8 min read
The Holopraxic Statement: How to Formulate the Research Question for Your Thesis
Within the methodological framework of any thesis, there is one element that connects everything you decided before with everything you will do afterward: the holopraxic statement. It is the question that gives your research its meaning. Yet it is also one of the most misunderstood (and most avoided) concepts among those writing a thesis.
Much of this has to do with its name. “Holopraxic statement” sounds technical, almost intimidating. But once you break it down, it turns out to be exactly what you were looking for from the start: the precise question your research is going to answer.
In this article we will look at exactly what it is, why it matters more than the generic research question you were most likely taught at your university, how it is built, and which mistakes you should avoid before moving forward.
Where does “holopraxic” come from?
The word comes from two Greek roots: holos (totality, integration) and praxis (action oriented toward a goal). A holopraxic statement is therefore not merely a research question. It is a statement that integrates the totality of the research action into a single formulation.
This is how Dr. Jacqueline Hurtado de Barrera defines it within the framework of the holistic understanding of science: the holopraxic statement is the linguistic expression that articulates the event of study (what is being researched), the research purpose (why it is being researched), and the context (under what conditions), in a question that is coherent with the chosen research holotype.
This is what sets it apart from the “research question” that many thesis writers know: that generic formulation written as a formality before moving on to the objectives. The holopraxic statement is not a formality. It is the conceptual core of the project.
The relationship between the holopraxic statement and the general objective
If you have already read the article on the general objective, you will recognize this idea: the general objective is the compass of your thesis. Well, the holopraxic statement is the map that compass needs in order to find its bearings.
The two are essentially two expressions of the same research starting point:
General objective: states it in declarative form: “To analyze the relationship between…”
Holopraxic statement: states it in interrogative form: “What is the relationship between…?”
They are two sides of the same coin. And here lies the first mistake most thesis writers make: they formulate one without thinking about the other. The result is that the general objective points in one direction while the research question points in another.
In the holistic understanding of science, the holopraxic statement and the general objective must be coherent by definition. If the general objective says “to describe,” the holopraxic statement must ask about characteristics, properties, or dimensions. It cannot ask about causes, solutions, or predictions.
The three components of the holopraxic statement
A well-formulated holopraxic statement contains, explicitly or implicitly, three elements:
1. The event of study
This is what is being researched. It may be one event or several related events. For example: “organizational climate,” “coping strategies,” “academic motivation and school performance.” Without a clear event of study, the question is left empty of content.
2. The research purpose
This is determined by the research holotype. If the holotype is descriptive, the purpose is to characterize. If it is explanatory, the purpose is to identify causes. If it is projective, the purpose is to design. This purpose must be implicit in the structure of the question and in the interrogative used.
3. The context
This defines the specific conditions under which the event is studied: the unit of study, the time period, the geographic or institutional setting. Without context, the statement does not delimit the research and can be interpreted in ways so broad that it becomes unworkable.
How to build it: step by step
Building the holopraxic statement is not a matter of writing a generic question and adjusting it afterward. It is a process that starts from decisions you have already made:
- Confirm your holotype. Before formulating any question, you need to know what type of research you are doing. A holopraxic statement for descriptive research has a different structure from one for projective research. If you are still unclear about your holotype, read the article on the 10 research holotypes on Tutoeris.
- Identify the event of study. Extract it from your general objective. If your objective says “To analyze the factors that influence university dropout,” your event of study is “the factors that influence university dropout.”
- Delimit the context. In which units of study? Over what period? In which institution or setting? This delimitation should already be present in your general objective. If it is not, now is the time to add it.
- Formulate the question using the correct interrogative for your holotype:
| Holotype | Interrogative |
|---|---|
| Descriptive | What are the characteristics of…? / How does… manifest itself? |
| Analytical | To what extent does X align with [norm/criterion]…? / How does X present itself in relation to [theoretical framework]…? |
| Explanatory | What factors influence…? / What is the cause of…? |
| Projective | What design / proposal / model would make it possible to…? |
| Evaluative | To what extent did program X achieve…? |
- Check for coherence. Read your holopraxic statement and your general objective side by side. Do they address exactly the same point? If the statement asks about something the objective has no intention of answering, there is an inconsistency you must correct before moving forward.
Examples by holotype
Let us look at how the holopraxic statement varies according to the type of research. In each case, notice how the interrogative used corresponds exactly to the purpose of the holotype:
Descriptive research
What are the characteristics of the leadership style of administrators at public educational institutions in the Libertador municipality during 2025?
Analytical research
To what extent does the teacher performance evaluation process in public schools in the Libertador municipality during 2025 align with the standards established in the current regulations of the Ministry of Education?
Explanatory research
What are the factors that influence graduate students at Latin American universities abandoning the research process?
Projective research
What characteristics should a methodological support program have in order to reduce the thesis abandonment rate in master’s degree programs?
Evaluative research
To what extent did the peer tutoring program implemented at University X during 2024 improve its students’ graduation indicators?
“What are the characteristics?” requires describing. “What factors influence?” requires explaining. “What characteristics should it have?” requires designing. The interrogative is not cosmetic: it defines the type of knowledge you are going to produce.
Common mistakes when formulating it
Mistake 1: the interrogative does not match the holotype
The most common one: research declared “descriptive” whose question begins with “Why…?” Descriptive research does not investigate causes. If the question asks about causes, the correct holotype is explanatory. The mismatch between the two creates methodological problems that persist all the way to the defense.
Mistake 2: the statement is too broad
“How does technology affect education?” is not a holopraxic statement. It is a philosophical question. A holopraxic statement has precise units of study, a delimited context, and a defined period. Without those elements, you cannot design an operational study.
Mistake 3: the statement does not match the general objective
If the statement asks about X and the objective proposes doing Y, there is a structural problem. Coherence between the two is not optional. That discrepancy, however minor it may seem, generates inconsistencies in the methodological design that the thesis committee will indeed detect.
Mistake 4: multiple questions where there should be one
The holopraxic statement is a single one. There may be derived questions or subdimensions of the event of study, but the central statement is unique and corresponds directly to the general objective. If you have two main questions, you probably have two research projects, not one.
What does this mean for your thesis?
If you have already formulated your general objective, building the holopraxic statement should be an exercise in coherence, not in creativity. The question is already in the objective: you simply have to extract it and give it its correct interrogative form.
Do this exercise now:
- Take your general objective and transform it into interrogative form.
- Verify that the interrogative you used corresponds to your research holotype.
- Check that the event of study is explicit in the question.
- Confirm that the context is delimited (who, where, when).
If all four answers are affirmative, you have a well-formulated holopraxic statement. If any of them is not, that is exactly the point where you need to work before continuing.