity of life forms and its historical development on a single planet. Knowledge of the philosophical foundations on hypothesis building in science might stimulate more hypothesis‐driven experimentation that simple observation‐oriented “fishing expeditions” in biological research.

Short abstract

Scientific research progresses by the dialectic dialogue between hypothesis building and the experimental testing of these hypotheses. Microbiologists can rely on an increasing set of sophisticated experimental methods for hypothesis testing but the importance of hypothesis building in science should not be neglected. This Lilliput offers a primer on philosophical concepts on hypotheses in science.

INTRODUCTION

Philosophy of science and the theory of knowledge (epistemology) are important branches of philosophy. However, philosophy has over the centuries lost its dominant role it enjoyed in antiquity and became in Medieval Ages the maid of theology (ancilla theologiae) and after the rise of natural sciences and its technological applications many practising scientists and the general public doubt whether they need philosophical concepts in their professional and private life. This is in the opinion of the writer of this article, an applied microbiologist, shortsighted for several reasons. Philosophers of the 20th century have made important contributions to the theory of knowledge, and many eminent scientists grew interested in philosophical problems. Mathematics which plays such a prominent role in physics and increasingly also in other branches of science is a hybrid: to some extent, it is the paradigm of an exact science while its abstract aspects are deeply rooted in philosophical thinking. In the present essay, the focus is on hypothesis and hypothesis building in science, essentially it is a compilation what philosophers and scientists thought about this subject in past and present. The controversy between the mathematical mind and that of the practical mind is an old one. The philosopher, physicist and mathematician Pascal ( 1623 –1662a) wrote in his Pensées : “Mathematicians who are only mathematicians have exact minds, provided all things are explained to them by means of definitions and axioms; otherwise they are inaccurate. They are only right when the principles are quite clear. And men of intuition cannot have the patience to reach to first principles of things speculative and conceptional, which they have never seen in the world and which are altogether out of the common. The intellect can be strong and narrow, and can be comprehensive and weak.” Hypothesis building is an act both of intuition and exact thinking and I hope that theoretical knowledge about hypothesis building will also profit young microbiologists.

HYPOTHESES AND AXIOMS IN MATHEMATICS

In the following, I will illustrate the importance of hypothesis building for the history of science and the development of knowledge and illustrate it with two famous concepts, the parallel axiom in mathematics and the five elements hypothesis in physics.

Euclidean geometry

The prominent role of hypotheses in the development of science becomes already clear in the first science book of the Western civilization: Euclid's The Elements written about 300 BC starts with a set of statements called Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions that lay out the foundation of geometry (Euclid,  c.323‐c.283 ). This axiomatic approach is very modern as exemplified by the fact that Euclid's book remained for long time after the Bible the most read book in the Western hemisphere and a backbone of school teaching in mathematics. Euclid's twenty‐three definitions start with sentences such as “1. A point is that which has no part; 2. A line is breadthless length; 3. The extremities of a line are points”; and continues with the definition of angles (“8. A plane angle is the inclination to one another of two lines in a plane which meet one another and do not lie in a straight line”) and that of circles, triangles and quadrilateral figures. For the history of science, the 23rd definition of parallels is particularly interesting: “Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction”. This is the famous parallel axiom. It is clear that the parallel axiom cannot be the result of experimental observations, but must be a concept created in the mind. Euclid ends with five Common Notions (“1. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another, to 5. The whole is greater than the part”). The establishment of a contradiction‐free system for a branch of mathematics based on a set of axioms from which theorems were deduced was revolutionary modern. Hilbert ( 1899 ) formulated a sound modern formulation for Euclidian geometry. Hilbert's axiom system contains the notions “point, line and plane” and the concepts of “betweenness, containment and congruence” leading to five axioms, namely the axioms of Incidence (“Verknüpfung”), of Order (“Anordnung”), of Congruence, of Continuity (“Stetigkeit”) and of Parallels.

Origin of axioms

Philosophers gave various explanations for the origin of the Euclidean hypotheses or axioms. Plato considered geometrical figures as related to ideas (the true things behind the world of appearances). Aristoteles considered geometric figures as abstractions of physical bodies. Descartes perceived geometric figures as inborn ideas from extended bodies ( res extensa ), while Pascal thought that the axioms of Euclidian geometry were derived from intuition. Kant reasoned that Euclidian geometry represented a priori perceptions of space. Newton considered geometry as part of general mechanics linked to theories of measurement. Hilbert argued that the axioms of mathematical geometry are neither the result of contemplation (“Anschauung”) nor of psychological source. For him, axioms were formal propositions (“formale Aussageformen”) characterized by consistency (“Widerspruchsfreiheit”, i.e. absence of contradiction) (Mittelstrass,  1980a ).

Definitions

Axioms were also differently defined by philosophers. In Topics , Aristoteles calls axioms the assumptions taken up by one partner of a dialogue to initiate a dialectic discussion. Plato states that an axiom needs to be an acceptable or credible proposition, which cannot be justified by reference to other statements. Yet, a justification is not necessary because an axiom is an evident statement. In modern definition, axioms are methodical first sentences in the foundation of a deductive science (Mittelstrass,  1980a ). In Posterior Analytics , Aristotle defines postulates as positions which are at least initially not accepted by the dialogue partners while hypotheses are accepted for the sake of reasoning. In Euclid's book, postulates are construction methods that assure the existence of the geometric objects. Today postulates and axioms are used as synonyms while the 18th‐century philosophy made differences: Lambert defined axioms as descriptive sentences and postulates as prescriptive sentences. According to Kant, mathematical postulates create (synthesize) concepts (Mittelstrass,  1980b ). Definitions then fix the use of signs; they can be semantic definitions that explain the proper meaning of a sign in common language use (in a dictionary style) or they can be syntactic definitions that regulate the use of these signs in formal operations. Nominal definitions explain the words, while real definitions explain the meaning or the nature of the defined object. Definitions are thus essential for the development of a language of science, assuring communication and mutual understanding (Mittelstrass,  1980c ). Finally, hypotheses are also frequently defined as consistent conjectures that are compatible with the available knowledge. The truth of the hypothesis is only supposed in order to explain true observations and facts. Consequences of this hypothetical assumptions should explain the observed facts. Normally, descriptive hypotheses precede explanatory hypotheses in the development of scientific thought. Sometimes only tentative concepts are introduced as working hypotheses to test whether they have an explanatory capacity for the observations (Mittelstrass,  1980d ).

The Euclidian geometry is constructed along a logical “if→then” concept. The “if‐clause” formulates at the beginning the supposition, the “then clause” formulates the consequences from these axioms which provides a system of geometric theorems or insights. The conclusions do not follow directly from the hypothesis; this would otherwise represent self‐evident immediate conclusions. The “if‐then” concept in geometry is not used as in other branches of science where the consequences deduced from the axioms are checked against reality whether they are true, in order to confirm the validity of the hypothesis. The task in mathematics is: what can be logically deduced from a given set of axioms to build a contradiction‐free system of geometry. Whether this applies to the real world is in contrast to the situation in natural sciences another question and absolutely secondary to mathematics (Syntopicon,  1992 ).

Pascal's rules for hypotheses

In his Scientific Treatises on Geometric Demonstrations , Pascal ( 1623‐1662b ) formulates “Five rules are absolutely necessary and we cannot dispense with them without an essential defect and frequently even error. Do not leave undefined any terms at all obscure or ambiguous. Use in definitions of terms only words perfectly well known or already explained. Do not fail to ask that each of the necessary principles be granted, however clear and evident it may be. Ask only that perfectly self‐evident things be granted as axioms. Prove all propositions, using for their proof only axioms that are perfectly self‐evident or propositions already demonstrated or granted. Never get caught in the ambiguity of terms by failing to substitute in thought the definitions which restrict or define them. One should accept as true only those things whose contradiction appears to be false. We may then boldly affirm the original statement, however incomprehensible it is.”

Kant's rules on hypotheses

Kant ( 1724–1804 ) wrote that the analysis described in his book The Critique of Pure Reason “has now taught us that all its efforts to extend the bounds of knowledge by means of pure speculation, are utterly fruitless. So much the wider field lies open to hypothesis; as where we cannot know with certainty, we are at liberty to make guesses and to form suppositions. Imagination may be allowed, under the strict surveillance of reason, to invent suppositions; but these must be based on something that is perfectly certain‐ and that is the possibility of the object. Such a supposition is termed a hypothesis. We cannot imagine or invent any object or any property of an object not given in experience and employ it in a hypothesis; otherwise we should be basing our chain of reasoning upon mere chimerical fancies and not upon conception of things. Thus, we have no right to assume of new powers, not existing in nature and consequently we cannot assume that there is any other kind of community among substances than that observable in experience, any kind of presence than that in space and any kind of duration than that in time. The conditions of possible experience are for reason the only conditions of the possibility of things. Otherwise, such conceptions, although not self‐contradictory, are without object and without application. Transcendental hypotheses are therefore inadmissible, and we cannot use the liberty of employing in the absence of physical, hyperphysical grounds of explanation because such hypotheses do not advance reason, but rather stop it in its progress. When the explanation of natural phenomena happens to be difficult, we have constantly at hand a transcendental ground of explanation, which lifts us above the necessity of investigating nature. The next requisite for the admissibility of a hypothesis is its sufficiency. That is it must determine a priori the consequences which are given in experience and which are supposed to follow from the hypothesis itself.” Kant stresses another aspect when dealing with hypotheses: “It is our duty to try to discover new objections, to put weapons in the hands of our opponent, and to grant him the most favorable position. We have nothing to fear from these concessions; on the contrary, we may rather hope that we shall thus make ourselves master of a possession which no one will ever venture to dispute.”

For Kant's analytical and synthetical judgements and Difference between philosophy and mathematics (Kant, Whitehead) , see Appendices  S1 and S2 , respectively.

Poincaré on hypotheses

The mathematician‐philosopher Poincaré ( 1854 –1912a) explored the foundation of mathematics and physics in his book Science and Hypothesis . In the preface to the book, he summarizes common thinking of scientists at the end of the 19th century. “To the superficial observer scientific truth is unassailable, the logic of science is infallible, and if scientific men sometimes make mistakes, it is because they have not understood the rules of the game. Mathematical truths are derived from a few self‐evident propositions, by a chain of flawless reasoning, they are imposed not only by us, but on Nature itself. This is for the minds of most people the origin of certainty in science.” Poincaré then continues “but upon more mature reflection the position held by hypothesis was seen; it was recognized that it is as necessary to the experimenter as it is to the mathematician. And then the doubt arose if all these constructions are built on solid foundations.” However, “to doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions: both dispense with the necessity of reflection. Instead, we should examine with the utmost care the role of hypothesis; we shall then recognize not only that it is necessary, but that in most cases it is legitimate. We shall also see that there are several kinds of hypotheses; that some are verifiable and when once confirmed by experiment become truths of great fertility; that others may be useful to us in fixing our ideas; and finally that others are hypotheses only in appearance, and reduce to definitions or to conventions in disguise.” Poincaré argues that “we must seek mathematical thought where it has remained pure‐i.e. in arithmetic, in the proofs of the most elementary theorems. The process is proof by recurrence. We first show that a theorem is true for n  = 1; we then show that if it is true for n –1 it is true for n; and we conclude that it is true for all integers. The essential characteristic of reasoning by recurrence is that it contains, condensed in a single formula, an infinite number of syllogisms.” Syllogism is logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. Poincaré notes “that here is a striking analogy with the usual process of induction. But an essential difference exists. Induction applied to the physical sciences is always uncertain because it is based on the belief in a general order of the universe, an order which is external to us. Mathematical induction‐ i.e. proof by recurrence – is on the contrary, necessarily imposed on us, because it is only the affirmation of a property of the mind itself. No doubt mathematical recurrent reasoning and physical inductive reasoning are based on different foundations, but they move in parallel lines and in the same direction‐namely, from the particular to the general.”

Non‐Euclidian geometry: from Gauss to Lobatschewsky

Mathematics is an abstract science that intrinsically does not request that the structures described reflect a physical reality. Paradoxically, mathematics is the language of physics since the founder of experimental physics Galilei used Euclidian geometry when exploring the laws of the free fall. In his 1623 treatise The Assayer , Galilei ( 1564 –1642a) famously formulated that the book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics, thus establishing a link between formal concepts in mathematics and the structure of the physical world. Euclid's parallel axiom played historically a prominent role for the connection between mathematical concepts and physical realities. Mathematicians had doubted that the parallel axiom was needed and tried to prove it. In Euclidian geometry, there is a connection between the parallel axiom and the sum of the angles in a triangle being two right angles. It is therefore revealing that the famous mathematician C.F. Gauss investigated in the early 19th century experimentally whether this Euclidian theorem applies in nature. He approached this problem by measuring the sum of angles in a real triangle by using geodetic angle measurements of three geographical elevations in the vicinity of Göttingen where he was teaching mathematics. He reportedly measured a sum of the angles in this triangle that differed from 180°. Gauss had at the same time also developed statistical methods to evaluate the accuracy of measurements. Apparently, the difference of his measured angles was still within the interval of Gaussian error propagation. He did not publish the reasoning and the results for this experiment because he feared the outcry of colleagues about this unorthodox, even heretical approach to mathematical reasoning (Carnap,  1891 ‐1970a). However, soon afterwards non‐Euclidian geometries were developed. In the words of Poincaré, “Lobatschewsky assumes at the outset that several parallels may be drawn through a point to a given straight line, and he retains all the other axioms of Euclid. From these hypotheses he deduces a series of theorems between which it is impossible to find any contradiction, and he constructs a geometry as impeccable in its logic as Euclidian geometry. The theorems are very different, however, from those to which we are accustomed, and at first will be found a little disconcerting. For instance, the sum of the angles of a triangle is always less than two right angles, and the difference between that sum and two right angles is proportional to the area of the triangle. Lobatschewsky's propositions have no relation to those of Euclid, but are none the less logically interconnected.” Poincaré continues “most mathematicians regard Lobatschewsky's geometry as a mere logical curiosity. Some of them have, however, gone further. If several geometries are possible, they say, is it certain that our geometry is true? Experiments no doubt teaches us that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, but this is because the triangles we deal with are too small” (Poincaré,  1854 ‐1912a)—hence the importance of Gauss' geodetic triangulation experiment. Gauss was aware that his three hills experiment was too small and thought on measurements on triangles formed with stars.

Poincaré vs. Einstein

Lobatschewsky's hyperbolic geometry did not remain the only non‐Euclidian geometry. Riemann developed a geometry without the parallel axiom, while the other Euclidian axioms were maintained with the exception of that of Order (Anordnung). Poincaré notes “so there is a kind of opposition between the geometries. For instance the sum of the angles in a triangle is equal to two right angles in Euclid's geometry, less than two right angles in that of Lobatschewsky, and greater than two right angles in that of Riemann. The number of parallel lines that can be drawn through a given point to a given line is one in Euclid's geometry, none in Riemann's, and an infinite number in the geometry of Lobatschewsky. Let us add that Riemann's space is finite, although unbounded.” As further distinction, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is equal to π in Euclid's, greater than π in Lobatschewsky's and smaller than π in Riemann's geometry. A further difference between these geometries concerns the degree of curvature (Krümmungsmass k) which is 0 for a Euclidian surface, smaller than 0 for a Lobatschewsky and greater than 0 for a Riemann surface. The difference in curvature can be roughly compared with plane, concave and convex surfaces. The inner geometric structure of a Riemann plane resembles the surface structure of a Euclidean sphere and a Lobatschewsky plane resembles that of a Euclidean pseudosphere (a negatively curved geometry of a saddle). What geometry is true? Poincaré asked “Ought we then, to conclude that the axioms of geometry are experimental truths?” and continues “If geometry were an experimental science, it would not be an exact science. The geometric axioms are therefore neither synthetic a priori intuitions as affirmed by Kant nor experimental facts. They are conventions. Our choice among all possible conventions is guided by experimental facts; but it remains free and is only limited by the necessity of avoiding contradictions. In other words, the axioms of geometry are only definitions in disguise. What then are we to think of the question: Is Euclidean geometry true? It has no meaning. One geometry cannot be more true than another, it can only be more convenient. Now, Euclidean geometry is, and will remain, the most convenient, 1 st because it is the simplest and 2 nd because it sufficiently agrees with the properties of natural bodies” (Poincaré,  1854 ‐1912a).

Poincaré's book was published in 1903 and only a few years later Einstein published his general theory of relativity ( 1916 ) where he used a non‐Euclidean, Riemann geometry and where he demonstrated a structure of space that deviated from Euclidean geometry in the vicinity of strong gravitational fields. And in 1919, astronomical observations during a solar eclipse showed that light rays from a distant star were indeed “bent” when passing next to the sun. These physical observations challenged the view of Poincaré, and we should now address some aspects of hypotheses in physics (Carnap,  1891 ‐1970b).

HYPOTHESES IN PHYSICS

The long life of the five elements hypothesis.

Physical sciences—not to speak of biological sciences — were less developed in antiquity than mathematics which is already demonstrated by the primitive ideas on the elements constituting physical bodies. Plato and Aristotle spoke of the four elements which they took over from Thales (water), Anaximenes (air) and Parmenides (fire and earth) and add a fifth element (quinta essentia, our quintessence), namely ether. Ether is imagined a heavenly element belonging to the supralunar world. In Plato's dialogue Timaios (Plato,  c.424‐c.348 BC a ), the five elements were associated with regular polyhedra in geometry and became known as Platonic bodies: tetrahedron (fire), octahedron (air), cube (earth), icosahedron (water) and dodecahedron (ether). In regular polyhedra, faces are congruent (identical in shape and size), all angles and all edges are congruent, and the same number of faces meet at each vertex. The number of elements is limited to five because in Euclidian space there are exactly five regular polyhedral. There is in Plato's writing even a kind of geometrical chemistry. Since two octahedra (air) plus one tetrahedron (fire) can be combined into one icosahedron (water), these “liquid” elements can combine while this is not the case for combinations with the cube (earth). The 12 faces of the dodecahedron were compared with the 12 zodiac signs (Mittelstrass,  1980e ). This geometry‐based hypothesis of physics had a long life. As late as 1612, Kepler in his Mysterium cosmographicum tried to fit the Platonic bodies into the planetary shells of his solar system model. The ether theory even survived into the scientific discussion of the 19th‐century physics and the idea of a mathematical structure of the universe dominated by symmetry operations even fertilized 20th‐century ideas about symmetry concepts in the physics of elementary particles.

Huygens on sound waves in air

The ether hypothesis figures prominently in the 1690 Treatise on Light from Huygens ( 1617‐1670 ). He first reports on the transmission of sound by air when writing “this may be proved by shutting up a sounding body in a glass vessel from which the air is withdrawn and care was taken to place the sounding body on cotton that it cannot communicate its tremor to the glass vessel which encloses it. After having exhausted all the air, one hears no sound from the metal though it is struck.” Huygens comes up with some foresight when suspecting “the air is of such a nature that it can be compressed and reduced to a much smaller space than that it normally occupies. Air is made up of small bodies which float about and which are agitated very rapidly. So that the spreading of sound is the effort which these little bodies make in collisions with one another, to regain freedom when they are a little more squeezed together in the circuit of these waves than elsewhere.”

Huygens on light waves in ether

“That is not the same air but another kind of matter in which light spreads; since if the air is removed from the vessel the light does not cease to traverse it as before. The extreme velocity of light cannot admit such a propagation of motion” as sound waves. To achieve the propagation of light, Huygens invokes ether “as a substance approaching to perfect hardness and possessing springiness as prompt as we choose. One may conceive light to spread successively by spherical waves. The propagation consists nowise in the transport of those particles but merely in a small agitation which they cannot help communicate to those surrounding.” The hypothesis of an ether in outer space fills libraries of physical discussions, but all experimental approaches led to contradictions with respect to postulated properties of this hypothetical material for example when optical experiments showed that light waves display transversal and not longitudinal oscillations.

The demise of ether

Mechanical models for the transmission of light or gravitation waves requiring ether were finally put to rest by the theory of relativity from Einstein (Mittelstrass,  1980f ). This theory posits that the speed of light in an empty space is constant and does not depend on movements of the source of light or that of an observer as requested by the ether hypothesis. The theory of relativity also provides an answer how the force of gravitation is transmitted from one mass to another across an essentially empty space. In the non‐Euclidian formulation of the theory of relativity (Einstein used the Riemann geometry), there is no gravitation force in the sense of mechanical or electromagnetic forces. The gravitation force is in this formulation simply replaced by a geometric structure (space curvature near high and dense masses) of a four‐dimensional space–time system (Carnap,  1891 ‐1970c; Einstein & Imfeld,  1956 ) Gravitation waves and gravitation lens effects have indeed been experimental demonstrated by astrophysicists (Dorfmüller et al.,  1998 ).

For Aristotle's on physical hypotheses , see Appendix  S3 .

PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHTS ON HYPOTHESES

In the following, the opinions of a number of famous scientists and philosophers on hypotheses are quoted to provide a historical overview on the subject.

Copernicus' hypothesis: a calculus which fits observations

In his book Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres Copernicus ( 1473–1543 ) reasoned in the preface about hypotheses in physics. “Since the newness of the hypotheses of this work ‐which sets the earth in motion and puts an immovable sun at the center of the universe‐ has already received a great deal of publicity, I have no doubt that certain of the savants have taken great offense.” He defended his heliocentric thesis by stating “For it is the job of the astronomer to use painstaking and skilled observations in gathering together the history of the celestial movements‐ and then – since he cannot by any line of reasoning reach the true causes of these movements‐ to think up or construct whatever causes or hypotheses he pleases such that, by the assumption of these causes, those same movements can be calculated from the principles of geometry for the past and the future too. This artist is markedly outstanding in both of these respects: for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even probable; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations.” This preface written in 1543 sounds in its arguments very modern physics. However, historians of science have discovered that it was probably written by a theologian friend of Copernicus to defend the book against the criticism by the church.

Bacon's intermediate hypotheses

In his book Novum Organum , Francis Bacon ( 1561–1626 ) claims for hypotheses and scientific reasoning “that they augur well for the sciences, when the ascent shall proceed by a true scale and successive steps, without interruption or breach, from particulars to the lesser axioms, thence to the intermediates and lastly to the most general.” He then notes “that the lowest axioms differ but little from bare experiments, the highest and most general are notional, abstract, and of no real weight. The intermediate are true, solid, full of life, and up to them depend the business and fortune of mankind.” He warns that “we must not then add wings, but rather lead and ballast to the understanding, to prevent its jumping and flying, which has not yet been done; but whenever this takes place we may entertain greater hopes of the sciences.” With respect to methodology, Bacon claims that “we must invent a different form of induction. The induction which proceeds by simple enumeration is puerile, leads to uncertain conclusions, …deciding generally from too small a number of facts. Sciences should separate nature by proper rejections and exclusions and then conclude for the affirmative, after collecting a sufficient number of negatives.”

Gilbert and Descartes for plausible hypotheses

William Gilbert introduced in his book On the Loadstone (Gilbert,  1544‐1603 ) the argument of plausibility into physical hypothesis building. “From these arguments, therefore, we infer not with mere probability, but with certainty, the diurnal rotation of the earth; for nature ever acts with fewer than with many means; and because it is more accordant to reason that the one small body, the earth, should make a daily revolution than the whole universe should be whirled around it.”

Descartes ( 1596‐1650 ) reflected on the sources of understanding in his book Rules for Direction and distinguished what “comes about by impulse, by conjecture, or by deduction. Impulse can assign no reason for their belief and when determined by fanciful disposition, it is almost always a source of error.” When speaking about the working of conjectures he quotes thoughts of Aristotle: “water which is at a greater distance from the center of the globe than earth is likewise less dense substance, and likewise the air which is above the water, is still rarer. Hence, we hazard the guess that above the air nothing exists but a very pure ether which is much rarer than air itself. Moreover nothing that we construct in this way really deceives, if we merely judge it to be probable and never affirm it to be true; in fact it makes us better instructed. Deduction is thus left to us as the only means of putting things together so as to be sure of their truth. Yet in it, too, there may be many defects.”

Care in formulating hypotheses

Locke ( 1632‐1704 ) in his treatise Concerning Human Understanding admits that “we may make use of any probable hypotheses whatsoever. Hypotheses if they are well made are at least great helps to the memory and often direct us to new discoveries. However, we should not take up any one too hastily.” Also, practising scientists argued against careless use of hypotheses and proposed remedies. Lavoisier ( 1743‐1794 ) in the preface to his Element of Chemistry warned about beaten‐track hypotheses. “Instead of applying observation to the things we wished to know, we have chosen rather to imagine them. Advancing from one ill‐founded supposition to another, we have at last bewildered ourselves amidst a multitude of errors. These errors becoming prejudices, are adopted as principles and we thus bewilder ourselves more and more. We abuse words which we do not understand. There is but one remedy: this is to forget all that we have learned, to trace back our ideas to their sources and as Bacon says to frame the human understanding anew.”

Faraday ( 1791–1867 ) in a Speculation Touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter highlighted the fundamental difference between hypotheses and facts when noting “that he has most power of penetrating the secrets of nature, and guessing by hypothesis at her mode of working, will also be most careful for his own safe progress and that of others, to distinguish that knowledge which consists of assumption, by which I mean theory and hypothesis, from that which is the knowledge of facts and laws; never raising the former to the dignity or authority of the latter.”

Explicatory power justifies hypotheses

Darwin ( 1809 –1882a) defended the conclusions and hypothesis of his book The Origin of Species “that species have been modified in a long course of descent. This has been affected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous, slight, favorable variations.” He uses a post hoc argument for this hypothesis: “It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, to so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts” described in his book.

The natural selection of hypotheses

In the concluding chapter of The Descent of Man Darwin ( 1809 –1882b) admits “that many of the views which have been advanced in this book are highly speculative and some no doubt will prove erroneous.” However, he distinguished that “false facts are highly injurious to the progress of science for they often endure long; but false views do little harm for everyone takes a salutory pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path to error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.”

The American philosopher William James ( 1842–1907 ) concurred with Darwin's view when he wrote in his Principles of Psychology “every scientific conception is in the first instance a spontaneous variation in someone'’s brain. For one that proves useful and applicable there are a thousand that perish through their worthlessness. The scientific conceptions must prove their worth by being verified. This test, however, is the cause of their preservation, not of their production.”

The American philosopher J. Dewey ( 1859‐1952 ) in his treatise Experience and Education notes that “the experimental method of science attaches more importance not less to ideas than do other methods. There is no such thing as experiment in the scientific sense unless action is directed by some leading idea. The fact that the ideas employed are hypotheses, not final truths, is the reason why ideas are more jealously guarded and tested in science than anywhere else. As fixed truths they must be accepted and that is the end of the matter. But as hypotheses, they must be continuously tested and revised, a requirement that demands they be accurately formulated. Ideas or hypotheses are tested by the consequences which they produce when they are acted upon. The method of intelligence manifested in the experimental method demands keeping track of ideas, activities, and observed consequences. Keeping track is a matter of reflective review.”

The reductionist principle

James ( 1842‐1907 ) pushed this idea further when saying “Scientific thought goes by selection. We break the solid plenitude of fact into separate essences, conceive generally what only exists particularly, and by our classifications leave nothing in its natural neighborhood. The reality exists as a plenum. All its part are contemporaneous, but we can neither experience nor think this plenum. What we experience is a chaos of fragmentary impressions, what we think is an abstract system of hypothetical data and laws. We must decompose each chaos into single facts. We must learn to see in the chaotic antecedent a multitude of distinct antecedents, in the chaotic consequent a multitude of distinct consequents.” From these considerations James concluded “even those experiences which are used to prove a scientific truth are for the most part artificial experiences of the laboratory gained after the truth itself has been conjectured. Instead of experiences engendering the inner relations, the inner relations are what engender the experience here.“

Following curiosity

Freud ( 1856–1939 ) considered curiosity and imagination as driving forces of hypothesis building which need to be confronted as quickly as possible with observations. In Beyond the Pleasure Principle , Freud wrote “One may surely give oneself up to a line of thought and follow it up as far as it leads, simply out of scientific curiosity. These innovations were direct translations of observation into theory, subject to no greater sources of error than is inevitable in anything of the kind. At all events there is no way of working out this idea except by combining facts with pure imagination and thereby departing far from observation.” This can quickly go astray when trusting intuition. Freud recommends “that one may inexorably reject theories that are contradicted by the very first steps in the analysis of observation and be aware that those one holds have only a tentative validity.”

Feed‐forward aspects of hypotheses

The geneticist Waddington ( 1905–1975 ) in his essay The Nature of Life states that “a scientific theory cannot remain a mere structure within the world of logic, but must have implications for action and that in two rather different ways. It must involve the consequence that if you do so and so, such and such result will follow. That is to say it must give, or at least offer, the possibility of controlling the process. Secondly, its value is quite largely dependent on its power of suggesting the next step in scientific advance. Any complete piece of scientific work starts with an activity essentially the same as that of an artist. It starts by asking a relevant question. The first step may be a new awareness of some facet of the world that no one else had previously thought worth attending to. Or some new imaginative idea which depends on a sensitive receptiveness to the oddity of nature essentially similar to that of the artist. In his logical analysis and manipulative experimentation, the scientist is behaving arrogantly towards nature, trying to force her into his categories of thought or to trick her into doing what he wants. But finally he has to be humble. He has to take his intuition, his logical theory and his manipulative skill to the bar of Nature and see whether she answers yes or no; and he has to abide by the result. Science is often quite ready to tolerate some logical inadequacy in a theory‐or even a flat logical contradiction like that between the particle and wave theories of matter‐so long as it finds itself in the possession of a hypothesis which offers both the possibility of control and a guide to worthwhile avenues of exploration.”

Poincaré: the dialogue between experiment and hypothesis

Poincaré ( 1854 –1912b) also dealt with physics in Science and Hypothesis . “Experiment is the sole source of truth. It alone can teach us certainty. Cannot we be content with experiment alone? What place is left for mathematical physics? The man of science must work with method. Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. It is often said that experiments should be made without preconceived concepts. That is impossible. Without the hypothesis, no conclusion could have been drawn; nothing extraordinary would have been seen; and only one fact the more would have been catalogued, without deducing from it the remotest consequence.” Poincaré compares science to a library. Experimental physics alone can enrich the library with new books, but mathematical theoretical physics draw up the catalogue to find the books and to reveal gaps which have to be closed by the purchase of new books.

Poincaré: false, true, fruitful and dangerous hypotheses

Poincaré continues “we all know that there are good and bad experiments. The latter accumulate in vain. Whether there are hundred or thousand, one single piece of work will be sufficient to sweep them into oblivion. Bacon invented the term of an experimentum crucis for such experiments. What then is a good experiment? It is that which teaches us something more than an isolated fact. It is that which enables us to predict and to generalize. Experiments only gives us a certain number of isolated points. They must be connected by a continuous line and that is true generalization. Every generalization is a hypothesis. It should be as soon as possible submitted to verification. If it cannot stand the test, it must be abandoned without any hesitation. The physicist who has just given up one of his hypotheses should rejoice, for he found an unexpected opportunity of discovery. The hypothesis took into account all the known factors which seem capable of intervention in the phenomenon. If it is not verified, it is because there is something unexpected. Has the hypothesis thus rejected been sterile? Far from it. It has rendered more service than a true hypothesis.” Poincaré notes that “with a true hypothesis only one fact the more would have been catalogued, without deducing from it the remotest consequence. It may be said that the wrong hypothesis has rendered more service than a true hypothesis.” However, Poincaré warns that “some hypotheses are dangerous – first and foremost those which are tacit and unconscious. And since we make them without knowing them, we cannot get rid of them.” Poincaré notes that here mathematical physics is of help because by its precision one is compelled to formulate all the hypotheses, revealing also the tacit ones.

Arguments for the reductionist principle

Poincaré also warned against multiplying hypotheses indefinitely: “If we construct a theory upon multiple hypotheses, and if experiment condemns it, which of the premisses must be changed?” Poincaré also recommended to “resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena. First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. Next, we try to decompose the phenomenon in space. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon localized in a very small region of space.” Poincaré suggested that the physicist should “be guided by the instinct of simplicity, and that is why in physical science generalization so readily takes the mathematical form to state the problem in the form of an equation.” This argument goes back to Galilei ( 1564 –1642b) who wrote in The Two Sciences “when I observe a stone initially at rest falling from an elevated position and continually acquiring new increments of speed, why should I not believe that such increases take place in a manner which is exceedingly simple and rather obvious to everybody? If now we examine the matter carefully we find no addition or increment more simple than that which repeats itself always in the same manner. It seems we shall not be far wrong if we put the increment of speed as proportional to the increment of time.” With a bit of geometrical reasoning, Galilei deduced that the distance travelled by a freely falling body varies as the square of the time. However, Galilei was not naïve and continued “I grant that these conclusions proved in the abstract will be different when applied in the concrete” and considers disturbances cause by friction and air resistance that complicate the initially conceived simplicity.

Four sequential steps of discovery…

Some philosophers of science attributed a fundamental importance to observations for the acquisition of experience in science. The process starts with accidental observations (Aristotle), going to systematic observations (Bacon), leading to quantitative rules obtained with exact measurements (Newton and Kant) and culminating in observations under artificially created conditions in experiments (Galilei) (Mittelstrass,  1980g ).

…rejected by Popper and Kant

In fact, Newton wrote that he had developed his theory of gravitation from experience followed by induction. K. Popper ( 1902‐1994 ) in his book Conjectures and Refutations did not agree with this logical flow “experience leading to theory” and that for several reasons. This scheme is according to Popper intuitively false because observations are always inexact, while theory makes absolute exact assertions. It is also historically false because Copernicus and Kepler were not led to their theories by experimental observations but by geometry and number theories of Plato and Pythagoras for which they searched verifications in observational data. Kepler, for example, tried to prove the concept of circular planetary movement influenced by Greek theory of the circle being a perfect geometric figure and only when he could not demonstrate this with observational data, he tried elliptical movements. Popper noted that it was Kant who realized that even physical experiments are not prior to theories when quoting Kant's preface to the Critique of Pure Reason : “When Galilei let his globes run down an inclined plane with a gravity which he has chosen himself, then a light dawned on all natural philosophers. They learnt that our reason can only understand what it creates according to its own design; that we must compel Nature to answer our questions, rather than cling to Nature's apron strings and allow her to guide us. For purely accidental observations, made without any plan having been thought out in advance, cannot be connected by a law‐ which is what reason is searching for.” From that reasoning Popper concluded that “we ourselves must confront nature with hypotheses and demand a reply to our questions; and that lacking such hypotheses, we can only make haphazard observations which follow no plan and which can therefore never lead to a natural law. Everyday experience, too, goes far beyond all observations. Everyday experience must interpret observations for without theoretical interpretation, observations remain blind and uninformative. Everyday experience constantly operates with abstract ideas, such as that of cause and effect, and so it cannot be derived from observation.” Popper agreed with Kant who said “Our intellect does not draw its laws from nature…but imposes them on nature”. Popper modifies this statement to “Our intellect does not draw its laws from nature, but tries‐ with varying degrees of success – to impose upon nature laws which it freely invents. Theories are seen to be free creations of our mind, the result of almost poetic intuition. While theories cannot be logically derived from observations, they can, however, clash with observations. This fact makes it possible to infer from observations that a theory is false. The possibility of refuting theories by observations is the basis of all empirical tests. All empirical tests are therefore attempted refutations.”

OUTLOOK: HYPOTHESES IN BIOLOGY

Is biology special.

Waddington notes that “living organisms are much more complicated than the non‐living things. Biology has therefore developed more slowly than sciences such as physics and chemistry and has tended to rely on them for many of its basic ideas. These older physical sciences have provided biology with many firm foundations which have been of the greatest value to it, but throughout most of its history biology has found itself faced with the dilemma as to how far its reliance on physics and chemistry should be pushed” both with respect to its experimental methods and its theoretical foundations. Vitalism is indeed such a theory maintaining that organisms cannot be explained solely by physicochemical laws claiming specific biological forces active in organisms. However, efforts to prove the existence of such vital forces have failed and today most biologists consider vitalism a superseded theory.

Biology as a branch of science is as old as physics. If one takes Aristotle as a reference, he has written more on biology than on physics. Sophisticated animal experiments were already conducted in the antiquity by Galen (Brüssow, 2022 ). Alertus Magnus displayed biological research interest during the medieval time. Knowledge on plants provided the basis of medical drugs in early modern times. What explains biology's decreasing influence compared with the rapid development of physics by Galilei and Newton? One reason is the possibility to use mathematical equations to describe physical phenomena which was not possible for biological phenomena. Physics has from the beginning displayed a trend to few fundamental underlying principles. This is not the case for biology. With the discovery of new continents, biologists were fascinated by the diversity of life. Diversity was the conducting line of biological thinking. This changed only when taxonomists and comparative anatomists revealed recurring pattern in this stunning biological variety and when Darwin provided a theoretical concept to understand variation as a driving force in biology. Even when genetics and molecular biology allowed to understand biology from a few universally shared properties, such as a universal genetic code, biology differed in fundamental aspects from physics and chemistry. First, biology is so far restricted to the planet earth while the laws of physic and chemistry apply in principle to the entire universe. Second, biology is to a great extent a historical discipline; many biological processes cannot be understood from present‐day observations because they are the result of historical developments in evolution. Hence, the importance of Dobzhansky's dictum that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution. The great diversity of life forms, the complexity of processes occurring in cells and their integration in higher organisms and the importance of a historical past for the understanding of extant organisms, all that has delayed the successful application of mathematical methods in biology or the construction of theoretical frameworks in biology. Theoretical biology by far did not achieve a comparable role as theoretical physics which is on equal foot with experimental physics. Many biologists are even rather sceptical towards a theoretical biology and see progress in the development of ever more sophisticated experimental methods instead in theoretical concepts expressed by new hypotheses.

Knowledge from data without hypothesis?

Philosophers distinguish rational knowledge ( cognitio ex principiis ) from knowledge from data ( cognitio ex data ). Kant associates these two branches with natural sciences and natural history, respectively. The latter with descriptions of natural objects as prominently done with systematic classification of animals and plants or, where it is really history, when describing events in the evolution of life forms on earth. Cognitio ex data thus played a much more prominent role in biology than in physics and explains why the compilation of data and in extremis the collection of museum specimen characterizes biological research. To account for this difference, philosophers of the logical empiricism developed a two‐level concept of science languages consisting of a language of observations (Beobachtungssprache) and a language of theories (Theoriesprache) which are linked by certain rules of correspondence (Korrespondenzregeln) (Carnap,  1891 –1970d). If one looks into leading biological research journals, it becomes clear that biology has a sophisticated language of observation and a much less developed language of theories.

Do we need more philosophical thinking in biology or at least a more vigorous theoretical biology? The breathtaking speed of progress in experimental biology seems to indicate that biology can well develop without much theoretical or philosophical thinking. At the same time, one could argue that some fields in biology might need more theoretical rigour. Microbiologists might think on microbiome research—one of the breakthrough developments of microbiology research in recent years. The field teems with fascinating, but ill‐defined terms (our second genome; holobionts; gut–brain axis; dysbiosis, symbionts; probiotics; health benefits) that call for stricter definitions. One might also argue that biologists should at least consider the criticism of Goethe ( 1749–1832 ), a poet who was also an active scientist. In Faust , the devil ironically teaches biology to a young student.

“Wer will was Lebendigs erkennen und beschreiben, Sucht erst den Geist herauszutreiben, Dann hat er die Teile in seiner Hand, Fehlt, leider! nur das geistige Band.” (To docket living things past any doubt. You cancel first the living spirit out: The parts lie in the hollow of your hand, You only lack the living thing you banned).

We probably need both in biology: more data and more theory and hypotheses.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author reports no conflict of interest.

FUNDING INFORMATION

No funding information provided.

Supporting information

Appendix S1

Brüssow, H. (2022) On the role of hypotheses in science . Microbial Biotechnology , 15 , 2687–2698. Available from: 10.1111/1751-7915.14141 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Bacon, F. (1561. –1626) Novum Organum. In: Adler, M.J. (Ed.) (editor‐in‐chief) Great books of the western world . Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 2nd edition 1992 vol 1–60 (abbreviated below as GBWW) here: GBWW vol. 28: 128. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brüssow, H. (2022) What is Truth – in science and beyond . Environmental Microbiology , 24 , 2895–2906. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnap, R. (1891. ‐1970a) Philosophical foundations of physics. Ch. 14 . Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnap, R. (1891. ‐1970b) Philosophical foundations of physics. Ch. 15 . Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnap, R. (1891. ‐1970c) Philosophical foundations of physics. Ch. 16 . Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnap, R. (1891. ‐1970d) Philosophical foundations of physics. Ch. 27–28 . Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Copernicus . (1473. ‐1543) Revolutions of heavenly spheres . GBWW , vol. 15 , 505–506. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darwin, C. (1809. ‐1882a) The origin of species . GBWW , vol. 49 : 239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darwin, C. (1809. ‐1882b) The descent of man . GBWW , vol. 49 : 590. [ Google Scholar ]
• Descartes, R. (1596. ‐1650) Rules for direction . GBWW , vol. 28 , 245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey, J. (1859. –1952) Experience and education . GBWW , vol. 55 , 124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorfmüller, T. , Hering, W.T. & Stierstadt, K. (1998) Bergmann Schäfer Lehrbuch der Experimentalphysik: Band 1 Mechanik, Relativität, Wärme. In: Was ist Schwerkraft: Von Newton zu Einstein . Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 197–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• Einstein, A. (1916) Relativity . GBWW , vol. 56 , 191–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Einstein, A. & Imfeld, L. (1956) Die Evolution der Physik . Hamburg: Rowohlts deutsche Enzyklopädie, Rowohlt Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Euclid . (c.323‐c.283) The elements . GBWW , vol. 10 , 1–2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faraday, M. (1791. –1867) Speculation touching electric conduction and the nature of matter . GBWW , 42 , 758–763. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud, S. (1856. –1939) Beyond the pleasure principle . GBWW , vol. 54 , 661–662. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galilei, G. (1564. ‐1642a) The Assayer, as translated by S. Drake (1957) Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo pp. 237–8 abridged pdf at Stanford University .
• Galilei, G. (1564. ‐1642b) The two sciences . GBWW vol. 26 : 200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert, W. (1544. ‐1603) On the Loadstone . GBWW , vol. 26 , 108–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goethe, J.W. (1749. –1832) Faust . GBWW , vol. 45 , 20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilbert, D. (1899) Grundlagen der Geometrie . Leipzig, Germany: Verlag Teubner. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huygens, C. (1617. ‐1670) Treatise on light . GBWW , vol. 32 , 557–560. [ Google Scholar ]
• James, W. (1842. –1907) Principles of psychology . GBWW , vol. 53 , 862–866. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kant, I. (1724. –1804) Critique of pure reason . GBWW , vol. 39 , 227–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lavoisier, A.L. (1743. ‐1794) Element of chemistry . GBWW , vol. 42 , p. 2, 6‐7, 9‐10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke, J. (1632. ‐1704) Concerning Human Understanding . GBWW , vol. 33 , 317–362. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mittelstrass, J. (1980a) Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim, Wien, Zürich B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag Vol. 1: 239–241 .
• Mittelstrass, J. (1980b) Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim, Wien, Zürich B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag Vol. 3: 307 .
• Mittelstrass, J. (1980c) Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim, Wien, Zürich B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag Vol. 1: 439–442 .
• Mittelstrass, J. (1980d) Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim, Wien, Zürich B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag Vol. 2: 157–158 .
• Mittelstrass, J. (1980e) Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim, Wien, Zürich B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag Vol. 3: 264‐267, 449.450 .
• Mittelstrass, J. (1980f) Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim, Wien, Zürich B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag Vol. 1: 209–210 .
• Mittelstrass, J. (1980g) Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim, Wien, Zürich B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag Vol. 1: 281–282 .
• Pascal, B. (1623. ‐1662a) Pensées GBWW vol. 30 : 171–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pascal, B. (1623. ‐1662b) Scientific treatises on geometric demonstrations . GBWW vol. 30 : 442–443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Plato . (c.424‐c.348 BC a) Timaeus . GBWW , vol. 6 , 442–477. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poincaré, H. (1854. ‐1912a) Science and hypothesis GBWW , vol. 56 : XV‐XVI, 1–5, 10–15 [ Google Scholar ]
• Poincaré, H. (1854. ‐1912b) Science and hypothesis GBWW , vol. 56 : 40–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper, K. (1902. ‐1994) Conjectures and refutations . London and New York, 2002: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge Routledge Classics, pp. 249–261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Syntopicon . (1992) Hypothesis . GBWW , vol. 1 , 576–587. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waddington, C.H. (1905. –1975) The nature of life . GBWW , vol. 56 , 697–699. [ Google Scholar ]

Determinants of business resilience: Investigating the roles of business agility, digitalization, and environmental hostility during the COVID-19 pandemic

• Published: 07 September 2024

Cite this article

• Jamal Maalouf 1 ,
• Lynn Chahine   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5260-7208 2 ,
• Amine Abi Aad 3 &
• Kevin Sevag Kertechian 4  

Dynamic capabilities research has demonstrated that businesses must adapt to changes in order to survive. The COVID-19 pandemic has put firm resilience to the test. The present study uses the dynamic-capabilities theoretical framework to shed light on the determinants of business resilience. Results from a sample of 243 full-time managers and business owners demonstrate that more agile businesses are more likely to be resilient. In addition, environmental hostility positively moderates the relationship between agility and resilience, as it was stronger with a high environmental hostility and weaker with a low environmental hostility. Digitalization also showed a positive relationship with resilience. Likewise, evidence does not support the hypothesis that digitalization moderates the positive relationship between agility and resilience, i.e., that as engagement increases, the relationship becomes stronger, possibly due to the burnout effect of digitalization. Finally, implications and future research opportunities are presented.

Les recherches portant sur les capacités dynamiques mettent en lumière la nécessité pour les entreprises de s'adapter au changement pour assurer leur survie. En outre, la résilience des entreprises a été mise à l'épreuve par la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette étude se base sur le cadre théorique des capacités dynamiques afin d'analyser les facteurs influençant la résilience des entreprises. Les résultats obtenus auprès d'un échantillon de 243 gestionnaires à temps plein et propriétaires d'entreprises indiquent une corrélation entre l'agilité des entreprises et leur résilience. De surcroît, les résultats soulignent l'impact positif et modérateur de l'hostilité de l'environnement sur la relation entre l'agilité et la résilience, cette relation étant renforcée en cas d'hostilité élevée et atténuée en cas d'hostilité moindre. Par ailleurs, la digitalisation est également associée de manière positive à la résilience des entreprises. Cependant, l'idée selon laquelle la digitalisation pourrait modérer positivement la relation entre l'agilité et la résilience, en renforçant cette dernière dans le cas d'un fort engagement, n'a pas été confirmée en raison de l'épuisement induit par la digitalisation. Enfin, des implications pratiques et des orientations pour de futures recherches sont suggérées.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Abi Aad A, Combs JG (2021) Choosing between the formal and informal economy: how do managers decide? Cross Cult Strat Manag 28(3):679–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-07-2020-0140

Article   Google Scholar  

Abouzeid M, Habib RR, Jabbour S, Mokdad AH, Nuwayhid I (2020) Lebanon's humanitarian crisis escalates after the Beirut blast. The Lancet 396(10260):1380–1382

Agénor P (2002) Business cycles, economic crises, and the poor. J Policy Reform 5(3):145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1384128021000066080

Akgün AE, Keskin H (2014) Organisational resilience capacity and firm product innovativeness and performance. Int J Prod Res 52(23):6918–6937. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.910624

Alekseev G, Amer S, Gopal M, Kuchler T, Schneider JW, Stroebel J, Wernerfelt N (2023) The effects of COVID-19 on US small businesses: evidence from owners, managers, and employees. Manage Sci 69(1):7–24

Amankwah-Amoah J, Khan Z, Wood G (2021) COVID-19 and business failures: the paradoxes of experience, scale, and scope for theory and practice. Eur Manag J 39(2):179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.002

Ashrafi N, Xu P, Sathasivam M, Kuilboer JP, Koelher W, Heimann D, Waage F (2005) A framework for implementing business agility through knowledge management systems. In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology Workshops. IEEE, pp 116–121 

Ates A, Bititci U (2011) Change process: a key enabler for building resilient SMEs. Int J Prod Res 49(18):5601–5618. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563825

Backman M, Karlsson C (2020) Age of managers and employees – firm survival. J Econ Ageing 15:100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2019.100215

Baltar F, Brunet I (2012) Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Int Res 22(1):57–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211199960

Bartik AW, Bertrand M, Cullen Z, Glaeser EL, Luca M, Stanton C (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117(30):17656–17666. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006991117

Bofinger P, Dullien S, Felbermayr G, Fuest C, Hüther M, Südekum J, Weder di Mauro B (2020) Wirtschaftliche Implikationen der Corona-Krise und wirtschaftspolitische Maßnahmen [Economic Implications of the Corona Crisis and Economic Policy Measures]. Wirtschaftsdienst 100(4):259–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-020-2628-0

Bourgeois LJ III, Eisenhardt KM (1988) Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Manage Sci 34(7):816–835. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.7.816

Brammer S, Branicki L, Linnenluecke M (2020) COVID-19, societalization and the future of business in society. Acad Manag Perspect 34(4):493. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0053

Broccardo L, Zicari A, Jabeen F, Bhatti ZA (2023) How digitalization supports a sustainable business model: a literature review. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 187:122146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122146

Brougham D, Haar J (2018) Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. J Manage Organ 24(2):239–257

Calantone RJ, Schmidt JB, Di Benedetto CA (1997) New product activities and performance: the moderating role of environmental hostility. J Prod Innov Manag 14(3):179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(97)00004-0

Camarinha-Matos LM (2014) Collaborative networks: A mechanism for enterprise agility and resilience. In Enterprise Interoperability VI: Interoperability for Agility, Resilience and Plasticity of Collaborations (pp. 3-11). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04948-9_1

Chatterjee S, Chaudhuri R, Vrontis D, Maalaoui A (2023) Internationalization of family business and its performance: examining the moderating role of digitalization and international networking capability. Rev Manag Sci 17(7):2443-2470

Ciacci A,  Penco L (2023) Business model innovation: harnessing big data analytics and digital transformation in hostile environments. J Small Bus Enterp D 31(8):22–46

Ciacci A, Penco L (2024) Business model innovation: harnessing big data analytics and digital transformation in hostile environments. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 31(8):22–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2022-0424

Conforto EC, Amaral DC, Da Silva SL, Di Felippo A, Kamikawachi DSL (2016) The agility construct on project management theory.  Int J Proj Manag 34(4):660-674

Cole G (2015) Blending resilience and sustainability: business success in an unpredictable world. Strateg Dir 31(1):6–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/SD-10-2014-0153

Covin JG, Slevin DP (1989) Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strateg Manag J 10(1):75–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100107

Covin JG, Slevin DP (1991) A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrep Theory Pract 16(1):7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102

Delardas O, Kechagias KS, Pontikos PN, Giannos P (2022) Socio-economic impacts and challenges of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): an updated review. Sustainability 14(15):9699

DesJardine MR, Bansal P (2013) The value of business sustainability and resilience during the global financial crisis. Acad Manag Proc 2013(1):16501. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2013.16501abstract

Devi S (2020) Lebanon faces humanitarian emergency after the blast. The Lancet 396(10249):456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31750-5

Dyba W, Di Maria E (2024) Assessment and support of the digitalization of businesses in Europe during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Reg Sci Policy Pract 16(1):12717. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12717

ECOSOC (2020) The sustainable development goals report 2020. Retrieved October 16, 2020, from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/

e Cunha MP, Gomes E, Mellahi K, Miner AS, Rego A (2020) Strategic agility through improvisational capabilities: Implications for a paradox-sensitive HRM. Hum Resour Manag Rev 30(1):100695

Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag J 21(10):1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3c1105::AID-SMJ133%3e3.0.CO;2-E

Elliott D, Swartz E, Herbane B (2010) Business continuity management: a crisis management approach, 1st edn. Routledge, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203866337

Book   Google Scholar  

Fairlie RW (2022) The impacts of COVID-19 on racial inequality in business earnings (No. w30532). National Bureau of Economic Research

Fairlie RW, Fossen F (2021) Did the $660 billion paycheck protection program and $220 billion economic injury disaster loan program get disbursed to minority communities in the early stages of COVID-19? (No. w28321). National Bureau of Economic Research

Fakih, Ali and Makdissi, Paul and Marrouch, Walid and Tabri, Rami and Yazbeck, Myra, Confidence in public institutions and the run up to the October 2019 uprising in Lebanon. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13104. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3568309 . Accessed Dec 2021

Florio VD (2013) On the constituent attributes of software and organizational resilience. Interdisc Sci Rev 38(2):122–148. https://doi.org/10.1179/0308018813Z.00000000040

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technol Forecast Soc Change 114:254–280

Giantari I, Yasa N, Suprasto H, Rahmayanti P (2022) The role of digital marketing in mediating the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and the intensity of competition on business performance. Int J Data Netw Sci 6(1):217–232

Gielnik MM, Zacher H, Frese M (2012) Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationship between business owners’ age and venture growth. J Bus Ventur 27(1):127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.05.002

Gobble MM (2018) Digitalization, digitization, and innovation. Res Technol Manage 61(4):56-59

Goglio-Primard K, Simon L, Cohendet P, Aharonson BS, Wenger-Trayner E (2020) Managing with communities for innovation, agility, and resilience. Eur Manag J 38(5):673–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.08.003

Goldman SL, Nagel RN, Preiss K (1995) Agile competitors and virtual organizations: strategies for enriching the customer. Van Nostrand Reinhold

Google Scholar  

Gómez SM, Mendoza OEO, Ramírez J, Olivas-Luján MR (2020) Stress and myths related to the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on remote work. Manag Res 18(4):401–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-06-2020-1065

Goodhart CA, Tsomocos DP, Wang X (2023) Support for small businesses amid COVID-19. Economica 90(358):612–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12460

Guechati I, Chami M (2022) Lebanon, economic and financial crises, reasons for collapse. Revue Française D’economie Et De Gestion 3(6):276–291

Heidt L, Gauger F, Pfnür A (2023) Work from home success: agile work characteristics and the mediating effect of supportive HRM. RMS 17(6):2139–2164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00545-5

Heisterberg RJ, Verma A (2014) Creating business agility: how convergence of cloud, social, mobile, video, and big data enables competitive advantage. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J

Herbane B (2019) Rethinking organizational resilience and strategic renewal in SMEs. Entrep Reg Dev 31(5–6):476–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541594

Hillmann J, Guenther E (2021) Organizational resilience: a valuable construct for management research? Int J Manag Rev: IJMR 23(1):7–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12239

Hitt MA, Holmes RM, Mistry S (2023) Agility, strategies, dynamic capabilities, stakeholders, and strategic leadership in the new normal environment. In Senior Leadership Teams and the Agile Organization (pp. 336-362). Routledge

Holopainen M, Ukko J, Saunila M (2022) Managing the strategic readiness of industrial companies for digital operations. Digital Business 2(2):100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100039

ILO Monitor (2020) COVID-19 and the world of work. Third edition. Retrieved October 18, 2020, from http://www.cnt-nar.be/DOSSIERS/Covid-19/ILO-2020-04-29-Covid-19-and-the-world-of-work-(03)-EN.pdf

Isip MI, Baconguis R, Depositario DP, Quimbo MA, Paunlagui M (2023) How environmental hostility, entrepreneurial orientation and dynamic capabilities are manifested to influence above-average export performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Contin Resilience Rev 5(2):135–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/CRR-10-2022-0025

Ivory SB, Brooks SB (2018) Managing corporate sustainability with a paradoxical lens: lessons from strategic agility. J Bus Ethics 148(2):347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3583-6

Jameson DA (2009) Economic crises and financial disasters: the role of business communication. J Bus Commun 46(4):499–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943609338667

Joseph E, Dhanabhakyam MM (2022) Role of Digitalization Post-Pandemic for Development of SMEs. In Research anthology on business continuity and navigating times of crisis (pp. 727-747). IGI Global

Kertechian KS, El-Farr H (2024) Dissecting the paradox of progress: the socioeconomic implications of artificial intelligence. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1004872

Khandwalla PN (1976) Some top management styles, their context and performance. Organ Adm Sci 7(4):21–51

Khelil N, Khiari S, de Caen Basse-Normandie IAE (2013) Pour une prise en compte du caractère multiforme de l’échec entrepreneurial en vue d’un meilleur accompagnement des jeunes créateurs d’entreprises en difficultés. Document de travail, Université de Caen Normandie

Kreiser PM, Anderson BS, Kuratko DF, Marino LD (2020) Entrepreneurial orientation and environmental hostility: a threat rigidity perspective. Entrep Theory Pract 44(6):1174–1198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719891389

Lee Y, Zhuang Y, Joo M, Bae TJ (2020) Revisiting Covin and Slevin (1989): replication and extension of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. J Bus Ventur Insights 12:e00144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2019.e00144

Levallet N, Chan Y (2022) Uncovering a new form of digitally-enabled agility: an improvisational perspective. Eur J Inform Syst 31(6):681–708

Liao Y, Deschamps F, Loures EDFR, Ramos LFP (2017) Past, present and future of Industry 4.0-a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International journal of production research 55(12):3609-3629

Li Z, Rasool S, Cavus MF, Shahid W (2024) Sustaining the future: how green capabilities and digitalization drive sustainability in modern business. Heliyon 10(1):e24158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24158

Linnenluecke MK (2017) Resilience in business and management research: a review of influential publications and a research agenda: resilience in business and management research. Int J Manag Rev : IJMR 19(1):4–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12076

Madhok A, Marques R (2014) Towards an action-based perspective on firm competitiveness. BRQ Bus Res Q 17(2):77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2014.03.002

Makdissi P, Seif Edine M (2020) Is the elimination of food subsidies the right policy to address Lebanon’s public finance crisis? Review of Middle East Economics and Finance 16(2):20200016. https://doi.org/10.1515/rmeef-2020-0016

Martins A (2023) Dynamic capabilities and SME performance in the COVID-19 era: the moderating effect of digitalization. Asia-Pacific J Bus Adm 15(2): 188-202

Maslach C, Leiter MP (2008) The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. Jossey & Bass

Menéndez Blanco JM, Montes Botella JL (2016) What contributes to adaptive company resilience? A conceptual and practical approach. Dev Learn Organ 30(4):17–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-10-2015-0080

Michie J (2020) The covid-19 crisis – and the future of the economy and economics. Int Rev Appl Econ 34(3):301–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2020.1756040

Miceli A, Hagen B, Riccardi MP, Sotti F, Settembre-Blundo D (2021) Thriving, not just surviving in changing times: How sustainability, agility and digitalization intertwine with organizational resilience. Sustainability 13(4):2052

Miles MP, Arnold DR, Thompson DL (1993) The interrelationship between environmental hostility and entrepreneurial orientation. J Appl Bus Res 9(4):12–24. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v9i4.5984

Miller D, Friesen PH (1978) Archetypes of strategy formulation. Manage Sci 24(9):921–933. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.24.9.921

Miller D, Friesen PH (1983) Strategy-making and environment: the third link. Strateg Manag J 4(3):221–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250040304

Mintzberg H (1979) Patterns in strategy formation. Int Stud Manag Organ 9(3):67–86

MOPH (2020) Epidemiological surveillance program of COVID-19. Retrieved October 18, 2020, from https://www.moph.gov.lb/en/Pages/2/24870/novel -coronaviru s-2019

Moorman C, Miner A (1998) The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. J Mark 62:1–20

Motwani J, Katatria A (2024) Organization agility: a literature review and research agenda, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-07-2023-0383

Munteanu A, Bibu N, Nastase M, Cristache N, Matis C (2020) Analysis of practices to increase the workforce agility and to develop a sustainable and competitive business. Sustainability 12(9):3545. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093545

Napier E, Liu SY, Liu J (2024) Adaptive strength: unveiling a multilevel dynamic process model for organizational resilience. J Bus Res 171:114334

Nielsen BB, Wechtler H, Linglin Z (2023) Disasters and international business: Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. J World Bus 58(4):101458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2023.101458

Nivetha P, Sudhamathi S (2021) Survival strategies for businesses during Covid-19 lockdown. Shanlax Int J Manag 8(3):79–82

Nuwayhid I, Zurayk H (2019) The political determinants of health and well-being in the Lebanese uprising. Lancet 394(10213):1974–1975. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32907-1

Oldekop JA, Horner R, Hulme D, Adhikari R, Agarwal B, Alford M, Bakewell O, Banks N, Barrientos S, Bastia T, Bebbington AJ, Das U, Dimova R, Duncombe R, Enns C, Fielding D, Foster C, Foster T, Frederiksen T, Gao P, Zhang YF (2020) COVID-19 and the case for global development. World Development 134:105044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105044

Omrane A, Kammoun A, Seaman C (2018) Entrepreneurial burnout: causes, consequences, and way out. FIIB Business Rev 7(1):28–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714518767805

Orvos J, SpringerLink (Online service) (2019) Achieving business agility: strategies for becoming pivot ready in a digital world. APress, Berkeley, CA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-3855-4

Pacheco I (2020) Shopify, suddenly worth $117 billion, is one of the biggest pandemic winners. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/shopify-suddenly-worth-117-billion-is-one-of-the-biggest-pandemic-winners-11599557400reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink . Accessed December 2021

Pal R, Torstensson H, Mattila H (2014) Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises—an empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. Int J Prod Econ 147:410–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.031

Peñarroya-Farell M, Miralles F (2022) Business model adaptation to the COVID-19 crisis: Strategic response of the Spanish cultural and creative firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technol Mark Complex 8(1):39

Peñarroya-Farell M, Miralles F (2021) Business model dynamics from interaction with open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technol Mark Complex 7(1):81

Pla-Barber J, Villar C, Ghauri P (2020) The internationalization of SMEs: building models for long-term development. BRQ Bus Res Q 23(2):88–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420916330

Polinkevych O, Khovrak I, Trynchuk V, Klapkiv Y, Volynets I (2021) Business risk management in times of crises and pandemics. Montenegrin J Econ 17(3):99–110. https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2021.17-3.8

Prayag G, Muskat B, Dassanayake C (2024) Leading for resilience: fostering employee and organizational resilience in tourism firms. J Travel Res 63(3):659–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875231164984

Raj M, Sundararajan A, You C (2020) COVID-19 and digital resilience: evidence from uber eats (March 22, 2021). NYU Stern School of Business, 2021. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3625638  or  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3625638

Rani A, Salanke P (2023) A bibliometric analysis on business and management research during COVID-19 pandemic: trends and prospects. IMIB J Innov Manag 1(2):233–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/ijim.221148834

Ravichandran T (2018) Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. J Strateg Inf Syst 27(1):22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.002

Reis J, Amorim M, Melão N, Cohen Y, Rodrigues M (2020) Digitalization: a literature review and research agenda. In: Proceedings on 25th International joint conference on industrial engineering and operations management–IJCIEOM: the next generation of production and service systems vol 25. Springer International Publishing, pp 443–456

Ricciardi F, Zardini A, Rossignoli C (2016) Organizational dynamism and adaptive business model innovation: the triple paradox configuration. J Bus Res 69(11):5487–5493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.154

Ronzon T, Buck J, Eckstein J (2019) Making companies nimble-from software agility to business agility: a conversation with the authors [insights]. IEEE Softw 36(1):79–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/ms.2018.2874321

Ross J (2017) Speculative method in digital education research. Learn Media Technol 42(2):214–229

Russell AR, Frisone M, Frumkin P (2023) Layoffs during a pandemic results from an experiment on the management practices of nonprofit organizations and business firms. Nonprofit Manag Leadership 34(4):825. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21593

Samantha G (2018) The impact of natural disasters on micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs): a case study on 2016 flood event in western Sri Lanka. Procedia Engineering 212:744–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.096

Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Q 27(2):237–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036530

Schroeder P, Anggraeni K, Weber U (2019) The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. J Ind Ecol 23(1):77–95

Seetharaman P (2020) Business models shifts: impact of covid-19. Int J Inf Manage 54:102173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102173

Shafi M, Liu J, Ren W (2020) Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises operating in Pakistan. Res Glob 2:100018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2020.100018

Shajrawi A, Aburub F (2023) Impact of ERP usage on service differentiation: role of mediating effect of organizational agility. Arab Gulf J Sci Res 41(3):359–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/AGJSR-06-2022-0085

Silverman BS, Nickerson JA, Freeman J (1997) Profitability, transactional alignment, and organizational mortality in the US trucking industry. Strateg Manag J 18(S1):31–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+%3c31::AID-SMJ920%3e3.0.CO;2-S

Singh AK, Vinodh S (2017) Modeling and performance evaluation of agility coupled with sustainability for business planning. J Manag Dev 36(1):109–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2014-0140

Stone EF, Hollenbeck JR (1989) Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: empirical evidence and related matters. J Appl Psychol 74(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.3

Sutton RI, Eisenhardt KM, Jucker JV (1986) Managing organizational decline: lessons from Atari. Organ Dyn 14(4):17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(86)90041-0

Tallon PP, Pinsonneault A (2011) Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation model. MIS Q 35(2):463–486. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044052

Teece DJ (2012) Dynamic capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action. J Manage Stud 49(8):1395–1401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01080.x

Teece DJ (2015) Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. Eur Econ Rev 86(2016):202–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.11.006

Teece D, Peteraf M, Leih S (2016) Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. Calif Manage Rev 58(4):13–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13

Verma S, Gustafsson A (2020) Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: a bibliometric analysis approach. J Bus Res 118:253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.057

Villar EB, Miralles F (2021) Purpose‐driven improvisation during organisational shocks: case narrative of three critical organisations and Typhoon Haiyan. Disasters 45(2):477–497

Wall T, Bellamy L (2019) Redressing small firm resilience exploring owner-manager resources for resilience. Int J Org Anal (2005) 27(2):269–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2018-1364

Wang Z, Lin S, Chen Y, Lyulyov O, Pimonenko T (2023) Digitalization effect on business performance: role of business model innovation. Sustainability 15(11):9020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119020

Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (1999) Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. Res Org Behav 21:81–123

Welch S (1975) Sampling by referral in a dispersed population. Public Opinion Q 39(2):237-245. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748151

Wenzel M, Stanske S, Lieberman MB (2020) Strategic responses to crisis. Strateg Manag J 41:7–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3161

Werner S, Brouthers LE, Brouthers KD (1996) International risk and perceived environmental uncertainty: the dimensionality and internal consistency of miller’s measure. J Int Bus Stud 27(3):571–587. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490144

Whitman ZR, Kachali H, Roger D, Vargo J, Seville E (2013) Short-form version of the benchmark resilience tool (BRT-53). Meas Bus Excell 17(3):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2012-0030

WHO (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Retrieved October 16, 2020, from https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19 -:~:text=WHO announced COVID-19,on 11 March 2020

WHO (2020) Weekly operational update on COVID-19 - 6 November 2020. Retrieved November 6, 2020, from https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-operational-update-on-covid-19---6-november-2020

Yunita T, Sasmoko S, Bandur A, Alamsjah F (2023) Organizational ambidexterity: the role of technological capacity and dynamic capabilities in the face of environmental dynamism. Heliyon 9(4):e14817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14817

Zahari AI, Manan DIA, Razali FM, Zolkaflil S, Said J (2024) Exploring the viability of remote work for SME. J Open Innov 10(1):100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100182

Zahra SA (1993) Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: a taxonomic approach. J Bus Ventur 8(4):319–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90003-N

Zawya (2020) Half of Lebanese businesses could close in 2020: Head of the Beirut Traders Association. Retrieved October 20, 2020, from https://www.zawya.com/mena/en/economy/story/Half_of_Lebanese_businesses_could_close_in_2020_Head_of_the_Beirut_Traders_Association-SNG_177212706/ - :~:text=BEIRUT%3A As many as 50,closures outside of the capital

Zhang Y, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2009) Vulnerability of community businesses to environmental disasters. Disasters 33(1):38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01061.x

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Jamal Maalouf

TBS-Research Center, University of Toulouse Capitole, Toulouse, France

Lynn Chahine

American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Amine Abi Aad

ESSCA School of Management, Angers, France

Kevin Sevag Kertechian

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynn Chahine .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Summary highlights

Contributions of the paper : The paper sheds light on business resilience, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, when environmental hostility was exceptionally high. Accordingly, different factors that may influence business resilience, and their impact on operational sustainability, were examined.

Research questions/purpose : To understand whether business agility and adaptability can lead to resilience, and whether environmental hostility and digitalization influence this relationship.

Methodology : Quantitative research supported by SPSS and PROCESS macro to analyze survey data collected from 243 participants, using hierarchical moderated regressions.

Results/findings : The findings suggest that agility was favorably associated with resilience. However, whereas environmental hostility was a positive moderator of this connection, the interaction effect of digitization and agility was not significant.

Limitations : This study relied on referral and snowball sampling in its recruitment of participants and relied on self-reported responses to survey questions.

Practical implications : This study elucidates the importance of digitalization in today’s business world, encouraging managers to adopt and integrate such tools into their work, and to be alert of possible hostile environments where they conduct their work. .

Recommendations for future research : Future studies may expand to a more generalizable sample of participants, and examine other factors that might influence these relationships, such as governmental support and corporate innovativeness.

Digitalization Scale.

Please answer the below 6 items as best fits your firm and based on the following Likert scale:

Our company is able to cope with technological changes easily.

Our company has the resources to operate remotely.

Our employees are technologically friendly.

Our company has made a smooth transition onto online platforms.

Most of our operations are currently online.

We were easily able to digitally adapt to the COVID-19 restrictions.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Maalouf, J., Chahine, L., Abi Aad, A. et al. Determinants of business resilience: Investigating the roles of business agility, digitalization, and environmental hostility during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Int Entrep (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-024-00357-6

Download citation

Accepted : 25 June 2024

Published : 07 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-024-00357-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Environmental hostility
• Sustainability
• Hostilité environnementale

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research