Tutoeris Blog

Research note-taking: how to record your sources without losing a single idea

Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT

You read a brilliant article, highlight half a page, and move on. Two weeks later, when you're writing your theoretical framework, you remember the idea, but not which author it came from, or on what page, or whether it was a direct quote or your own interpretation. That gap is one of the most common causes of stress, rework, and, in the worst case, unintentional plagiarism in a thesis.

The solution has a name and centuries of academic history: research note-taking. In this guide we explain what it is, why it remains essential even in the digital age, and how to make your note cards step by step, with an example of how Tutoeris builds it into your research process.

What is research note-taking?

Note-taking is the process of recording, in an orderly way, the relevant information from each source you consult, together with its identifying details. Each record is called a note card, and it works as a minimum unit of knowledge: an idea, a piece of data, or a quotation, always accompanied by its exact origin (author, year, page).

In the holistic understanding of science, note-taking is the fieldwork of your noological grounding, that is, the theoretical, conceptual, referential, and historical support for your study. It's not about piling up summaries for their own sake, but about capturing, in a traceable way, the material you'll later use to build your argument.

Why do note-taking? The problems it solves

Many thesis writers skip this step because it looks like "extra work." In reality, note-taking prevents the three problems that cost the most time at the end:

Recording while you read gives you traceability: every idea stays tied to its source and its page, so citing stops being a desperate hunt the night before the deadline. It gives you clarity, because by forcing you to distinguish between a direct quote, a paraphrase, and your own comment, you always know which words are the author's and which are yours, the most effective barrier against accidental plagiarism. And it gives you control over your progress, since a set of note cards is a visible inventory of what you already have and what you still need to cover your theoretical framework.

Types of note cards you need to know

Not all note cards serve the same purpose. These are the four you'll use most in your thesis:

The direct-quote card reproduces, in quotation marks, a fragment exactly as it appears in the source; use it when the author's wording is so precise that it's worth quoting verbatim. The summary card condenses, in your own words, the main ideas of a long text. The paraphrase card reformulates a specific idea in your own wording, without losing the original meaning. And the commentary card captures your own reflection, criticism, or connection with other sources, and it's often the one that becomes the seed of your analysis.

How to make a note card step by step

Recording a source is simple if you follow a fixed order. First, identify the type of source (book, article, thesis, or web page), because that determines which details you need. Write down the complete identifying details: author, year, title, publisher or journal and, if it's digital, the URL and the date accessed. Then record the content, always indicating the exact page and clearly marking whether it's a direct quote, summary, paraphrase, or comment. Finish with a keyword or topic that links the card to the section of your theoretical framework it belongs to.

That last detail, the keyword, is the bridge between note-taking and the prior planning of your search. If you already organized what you were going to look for with a topic matrix, each card fits into a specific cell and your theoretical framework practically organizes itself.

Example of a direct-quote card

Topic: Math anxiety (Theories) Source: Ashcraft, M. H. (2002), Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences, Current Directions in Psychological Science, p. 181. Type: Direct quote Content: "Math anxiety is defined as a feeling of tension and apprehension that interferes with the manipulation of numbers and the solving of mathematical problems." Own comment: Works as a base operational definition for my study event; contrast with the definition by Richardson and Suinn (1972).

Note-taking in Tutoeris: recording without losing the thread

Building and maintaining a system of note cards by hand is valuable, but also tedious, and that's where it usually gets abandoned. Inside the Tutoeris Project Hub, note-taking stops being an isolated task and becomes part of your process.

Once you've defined your holopraxic statement and planned your search with your topic matrix, the platform helps you record each source, linking it directly to the topic and the study event it corresponds to. Tutoeris's artificial intelligence helps you tell a direct quote apart from a paraphrase, keep your reference details consistent, and detect which cells of your theoretical framework still lack bibliographic support.

True to our principle of ethical AI use, Tutoeris does not read or take notes for you: it teaches you to do it well and removes the administrative friction, so your energy goes into what really is yours, understanding and interpreting what you read.

Frequently asked questions about note-taking

Does note-taking still make sense if I use Zotero or Mendeley? Yes. Reference managers organize your sources and generate citations, but note-taking records the content and your interpretation. They're complementary: the manager stores the reference, the card stores the idea and its topic.

How many note cards do I need for my thesis? There's no fixed number. The sign that you have enough is that every cell of your theoretical framework (every intersection of study event and type of knowledge) has bibliographic support.

Does note-taking prevent plagiarism? It drastically reduces the risk, because it forces you to separate the author's words from your own from the start. Accidental plagiarism usually comes from ambiguous notes where you can no longer tell who said what.

Suggested next step

Before you keep reading sources, define your note-card format and decide which identifying detail you'll always record. If you haven't planned what to look for yet, start with your topic matrix: with a clear map, every card you create will have an exact place in your theoretical framework.

Ready to take notes without losing the thread? Create your free project in Tutoeris and record your sources directly onto your topic matrix.

Methodological Coherence: When Your Thesis Speaks With a Single Voice

Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT

There is a kind of problem in theses that goes unnoticed until the day of the defense. It is not an isolated mistake, not a poorly worded citation or a wrong piece of data. It is something deeper: a misalignment among the pieces of the methodological design that keeps the research from working as an integrated whole.

The general objective says "to describe," but the holopraxic statement asks about causes. Or the theoretical framework supports an explanatory study, yet the design is cross-sectional and non-experimental. Or the conclusions answer questions that the specific objectives never raised.

That is a lack of methodological coherence. And in the holistic understanding of science, developed by Dr. Jacqueline Hurtado de Barrera, this coherence is not a vague ideal: it has a precise structure, it can be verified before moving forward, and there are concrete tools to diagnose and correct it.

What Methodological Coherence Means in the Holistic Understanding of Science

Within the holistic understanding of science, methodological coherence is the congruence among all the components of the research process: the holopraxic statement, the level of depth, the research holotype, the objectives, the design, the data-collection techniques, the analysis techniques, and the conclusions.

Hurtado de Barrera describes a coherent study as one in which each component can be derived from the others. If you know the holopraxic statement, you can deduce the general objective. If you know the objective, you can identify the holotype. If you know the holotype, you can determine the type of design, the appropriate techniques, and the type of result that will be obtained. That is the logic of the research hologram: from any single piece, the whole should be visible.

The opposite—the lack of congruence—produces what the author calls methodological inconsistencies: a design that is incongruent with the type of research, a type of research that is incongruent with the objectives, objectives that are incongruent with the conclusions. Each inconsistency carries over and is amplified in the later phases.

The Research Hologram: Coherence Made Visible

The research hologram is a visual tool proposed by Hurtado de Barrera to represent the entirety of the study from just one of its components. Its name comes from holography: just as a hologram contains the complete image of the object within each of its fragments, in a coherent study each component contains enough information to deduce the others.

Here is how it works in practice: you take the holopraxic statement and, from it, derive a chain:

The level of depth — how deep is the knowledge I aim to produce?
The research holotype — what type of result am I going to generate?
The general objective — what is the verb that describes that result?
The specific objectives — what intermediate steps do I need to cover?
The units of study and the population — on whom or what will the analysis fall?
The research design — how am I going to collect the data?
The techniques and instruments — with what am I going to collect them?
The analysis techniques — how am I going to process the information?
The type of conclusions — what form will my final results take?

If at any of those steps the derivation does not work—if the chosen design does not correspond to the holotype, or the analysis techniques are not suited to the type of data that will be obtained—there is an inconsistency. The hologram makes it visible before it is too late.

The Four Levels of Depth and Their Holotypes

The holistic understanding of science organizes the ten research holotypes into four levels of depth that range from lower to higher complexity. Understanding these levels is essential for coherence, because the level determines the holotype, which determines the objective, which determines the verb, which determines the design.

These are the four levels according to Hurtado de Barrera (2010):

Level	Holotype	Guiding Question	Verb of the Objective
Perceptual	Exploratory	What is in the context? What can be asked about the event?	Explore, inquire, discover
Perceptual	Descriptive	What is the event like? What are its characteristics?	Describe, characterize, classify, diagnose
Apprehensive	Analytical	To what extent does the event fit a criterion? What judgment does it deserve?	Analyze, interpret, critique, judge, assess
Apprehensive	Comparative	How do two or more groups differ from or resemble one another with respect to the event?	Compare, contrast, differentiate, collate
Comprehensive	Explanatory	Why does the event occur? What are its causes?	Explain, identify causes, theorize
Comprehensive	Predictive	How will the event manifest in the future if certain conditions are met?	Predict, estimate trends, anticipate scenarios
Comprehensive	Projective	What proposal or design will solve the identified problem?	Propose, design, formulate, create
Integrative	Interactive	What changes does the intervention generate on the event under study?	Modify, intervene, apply and evaluate the process
Integrative	Confirmatory	Is the hypothesis derived from the explanatory theory verified?	Confirm, verify, test, contrast
Integrative	Evaluative	To what extent did the program or intervention achieve its objectives?	Evaluate, estimate impact, estimate effectiveness

The level of depth is not a free choice: it is determined by the state of knowledge on the topic and by the research purpose. If descriptions and prior analyses of the event under study already exist, you can start from a comprehensive level. If they do not exist, you must begin at the perceptual level.

The Holistic Spiral: Why You Cannot Skip Levels

One of the most important principles for methodological coherence is what Hurtado de Barrera calls the holistic spiral: each holotype at a higher level requires as its starting point the results of the previous level. Not out of methodological whim, but for a logical reason: you cannot explain what has not yet been described, nor predict what has not been explained, nor confirm a hypothesis without an explanatory theory to support it.

In practical terms, this means:

An explanatory study requires that descriptions and analyses of the event already exist (in the literature or as earlier stages of the same study).
A projective study requires that the causes of the problem to be solved have already been identified—otherwise, the proposal lacks any foundation.
A confirmatory study requires a hypothesis derived from an already existing explanatory theory. You cannot confirm what no theory has explained.
An evaluative study requires that the intervention has already been applied, and that effectiveness criteria have been defined beforehand.

The mistake of skipping levels is one of the most frequent in master's and doctoral theses: researchers who propose a projective study without evidence of having gone through the explanatory phase, or who declare a confirmatory study without having a theory to support their hypothesis.

The solution is not always to redo all the work. Sometimes it is enough to reaffirm the holotype at the correct level according to the real conditions of the study, or to incorporate the explicit acknowledgment of the prior research that covers the earlier stages.

The Chain of Coherence: From the Question to the Conclusions

Methodological coherence is not an abstract property: it is a concrete chain of correspondences among components. If just one of those correspondences breaks, the chain loses its function.

This is the complete chain, with the most frequent breaking points at each link:

Holopraxic Statement → Level → Holotype

The interrogative used in the statement determines the level and the holotype. "To what extent does X fit [criterion]?" is analytical. "Why does X occur?" is explanatory. "What proposal would allow X to be solved?" is projective. If the interrogative does not correspond to the declared holotype, there is an inconsistency from the very outset.

Holotype → Verb of the General Objective

The holotype determines the verb. A descriptive study cannot have "to explain" or "to design" as its objective. An analytical study uses verbs such as analyze, interpret, judge, assess. An explanatory study uses explain, identify causes, theorize. A projective study uses propose, design, formulate. The wrong verb changes the type of research, even if the researcher does not intend it.

General Objective → Specific Objectives

The specific objectives are the intermediate stages needed to reach the general objective. A projective study, for example, must include as specific objectives at least a description of the problem, a diagnosis of its causes, and the construction of the criteria for the proposal. If the specific objectives do not cover those stages, the leap to the projective level has no support.

Objectives → Research Design

The design describes how the data will be collected. It cannot contradict the holotype: a confirmatory study requires a design that makes it possible to establish causal relationships (experimental, quasi-experimental). A descriptive study can use cross-sectional designs. An interactive study requires a design that includes the application of an intervention and the tracking of its effects.

Design → Analysis Techniques → Conclusions

The analysis techniques must be congruent with the type of data the design produces and with the result expected according to the holotype. An analytical study does not conclude with statistical frequencies: it concludes with a well-founded judgment about the event in relation to the analysis criterion. An explanatory study concludes with a causal explanation, not with a characterization. Conclusions that are not derived from the stated objectives—however interesting they may be—break the chain.

The Most Frequent Inconsistencies in Theses

In her work, Hurtado de Barrera identifies the patterns of inconsistency that appear most frequently in research projects. These are the most common ones in the context of graduate theses:

1. The Holopraxic Statement Contains Several Different Studies

A question such as "What are the characteristics of leadership in schools, and what proposal would allow it to be improved?" mixes a descriptive holotype (to characterize) with a projective one (to propose). The result is a study with unclear objectives and results, riddled with inconsistencies among its various aspects. The holopraxic statement must be a single one, coherent with a single holotype.

2. The Type of Research Does Not Match the General Objective

This is the inconsistency most often detected by thesis committees: the researcher declares that the study is "descriptive," but the general objective reads "To design a program for…" To design is projective. The type of research is not decided by the researcher on a whim: it is determined by the verb of the general objective.

3. The Specific Objectives Skip Stages

In a projective study whose specific objectives go directly to the design of the proposal, without describing the problem or analyzing its causes, the final proposal has no methodological foundation. The committee will detect it because there is nothing in the body of the work that justifies the proposal.

4. The Conclusions Answer Questions That Were Never Posed

Sometimes, during the research, interesting findings emerge that the researcher includes in the conclusions, even though they were not among the objectives. That is not an enrichment: it is another inconsistency. The conclusions must be derived directly from the objectives set at the beginning. Whatever is left over goes into the recommendations or the agenda for future research.

What Does This Mean for Your Thesis?

Verifying the methodological coherence of your thesis is not a review you do at the end, once everything is written. It is a verification that must be carried out before moving from one phase to the next, and the research hologram is the tool for doing so.

This is the basic verification exercise:

Take your holopraxic statement. Does the interrogative you use correspond to the holotype you declare?
Take your general objective. Does the verb you use belong to the holotype you declare? Review the table of correspondences.
Take your specific objectives. Do they cover the earlier stages that your holotype requires as a starting point? Is there any level skip without justification?
Take your research design. Is it congruent with the holotype? Does it allow you to collect the type of data needed to produce the expected result?
Take your analysis techniques. Do they produce the type of result that corresponds to your holotype: a characterization, a judgment, an explanation, a proposal?
Take your conclusions. Can each conclusion be linked directly to a specific objective?

If all six answers are congruent, your thesis has methodological coherence. If any of them is not, that is the exact point where you need to make corrections before continuing.

Population and sample in your thesis: how to define who takes part in your research

Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT

One of the moments that paralyzes thesis writers the most arrives when they have to answer this question in the methodological chapter: "what is your population and what is your sample?". And the answer most of them give isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't complete either.

The underlying problem is that most methodology textbooks present these concepts in a rigid way, disconnected from the rest of the design. So the thesis writer learns to define population and sample, but not to understand why they exist, when they apply, and how they relate to the holotype of their research.

From the holistic understanding of science, proposed by Dr. Jacqueline Hurtado de Barrera, these concepts are framed within a broader system that includes the unit of study, the sources, and the informants. Understanding that complete architecture is what makes the difference between a solid methodological framework and one the committee will question.

Before talking about population: the unit of study

In the holistic understanding of science, the central term is not "population" but the unit of study. Why? Because "population" carries connotations that don't always apply: it suggests a group of people, when in fact your research might study documents, organizations, events, processes, objects, or situations.

The unit of study is the singular element from which the relevant information for the research is obtained. It is the basic unit of analysis. Everything else (population, sample, data-collection techniques) is defined in relation to it.

Examples of units of study:

In research on academic performance: the student (not the institution, not the classroom).
In research on business management: the company (or the manager, depending on the event of study).
In research on organizational communication: the message or the document (not the person who wrote it).
In research on teaching practices: the class session (not the teacher or the student separately).

Defining the unit of study well before talking about "population" avoids one of the most common mistakes: confusing who takes part in the research with what is being studied in it.

What is the population in a research project?

The population —or, more precisely in holistic terminology, the holos— is the total set of units of study that share the characteristics defined in the event of study and that are part of the research context.

Three elements define it:

The characteristics of the event of study: what qualities must the units have to be part of this research?
The space-time context: where and during what period are they located?
The boundaries of access: which ones are available to be studied?

Example: if your research seeks to describe the internal communication strategies of small manufacturing companies in the city of Caracas during 2025, your population is the set of all small manufacturing companies in Caracas active in that period. That is your reference universe.

When do you need a sample?

Here comes the point that generates the most confusion: not every research project requires a sample.

The sample is a subset of the population that is selected when it is not possible or convenient to study all of the units. It only makes sense when:

The population is too large to be addressed in full.
Time, budget, or access resources don't allow studying the whole universe.
The research holotype implies generalizing results (broad descriptive, explanatory, predictive, confirmatory).

Conversely, if your research is qualitative single-case, or you study a complete organization, or your holotype is projective and you only need information from a specific group to design a proposal, you may work with all available cases without drawing a formal sample.

The practical rule: if you can access your entire population and it makes sense to do so given your research question, work with all of it. If you can't or don't need to, you define a sample.

Types of sampling: which one applies to your thesis

There are two broad families of sampling. The choice between them depends on your research holotype and on what you intend to do with the results:

Probability sampling

It means that every unit of the population has a known probability (greater than zero) of being selected. It is the type of sampling that allows you to statistically generalize the results to the universe. Its most common variants are:

Simple random: each unit is selected randomly without restriction.
Stratified: the population is divided into subgroups (strata) and a proportional sample is drawn from each.
Cluster: already-formed groups (classrooms, departments, regions) are selected and studied fully or partially.
Systematic: one unit is selected from each defined interval (every 10th, every 20th, etc.) from a random starting point.

It applies mainly to research of broad descriptive, comparative, explanatory, predictive, and confirmatory holotype, where the results aim to represent the whole population.

Non-probability sampling

The selection of units does not follow strict randomness criteria. It does not allow statistical generalization, but it is completely valid and rigorous when the research does not seek that kind of generalization. Its most-used variants are:

Purposive or by criteria: the units that best represent the phenomenon are selected according to theoretical criteria defined by the researcher. Widely used in qualitative research.
Snowball: one unit leads to the next, useful when the population is hard to access (specific groups, experts, closed communities).
Convenience: you work with the available units. Valid in exploratory studies or when access is the only limitation.
Quota: proportions of certain profiles are set and units are selected until each quota is filled.

It applies to exploratory, analytical, projective, interactive, and evaluative research, where the depth of analysis matters more than statistical representativeness.

How to calculate the sample size

If probability sampling applies, the sample size is not an arbitrary decision. It is calculated with a formula that considers:

The population size (N)
The desired confidence level (usually 95%, equivalent to z = 1.96)
The acceptable margin of error (e, frequently 5%)
The estimated proportion of the characteristic in the population (p = 0.5 if unknown)

The most widely used formula for finite populations is:

n = (N × z² × p × q) / (e² × (N − 1) + z² × p × q)

Where q = 1 – p. If the population is very large or unknown, the formula for infinite populations is used: n = z² × p × q / e².

For non-probability research, the theoretical saturation criterion replaces the statistical calculation: you keep incorporating units until the information obtained stops adding new elements to the analysis.

The most frequent mistake: confusing who informs with what is studied

This is the critical point where most thesis writers make the most costly mistake: confusing the unit of study with the source or with the informant.

Let's revisit the previous blog article ("Unit of study, source, and informant: who's who in your thesis?"):

The unit of study is what is being investigated: the company, the student, the text, the process.
The source is where the information comes from: a document, a record, a database.
The informant is who provides the information about the unit of study: it can be the unit itself (a worker answering about their own experience) or someone external (a supervisor reporting on their team).

The classic error: a study on managerial practices in small companies that declares the managers of those companies as its "population." The managers are the informants, not the unit of study. The unit of study is the company. This mistake seems minor, but it changes how you write the design, the techniques, and the interpretation of the data.

What does this mean for your thesis?

Before writing the population-and-sample section of your methodological chapter, answer these four questions in order:

What is my unit of study? (the concrete entity the analysis will fall upon)
What is the totality of those units in my context? (that is your population)
Can and should I study all of them, or do I need to select a subset? (this determines whether there is a sample and what type of sampling applies)
Who or what will provide the information about those units? (that is your informant or your source)

If you answer those four questions clearly, the population-and-sample section of your thesis writes itself. The problem, in almost every case, is that people try to answer the fourth without having properly resolved the first.

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

Mon, 11 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT

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:

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

The Holopraxic Statement: How to Formulate the Research Question for Your Thesis

Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Research Approaches: How to Define Your Methodological Strategy

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Within the methodological framework of any thesis, there is one component that tends to be overlooked or defined at random: the approach. And yet, it is the decision that determines how you draw near to your event of study. Not what you investigate, but how you confront it.

If the method is the path you travel, the approach is the attitude with which you walk it: whether you go in with open eyes or with a fixed map, whether the route is decided by you or by the community under study, whether you describe what you see from the inside or from the outside.

In the Holistic Understanding of Science, proposed by Dr. Jacqueline Hurtado de Barrera, approaches are not rigid labels. They are complementary criteria that the researcher consciously combines in order to build a methodology coherent with their question.

Where does the word "approach" come from?

Etymologically, it derives from ad (toward, nearness) and borda (the outer side of a vessel). To approach is to move beyond the edge in order to come into contact with the reality we wish to know. This is no ordinary metaphor: the approach implies an intention, a direction, and a manner of drawing near.

This definition matters because it dismantles a common error: assuming that the approach is merely a synonym for a "qualitative perspective" or a "quantitative perspective." In holistic research, that is neither sufficient nor accurate.

The three criteria of the approach

Holistic methodology defines approaches along three axes that can be combined with one another. None excludes the others.

1. By degree of structuring: chaological vs. cosmological

The chaological approach comes from khaos (open space). It is an approach with minimal prior structuring. The researcher suspends preconceptions and pre-established categories in order to capture what emerges from reality. It is the appropriate approach when the event has not been studied sufficiently, when the culture under investigation is unfamiliar, or when one is searching for emergent categories that do not exist in the literature.

A word of caution: chaological does not mean improvised. It requires meticulous records, active listening, and a great capacity for observation.

The cosmological approach starts from cosmos (order). The researcher arrives with a solid conceptual framework, operational definitions, and theories that are already established. It is the suitable approach when the phenomenon is well documented and the objective is to verify whether it occurs under specific conditions.

2. By level of participation: endogenous vs. exogenous

The endogenous approach (or participatory approach) occurs when the community under study is itself an active part of the process. The research concern arises from within the group, and the researcher takes on the role of facilitator. It is especially relevant in studies of social transformation or community intervention.

The exogenous approach stems from the researcher's interest. Participants contribute information without necessarily becoming involved in the methodological decisions. It is the most common model in descriptive or analytical research with large samples.

3. By perspective of interpretation: emic vs. etic

The emic approach centers its gaze on those being studied. The researcher seeks to understand the event from the frame of reference of the units of study themselves: their categories, their language, their worldview. It calls for empathy and what Hurtado calls epoché: bracketing one's own judgments in order to see reality as the other experiences it.

The etic approach operates from the researcher's frame of reference. The analysis rests on the technical language and the scientific categories of the disciplinary field, regardless of whether they coincide with what participants perceive about themselves.

What is the point of defining the approaches?

The most direct answer: to avoid falling into the trap of the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy.

For decades it was assumed that if you began in a chaological manner, you could not be cosmological afterward; or that being chaological obliged you to be emic and endogenous at the same time. The holistic understanding breaks with this on the basis of evidence: approaches are continuous and combinable.

This means that a study can, for example, begin with a chaological approach to identify emergent categories within a community group (emic) and then move to a cosmological approach to measure those same categories quantitatively in a larger sample (etic). There is no contradiction here; there is strategic design.

Defining the approaches also has direct implications for:

Internal validity: The correct approach ensures that you gather the information your question genuinely requires. A study of emotional experiences with a poorly applied etic approach distorts the reality of the participants.
The selection of techniques: The level of structuring determines whether you use closed instruments (scales, questionnaires) or open techniques (unstructured interviews, ethnographic observation).
The ethics of the process: Deciding whether those being studied participate actively (endogenous) or merely supply data (exogenous) is a decision that affects the relationship with the communities under study.

What does this mean for your thesis?

The question you should ask yourself is not "is my thesis qualitative or quantitative?" but rather three more precise questions:

How much prior structure do I bring to the event? → Chaological, cosmological, or a combination across different phases.
Who leads the research process? → The researcher (exogenous) or the community (endogenous)?
From which perspective do I interpret the data? → My own as the researcher (etic) or that of the participants (emic)?

The answers to these three questions define your methodological approach and, from there, the coherence of the entire design.

Generate your approach map directly in Tutoeris

Suggested next step: Take your current specific objectives. For each one, answer the three questions: How much prior structure do I need? Who leads the process? From which perspective do I interpret? If the answers are not yet clear, that is exactly the work the approaches section in Tutoeris is designed to do.

Unit of Study, Source, and Informant: Who's Who in Your Thesis?

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT

In the fascinating world of research methodology, there are three concepts that often get confused, raising doubts that can weaken a thesis from its very foundation: the unit of study, the source, and the informant. Are they the same thing? Can they be used interchangeably?

The answer is a resounding no. Drawing these distinctions clearly is not mere formality; it is the key to designing a coherent study and reaching valid conclusions. Let's untangle these concepts once and for all!

1. Unit of Study: The Protagonist of Your Research

Think of the unit of study as the protagonist of your film. It is the WHAT or WHO being investigated; the being or entity that holds the characteristic you want to study. Every conclusion in your thesis will revolve around it.

Defining it precisely, starting from your holopraxic statement (your research question), is essential. If you don't know who your protagonist is, your research will be ambiguous.

Examples of Units of Study:

People: Teenagers at a school.
Groups: Families in a community.
Institutions: A university's curriculum design.
Documents: An author's literary works.
Others: A plot of land, a political speech, a blood sample.

2. Source: Where Do You Get the Information?

If the unit of study is the protagonist, the source is the "library" or the "witness" you turn to in order to learn about it. It is WHERE you obtain the information to answer your question.

Here the relationship is crucial:

When the unit of study IS the source: This is the ideal scenario. You obtain the information directly from your protagonist. Example: You interview the teenagers (unit of study) directly about their habits.
When the source is DIFFERENT from the unit of study: Sometimes you can't reach the protagonist. Example: Your unit of study is teenagers, but you obtain the information by interviewing their parents (the source). In this case, your conclusions will always be about the teenagers, not about what the parents think.

Types of sources: Living Sources (people), Documentary Sources (books, articles, archives), Periodical Sources (magazines, newspapers), and so on.

3. Informant: The Expert Voice from Within

The informant is a special type of source: the "local guide." This is a person who provides you with information from their own perspective and understanding of the situation. Their role is fundamental in studies that seek to understand meaning from within (an emic approach).

The informant doesn't just give you data; they offer you their worldview, their beliefs, and their feelings in their own words. That is why researchers usually work with only a few informants, in order to explore their perspective in depth.

Defining Your Research Roles Without Confusion

Defining these three roles precisely from the outset is essential. This is where Tutoeris's step-by-step artificial intelligence guidance helps you avoid methodological errors.

In the Project Hub, within the Methodological Framework section, Tutoeris doesn't leave you staring at a blank page. It presents a series of guided questions so you don't leave anything to chance:

First, it helps you identify the nature of your unit of study, asking whether it consists of people, objects, institutions, or documents.
Next, it asks you to specify how you will obtain the information, prompting you to consider whether it will come directly from the units, through existing documents, or whether you will generate data artificially.
Finally, if you work with living sources, Tutoeris asks you about the context of data collection, prompting you to clarify whether it will take place in their natural environment or in an environment controlled by you (such as a laboratory).

By working through this logical sequence, you not only clarify your own ideas but also enable Tutoeris to use your answers to help you write a methodological section that is coherent, precise, and free of confusion for your thesis.

Data Collection Techniques for Your Thesis

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT

You already have your research question, your objectives, and your design. Now comes the moment of truth: heading out into the field (or to the library) to gather the data that will bring your thesis to life. But how do you do it? With an interview, a survey, an observation?

Welcome to the stage of data collection techniques and instruments. Making the right choice here is crucial to the validity of your entire research project. Today we'll give you a complete guide so you can select your methodological toolkit with the confidence of an expert.

First, an important clarification:

Technique: This is HOW you are going to gather the information (e.g., the interview).
Instrument: This is the specific TOOL you use to apply the technique (e.g., the interview's set of questions).

How do you choose your technique? The criteria that define your strategy

This selection is not a matter of preference; it is a strategic decision. It depends on these key factors of your research methodology:

The Nature of Your Event of Study: How does what you want to study manifest itself? If its "traces" are visible, observation is ideal. If they are internal opinions, you will need to ask questions.
Your Approach: Chaological or Cosmological?
- Chaological Approach: If you are seeking openness and flexibility and expect to encounter the unexpected, you will use open techniques such as the in-depth interview or anecdotal records.
- Cosmological Approach: If you have a clear focus and are looking for precision, you will use structured techniques such as questionnaires with closed-ended questions or scales.
Your Source of Information: Do you obtain the data directly from your units of study (people, groups), or from sources that report on them (documents, other informants)? The first option offers greater validity.
The Type of Data: Numbers or Words? Although a research project may use both, your primary interest defines the technique:
- Numerical (Quantitative) Data: If you are looking to measure magnitudes or intensities, you will use techniques that generate numbers, such as scales or closed-ended questionnaires.
- Verbal/Iconic (Qualitative) Data: If you are looking to describe processes or characteristics, you will use techniques that generate words or images, such as open-ended interviews or observation.
Your Holotype and Research Design: Your type of research (e.g., Descriptive) and your design (e.g., field-based, documentary) already predispose you toward certain techniques. Everything is connected!

The researcher's toolkit: main techniques and instruments

Here is a summary of the most common tools for thesis data collection:

1. Observation

When to use it: When you can directly observe the event.
Instruments: Observation guide, Checklist, Rating scale, Anecdotal record.

2. Interview

When to use it: When you need the information and experience of another person.
Types: Structured interview (rigid, like an oral questionnaire) or unstructured interview (flexible, in-depth).
Instrument: Interview guide.

3. Survey

When to use it: To obtain information from many people, often with less interaction.
Instruments:
- Questionnaire: With open-ended or closed-ended questions.
- Scales: To measure attitudes or opinions, such as the well-known Likert Scale (Strongly agree, Agree, etc.).
- Psychometric tests.

4. Documentary Review

When to use it: When your data is found in documents (books, archives, reports, videos, etc.).
Instruments: Recording matrices, analysis matrices, category matrices.

5. In-Depth Sessions

When to use it: When you create an environment for a group of people to interact and generate information.
Common Techniques:
- Focus Group (Discussion group): Ideal for exploring group perceptions and opinions.
- Delphi Technique: To consult a panel of experts anonymously.
- Q-Sort Technique: For participants to rank concepts or ideas according to their own judgment.

Tutoeris: your assistant for selecting techniques and instruments

Matching all of these criteria with the right technique and instrument can be a real headache. This is where Tutoeris's artificial intelligence becomes your personal methodological advisor.

In the Methodological Framework of your Project Hub, Tutoeris actively guides you:

Technique Suggestion: Based on your already-defined holotype and research design, the AI presents you with the most coherent techniques. It will tell you: "For a descriptive study with a field design like yours, the most appropriate techniques are the survey and observation."
Instrument Selection: If you choose "Survey," the platform helps you decide on the instrument. It will ask you: "Are you looking for detailed answers or data that is easy to quantify?" If you choose the second option, it will suggest: "A questionnaire with a Likert Scale is ideal. Would you like to start drafting the questions?"
Instrument Draft: The AI can even provide you with an initial draft of questions for your questionnaire or interview guide, based on the events of study you defined in your research question.

Tutoeris doesn't just give you options; it explains the why, ensuring that your choice is informed, coherent, and methodologically flawless.

4 Key Criteria for Determining the Research Design of Your Thesis

Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:00:00 GMT

In our last session, we defined the "WHAT" of your research through the holotypes or types of research. Now it is time to define the "HOW": the strategy you will use to find the answers. Welcome to the world of research design.

Understanding this concept is essential to the validity of your thesis. And the first thing to clarify is a fundamental point: research design is not the same as the type of research.

The Type (Holotype) is defined by your general objective. It is the level of knowledge you aim to reach (to describe, explain, propose, etc.).
The Design is defined by your procedure. It is the strategic plan you will follow to collect your data in a valid and reliable way.

How Do I Identify My Thesis Design? The 4 Key Criteria

Choosing a design is not about picking a name from a list at random. It is the result of making strategic decisions based on four methodological criteria. Think of it as setting up the GPS for your data collection.

1. Where Does Your Data Come From? (Sources and Context)

Field design: When you gather information from living sources (people, groups) in their natural setting. It is the most common in the social sciences.
Laboratory design: When you collect data in an artificial or controlled environment that you create.
Documentary design: When your sources are documents (books, articles, photos, archives, videos). Be careful! It is not just about reading; it is about analyzing those documents to generate new knowledge.
Mixed-source design: When you combine living and documentary sources.

2. When Will You Collect the Data? (Temporality)

Cross-sectional (or synchronic) designs: When you study an event at a single point in time, like a photograph.
Longitudinal designs: When you study an event over time, like a film, to reconstruct its evolution.
- Retrospective: When the film has already played out and you look toward the past.
- Contemporary: When you record the film as it unfolds in your present.

3. How Broad Is Your Focus? (Scope)

Single-event designs: When you focus on a single event or main variable.
Multiple-event designs: When you consider multiple events of study or variables.

4. Do You Intervene or Only Observe? (Researcher Control)

This criterion applies mainly if your holotype is integrative (interactive, confirmatory, or evaluative).

Non-experimental design: You do not manipulate any variable; you simply observe and analyze what already exists. Most field and documentary designs fall into this category.
Ex post facto design: You study the effects of something that already happened without your intervention (for example, the impact of a law that has already been implemented).
Quasi-experimental design: You apply an intervention (a workshop, a program), but you do not have full control over all the variables (e.g., you cannot assign participants at random).
Experimental design: You have maximum control. You manipulate variables, randomly assign subjects to groups (control and experimental), and seek to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Overwhelmed by the Options? Tutoeris Helps You Define Your Design

Choosing the right combination of these criteria can be complex. A mistake here can affect the validity of your thesis. This is where the methodological guidance of Tutoeris's artificial intelligence becomes indispensable.

In Tutoeris's Project Hub, after defining your holopraxic statement and your holotype, the platform guides you through the Methodological Framework section. It does not leave you on your own; instead, it asks you the key questions:

"Will your main source of data be documents or people in their natural setting?"
"Will you collect the data at a single point in time or over a period in order to observe its evolution?"
"Does your research involve manipulating some situation, or will you only observe what already exists?"

Based on your answers, Tutoeris's artificial intelligence not only suggests the right combination but also helps you draft the formal statement for your thesis. At the end of the process, the platform will present you with a clear statement such as:

"This study is framed within a field, cross-sectional, and multiple-event design."

This gives you the correct terminology, ensures the coherence of your research methodology, and gives you the confidence to move forward.

Conclusion

Research design is your action plan for gathering evidence rigorously. By understanding these four criteria, you stop guessing and take control of your methodology. It is the difference between an erratic journey and a well-planned expedition that will lead you to valid and reliable results in your thesis.

Types of Research for Your Thesis: The Definitive Guide to the 10 Holotypes

Thu, 14 Aug 2025 00:00:00 GMT

When you begin a thesis, one of the first and most crucial decisions is to define its "personality"—that is, the type of research you are going to carry out. This choice is not a mere formality; it is the compass that sets the course for your entire journey, from the methodology all the way to the conclusions.

Before we dive in, let's clear up a common confusion: the type of research is not the same as the research design. The type refers to the outcome and the degree of complexity of the knowledge you are pursuing (the WHAT you achieve), whereas the design refers to the procedure for collecting data (the HOW you do it).

The guiding star: Your general objective

To know what type of research your thesis is, you only need to look at your guiding star: the general objective. This objective, with its verb in the infinitive, reveals the level of depth and the kind of knowledge you aspire to build. "To describe" leads you down a very different path than "To explain" or "To propose."

According to the methodology of holistic research, there are ten research holotypes. Think of them as the ten broad paths your thesis can take.

The 10 research holotypes

Here we present each holotype, or type of research. Each one represents a stage of knowledge with its own rules and purposes.

Exploratory Research
- Purpose: To probe, discover, or explore topics that are little known or vaguely defined. It is the starting point when almost nothing has been written. Its outcome is a set of clearer questions for future research.
- Associated verb: To explore.
Descriptive Research
- Purpose: To detail the properties and characteristics of an event, person, group, or phenomenon. It focuses on "what is it like?" or "what are its characteristics?".
- Associated verb: To describe.
Analytical Research
- Purpose: To reinterpret an event by seeking new relationships among its components in order to gain a deeper understanding.
- Associated verb: To analyze.
Comparative Research
- Purpose: To establish similarities and differences between two or more groups or situations. It does not seek causes; it only compares.
- Associated verb: To compare.
Explanatory Research
- Purpose: To find the why behind phenomena, seeking cause-and-effect relationships. It is the type of research that aims to build theories.
- Associated verb: To explain.
Predictive Research
- Purpose: To anticipate future scenarios or forecast how an event will behave, based on trends and prior analyses.
- Associated verb: To predict.
Projective Research
- Purpose: To develop a proposal, a plan, a program, a model, or a design to solve a practical problem. It is the realm of inventions and solutions.
- Associated verb: To propose (or to design, formulate, create…).
Interactive Research
- Purpose: To modify an existing situation and observe the changes. It is closely tied to Action Research, where the goal is to transform the reality being studied.
- Associated verb: To modify or To interact.
Confirmatory Research
- Purpose: To verify whether a hypothesis, derived from an existing theory, holds true in reality. It is the classic hypothesis-testing research.
- Associated verb: To confirm.
Evaluative Research
- Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of a program, project, or intervention to see whether it met its objectives.
- Associated verb: To evaluate.

Not sure about your type of research (holotype)? Tutoeris helps you

Choosing among these ten holotypes can feel overwhelming. How can you be certain that your verb and your question match the correct type of research?

This is where Tutoeris's artificial intelligence becomes your methodological advisor.

As you already know, when Tutoeris helps you formulate your holopraxic statement (your research question), it doesn't just hand you the question. Next to each option the AI suggests, it clearly shows you the corresponding research holotype.

This feature eliminates the guesswork. The moment you select your question, you have already defined with certainty the type of thesis you are going to carry out.

If you choose a question that begins with "How do… influence?", Tutoeris will indicate that your holotype is Explanatory.
If you select "What design could…", the platform will show you that your holotype is Projective.

In addition, the tool will arrange all the project's options and settings to fit the selected type of research, so that everything you generate along the way remains methodologically coherent. In this way, artificial intelligence not only speeds up your work but also prevents you from making one of the most common methodological mistakes, ensuring the coherence of your thesis from the very first moment.

Conclusion

Defining the type of research for your thesis means giving your project a clear sense of direction. It is not a label; it is the statement of intent about the level of knowledge you are going to generate. By understanding the ten holotypes and aligning your general objective with one of them, you will have a clear map for each of the following stages of your research.

The Topic Matrix: The Secret to Building a Complete Theoretical Framework

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT

Beginning the theoretical framework or the theoretical foundation of a thesis is, without a doubt, one of the greatest challenges any researcher faces. Feeling lost in a vast jungle of information, among articles, books, and theories, is a common experience. But what if you had a map to navigate this complex territory?

That key methodological tool exists, and it is called the Topic Matrix. In this definitive guide, we will teach you step by step how to build a theoretical framework in an organized way, transforming the chaos of the literature search into a clear and efficient plan of conquest for your research.

What Is a Topic Matrix and What Is It Used For in Your Thesis?

Think of the Topic Matrix as a two-way table, a GPS for your academic research. Its goal is simple yet powerful: to help you organize and plan your search for information in order to build your noological foundation (the theoretical, conceptual, referential, and historical support for your study).

Instead of a blind literature search, this matrix allows you to:

Anticipate and plan: You will know exactly what kind of information you need for your theoretical framework before you start searching.
Focus your search: It helps you concentrate on the information you truly need, avoiding wasted time on irrelevant data.
Ensure complete coverage: It guarantees that your state of the art and research background are thorough, leaving out no crucial aspect.
Track your progress: It works as a checklist for monitoring the information you already have and what you still need to find.

Key Components: How to Structure Your Topic Matrix

For this map to be effective, it must contain the following structural elements:

The Compass (The Header): At the top goes your complete holopraxic statement (your research question). It is the north that guides your entire literature search.
Your Points of Interest (The Rows): In the first column, you break down the components of your thesis question:
- Main topic: The general area of your study.
- Events of study: The specific phenomena or concepts you will investigate.
- Units of study: The people, groups, or entities you will analyze.
- Context: The specific place and situation of your research.
The Layers of the Map (The Columns): These represent the types of knowledge you need for your noological foundation:
- Theories: The classic theoretical framework.
- Definitions: The conceptual framework of your events of study.
- Research studies: Your background or state of the art.
- Laws: Legal aspects relevant to your topic.
- History: The historical context that frames your problem.
- Statistical data: Figures that provide support and magnitude to your research.
- Epistemic model: Your philosophical stance on how knowledge is generated.

How Is the Topic Matrix Used in Practice?

Here lies the key to its power. The cells of the matrix, where a row and a column intersect, are not for pasting the information you find. They are for noting down what specific information you need to search for. It is your action plan.

For example, if your event of study is "Self-esteem in adolescents" and the column is "Theories," the corresponding cell should read: "Search for theories on the development of self-esteem in adolescence (e.g., Maslow, Rogers, etc.)."

Tutoeris: Your Topic Matrix Created with Artificial Intelligence

Building this matrix from scratch requires deep methodological reflection. But what if you had an assistant to help you draw the initial map? This is where Tutoeris's artificial intelligence takes this thesis tool to the next level.

Within the Tutoeris Project Hub, once you have defined your holopraxic statement, the platform uses its artificial intelligence to automatically generate a Topic Matrix.

But it does not just create the empty table. Based on the analysis of your question, the AI populates the cells with specific and strategic search suggestions.

Imagine your event of study is "mathematics anxiety":

In the "Theories" cell, the AI might suggest: "Investigate Cognitive Load Theory and its relationship to mathematics anxiety."
In the "Research studies" cell, it might propose: "Search for recent studies on the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions in reducing mathematics anxiety in students."

This artificial intelligence tool for theses does not do the work for you; it does something better: it gives you a detailed plan of attack, helps you discover connections you might have overlooked, and makes the process of building your noological foundation much faster and more efficient.

Mastering the Topic Matrix is a crucial step toward building a solid theoretical framework in your thesis. Stop wandering aimlessly; draw your map and conquer your research with the confidence of an expert explorer.

How to Justify or Defend Your Thesis Using Artificial Intelligence

Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT

You already have a research question, your holopraxic statement. You already have a destination, your objectives. Now comes the moment of truth: defending your idea before the world. Why does it matter? Why this topic? Why now?

Welcome to the art of justification. It is not a mere requirement; it is the engine of your thesis, the passionate and logical argument that gives your work life and purpose.

Today we are going to break down how to build a solid, compelling, and methodologically flawless justification. And the first thing is to understand its essence: the justification is the "why" behind your research (its engine), and it should not be confused with the "what for" (the objectives and purposes you hope to achieve).

Types of arguments for your justification

To build a solid defense, you need an arsenal of arguments. Your justification can rest on one or several of these powerful reasons:

Needs or Gaps: You argue that your thesis is necessary because a problematic situation exists, something that is not working the way it should. Example: "We investigate the quality of learning because multiple studies reveal deficiencies in the current educational system."
Concerns or Curiosities: Your research is justified because there are unresolved questions, contradictions in previous studies, or a knowledge gap that no one has explored in that context or from that perspective.
Motivations or Interests: The topic is of great interest to you, is valued by the scientific community, or is crucial for society. Be careful! This type of argument must always be supported by references to authors who validate that importance.
Contradictions: You justify your study by pointing out a paradox or an evident clash between two realities. Example: "We investigate the quality of learning because, although global demands are rising, results in our region are deteriorating."
Potentialities: Your research is based on taking advantage of a characteristic or resource of the context that has not yet been tapped and that your study could help develop.
Opportunities: You argue that it is the perfect moment to investigate because of favorable circumstances: a new policy, a technological advance, a sudden institutional interest, and so on.

What exactly should you justify?

A bulletproof justification not only defends the general idea but also every one of the decisions you made when formulating your holopraxic statement. Get ready to respond to this cross-examination:

Why that topic? Of all the possible topics, why this one?
Why those events of study? Within your topic, why do you focus on those specific variables or characteristics?
Why those units of study? Why did you choose those people, groups, or objects for your thesis?
Why that context? What makes that geographic, social, or cultural setting special or relevant?
Why that temporal perspective? Why is it important to do it now or during that specific period?
Why that theoretical approach? Why do you rely on that theory and not another?
Why that level and holotype of research? Why is your study, for example, descriptive and not explanatory? What gap does that decision fill?

Tutoeris: Your Argument Matrix for a solid justification

Justifying each of these aspects can seem like a monumental task. This is where Tutoeris introduces one of its most powerful and useful tools: the Argument Matrix.

Once you have selected your holopraxic statement in the Project Hub, Tutoeris's artificial intelligence does not leave you staring at a blank page. Instead, it breaks your question down into its key elements (topic, events of study, units of study, context, etc.) and creates a matrix, an organized table where, for each component, the AI generates initial arguments that support your choice.

Imagine your research question is: "What are the characteristics of the perception of online competence, gaming time in video games, and self-esteem in adolescents aged 15 to 18 in Chile during the year 2025?"

Tutoeris's Argument Matrix would present you with something like this:

Component: Events of study (online competence, gaming time, self-esteem)
- AI-Generated Argument: "The interrelationship between the use of online platforms, gaming habits, and psychological health such as self-esteem is an area of growing academic and social concern, justifying a study that addresses them together."
Component: Units of study (adolescents aged 15 to 18)
- AI-Generated Argument: "Late adolescence is a critical stage for the consolidation of identity and self-esteem, and at the same time a period of maximum engagement with video games, which makes this population group especially relevant for the study."
Component: Context (Chile)
- AI-Generated Argument: "Chile has high rates of internet penetration and video game consumption in Latin America, yet few local studies analyze the specific impact of these activities on the self-esteem of its adolescents, justifying the need for contextualized research."
Component: Holotype (Descriptive)
- AI-Generated Argument: "Despite the general interest, there is a lack of basic descriptive data characterizing how these variables present themselves together in the Chilean population, so a descriptive study is a fundamental first step before advancing to explanatory or correlational research."

This matrix does not hand you the final text. It gives you something far more valuable: a strategic starting point for each section of your justification. With these AI-generated arguments, your task as a researcher becomes clear and focused: to find the theoretical support, the data, and the author citations that back up each of these points.

The result is an incredibly complete, well-structured, and robust justification section, where every methodological decision in your thesis is solidly defended.

Avoid These Mistakes: How Do You Build Chapter 1 of Your Thesis?

Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT

If you have ever stared at a blank page when starting your thesis, you know that Chapter I can feel like a mountain to climb. Known as "The Problem" or "Contextualizing the Topic," this chapter is much more than an introduction; it is the foundation on which your entire research project will be built. If the foundation is weak, the whole building is at risk.

Today we are going to demystify this chapter. First, we will walk you through its anatomy, pillar by pillar, according to research methodology. Then, we will show you how Tutoeris's artificial intelligence guides you in building this foundation in a logical, coherent, and stress-free way.

Anatomy of Chapter I: the pillars of your thesis

It is essential to understand that the order of these pillars is the way they are presented in the final report for clear communication, even though the process of creating them is far more dynamic.

1. General description of the problem situation / contextualizing the topic

This is where you paint the big picture. You answer the overarching question: "About what?". In this section, you describe in broad terms the phenomenon that caught your attention. You must make very clear the circumstances of time, place, and manner surrounding your topic, establishing the boundaries of your thesis.

2. Justification of the research

This pillar answers the "Why?" behind your study. The justification focuses on the needs, concerns, and motivations that led you to research this topic. It is not the place to talk about the future benefits or contributions of your study (those are "purposes"). Think of the justification as the fundamental reason, the spark that started it all.

3. Framing the holopraxic statement / research question

This is the heart of your project, the "seed of the research." As we saw in previous posts, the holopraxic statement is that precise question that captures everything you want to know. It must be so clear that it indicates exactly what you want to learn, about which event of study, in whom, and in what context. The final version you present here is the result of deep reflection and of having configured your noological grounding (your theoretical framework).

4. Objectives of the research (general and specific)

Finally, this section answers the "For what purpose?" of your thesis.

The General Objective: This is your final destination. It contains the holotype (the type of research) and the level of depth you will reach.
The Specific Objectives: These are your road map, the stages or steps you must take to reach that destination.

Always remember: objectives are achievements, not activities. Never include verbs such as "to survey" or "to interview" in an objective!

How does Tutoeris's artificial intelligence help you with Chapter 1?

Now that we know the pillars of Chapter I as they are presented, let's look at how Tutoeris, with its artificial intelligence, helps you build them in the correct methodological order.

Within your Project Hub in Tutoeris, the process is a step-by-step guide that avoids chaos and ensures coherence.

Your Starting Point: The Description of the Situation. Your journey begins here. You tell Tutoeris about the topic you are passionate about, describing the general context.
The Decisive Moment: Selecting the Holopraxic Statement. Tutoeris's artificial intelligence analyzes your description and proposes several professional research questions. Next to each one, it shows you its holotype. The moment you choose one, you have defined the DNA of your entire thesis.
Automated Coherence: Generating the Objectives. Like magic! Once you have selected your question, Tutoeris instantly generates the general objective and all the necessary specific objectives, guaranteeing perfect methodological alignment.
Argumentation with Purpose: Building the Justification. Only now that you have a destination (objectives) and a map (question) does Tutoeris guide you in building your justification. You will argue from solid ground, defending a clear and well-defined project.

And the grand finale… once you have completed these steps in the Hub, with a single click on "Download (DOCX)", Tutoeris assembles everything into a Word document, presenting the pillars in the formal order of Chapter I.

Stop seeing Chapter I as an obstacle and start seeing it as the first great victory on the path of your thesis. With clear guidance and a smart tool, you are ready to build something great.

The Specific Objectives of Your Thesis: The Map for Your Thesis

Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT

In our previous conversations, we established the holopraxic statement as the "seed" and the general objective as the "compass" of your thesis. Today, we will chart the precise route of that journey. We will discuss the specific objectives: the detailed map, the successive milestones that ensure you reach your destination with success and methodological rigor.

What Are Specific Objectives?

If the general objective is the final destination, the specific objectives are the planned stops, the partial and successive achievements that, when reached in order, ensure that the main goal of your thesis is fulfilled.

Within the holistic understanding of research, these are not mere tasks. They indicate the stages that must be covered in order to attain the general objective. Think of them as the rungs of the holistic spiral: to reach a complex level of knowledge, you must first have secured the previous levels.

5 Requirements for a Flawless Formulation in Your Thesis

The correct formulation of the specific objectives is just as vital as that of the general objective. The coherence of your entire study depends on them.

Correspondence with the general objective: Each specific objective must refer to an event of study contained within the general objective. If a specific objective introduces a new event, it most likely does not belong to that thesis.
A single achievement per objective: Each specific objective must point to a single achievement. It is incorrect to formulate "to analyze and compare…"; these must be two separate objectives.
Verbs and knowledge achievements: They must begin with an infinitive verb that represents a knowledge achievement, not a methodological activity. "Reviewing the literature" or "applying an instrument" are activities, not objectives. The product of an objective is reflected in the results; that of an activity, in the methodology.
Appropriate level of complexity: The specific objectives should be of lower complexity than the general objective. However, the final specific objective should, as a rule, match the degree of complexity of the general one in order to close the process. It is a serious error to formulate a specific objective at a higher level than the general one.
Do Not Include Techniques or Instruments: Never mention in the objective how you will do it. "To describe perceptions through surveys" is incorrect. The technique belongs in the methodology chapter.

Tutoeris: Building Your Methodological Roadmap

This is where the magic of Tutoeris, as an artificial intelligence assistant, transforms months of methodological planning into seconds of clarity. As you already know, once you choose your holopraxic statement and the holotype of your research, Tutoeris formulates the perfect general objective.

But it does not stop there. Tutoeris goes one step further and builds the complete scaffolding for your thesis: it automatically generates with AI all the specific objectives needed to attain your general objective.

How does it do this? Tutoeris analyzes the holotype and the level of complexity of your general objective and, drawing on the logic of the holistic spiral, determines all the prior stages you need to investigate. It then formulates a methodologically flawless specific objective for each of those stages.

This is how Tutoeris gives you more than just a list. It delivers a complete research plan, ensuring that you cover all the necessary knowledge foundations so that your final proposal (the design of the program) is feasible, relevant, and successful. This is what has traditionally been visualized in a holopraxic table, now generated intelligently.

In addition, Tutoeris knows when a "leap between stages" is possible. If, while configuring your project, you indicate that a clear diagnosis of the problem already exists (and you cite it in your noological foundation), the tool can omit the descriptive objective and begin at a more advanced stage.

Crucial Clarification: Operationalization of Events, Not Objectives

It is essential to reiterate a key concept that is often confused: research objectives are not operationalized. They are achievements, not variables. What gets operationalized are the events of study (the variables). Operationalization is the process of bringing an abstract event (such as "academic performance") to an observable plane so that it can be measured, but instruments are built to measure those events, not to measure the attainment of the objective itself.

In short, the formulation of specific objectives is a strategic act that charts the path of your thesis. By understanding their logic and their function, and with an ally like Tutoeris, you can transform an overwhelming methodological challenge into a clear and effective action plan toward the generation of knowledge.

References

Hurtado de Barrera, Jacqueline. (2012.). Metodología de la investigación. Guía para una comprensión holística de la ciencia. Cuarta edición. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Quirón-Sypal.

The General Objective: The Compass of Your Thesis

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT

In our previous post, we discussed the "seed" of all research: the holopraxic statement. Today, we will take the next logical step and delve into the element that gives that seed direction and purpose: the general objective.

If there is a cardinal point that guides the entire journey of a thesis, this is it. Far from being a mere formality, the general objective is the compass that orients the inquiry process, defines the kind of knowledge being sought, and, ultimately, determines the success and significance of your study.

The fundamental purpose of your thesis

The general objective, in essence, is the expression of a purpose or aim, directed toward reaching a result, a goal, or a specific achievement. It represents the "what for" of the research, that toward which your thesis is aimed. It is the study's point of arrival, indicating the level of complexity of the knowledge you aspire to build. A good thesis correlates directly with a properly formulated objective.

The key functions of the general objective

Guidance and Orientation: The general objective specifies the aim of the research in its broadest expectations. It serves as a constant point of reference for the thesis writer. With a clear objective, you know exactly where your work is headed and the kind of knowledge you want to generate.
Determining the Type of Research (Holotype): This is one of the most significant contributions of the holistic understanding of research. The general objective directly defines the holotype of research to be carried out. Unlike traditional epistemic models in which the method took precedence, in the holistic conception the method is subordinate to the objective. Thus, whether your thesis will be exploratory, descriptive, explanatory, projective, evaluative, and so on, is established according to the category of the objective you seek to achieve.
Methodological Coherence: The clarity of the general objective is vital for selecting the methodological design, the events of study, the data collection techniques and instruments, and the type of data analysis. Without a precise objective, it is impossible to choose a suitable instrument. Here a key process comes into play: operationalization. When the events in your thesis are abstract (e.g., "organizational culture," "emotional intelligence"), operationalization is the process of taking them from that abstract level to an empirical, observable plane, allowing you to measure them rigorously.

Requirements for a flawless formulation

For your thesis's general objective to be effective, it must adhere to specific and rigorous criteria:

A Single General Achievement: Your thesis must have a single general objective. Formulating multiple general objectives is a mistake that breeds imprecision and ambiguity, since it amounts to combining several investigations into one.
Aimed at New Knowledge: It must be oriented toward obtaining novel knowledge, not toward activities such as learning or mere documentation. Methodological activities (e.g., "administering surveys") are not research objectives.
A Single, Coherent Verb: It must begin with a single infinitive verb that represents the desired level of depth. A simple change in the verb (e.g., from "describe" to "explain") completely alters the holotype of the thesis.
Clear, Concise, and Direct: The wording must be straightforward, free of ambiguity and literary flourishes. The complexity lies in the achievement, not in the words.
Do Not Include Techniques or Instruments: Do not mention how you will do it (e.g., "through interviews…") in the objective. That belongs to the methodological framework.
Attainable and Distinct from Aims: The objective must be achievable through the completion of the thesis. It is essential to distinguish it from "aims," which are longer-term aspirations that go beyond the scope of your study (e.g., "contributing to world peace").
Correspondence with the Research Question: The general objective must directly answer your holopraxic statement, maintaining the same level of knowledge.

Tutoeris to the rescue: from the question to the general objective with artificial intelligence

As we saw in our previous post, Tutoeris, together with artificial intelligence, helps you explore the potential of your idea by generating a range of holopraxic statements (questions), each one corresponding to a distinct holotype of research.

But we do not stop there. We understand that coherence is the key to a solid thesis.

Once you select the holopraxic statement and the holotype that will guide your thesis, Tutoeris takes the next logical and crucial step: it automatically formulates the corresponding general objective.

This eliminates guesswork and guarantees perfect methodological alignment from the very beginning. The verb of the objective that Tutoeris generates will correspond exactly to the holotype you chose, and the rest of the statement will align with your research question.

Let's see it with our earlier example about "low performance in mathematics":

If you choose the Explanatory Holotype:
- Your Holopraxic Statement (Question): "How do the teacher's pedagogical strategies influence the development of mathematical anxiety…?"
- Your General Objective (Generated by Tutoeris): "Explain how the teacher's pedagogical strategies influence the development of mathematical anxiety…"
If you choose the Projective Holotype:
- Your Holopraxic Statement (Question): "What design of a peer tutoring program could be implemented to improve performance…?"
- Your General Objective (Generated by Tutoeris): "Design a peer tutoring program that makes it possible to improve performance…"

With this functionality, Tutoeris becomes your first methodological advisor, ensuring that the heart of your thesis (its objective) beats in perfect sync with its question.

References

Hurtado de Barrera, Jacqueline. (2012.). Metodología de la investigación. Guía para una comprensión holística de la ciencia. Cuarta edición. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Quirón-Sypal.

The Holopraxic Statement: The Research Question with AI

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT

Today we turn to the starting point of every rigorous project, the element that can determine the success or failure of our research or thesis: the question. Especially for those facing the challenge of a thesis, clarity from the outset is essential. Within the framework of the holistic understanding of science, we do not call this foundational element simply a "question," but rather the "holopraxic statement."

Understanding it is no mere academic exercise; it is the key to a thesis that is coherent, purposeful, and defensible.

What exactly is the holopraxic statement?

The "holopraxic statement" is defined as the phrase, question, or formulation that captures, in just a few words, what the researcher seeks to learn through the study or thesis being developed. Its power lies in its ability to state with total clarity "exactly what is to be known, about which event, in which units of study, and within what context."

This is not a term chosen at random. It is called "holopraxic" because, quite literally, it "contains and guides the entirety of the research praxis." It is, as the experts describe it, the "seed of the research."

Consider it through this powerful metaphor: the holopraxic statement is a "seed." Just as a seed contains all the genetic information needed for a living being to develop, the holopraxic statement contains everything needed to guide the research—and, by extension, the thesis—from beginning to end. It is this statement that "opens the research, orients the methods, guides the procedures, and on that basis the conclusions are reached."

Keys to "powering up" the seed of your thesis

For the seed of your thesis to germinate and bear fruit, it must be cultivated with precision. "Unlocking" its potential means adhering to very specific formulation criteria. Here are the keys:

Precision and Delimitation: The statement must be "condensed, brief, and concrete," as well as "precise and clear." It must answer unambiguously: What you want to know, about which characteristic, in whom, in what context or situation, and when.
Singularity and Relevance: There must be "a single holopraxic statement" per piece of research or thesis. It should point to a "novel topic or aspect" and, fundamentally, be "researchable."
Grounding in Exploration and Noological Foundation: Pay close attention here. A fatal mistake is to formulate the definitive question of the thesis without prior grounding. The holopraxic statement begins as a "first approximation," but "it is formulated in definitive terms only once a more complete literature review has been carried out and the noological foundation has been established." This foundation, which is the construction of your thesis's theoretical underpinning, ensures that the terms you use are the appropriate ones.
Coherence with the Research Holotype: The holopraxic statement must "reveal the research holotype" (the type of research). This will define your thesis's methodology. For example:
- A question such as "What is the most efficient way to build…?" leads to projective research.
- One such as "What makes a teacher successful?" leads to explanatory research.
Avoiding Methodological Activities as Outcomes: Your statement must point to a knowledge outcome, not to a task within the process. The goal of your thesis is not "to administer a survey," but rather "to understand the perception of…."

Artificial Intelligence: The Catalyst for Your Thesis

The process of meeting these criteria—especially building the noological foundation—has traditionally been the most laborious stage of writing a thesis. It involves "gathering the information, selecting the relevant material, eliminating material that is too general, and the writing itself."

This is where Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes an unprecedented ally for the modern researcher or thesis writer. AI can:

Accelerate the Noological Foundation: Analyze thousands of documents to identify theories and knowledge gaps, allowing you to build a solid theoretical framework for your thesis in a fraction of the time.
Assist with Precision and Delimitation: Help you refine a general idea by suggesting variables, populations, and contexts so that your statement meets the criteria of clarity and concreteness that a thesis committee demands.
Verify Novelty: Conduct exhaustive searches to ensure that your formulation is novel and adds real value to the field of study.

Tutoeris: The Holistic Understanding Applied to Your Thesis

At Tutoeris, we have operationalized these principles of the holistic understanding of research. Our platform is a tool powered by methodological artificial intelligence, designed to guide you in formulating a robust, coherent holopraxic statement for your thesis.

We understand that the hardest step is connecting an initial idea with a specific research holotype. And that is precisely where we empower you.

One problem, multiple holotypes: choose the path of your thesis

Through its artificial intelligence, Tutoeris offers you different types of research so you can select the one best suited to your thesis.

You present Tutoeris with your idea or research problem—for example: "Student dropout in higher education."

Our artificial intelligence (AI), trained in these concepts, will present you with a spectrum of holopraxic statements, each formulated to correspond to a distinct research holotype. This clarity is essential for defining the scope and methodology of your thesis.

Exploratory Holotype: What are the experiences and meanings that students who left their university studies attribute to their decision?
Descriptive Holotype: What is the dropout rate and the sociodemographic profile of the students who drop out at University Z during the 2024–2025 period?
Comparative Holotype: Are there differences in the risk factors associated with dropout between students in the sciences and those in the humanities?
Correlational Holotype: What relationship exists between a student's level of social integration into university life and the likelihood of dropping out?
Explanatory Holotype: In what way does the family's economic situation act as a determining cause of university student dropout?
Projective Holotype: What guidelines should a student support program contain in order to prevent dropout among first-year students?
Evaluative Holotype: What was the level of effectiveness of the "Permanence" scholarship program in reducing student dropout at University Y?

This approach allows you to visualize all the possible paths for your thesis. You can then make an informed decision and select the research holotype that aligns perfectly with your objectives and academic requirements.

Your research praxis, and the success of your thesis, deserve to start off on the right foot. The holopraxic statement is your map. With the right tools, you can ensure that your thesis points in the right direction from day one.

References

Hurtado de Barrera, Jacqueline. (2012.). Metodología de la investigación. Guía para una comprensión holística de la ciencia. Cuarta edición. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Quirón-Sypal.

3 Mistakes When Formulating Research Objectives

Sun, 18 Jun 2023 00:00:00 GMT

The first mistake consists of confusing activities with objectives. It is essential to understand that objectives must be clear, specific, and oriented toward the generation of new knowledge. They should not be confused with the actions that will be carried out during the research. For example, instead of setting an objective such as "conducting interviews with 50 people," you need to formulate an objective that reflects the purpose of the research and the knowledge you expect to obtain through those interviews.

The second mistake relates to constructing objectives that are not the product of systematic inquiry. In other words, these objectives are based on imagination or reflection rather than on a methodical search for new knowledge. It is important to remember that research objectives must emerge from rigorous and systematic inquiry, and not simply from creative ideas. For example, "creating a new teaching method" may be an interesting idea, but it is not a research objective, since it does not involve a methodical search for new knowledge.

The third mistake occurs when posing objectives that do not involve any search or inquiry, and that likewise do not generate new knowledge, even though they solve a practical problem. It is crucial to understand that solving a practical problem does not always require carrying out additional research. Sometimes, existing knowledge may be sufficient to address the problem. Therefore, research objectives should focus on generating new knowledge rather than simply applying existing knowledge to solve practical problems.

Formulating research objectives appropriately is fundamental to ensuring the generation of new and meaningful knowledge. Avoiding mistakes such as confusing activities with objectives, building objectives based on imagination or reflection, and posing objectives that do not involve any search or inquiry is essential to achieving rigorous, high-quality research. By avoiding these mistakes, researchers can ensure that their objectives are focused on generating new knowledge and that they contribute meaningfully to the advancement of their field of study.

If you would like to learn more about this topic, you can purchase the book "How to Formulate Research Objectives" by Professor Jacqueline Hurtado de Barrera.

What Elements Should the General Objective of a Research Study Contain?

Thu, 01 Jun 2023 00:00:00 GMT

The general objective of a research study is a clear and concise statement that describes the overall purpose of the research. The first condition is that it must answer the research question and must be at the same level of knowledge as that question.

The author Jacqueline Hurtado de Barrera describes the following elements that a research objective should include in its statement, according to the holistic understanding of science.

1. The verb that indicates the objective's degree of complexity, which must be in the infinitive.

The verb is a fundamental part of the general objective, as it indicates the objective's degree of complexity and the type of action that will be carried out. It must be in the infinitive to indicate that this is an action that has not yet been performed. Some examples of verbs that can be used in the general objective are: to analyze, to evaluate, to compare, to describe, to identify, among others.

Example: To describe the economic-financial structure of Venezuelan savings and credit cooperatives registered with the Cooperative Integration Center of the Capital Region (CECODIFEMI).

2. The event, or events, of study.

The event or events of study refer to the situation, behavior, process, or fact that will be studied in the research. It is important that these be clearly defined so that the general objective is specific and focused.

Example: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy.

3. The units of study.

The units of study refer to the beings or elements that will be studied in the research. A central key to the units of study is that they are the beings that possess the event of study. They can be people, objects, institutions, countries, groups, documents, materials, among others. It is important that they be clearly defined so that the general objective is focused.

Example: To identify the barriers that low-income students face in accessing higher education in Latin America.

4. Temporality.

Temporality is the time at which the event under study occurs, which may be past or present.

Example: To identify the causes that contribute to the quality of the research reports submitted as Special Degree Projects by the thesis writers of the Music Education Concentration of the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the University of Carabobo during the period January 2004–December 2005.

5. The context.

The context refers to the setting or geographic region in which the research will be carried out. It is important that the context be clearly defined so that the general objective is specific and focused.

Example: To describe corporate social responsibility practices in the tourism sector in Mexico.

In conclusion, the general objective of a research study must contain the verb that indicates the objective's degree of complexity, the event or events of study, the units of study, temporality, and the context. By following these elements, you can formulate a clear, specific, and focused general objective that guides the research toward its purpose.

If you want to learn more about this topic, you can purchase the book "How to Formulate Research Objectives" by Professor Jacqueline Hurtado de Barrera.