Research Hypotheses in Your Thesis: When You Need One and How to Write It

Few things cause a thesis writer more anxiety than the question from their advisor: “What is your hypothesis?” And few things generate more methodological confusion than the hasty answer that usually follows it.

The problem is not that thesis writers do not know what a hypothesis is. The problem is the belief, deeply rooted in many university programs, that every piece of research needs a hypothesis. That belief is mistaken, and formulating a hypothesis when it is not warranted is not a harmless formality: it distorts the entire methodological design.

In this article we will clarify, from the holistic understanding of science developed by Dra. Jacqueline Hurtado de Barrera, what exactly a research hypothesis is, in which types of research it applies, when it does not apply, and how to formulate it correctly when it is in fact needed.

What Is a Research Hypothesis?

A research hypothesis is a tentative proposition that establishes a relationship between two or more variables (or events of study) and that can be tested empirically. It is not a random guess, nor a question, nor a statement of what the researcher wishes would happen.

The hypothesis fulfills a very specific function in the research process: it anticipates a possible answer to the research question and orients the design toward gathering the data needed to confirm or reject that anticipation.

From the holistic understanding of science, the hypothesis is not a universal requirement for all research. It is an instrument specific to certain holotypes. Using it out of context is a methodological error, not a demonstration of academic rigor.

The Root of the Misunderstanding: The Hypothetico-Deductive Model

For decades, the hypothetico-deductive method was presented as the scientific method par excellence. Under that model, all research had to follow the sequence: problem → hypothesis → data collection → verification. And if your research did not fit that scheme, it seemed that something was wrong.

The problem is that this model accurately describes confirmatory research alone —and, in part, predictive research— but it does not adequately describe exploratory, descriptive, analytical, projective, evaluative, or interactive research, and it also fails to capture precisely how explanatory research works, which, instead of starting from a hypothesis, generates one as a result.

The holistic understanding of science puts an end to that confusion by proposing that the method be selected according to the research holotype and the level of knowledge one seeks to generate, not the other way around. From that perspective, the hypothesis appears when the holotype calls for it, not because it is a bureaucratic requirement.

In Which Research Holotypes Does the Hypothesis Apply?

Among the ten holotypes of the holistic understanding of science, the hypothesis applies in only two:

Confirmatory Research

This is the only holotype that requires a hypothesis as a mandatory element. Confirmatory research starts from a hypothesis derived from an already developed theory —frequently built in a previous explanatory study— and designs the entire empirical process to verify whether that proposition holds true in reality or not. Without a hypothesis, there is nothing to confirm.

Confirmatory hypothesis: “Organizations with formal employee well-being programs show significantly lower staff turnover rates than those without such programs.”

Predictive Research

Predictive research requires having previously gone through an explanatory study that built the theory on which the prediction is based. With that theory as a starting point, the holopraxic statement is formulated toward the future: “How will event A manifest itself if conditions X, Y, and Z are maintained?” The hypothesis here is predictive: it expresses the anticipated behavior based on that theory.

Predictive hypothesis: “If the university dropout rate in engineering programs maintains the trend observed between 2020 and 2024, by 2027 more than 40% of those enrolled will not complete the second year of their program.”

In Which Holotypes Does the Hypothesis NOT Apply?

This is the part that surprises thesis writers the most: eight of the ten holotypes do not require a hypothesis. Formulating one in those contexts is not academic rigor: it is a methodological inconsistency.

Holotype	Why it does not require a hypothesis / what it uses instead
Exploratory	There is not enough prior knowledge to anticipate results. The research seeks emergent categories. A hypothesis would presuppose what is not yet known.
Descriptive	The objective is to characterize the event as it is. It does not anticipate relationships or causes: it describes properties, dimensions, and characteristics.
Analytical	It analyzes the event based on an analytical criterion (norm, law, theoretical framework). That criterion guides interpretation; there is nothing to verify empirically in the form of a hypothesis.
Comparative	It establishes similarities and differences between groups or contexts. It neither anticipates nor verifies causal relationships.
Explanatory	It uncovers the causes, reasons, and processes that generate an event. It does not start from a hypothesis: it generates one as a result. It is the step prior to confirmatory research.
Projective	It designs a proposal, model, or solution. There is no causal relationship to verify: the objective is to build something that solves a problem.
Interactive	It intervenes in reality and observes the changes. It works with participatory processes in which a closed hypothesis would be incompatible with the dynamics of the process.
Evaluative	It assesses the extent to which a program met its objectives. It uses predefined evaluation criteria, not causal propositions to verify.

Two of these holotypes deserve a special clarification because they cause the greatest confusion:

Analytical research uses an analytical criterion: a norm, law, theoretical framework, or interpretive system that allows the researcher to reorganize the dimensions of the event and uncover aspects that are not evident. That criterion fulfills a structuring function that a hypothesis could not, because here the aim is not to verify a causal proposition but rather to understand an event from a specific perspective.

Explanatory research does not start from a hypothesis: it generates one as a result. It is the process of discovering causes, reasons, and processes. Once that explanatory theory already exists, it is confirmatory research that takes that hypothesis and subjects it to empirical verification. Confusing the two is one of the most frequent errors in methodological design.

How to Formulate a Hypothesis Correctly

When the holotype does require a hypothesis, its formulation is not arbitrary. It must meet certain criteria to be methodologically valid:

1. It Must Be Falsifiable

A hypothesis that cannot be proven false is not scientifically useful. “Good leaders have good character” is not a hypothesis: there is no way to operationalize “good.” By contrast, “leaders with high emotional intelligence scores receive better performance evaluations from their teams” is indeed falsifiable.

2. It Must Express a Relationship Between Variables or Events

The hypothesis does not describe a single event: it relates at least two. That relationship may be one of association, causality, or prediction, depending on the holotype. “Companies in the financial sector have high turnover levels” is a descriptive proposition, not a hypothesis.

3. It Must Be Consistent With the Holopraxic Statement and the General Objective

If the holopraxic statement asks “What is the relationship between X and Y?”, the hypothesis must express that relationship in affirmative form: “There is a positive relationship between X and Y in population Z.” If there is no consistency among the three elements, the design has a structural fracture.

4. It Must Include Operationalized Variables

The variables in the hypothesis must be measurable or recordable with the techniques and instruments you have selected. A variable you cannot operationalize with your resources should not appear in your hypothesis.

Basic Structure of a Well-Formulated Hypothesis

If [condition or independent variable], then [expected result in the dependent variable], in [specific context].

Or in its direct affirmative form:

There is a [positive / negative / significant] relationship between [variable 1] and [variable 2] in [units of study / context].

Types of Hypotheses According to Their Function

Beyond the holotypes, hypotheses can be classified by their function within the design:

• Research hypothesis (Hi): the main proposition that the researcher expects to corroborate.
• Null hypothesis (H0): it asserts that the relationship or effect proposed in Hi does not exist. It serves as a statistical point of contrast in quantitative designs.
• Alternative hypothesis (Ha): it proposes a relationship different from that of Hi, used when exploring directions other than the one anticipated.
• Working hypothesis: a provisional version that guides the early stages of the design and can be reformulated as the research advances.

In most undergraduate theses and many graduate ones, it is enough to formulate the research hypothesis. The null and alternative hypotheses are more characteristic of designs involving statistical significance testing.

Common Mistakes When Formulating Hypotheses

Mistake 1: Formulating a Hypothesis When the Holotype Does Not Require One

A thesis writer conducting descriptive research who writes “it is presumed that the characteristics of leadership are positive” is not formulating a hypothesis: they are writing an expectation with no foundation. And worse still, they are distorting their design by adding an element that their research can neither nor should verify.

Mistake 2: The Hypothesis Does Not Match the General Objective

If the general objective is “to describe the characteristics of X” but the hypothesis states “X has a positive impact on Y,” there is a fracture: the objective does not seek to measure impact, and the design will not allow for it either.

Mistake 3: Variables That Cannot Be Operationalized

Hypotheses with terms such as “quality of life,” “well-being,” or “success” without an operational definition are unworkable. Each variable in the hypothesis must have a definition that allows it to be measured or recorded with the selected techniques.

Mistake 4: Writing the Hypothesis as a Question

The hypothesis is a statement, not a question. “Is there any relationship between X and Y?” is the holopraxic statement. The hypothesis answers that question tentatively: “There is a positive relationship between X and Y.”

What Does This Mean for Your Thesis?

Before writing any hypothesis, answer this question: “Does my research holotype require verifying an anticipated proposition?”

If your research is exploratory, descriptive, projective, or evaluative, the answer is no. You do not need a hypothesis. You can state this explicitly in your methodology: “Given the [descriptive / projective / etc.] nature of this research, no research hypothesis is formulated, since the objective is not to verify a proposition but rather to [describe / design / evaluate].”

If your research is confirmatory or predictive, the answer is yes. Formulate the hypothesis, making sure that it:

1. Is consistent with your holopraxic statement and your general objective.
2. Expresses a relationship between operationalizable variables.
3. Can be subjected to verification with the techniques you have selected.
4. Is a statement, not a question or a wish.