in social research a hypothesis is best described as

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3: Propositions and Hypotheses

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 26213

Anol Bhattacherjee
University of South Florida via Global Text Project

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

Figure 2.2 shows how theoretical constructs such as intelligence, effort, academic achievement, and earning potential are related to each other in a nomological network. Each of these relationships is called a proposition. In seeking explanations to a given phenomenon or behavior, it is not adequate just to identify key concepts and constructs underlying the target phenomenon or behavior. We must also identify and state patterns of relationships between these constructs. Such patterns of relationships are called propositions. A proposition is a tentative and conjectural relationship between constructs that is stated in a declarative form. An example of a proposition is: “An increase in student intelligence causes an increase in their academic achievement.” This declarative statement does not have to be true, but must be empirically testable using data, so that we can judge whether it is true or false. Propositions are generally derived based on logic (deduction) or empirical observations (induction).

Because propositions are associations between abstract constructs, they cannot be tested directly. Instead, they are tested indirectly by examining the relationship between corresponding measures (variables) of those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as relationships between variables, is called hypotheses (see Figure 2.1). Since IQ scores and grade point average are operational measures of intelligence and academic achievement respectively, the above proposition can be specified in form of the hypothesis: “An increase in students’ IQ score causes an increase in their grade point average.” Propositions are specified in the theoretical plane, while hypotheses are specified in the empirical plane. Hence, hypotheses are empirically testable using observed data, and may be rejected if not supported by empirical observations. Of course, the goal of hypothesis testing is to infer whether the corresponding proposition is valid.

Hypotheses can be strong or weak. “Students’ IQ scores are related to their academic achievement” is an example of a weak hypothesis, since it indicates neither the directionality of the hypothesis (i.e., whether the relationship is positive or negative), nor its causality (i.e., whether intelligence causes academic achievement or academic achievement causes intelligence). A stronger hypothesis is “students’ IQ scores are positively related to their academic achievement”, which indicates the directionality but not the causality. A still better hypothesis is “students’ IQ scores have positive effects on their academic achievement”, which specifies both the directionality and the causality (i.e., intelligence causes academic achievement, and not the reverse). The signs in Figure 2.2 indicate the directionality of the respective hypotheses.

Also note that scientific hypotheses should clearly specify independent and dependent variables. In the hypothesis, “students’ IQ scores have positive effects on their academic achievement,” it is clear that intelligence is the independent variable (the “cause”) and academic achievement is the dependent variable (the “effect”). Further, it is also clear that this hypothesis can be evaluated as either true (if higher intelligence leads to higher academic achievement) or false (if higher intelligence has no effect on or leads to lower academic achievement). Later on in this book, we will examine how to empirically test such cause-effect relationships. Statements such as “students are generally intelligent” or “all students can achieve academic success” are not scientific hypotheses because they do not specify independent and dependent variables, nor do they specify a directional relationship that can be evaluated as true or false.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

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

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection .

Example: Hypothesis

Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .

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

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

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Step 1. ask a question.

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

4. Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

The relevant variables
The specific group being studied
The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis . The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

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

Research question	Hypothesis	Null hypothesis
What are the health benefits of eating an apple a day?	Increasing apple consumption in over-60s will result in decreasing frequency of doctor’s visits.	Increasing apple consumption in over-60s will have no effect on frequency of doctor’s visits.
Which airlines have the most delays?	Low-cost airlines are more likely to have delays than premium airlines.	Low-cost and premium airlines are equally likely to have delays.
Can flexible work arrangements improve job satisfaction?	Employees who have flexible working hours will report greater job satisfaction than employees who work fixed hours.	There is no relationship between working hour flexibility and job satisfaction.
How effective is high school sex education at reducing teen pregnancies?	Teenagers who received sex education lessons throughout high school will have lower rates of unplanned pregnancy teenagers who did not receive any sex education.	High school sex education has no effect on teen pregnancy rates.
What effect does daily use of social media have on the attention span of under-16s?	There is a negative between time spent on social media and attention span in under-16s.	There is no relationship between social media use and attention span in under-16s.

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

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

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

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

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is your plagiarism score.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 3: Developing a Research Question

3.4 Hypotheses

When researchers do not have predictions about what they will find, they conduct research to answer a question or questions with an open-minded desire to know about a topic, or to help develop hypotheses for later testing. In other situations, the purpose of research is to test a specific hypothesis or hypotheses. A hypothesis is a statement, sometimes but not always causal, describing a researcher’s expectations regarding anticipated finding. Often hypotheses are written to describe the expected relationship between two variables (though this is not a requirement). To develop a hypothesis, one needs to understand the differences between independent and dependent variables and between units of observation and units of analysis. Hypotheses are typically drawn from theories and usually describe how an independent variable is expected to affect some dependent variable or variables. Researchers following a deductive approach to their research will hypothesize about what they expect to find based on the theory or theories that frame their study. If the theory accurately reflects the phenomenon it is designed to explain, then the researcher’s hypotheses about what would be observed in the real world should bear out.

Sometimes researchers will hypothesize that a relationship will take a specific direction. As a result, an increase or decrease in one area might be said to cause an increase or decrease in another. For example, you might choose to study the relationship between age and legalization of marijuana. Perhaps you have done some reading in your spare time, or in another course you have taken. Based on the theories you have read, you hypothesize that “age is negatively related to support for marijuana legalization.” What have you just hypothesized? You have hypothesized that as people get older, the likelihood of their support for marijuana legalization decreases. Thus, as age moves in one direction (up), support for marijuana legalization moves in another direction (down). If writing hypotheses feels tricky, it is sometimes helpful to draw them out and depict each of the two hypotheses we have just discussed.

Note that you will almost never hear researchers say that they have proven their hypotheses. A statement that bold implies that a relationship has been shown to exist with absolute certainty and there is no chance that there are conditions under which the hypothesis would not bear out. Instead, researchers tend to say that their hypotheses have been supported (or not). This more cautious way of discussing findings allows for the possibility that new evidence or new ways of examining a relationship will be discovered. Researchers may also discuss a null hypothesis, one that predicts no relationship between the variables being studied. If a researcher rejects the null hypothesis, he or she is saying that the variables in question are somehow related to one another.

Quantitative and qualitative researchers tend to take different approaches when it comes to hypotheses. In quantitative research, the goal often is to empirically test hypotheses generated from theory. With a qualitative approach, on the other hand, a researcher may begin with some vague expectations about what he or she will find, but the aim is not to test one’s expectations against some empirical observations. Instead, theory development or construction is the goal. Qualitative researchers may develop theories from which hypotheses can be drawn and quantitative researchers may then test those hypotheses. Both types of research are crucial to understanding our social world, and both play an important role in the matter of hypothesis development and testing. In the following section, we will look at qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, as well as mixed methods.

Text attributions This chapter has been adapted from Chapter 5.2 in Principles of Sociological Inquiry , which was adapted by the Saylor Academy without attribution to the original authors or publisher, as requested by the licensor, and is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 License .

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices - (Revised edition)

(43 reviews)

Anol Bhattacherjee, University of South Florida

ISBN 13: 9781475146127

Publisher: University of Southern Queensland

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Kelle DeBoth Foust, Associate Professor, Cleveland State University on 6/22/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

The text really seems to do as it claims; provides the basic overview of the research material needed for graduate students without a lot of other “fluff.” It’s written very clearly, easy to understand and many figures and charts that enhance learning. It covers the majority of the topics that I need it to cover for OTH 740/Research I, at about the level of detail that the students should be able to digest. In particular, I like the sections on survey research, experimental research and that it covers quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

As far as I can tell reading through it, the content is accurate and unbiased (will be able to review further once actually implemented in the intended course).

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The content is current at least regarding how we continue to teach and use it in our field. Some of the references are a little outdated, although not much has changed in this world in recent years. I also recognize I can pull more recent literature in order to make the examples up to date and relevant for my particular students.

Clarity rating: 5

This book is written very clearly. I feel that the diagrams really help to add and make sense of higher level concepts that students may struggle with. Concepts that are challenging are recognized as such within the text, with appropriate examples that enhance clarity (will be able to review further once actually implemented in the intended course)

Consistency rating: 5

Yes, the text appears to be internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 5

The text is easily and readily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course (i.e., enormous blocks of text without subheadings should be avoided). The text should not be overly self-referential, and should be easily reorganized and realigned with various subunits of a course without presenting much disruption to the reader. – Yes. The division of the content makes sense, and how smaller modules are paired (e.g., qualitative and quantitative analysis paired back to back) is logical to facilitate learning.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The text and chapters are laid out in an order that makes sense and provides good flow and continuity between the concepts and analytical applications. In particular, I like how research is introduced, moving into research design and then analysis all within the same text. Will make this more manageable for students.

Interface rating: 5

The text is free of significant interface issues, including navigation problems, distortion of images/charts, and any other display features that may distract or confuse the reader. – Very well put together, no issues with the interface. I would consider this to be very user/student friendly. In particular, the authors made a point to keep it “short and sweet” so students should not be intimidated by the length of the chapters (which is excellent for helping to convince the students to actually read them).

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The text contains no grammatical errors. – None detected.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way. It should make use of examples that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. – No offensive content noted, the majority of the examples used do not have cultural significance and therefore the amount of diversity is sufficient.

This review was written based on a preliminary review of the text prior to use and implementation within the intended course. I will update the review if it significantly differs once students have used it for their course study.

Reviewed by Ingrid Carter, Professor, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 4/14/23

The textbook includes many of the important elements of a foundational social science research course. A key element of the course I teach which is not included in the text is how to search for literature to inform the research, how to synthesize... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Content Accuracy rating: 3

The content appears to be mostly accurate and unbiased. There is a large emphasis on positivist approaches, and more post-positivist and innovative research approaches should be added to the content.

The text is relevant to foundational/introductory social science research courses. As mentioned previously, broader and more diverse perspectives of research are missing.

Clarity rating: 4

The content is presented clearly.

Consistency rating: 4

The text is presented with a consistent framework and format. The variety of frameworks included could be greater, with at minimum a presentation of different research paradigms and ideally with discussion or questions to grapple with related to various research paradigms and approaches.

As the author indicates, the textbook consists of 16 chapters which can be used in a 16-week semester. These can be easily assigned for weekly readings.

The textbook is well-organized.

Interface rating: 4

The interface is relatively clear

No grammatical errors were found in my initial review. I have not yet used the textbook for the course I am teaching, and therefore have not reviewed the textbook page by page nor line by line.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

More diverse and culturally relevant example to a diverse audience could be embedded. I did not encounter offensive material.

Reviewed by Sanaa Riaz, Associate Professor, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 3/27/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

While not meant for advanced graduate and doctoral students, this text is an excellent introductory resource for learning about paradigms in research methods and data analysis and prepares the learner to begin writing a successful research project proposal. The text largely privileges the scientific method and labels diverse social science research methods as such. However, the preparatory considerations in beginning social science research have been discussed. The book contains important terms in bold to guide a beginner reader as well as sample syllabi for incorporating it at the graduate level. However, the text could be made more comprehensive with the inclusion of an effective index and/or glossary.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The text is a quick guide to considerations and terminologies used in social science research. The content is accurate, error-free and unbiased.

The text provides a basic introduction to research methods in the social sciences. Updates in social science inquiry with respect to social media and popular culture platforms and mixed methods research should be easy to incorporate.

The text has been written from the point of view of a non-expert. It is free of technical jargon and is meant to provide the essentials of social science inquiry and research considerations.

Consistency rating: 3

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology within a chapter section. However, it is strongly recommended that the framework is revisited for chapters discussing qualitative research methods and approaches. Qualitative data analysis has not been explored in depth and the basic framework for Chapter 13 will need to be substantially expanded to provide for a smoother transition from a discussion on grounded theory to content analysis and hermeneutic analysis and to incorporate information on other analyses undertaken in qualitative research.

Chapters and sections in the text can be easily reorganized and assigned as per needs of the instructor and the course without causing disruption to the reader.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

Chapter sections of the book covering qualitative research are not presented in a logical manner. It is highly recommended that the readers are told about the place of exploratory and other research in social science research inquiry, rather than labeling them as scientific research. Moreover, mixed methods and qualitative visual and social media platform research needs to be discussed. The book overall shies away from delving into approaches and methods in non-empirical research in the social sciences.

The text is easy to navigate. All words, sections and tables are easily searchable.

The book is free of grammatical errors.

The text does not contain any culturally insensitive information as there are hardly any research project examples incorporated.

Incorporating examples and case studies across social science disciplines (after introducing the disciplines in which social science research is employed in the first chapter) would allow readers to see the applicability of one social science research approach, method and data analysis over another based on the research project focus.

Reviewed by Cahit Kaya, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley on 10/17/22

I LIKE THE FIGURE EXPLAINING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ON PAGE 55. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

I LIKE THE FIGURE EXPLAINING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ON PAGE 55.

IT SEEMED ACCURATE

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

IT IS RELEVANT

IT IS CLEAR

IT IS CONSISTENT

Modularity rating: 3

IT NEEDS MORE MODULES

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 2

IT CAN BE OGRANIZED BETTER

YES BUT EVEN THOUGH IT CAN BE IMPROVED

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

I DID NOT SEE IT

MORE CULTURAL DIVERSE EXAMPLES CAN BE GIVEN

Reviewed by Dawn DeVries, Associate Professor, Grand Valley State University on 12/9/21

The text provides a complete summary of the research process. While discussions are brief and concise, the text addresses the main issues and processes providing an overview and general understanding of the research process for social science fields. Two areas could be more in-depth, specifically the IRB discussion and the chapter on surveys. Information provided is accurate and succinct as the author intended, providing a comprehensive overview of the research process.

The content is accurate and presented in an objective manner. There was no perception of bias or conflict that would impact accuracy. The chapters offer a variety of examples, inclusive of a variety of social science fields.

Written in 2012, the information remains relevant with few areas that would ever need to change. The research process and research methods stay fairly consistent with little variation; thus, the text would not need regular updating. Updates, if and when needed, would be easy to implement due to the concise and objective writing and the logical organization of the textbook. One area needing updating (or that instructors would need to supplement) is Chapter 9 on Survey Research. The chapter refers to mail surveys, which in 2021, are almost obsolete. Little is presented or discussed on electronic surveys, survey platforms, or the use of social media in recruitment, survey distribution or every survey completion. Furthermore, there is no mention of the ethical issues related to social media research.

Key terminology is bolded with the definition following, making it easy to identify. Definitions are clear and adequate to facilitate understanding of the concepts and terms. The text presents the research process in a logical and understandable way using scaffolding.

The chapter structure, framework, and style are consistent.

Modularity rating: 4

The chapters provide easily divisible readings of 8-10 pages. The chapters are ordered in a logical fashion and flow easily, yet they could be rearranged to fit instructor preferences for order. Chapters are concise, allowing the combination of multiple chapters for a week’s reading if needed. The text is designed for a 16-week semester, but again, because the chapters are not long, several chapters could be read as one assignment. It would be difficult to reduce chapter readings (say, using only 5 pages of the chapter) because of the conciseness of the information and the shortness of the chapters.

The text is logical and has flow. It starts general (with How to Think Like a Researcher) and builds to specific, more detailed content (Inferential Statistics).

There are no observed problems with the interface of the text. Images used are clear and display without difficulty. No hyperlinks are used.

No observed issues or concerns related to grammar or mechanics.

No concerns about inclusivity or offensiveness. The text is clear and concise, offering a variety of short examples specific to various social science professions.

The text reminds me of my Research Methods textbook from my doctoral program. It addresses the differences between scientific research and social science methods in a clear and concise manner. While it is an overview of the information, it is specific and concise enough for students who need to understand the research process but won’t be engaging in research as their full-time profession. Content is brief in a few areas as mentioned, which will allow the instructor to provide supplemental reading or lecture content specific to the university (i.e., IRB) or to the profession. As the author suggests, certain chapters could be skipped depending on the program. For example, chapters 13 – 15 on statistics could easily be omitted if the program has a research statistics course. A nice add is the sample syllabus for a doctoral program.

Reviewed by David Denton, Associate Professor, Seattle Pacific University on 5/3/21

I use this book with graduate students in education taking an initial course in education research. Dr. Bhattacherjee notes the book is organized for semesters with supplemental readings, as shown by the sample syllabus in the appendix. Nevertheless, I have found the book is excellent in meeting objectives for an introductory course in education research, though it is necessary to add education context and examples. Some of the course objectives I have developed from the textbook include i) distinguishing between questionnaire survey method and interview survey method and ii) summarizing criteria for developing effective questionnaire items, among many others. There are some sections that exceed student knowledge without some background in statistics (e.g. description of factor analysis) but omitting these sections as required reading is easy since there are many subheadings used to segment chapters.

Dr. Bhattacherjee has done an excellent job of clearly communicating the content with accuracy. For example, the textbook distinguishes between qualitative and quantitative analysis (rather than qualitative and quantitative research, an appropriate distinction). The textbook makes other distinctions in a way that helps students comprehend concepts (e.g. survey interview and survey questionnaire). At the same time, the textbook does not over-emphasize research methods or design, which might mislead students to think inflexibly about the topic.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

One of the advantages of the book, in my view, is that it will not become obsolete anytime soon. It addresses all major topics of interest for instructors needing to develop student background knowledge in social science research methodology. For example, some topics for which the book provides helpful structure include i) Thinking Like a Researcher, ii) The Research Process, iii) Research Design, iv) and Sampling. In addition, an instructor can easily supplement or provide subject-specific examples where needed since the book is thoroughly segmented by chapter and chapter subheadings.

Dr. Bhattacherjee does a fine job of defining terms concisely. I do not recall use of jargon, or if there are complicated terms, the text provides enough elaboration so that students can at least attain a conceptual understanding. In some instances, definitions are so concise that I find it necessary to elaborate with examples. This, however, is a part of instruction and would be done in any case.

The textbook is highly coherent, in my view. Similar to modularity, consistency is a strength. For example, chapters are grouped into four sections: Introduction to Research, Basics of Empirical Research, Data Collection, and Data Analysis. Further, chapters within major sections are sequential, such as chapters on Science and Scientific Research, followed by Thinking Like a Researchers, followed by The Research Process. In addition, content within chapters is consistent, such as Dr. Bhattacherjee’s logical progression of concepts: empiricism, to positivism, to forms of analysis (qualitative and quantitative), etc

Modularity is one of the clear strengths, again in my view. From a structural perspective, neither the chapters nor subsections are very long because Dr. Bhattacherjee writes concisely. Both chapters and subordinate subsections lend themselves to various kinds of divisions. For example, students in need of supplemental instruction on descriptive statistics, such as content about the normal distribution, can be assigned the subsection on Statistics of Sampling in chapter 8, followed by the subsection on Central tendency in chapter 14. Some non-sequential reading is required if students do not have any background in statistics, but this is not difficult to manage using page numbers or subheadings as reference.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The textbook is well organized. Nevertheless, there are some sections that I found helpful to have students read out of sequence. For example, there is a short section at the end of chapter 5, Scale Reliability and Validity, which is perhaps best read after students cover correlation and normal distribution, dealt with in chapter 14. Again, I did not find it difficult to assign sections out of sequence using either page numbers or chapter subheadings as reference.

The textbook does not have interface issues. Chapter titles are hyperlinked within PDF copies to simplify navigation. Some may judge a few of the images as low resolution, but if this is a defect it is not one that interferes with communicating concepts, which is the purpose of the images.

There are a few minor grammatical errors in the 2nd edition, 2012. For example, on p. 126, Dr. Bhattacherjee notes “five female students” when the Chi-square table appears to show four. This is minor, but if students are new to reading Chi-square tables they may not detect the error and believe interpreting a Chi-square table is different than interpreting a typical data table.

The textbook presents appropriate information without prejudice or unfairness. As mentioned, instructors will likely need to include examples that are specific to their course objectives and student populations. For example, chapter 11. Case Research provides exemplars that focus on business and marketing domains. This seems entirely appropriate given Dr. Bhattacherjee’s research area. Instructors using the text for other domains, such as education research, will be interested in elaborating on concepts using examples specific to the needs of their students.

I greatly appreciate that Dr. Bhattacherjee has shared his book as an Open Textbook.

Reviewed by Elizabeth Moore, Associate Professor, University of Indianapolis on 4/24/21

In Chapter 5 on Research Design there isn't any discussion on how to improve content and statistical conclusion validity. There isn't a discussion of threats associated with the four types of validity. The chapter also does not present how the research design and threats to validity are interconnected. There is a lack of comprehensiveness in the presentation of qualitative research as qualitative research rigor is not addressed.

The content is accurate, error-free, and unbiased. I would like more examples focused on social sciences. Some of the examples are related to business/industry. There are many social science examples that could be used.

Many of the examples should be updated. With everything that is (has been) happening in the U.S. and world, there are many examples that can come from the social sciences. For example, there are several examples that could represent the concept of technostress, especially with many professionals having to move into online environments. Students would be more likely to read assigned chapters and understand the material presented if the examples were relevant to their profession.

The book is clear and has high readability. There are several accessibility issues in the document. This should be checked and fixed. There are 5 issues in the document, 4 in tables, 5 in alternative text, etc. Accessibility is a big issue right now. All documents have to be accessible to all students.

While there is consistency within the textbook, in some topics there is a lock of consistency in how some of the terms and material relate to what is actually used in social science disciplines. For example, in basic social science textbooks in chapters presenting an introduction to measurement of constructs, descriptive statistics that are unfamiliar and rarely used, such as geometric mean and harmonic mean, should not be introduced. This information is usually difficult for novice researchers to understand without adding more advanced descriptive statistics.

It is confusing as to why research validity is in Chapter 5 - Research Design. There is not a discussion of how different research types are affected by different types and threats of research validity. The title of Chapter 7 is misleading. The word "scale" is associated with scale of measurement. It would be better to use designing measurement tools/instruments in the chapter name since the types of validity and reliability discussed are related to creating and developing measurement tools/instruments. I also think Chapter 6 - Measurement of Construction should not come before Chapter 7 - Scale Reliability and Validity since measurement of constructs and scale reliability and validity are related to qualitative research.

I like the organization. It follows the current syllabus I use so it will require very little modifications.

As mentioned below, bookmarks would improve navigation of the pdf file. Also, having links from the table of contents to chapters would be helpful. Including some of the important subsections of the chapters would also improve navigation of the pdf version of the book. Tables and charts are helpful and supplement the text. Use of images would break-up the text.

None were noted.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

See comments above about the relevancy of the material. While it is important to make sure a book is culturally sensitive and not offensive, it is also important to not ignore what is known about social injustices which are well-documented. Look at the lack of diversity in many professions and organizations, this is important to address.

It would be helpful if bookmarks were placed in the pdf version. While this is a social science textbook, it would be helpful to have subsection in Chapter 4 that introduces at least a couple of the main health behavior theories. These are commonly used by many researchers in social sciences.

Reviewed by Barbara Molargik-Fitch, Adjunct Professor, Trine University on 3/6/21

This textbook provides a nice overview of several topics related to social science specific research. read more

This textbook provides a nice overview of several topics related to social science specific research.

The textbook seems to be accurate and error free.

The text seems to be accurate, relevant, and useful.

The text is organized well and had a professional and academic tone while also understandable.

Text seemed to be internally consistent.

Text is easily divisible to be assigned as different points within the course.

Text is well organized.

The text is free of significant interface issues that would distract or confuse the reader.

I did not see grammatical errors.

I did not see any cultural issues.

I will be using this textbook for one of my classes. I am looking forward to using it. I think it has a lot to offer students looking to develop their research skills.

Reviewed by Kenneth Gentry, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 6/2/20

This text provides a great overview of core concepts relevant to health-science research. An overview of theory, designs, sampling, data collection, data analysis, and ethics are provided. It may be helpful in future editions to add additional content relating to qualitative research (i.e. additional types of designs, as well as how trustworthiness and rigor are addressed [for example, what specific steps can be taken by researchers to address dependability, credibility, confirmability and transferability]).

Information presented appears accurate and unbiased.

While much of the content is 'durable' (not likely to soon become obsolete), the relevance is dependent upon the focus of the instructor/course. For example, if the emphasis of the course will be on quantitative research, then this text is highly relevant, however, if the emphasis is on an equal balance between the traditions of qualitative and quantitative, then this text is slightly less relevant due to the more limited nature of its content in qualitative (in comparison to content on quantitative). That is not to say that this text does not address content relevant to qualitative research, however, it does so with decidedly less depth and breadth than quantitative.

While a subjective interpretation of clarity is highly dependent upon the reader, I found this text to strike a good balance between a scholarly, academic tone, and commonly-understood, easily-relatable descriptions of key concepts. There were times where I wish that the latter had been more so, however, considering the target audience of this text, I feel that the author struck a good balance. Occasionally, there were concepts that I anticipated would require additional clarification (beyond the reading) for my graduate students.

Overall, I found the text to be generally consistent in its approach to the content. Occasionally, there were instances when the flow made sense at the chapter level, however, content might have been spread between chapters (i.e. theory is discussed in Chapters 1, 2 and 4).

This ties in with my comments on consistency. Since some concepts are discussed in more than one place, it might be difficult to identify a single reading for a specific topic ... one might need to assign several readings from more than one chapter. However, having said that, I anticipate that those instances would be infrequent. On the whole, the text demonstrates a fairly good degree of modularity.

At the chapter level (i.e. main topics), and within each chapter, information appears well organized. It is the appearance of content in multiple places that was occasionally problematic for me as I read (i.e. when reading about reliability and validity, I questioned why the author did not discuss the types of reliability and validity ... I later found that content in a subsequent chapter).

Interface rating: 3

While images were viewable, many appeared 'pixelated'/'grainy' (low resolution). This was more of a cosmetic issue, and did not affect the overall interpretation of the image.

Overall, the content was grammatically strong.

Content was not culturally insensitive or offensive.

My sincere thanks to this author, and to the Open Textbook Library and Scholar Commons for this text. I truly appreciate the investment of resources that were invested. I just completed instructing 2 semester courses on research in a graduate health science degree program ... I plan to adopt this text the next time I am rotated into those courses again!

Reviewed by Wendy Bolyard, Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Colorado Denver on 4/30/20

This text presents all the topics, and more, that I cover in my master's-level research and analytic methods course. A glossary would be helpful as students often need to reference basic definitions as they learn these new concepts. I would have... read more

The concepts were presented accurately and often with citations.

The great thing about research methods is that the content ages well (does not change over time). The examples were relevant and should not make the text obsolete. Any instructor should be able to provide current, real-world examples to compare and contrast to those in the text. Although the sample syllabus if for a business class, I did not find the text to be relevant only to business students. The authors uses broad social science illustrations that cross disciplines. This text is definitely relevant to public affairs/public administration.

The text is well-written and provides clear yet concise context.

When students are learning a new language - research methods - they may be confused when definitions vary. Causality is explained with slightly different language which may be misunderstood by students.

One chapter includes a summary section. It would have been helpful to include a summary of key takeaways for each chapter, and perhaps include a list of key terms and definitions (since the text does not include a glossary).

The text follows the linear, systematic research process very well.

The font, size, and spacing varied in some sections. The images were a bit blurred.

A few typos, but otherwise well-written and very clear.

Culturally sensitive with relevant and inclusive cases provided.

I will be adopting this text to supplement other readings assigned in my master's-level research and analytic methods course. I appreciate the clear and helpful context it provides on key concepts that students must understand to become effective researchers. The text is comprehensive yet concise and would not overwhelm students.

Reviewed by Valerie Young, Associate Professor, Hanover College on 12/19/19

I really appreciate the broad focus and examples from social science fields. As a fellow social scientist from a high growth area (communication studies), I would appreciate even more breadth! I supplement with many field-specific resources, so this critique is very minor. An appropriate place and reference might be within the first chapter, under the heading Types of Scientific Research, to give a nod to some of the social science fields and the importance of interdisciplinary questions across disciplinary lines.

I did not find any errors in the content of the book. One critique is that the author rarely cites any sources for assertions or materials. I get the impression that the author is relying on "commonly known" ideas regarding research methods and processes, but I have to consistently remind my students to cite all non-original information, and that example is lacking in this text. As an example, regarding evaluating measurement scales for internal consistency, the author references commonly-accepted factor loadings (>.60) but does not reference or provide linked resources for readers to corroborate this or seek additional readings.

The text content is relevant and the author has taken care to provide relatively timeless sample research examples throughout. Some examples include areas of social and political interest (conflict, crime), business and marketing, and social psychology. The contents of the text are not dated and the author does a fantastic job of offering a variety of relevant examples so that readers of all backgrounds can relate to the content.

Incredibly clear and concise. Main ideas are clearly articulated in headings. Bullet point lists are used infrequently, but appropriately. The writing style is professional, academic in tone, yet relate-able. There is little, if any, discipline-specific references that a graduate student from any area of social sciences could not comprehend; however, this book is empirically-grounded and quantitatively focused. For our readers in fields with lower quantitative literacy, some of the terminology in chapters is better suited for students with basic statistical experience, some research methods or theory coursework completed.

This text is consistent and detailed in the use of interdisciplinary, social scientific terminology.

The layout of materials and the concise writing style contribute to an easy-to-visualize text. The page layout and brief chapters make it appropriate to assign supplemental readings along with the chapter topics. Some areas for improvement: use hyperlinks to reference forward and backward within the text so that readers can pop back and forth to related concepts. Include links in the text to reputable online materials or publications. See my comment below in Organization feedback concerning chapter ordering.

One thing that strikes me as amazing and also challenging about this text is the concision and simplicity for which Bhattacherjee integrates complex information. The chapters are very brief- about half of what would be a typical, field-specific textbook, but the content is simultaneously dense and clear. For example, Chapter 7 addresses scale reliability and validity. In just a few short pages, we get an incredible density of information and terminology, from a formula and brief explanation of Chronbach's alpha to exploratory factor analysis as a method to demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity. There is an appropriate number of tables to visually demonstrate complex topics in-text. Overall, the chapters are well-organized and easy to follow with a working knowledge of basic stats. The introductory chapters have been intentionally placed to introduce readers to basic principles. The following chapters could be assigned as readings in any order that fit with the student's needs (but I find the order of these chapters appropriate, as-is): Chapter 9 Survey Research, Chapter 10 Experimental Research, Chapter 11 Case Research, Chapter 12 Interpretive Research, Chapter 13 Qualitative Analysis, Chapter 14 Quantitative Descriptive Statistics, Chapter 15 Quantitative Inferential Statistics. The final chapter, 16, covers Research Ethics, which seems to have been lopped on at the end of the text. It would be a better fit in the first third; perhaps integrated into one of the first several chapters with a nod toward the evolution of social research.

Regarding navigation, the pdf online version does not allow for creative navigation through the document. Graphics and charts are clear and easy to see in the online pdf version. They are a little smaller than I would like on the page, but the text is clear and the tables and graphs are visually appealing. It looks like most of the graphics were created using PowerPoint. One odd thing I noticed is that the paragraph spacing is inconsistent. In one section, the spacing between paragraph lines seems to be set at 1.25, and then, for no apparent reason, the line spacing moves back to single space. This is not visually distracting, just peculiar. Overall, the graphics in the online version are much clearer than in the softcover print version, which prints only in greyscale, with quite a bit of granulated distortion in the figures.

I did not notice any writing errors.

The research topic examples represented a diverse array of research topics, methods, fields, etc. The overview of science, scientific research, and social science was welcomed and unique to this text. Some areas for improvement would be to include historical scientific figures who are not all male, and link critical methodology in a clearer manner with specific critical and cultural examples of this form of research.

Reviewed by Lee Bidgood, Associate Professor, East Tennessee State University on 10/29/19

The text seems comprehensive, covers a wide range of research approaches, and parts of the research process. I will have to supplement with more of the area-specific writing that my students need, but this is easily added in the adapted version... read more

This text seems to follow the path of other texts that outline research design and methods, such as the Creswell book that I have used for several semesters. I do not detect bias in the text, or any significant errors.

I will discuss disciplinary relevance rather than chronological applicability (which other reviewers have already addressed thoroughly). The course for which I seek a textbook is meant to prepare students in a non-discipline-specific regional studies context, and for a range of methodologies and research design possibilities, mostly in the social sciences and humanities. This text is most relevant to the potential research programs of our students in discussions of the precursors to research design in Chapter 2 (“Thinking like a researcher”) and of the using and creating of theory in Chapter 4 (“Theories in Scientific Research”).

The authors’ prose is clear and easily comprehensible. Definitions are clear, and sufficient (jargon is explained). There could be more examples to clarify and assure comprehension of concepts, I plan to add these in my adaptation.

There is not an overt intra-chapter organization scheme that is consistent from chapter to chapter--each chapter differs in the sorts of content, that some sort of generic outline would feel forced, I think. The “feel” of the text, though, is consistent, and effectively conveys the content.

Because it uses footnote citations instead of endnotes / parenthetical citations, each page contains all of the references contained on it, which helps with modularity. The portions of the text that are less relevant to the course I teach (i.e. the more technical and statistical chapters, such as Chapters 6, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are easily omitted; I will be able to adapt portions of this text (i.e. the discussion of sampling in Chapter 8) without needing to provide all of the chapters. Some of the more technical vocabulary will require editing and explanation, but this seems manageable for me as an adapter.

The book is logically organized and the topics make sense in the order presented. I agree with another reviewer that the ethics portion seems like an appendix, rather than an essential and structural part of the book. As I adapt this text, I would address ethics at the beginning (as I do in my current teaching of research methods) and infuse the topic through other sections to address ethics-related concerns at all stages of research design and implementation. The author’s choice to use footnotes for references is not the one that seemed logical to me at first - it seems “elegant” to put all the references in a list at the rear of a book; now, reading through the whole text, however, I see some value to having the entirety of a citation at hand when reading through the main body of the text. Still, I miss the comprehensive list of works cited at the end of the book, which I would add to a text that I create, since an e-text is not limited by the economics of physically-printed books.

The text is workable as presented in the PDF document that I downloaded. Charts and other imagery are usable. There are no extra navigation features (a link to take a reader to the table of contents in a header or footer, etc.). I am left wondering if, in a PDF form, an OER textbook would be more useful with more navigation features, or if they might make the document buggy, cluttered, or otherwise affect use.

I did not detect any issues with grammar, usage, etc. in the text.

There is a lack of specific examples that might lend a sense of wide scope / global appeal to the textbook, and create an inclusive atmosphere for a reader/student. The author has stated that they hope to translate and widely distribute the text - perhaps, as is the case in the syllabus that the author provides, the hope is that in use for a course, additional readings will provide local knowledge and place-, culture-, and discipline-specific details and context.

This is a solid text that will provide a framework for adaptation in another disciplinary / area context.

Reviewed by Kevin Deitle, Adjunct Associate Professor, TRAILS on 10/6/19

I am pleased with the coverage in the text; it includes the history and foundations of research, as well as chapters on ethics and a sample syllabus. The structure and arrangement of the book differs from my own understandings of research and how I present it in class, but all the material covered in my class appears in the text, and it can be ordered to fit my syllabus. This text spends more time with statistics than I include in a research course, but again, that can be omitted or just used for reference. The book does not include either an index or a glossary, which is unfortunate for anyone who wants a paper version. Of course, most students seem to prefer an electronic text, so I assume they use a search function rather than an index.

I have not spotted any glaring errors, other than an occasional grammatical slip or a cumbersome edit. The author includes a few citations, usually following APA style, but employs footnotes instead of a reference section. The content mostly aligns with my own conceptions of research, although it does have a different arrangement from my presentation in class. This does not suggest that the content is wrong, only that I would likely rearrange it to suit my instructional sequence. I sense no bias in the presentation, including the historical or ethical portions, or sections that mention religion. I’m comfortable that I could rely on this book in class without worrying over slanted content or editorialization.

Research is something of a traditional topic, in the sense that changes or evolutions move at a comfortably slow pace. I expect there is very little of this text that is likely to become obsolete any time soon. The flip side is there is little in this book that is necessarily cutting-edge, but that is not the fault of the author at all. And in the unforeseeable situation where a new protocol or a new advance in either statistics or research warrants an update, I think the organization and the modular design will allow that to happen without major upheavals in the structure or arrangement of the text.

As mentioned elsewhere, the writing is comfortably academic without becoming dense or burdensome. I have seen introductions to research that were more casual and probably fit a beginner audience better than this would, but I daresay this is intended as a core text for a graduate-level class, and for that reason, can be expected to sound less approachable and more authoritative. The text employs features for fast visual reference, to include breaks in the text to allow for visual elements, and bolded text where key terms are introduced or defined. While this would probably not be a particularly exciting text for a self-study course, it will sit well with classes that need a reference text that takes the time to explain concepts with some authority.

Structurally the author has a style and sticks to it throughout the text. Visually this book is sparse, and it will require some effort on the part of the professor to make the content digestible in a classroom environment. However, that also suggests that the arrangement and format remain predictable from the first page to the last, without any surprises in presentation or discourse. Research has a tendency to step on its own toes when it comes to terminology, but this text follows those conventions for the most part, making it mostly congruent with other research texts I have seen. I think this book would complement other research texts without causing too many difficulties in terminology or arrangement.

The author suggests in the preface that the work was intended to be rearranged by sections, and I can appreciate how the chapters and structure support that statement. I do see this more as a foundational reference for a graduate-level course than a self-study text though, and it has the feel of a reference work to it. Text appears in large blocks, is illustrated sparsely, and has no callout texts or pull quotes. Key words are bolded but get no more embellishment, which again suggests a reference rather than an instructional work. I’m sure this material could be the groundwork for a more reader-friendly presentation, if someone wanted less of a reference and more of a textbook.

This might be the most appealing point of the text for me. As I mentioned earlier, I like the overall sequence that the author follows, but at the same time I can appreciate how the sections can be detached and still stand alone. The logic follows principles and theory through to fundamentals, then diverges to cover the details that fit more complex or esoteric versions of research. There is enough statistical explanation to avoid vague generalizations, but at points I expect it would overwhelm a beginner. I would prefer ethics was near the start of the text, rather than an epilogue; our course is arranged to require students to complete ethics training before they may pursue later assignments. But this is easily solved.

On the whole the text is satisfactory, the layout from page to page is acceptable, but there’s a minimum of graphic elements or visual components. Some of the statistical formulas or graphs are low-quality, or have suffered compression artifacts. Their appearance in the text is logical though, and the few tables or diagrams that do appear are in color, with arrows or labels to ease interpretation. The table of contents is primitive, and there is no way to navigate specific tables or diagrams except moving page by page in sequence. External sites are hyperlinked, and the table of contents has been designed for electronic use, but there are no cross-reference features. This gives the text the feel of a word processed document converted to a PDF format, intended to be printed. Overall, the core content is strong, as a printed book it is probably acceptable, but as an electronic textbook it lacks some contemporary features.

I have found very few grammatical errors or incomplete sentences, and none of those were so flagrant as to make the text unusable. If this had been submitted as an academic work it would likely earn some criticism for style or grammar (the author seems to follow APA style, but tends to footnote references simultaneously), but this never impedes the delivery. The text is readable at a collegiate level without becoming over-academic, or for that matter, casual.

The text manages to broach sensitive issues in a level and balanced format; in particular the ethics section manages to discuss some well-known failings in past research without becoming overly critical of the researcher or the participants. Arguably, research and its underlying processes are mostly mechanical (or at least standardized), meaning it is possible for individual researchers to violate cultural, ethnic, racial, or other boundaries, but the underlying science is generally unconcerned with those issues. In that sense, the book has very few opportunities to broach hot-button topics except when dealing with historical or ethical examples.

I appreciate this text as a starting point for a more accessible design, or as a background reference for a full course introducing social science research. I see it as a foundation text or an external source for students who seek a concise fallback for lessons, and with content that is compatible with other textbooks. In many ways it needs much more to compete with established textbooks or dedicated electronic learning tools, and in some places I would like more references for the material that is included. On the whole though, I would consider this as the core text for my next introductory research course.

Reviewed by Krystin Krause, Assistant Professor, Emory and Henry College on 4/10/19

This text covers the core elements of a social science research methods course at the undergraduate level. While the notes state it is intended for graduate coursework, I would have no problem teaching in my undergraduate courses. The concise chapters are undergraduate-friendly and will make a solid foundation with the addition of supplemental reading assignments that show examples of the concepts discussed in the textbook. There is no glossary or index, but keyword searching in the pdf copy is simple and effective.

The text seems to be an accurate reflection of social science research methods, particularly when considering causal inference and hypothesis testing. If your course is also covering descriptive inference, you would want to supplement the text with additional material.

Research methods is not a subject that changes quickly, and thus this text will not become obsolete quickly. The only things that may need updating over time are any links that lead to pages that no longer exist. Any other updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement.

The text is written in a style that is accessible for undergraduates. It follows the conventions of including relevant key words and phrases in bold and includes easy to follow definitions of terms. I anticipate that undergraduates will also appreciate how concise the text is.

The chapters are consistent in both terminology and framework. It offers a unified organization that also allows for mixing and matching chapters if an instructor wishes to teach the chapters out of order.

The organization of the text lends itself to be adapted to any introductory social science research methods course, regardless of what order the instructor wants to place the topics being discussed. Chapters could be taught out of order and can be subdivided accordingly.

While it is certainly possible to break apart to teach the text in a different order than how the chapters are originally offered, the progression of the text from the introduction to the chapters on qualitative data analysis is both logical and clear.

The text is free of interface issues, and charts and images appear to be clear and correct. The only exception to this are the links found in the sample syllabus at the end of the book. I was only able to get one of the links to work.

No grammatical errors jumped out at me. There are a few here and there, but they are not distracting for the reader.

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive.

Because the book is concise, I would recommend its use in addition to other supplementary resources such as class lectures, academic articles that demonstrate the methods discussed in the textbook, and projects that allow students to experience the methods first-hand. It would make a good alternative to more elaborate basic research methods textbooks when the instructor wishes to keep costs for the students low.

Reviewed by Mari Sakiyama, Assistant Professor, Western Oregon University on 4/5/19

The textbook covers the major key elements that are essential in research methods for social science. However, both the breadth and depth of information might be too elementary for Ph.D. and graduate students. With the use of additional reading... read more

I did not notice any errors or unbiased content. The author had provided accurate information with simple/straightforward examples that can be understood by students with various discipline in social science.

Given the nature of the subject, the content is considered to be up-to-date. However, although there will not be too many changed expected in the research strategies and designs, it is important to note that some of the sampling procedure have been facing some changes in recent years (e.g., telephone survey, online sampling frame).

The textbook provided the content in a clear and concise manner. The author, instead of providing a complex list of academic jargon/technical terminologies, but rather clarified and explained these terms in a simple and straightforward fashion.

Overall, the content was consistent throughout the textbook. Starting with a broad/general statement of each chapter topic, the author narrowed it down to smaller element which is easy for the reader to follow and understand. As he provided in CH.6, it might be even more helpful to have summaries for each chapter.

This textbook is certainly divided into smaller segments, but maybe too small (short). However, as mentioned above, this problem can be solved by adapting additional readings.

The textbook is significantly reader-friendly and well-structured. Although some instructors prefer to cover some chapters earlier (or later) in their semester/term than others, this is just a personal preference. There are no issues with the author’s organization of the textbook.

Overall, the use of indentations, bolding, italicization, and bullet points, was consistent. However, many of the images were blurry (e.g., Figure 8.2, Table 14.1) and some fonts were smaller than others (i.e., pg. 34).

I did not notice any grammatical errors. Even I had missed some, they would not be destructions for the reader. (Note: The scale is confusing. What I mean by '5' is the least amount of grammatical errors were found)

The author did not use any concept that was insensitive or offended people and/or subjects from various backgrounds. (Note: The scale is confusing. What I mean by '5' is the least amount of cultural insensitivity or offensiveness were found)

See my comments above.

Reviewed by Candace Bright, Assistant Professor, East Tennessee State University on 11/7/18

There are some key elements that I would expect to be in a social science research methods book that are missing in this book. I think this comprehensiveness may be appropriate for an undergraduate course (with some supplementation), but the text... read more

The information in the book seems accurate. When necessary, it is cited appropriately.

The content is very relevant. Because the book focuses on methods, it does not need too much change over time. It was published in 2012. The main area that might need to be updated in the discussion regarding the Internet and how it impacts our research options. Perhaps more could be added on machine learning, AI, web-scraping, and social media in general. I increasingly see studies conducted either using social media content or recruiting through social media; neither of these are addressed in this book.

I really like the way the book is laid out. In particular, the qualitative and quantitative analysis sections are well organized. They succinctly cover a lot of information is a way that is very consumable. There were some instances, however, where I thought wording lacked clarity or definitions needed further explanation.

I do not see any issues with consistency.

I like the organization of this book and each chapter does a good job of standing alone on important topics within research methods. The sections within the chapters are clearly marked and logically organized.

The organization is clear and logical. It covers important concepts in research methods in the same order in which they are typically taught, with the exception of ethics. In this book, ethics comes last, whereas I would have taught it earlier.

This might be minor, but I noticed some places where the spacing was different and it was a little distracting. Overall, it is well formatted.

I didn't notice any grammatical errors.

Overall, the text book could use more examples and applied examples, but when present, I find them culturally appropriate.

I have mixed feeling on the image on the cover and the limited visuals within the book. I also don't feel like this textbook has enough visuals or figures that could be used to support comprehension of the materials. More examples would also be helpful. Overall, however, the author has presented a lot of information succinctly and I look forward to using this text (in parts) in future methods courses.

Reviewed by Alysia Roehrig, Associate Professor , Florida State University on 11/5/18

This text provides an overview of many important issues for my graduate research methods course in education. There are a few important topics missing, however. In particular, types of correlational designs and mixed-methods designs would be important to include. Likewise, single-subject designs are not mentioned at all. I will have to supplement these areas with other readings. I also think more about specific threats to internal and external validity should be provided, along with information about when and how certain threats are avoided. There is no glossary but being an online text, it is simple enough to search for certain terms.

Content seems to be error-free and unbiased for the most part. However, I have an issues with the language in chapter 2 about about strong and weak hypotheses because it seems to treat the experimental/causal hypotheses preferentially. The author also states that hypotheses should have IVs and DVs...but what about non-experimental hypotheses?? I think students could be misled by this and I think this requires a lot of unpacking. Thus, I do sense somewhat of a prejudicial treatment of quantitative and experimental research methods. I plan to add information to pages 13 and 15 about how qualitative methods do not involve testing hypotheses though the results might be an inductively derived hypothesis or nascent theory.

The content covered is pretty standard and basic and so not likely to be out-dated soon.

The writing is straightforward and easy to follow.

The use of terms and framework seems to be consistent throughout the book.

The chapter and subject headers all seem to be clear. They will make it easy to select sections for assignment or reordering if revising for use.

The order of topics makes sense and is aligned with the process of conducting research.

The hotlinks in the table of content are nice, but additional navigational aids would be helpful. For example, a back to the Table of Contents (TOC) button would be nice, as well we a list of all subsections (hotlinked) added to a long version of the TOC.

I have not noticed any egregious problems.

There are not many examples, which means there is little opportunity to offend.

Reviewed by Eddie T. C. Lam, Associate Professor/Editor-in-Chief, Cleveland State University on 9/12/18

The book provides ample information for a research course, but it may not meet the needs of every instructor. For this reason, the book should include a few more chapters so that course instructors can have more options for a semester-long research course. For instance, at least one chapter should be on nonparametric statistics and their applications on research studies, while another chapter should be on research paper writing (e.g., what should be included in the Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and so on). For the Appendix, it is nice to provide a sample syllabus for the instructors, but the students may want a sample research paper in proper journal or thesis/dissertation format.

Most of the information presented in this book is accurate. The author has mentioned in Chapter 5 (p. 37) that “construct validity” will be described in the next chapter, but I don’t see any construct validity in Chapter 6 or Chapter 7. In addition, the author may want to emphasize what “alpha is set to 0.05” means. Does it mean the p-value has to be less than 0.05 (p. 125) or p ≤ 0.05 (p. 130) to reject the null hypothesis?

In terms of content, the book has fairly good amount of information. However, it is also obvious that many terms appeared in the last few decades are missing from the book. For example, Survey Monkey and social media can be included in Chapter 9 (Survey Research) and structure equation modeling can be introduced in Chapter 15.

The information is presented in layman’s terms without any jargon. New terms are bolded with clear definition, and sometimes they are illustrated with examples.

The terminology and framework are consistent throughout the text.

The chapters are logically presented and they are grouped under different sections. As mentioned before, the text should add a few more chapters for the course instructors to select from.

In my opinion, “Chapter 16 Research Ethics” should not be standalone (under the “Epilogue”) and it could be part of the “Introduction to Research” (i.e., the first few chapters).

The text does not have any significant interface issues, though the font size of the figures can be larger (e.g., they should not smaller than the font size of the text).

Overall, the text contains very few grammatical errors. However, in a number of occasions, a comma is added for no reason, such as “. . . we must understand that sometimes, these constructs are not real . . .” (p. 44). It is also unnecessary to always add a comma before the word “because.”

The content of the text is not culturally insensitive, and the author does not present any offensive statements or comments anywhere in the text.

It’s time to have a second edition.

Reviewed by Amy Thompson, Associate Professor, University of South Florida on 6/19/18

This text is a nice overview of some of the key points in social science research. There are useful definitions of key terms throughout the book, although none of the chapters go into much depth. It should be noted that there is more of a focus on... read more

Overall, the text seems accurate. There are some cases when the author gives advice that I don't agree with (i.e. advises against even-numbered Likert scale items, p. 48; encourages people not to do "trendy" research, such as that on new technology, p. 24). Even so, most of the information seems to be accurate.

The book is relevant. It gives a good overview of the theories and methods, which change little over time. I would suggest a few updates, however. Currently, there is controversy on the over-reliance of the p-value, and it would be useful to include some of this discussion on p. 125. Also, on p. 73, the author talks about "mail-in" and "telephone" surveys as a research method, and even goes on to say on p. 74 that most survey research is done by self-administered mail-in surveys with a pre-paid return envelop. This information needs to be updated, as currently, much of the survey research is done via online platforms.

The book is quite clear and provides succinct definitions.

The book seems consistent throughout.

The chapters are short and very readable. There would be no problem dividing the chapters up for a class, or using a portion of the book.

The topics are presented in a logical manner.

The text in some of the tables is blurry, especially when enlarging the PDF. Perhaps the print copy is clearer. The text outside of the tables is clear.

I didn't have any trouble reading or understanding the text.

This book is not offensive.

Overall, this is a good book to have as a reference or an additional text for a class. For my field, it wouldn't be sufficient to use as a stand-alone text. Although its intended audience is graduate students, it's a bit too basic for Ph.D. students, in my opinion. It would be a good text for an intro to research class at the UG or MA level, as a supplemental text. I would recommend it to Ph.D. students to use as a reference because of the key terms included. It's great that a resource like this is available for free to students and faculty in a wide variety of disciplines.

Reviewed by Huili Hao, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina Wilmington on 5/21/18

This book provides an introductory and broad review of some of the key topics in social science research including research theories, research design, data collection, data analysis and research ethics Students from different disciplines in social science will find these topics useful in developing their research method skills. However, the book falls short on the depth of the essential concepts. It would also benefit from offering more practical examples for some of the theories or terminology. A glossary is not found within the text, although the table of content lists the topics covered in each of the modules.

Overall, this textbooks seems to be accurate.

The relevancy and longevity of this book are great. It focuses on fundamental research methods as well as incorporates current research approaches. Given the nature of research method that does not change drastically, content is up-to-date and won’t make the text obsolete within a short period of time. The topics are written in the way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement.

The text is written in a logical and concise fashion. The text is easy to follow. I did not find any jargon or technical terminology used without explanation.

The text consistently matches the topics outlined in the table of content.

The text is clearly organized into five modules: introduction to research, basics of empirical research, data collection, data analysis, and research ethics. It also includes a course syllabus, which is nice and useful. Each of the modules / chapters can also be used as subunits of a research method course without putting the reader at a disadvantage.

The table of content is clear and the chapters are organized in a logic order.

I downloaded the PDF version of the textbook and find it easy to read offline. The formatting, navigation and images/charts seems clear and appropriate.

I had no trouble reading or understanding the textbook.

Overall, this is a good textbook that covers a broad range of topics important in research method. As this textbook is designed as a succinct overview of research design and process, more practical topics are not included in much detail such as how to conduct different statistical analyses using SPSS or SAS, or how to interpret statistical analysis results. It would require additional materials / textbooks for graduate level research method courses.

Reviewed by Jenna Wintemberg, Assistant Teaching Professor, University of Missouri on 5/21/18

I use almost the entire text in an undergraduate Health Science research methods course. I do supplement the text with additional readings on: -selecting a research topic -developing a research question -how to read scholarly articles -how to search the literature -mixed methods research -community-based participatory research -disseminating research findings -evidence-based practice

I have found this text to be accurate, error-free and unbiased.

The content is written in a way that will allow for longevity of use. I compliment this text with current peer-reviewed journal articles which are relevant to my students' career paths and can be updated more regularly.

I have found the book to be clearly written and appropriate for upper-level Health Science undergraduate students. Technical terminology is sufficiently defined.

The text uses a consistent framework throughout.

The text is easily divisible into smaller reading sections. I assign the chapters in an alternative order and students have not had problems with this.

I assign the chapters in an alternative order for my undergraduate students. For example, I have students read chapter 1 following by chapter 16 (research ethics).

There are no interface issues.

The text is free of grammatical errors

The text is not culturally offensive.

Because of the basic nature of the materials presented and clear writing, my upper level undergraduate students have done well with this text. The brevity of the chapters and bolded key terms particularly appeal to the students. I do have to supplement the text with journal articles and other materials. However, I am pleased with this straight-forward text and will continue to use it as the main text in my course moving forward.

Reviewed by Amy Thompson , Associate Professor, University of South Florida on 3/27/18

Reviewed by Debra Mowery, Assistant Professor, University of South Florida on 3/27/18

The text covers all of the areas of basic research information that I cover when I teach research and research methods in the social sciences. The table of contents is straight forward, and the chapters are arranged in a fluid, logical order. The nice thing with this text is that you could rearrange as you see fit for your course without an issue. There is also a sample syllabus in the appendix which could be useful when setting up a course. I feel this text is great for students who may not necessarily be interested in research as a job prospect (their interests may be more clinical in nature) but need the basics of research in a clear, easy to understand, and straight forward format.

I felt the content of this text is accurate, unbiased, and free of any glaring errors..

This text appears to be up-to-date including issues such as web-based or internet surveys and questionnaires. I did see that the copyright for this text was 2012 so not sure if revisions or updates to the original have happened or not. It seems that there should be a way to document if this is the latest version of the text. This may be useful information for users of this text.

This textbook is written in a concise and easy to read and understand manner - it is very user-friendly. This is a plus for students - it means they may actually read the text! Jargon and acronyms were appropriately defined with an explanation of how the terms originated and came to be utilized in research. This is appealing to me as an instructor so there is background information for the students.

The consistency of this text is uniform throughout. One appealing issue I liked was the use of social science examples when explaining topics like theories or paradigms. In some research texts examples are utilized but they may not necessarily be in the discipline that you are teaching.

I do like that this text is divided into 16 chapters which is perfect for a 15/16 week semester. The chapters are not so overwhelming that other supporting readings cannot be assigned to students as well to assist with explanation of the weekly topic. The text serves as a great base for building weekly assignments/readings for students.

The majority of the text is presented in a logical format. One issue I had with the order of the chapters in the text was including Ethics at the end in the Epilogue as if it was an after thought. Ethics, ethical behavior, and rigor are a must in research and should be addressed early on in the research process. Having said this, I feel the chapter on Ethics should be moved up further in the chapter line-up (possibly to chapter 2 or 3).

I did not experience any navigation problems. There was however, distortion with many of the images especially the graphics that were utilized throughout the text. A review of the images/graphics and an update to them would be useful. If this e-text has not been updated since 2012 this may be the issue for the distorted figures.

There are a few grammar/spelling/word choice errors. The errors do not effect the content of the text but when reading it makes you pause and think - what is trying to be said here? It might be useful to the author to have the text proofread or copy edited to resolve these issues.

In reviewing this text I did not see any examples that might be deemed offensive or insensitive to other cultures, orientations, ethnicities, etc,

Reviewed by Kendall Bustad, Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Maryland, College Park on 2/1/18

This book covers all the important topics in social science research and is approachable regardless of discipline and course level (high school, undergraduate, graduate, and even post-graduate). It provides an introduction to philosophy as well as components of research. You'll find yourself returning to the basics, and it gives strong foundations. Specifically, I find that the book provides a very comprehensive introduction to research philosophy and research designs, particularly in addressing how to come up with research questions, which is often a challenge for new doctoral students. However, due to the succinct nature of the book, some sections seemed lacking. Particularly, in the more practical steps of the research process (the data collection and data analysis sections)

The text does not seem to be biased in any way.

The content of the book is up-to-date. The text included relevant descriptions of current software commonly used in research.

If you want to have a compressed body of knowledge of social science research, you may read this one. Beneficial.

The text consistently matches the book outline. Terms were used consistently throughout the text.

Each chapter can stand along as a separate lecture. The headings, subheadings, an bold items are great additions that highlight important topics or definitions.

Most of the text flows in a logical, clear fashion. However, it may be clearer to have quantitative data analysis methods immediately follow quantitative data collection methods, and similarly for the qualitative data collection and analysis.

No issues noted.

There are a few grammatical errors.

There does not seem to be any culturally insensitive or offensive text.

Reviewed by Jason Giersch, Assistant Professor, UNC Charlotte on 2/1/18

The biggest challenge faced when writing a book about research methods is the decision about what NOT to include. Instructors and disciplines within the social sciences vary widely in terms of their expectations of students in an introductory methods course, and thus their needs from a textbook also vary. This textbook does an excellent job setting the stage for what we mean by "research" in the social sciences. Students will develop a solid foundation in the goals and rationales behind the methods social scientists employ. Students will also develop a comprehensive vocabulary in social science research methods. However, the book falls short in the development of students' research skills. Learning about methods is important, but not much is gained from that knowledge unless the student also learns how to execute at least some techniques. Furthermore, there is little guidance for the student regarding how to properly write a research paper, something that many instructors will find disappointing. This book is probably comprehensive enough for a 3-credit methods course with test-based assessments in a program where few students pursue graduate work. But if teaching students to actually conduct and write up research is important to the course, there are much better books out there (although at significant cost).

Content is accurate and unbiased.

The relevance and longevity are strong. This book describes some of the most current methods but still focuses on the foundations of research that will be appropriate for the foreseeable future. Updates could be easily made every five years or so to keep up with methodology.

The writing is very easy to follow with helpful examples. Prose is direct and to the point, giving only the essential information so as to allow the learner to develop a grasp of fundamentals. The section on theory, for example, is refreshingly clear for learners. Graphics aid in understanding the material in many parts.

This textbook uses consistent terminology and framework.

The textbook is appropriately structured for a standard 15 week course and even recommends a syllabus. Adapting it to other formats, like a 5 or 10 week summer course, might be tricky. There are ample headings and sub-headings, however, that allow the text to be divided into smaller chunks, which is nice to see given how many students feel overwhelmed by this topic.

Organization and flow is excellent. From an education and instructional standpoint, I wouldn't change the organization.

The simplicity of design is a strength -- students should have no difficulty opening and viewing the text on a wide variety of devices. On the downside, there are no bells and whistles that many some students have come to expect from online textbooks.

The casual writing style makes it very accessible, but one consequence is the very occasional grammar problem. It's a trade-off, I think, that is worth making.

Research methods are pretty "culturally-neutral", so there's nothing in it I would see as insensitive or offensive. That being said, the text recommends SPSS and SAS as software to use while neglecting free options (like R) or more ubiquitous programs (like Excel). For a textbook intended to keep costs at zero, these are glaring omissions.

I could certainly see this book being used as an accessible and low-stress introduction to the world of research methods in the social sciences. The main improvements I would like to see would be (1) sidebars throughout that guide students through the paper-writing process and (2) activities using datasets for students to actually perform some of their own quantitative analyses. Perhaps a companion volume could address these needs.

Reviewed by Nathan Favero, Assistant Professor, American University on 2/1/18

This text provides a fairly comprehensive coverage of topics. It is broad, hitting most of the major topics I need to cover in an intro PhD seminar for social science research methods (I'm teaching public administration/policy, political science, and criminology students). That said, there is not a ton of depth in this textbook. I don't view that as a negative; I prefer having a textbook that gives a basic outline of essential concepts and then fleshing this out with supplemental readings, but some might prefer a textbook that goes into more depth.

Overall, this textbook is accurate but not perfect. Sometimes I wish it was a bit more precise, particularly in coverage of quantitative topics. But I use another textbook to more fully cover quantitative topics anyway for my course.

I would say this textbook reads as modern and relevant, although perhaps it could do more to address emerging methodological concerns in social science disciplines (p-hacking, replication, pre-registration of research designs, etc.).

The textbooks is very accessible and easy to read for someone new to the disciplines of social science.

The book appears to be consistent.

I've assigned students to read the chapters in a different order than they are presented in the text had have not encountered any problems. Chapters are coherently organized into distinct topics.

The organization of the book is logical.

Overall, this book is easy to read and use. Graphs are not always high-resolution, but they are readable.

I have not noticed many grammatical errors.

I have not noticed any clear biases or insensitive handling of material in the book.

I'm delighted to have found this book. It's a great starting point for teaching my students to think about the basics of social science research and provides a nice skeleton on which I can layer more in-depth material for my course.

Reviewed by Holly Gould, Associate Professor, Lynchburg College on 8/15/17

The author states that the text is not designed to go in-depth into the subject matter but rather give a basic understanding of the material. I believe the author covers the necessary topics with enough depth to give the reader a basic... read more

I found no errors in content and no observable bias in any of the chapters.

This text will continue to be relevant because of the nature of the subject matter. Updates may be needed to reflect more current research or trends, but no major changes should be necessary.

The text is written clearly and succinctly. The text is understandable for those who are new to the subject matter.

I found no inconsistencies in the text.

The text is divided into logical chapters, and subheadings seem to be appropriate. Chapters can be read fairly easily in isolation without putting the reader at a disadvantage.

The topics are presented in a logical fashion. Some of the chapters have summaries or conclusions, while other chapters seem to end abruptly. It would be helpful to the reader to have a summary statement at the end of each chapter.

I downloaded and read the text in a PDF reader and had no trouble with formatting, navigation, or images/charts.

The text contains some grammatical errors but the errors are minor and do not distract the reader.

This text is well written and I would recommend it to an individual looking for a bare bones book on basic research methods. It contains information essential to understanding quantitative and qualitative research. The charts and images provided enhance the understanding of the text. At times, the author digs a little deeper into background and formulas for certain statistical ideas, which may be unnecessary to someone looking to understand the basics (e.g. the formula for Cronbach's alpha). Some chapters seem to end abruptly while other chapters have excellent summaries or conclusions. There is one recommendation that goes against the prevailing wisdom on survey design. On page 77, the author indicates that a survey should begin with non-threatening questions such as demographic information. Many experts have written that these types of questions, when asked at the beginning of a questionnaire or survey, can affect the respondents' answers to subsequent questions and should be saved for the end. Aside from these minor issues, this text is a great resource and I recommend it.

Reviewed by Virginia Chu, Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University on 4/11/17

The text offers an introductory overview to scientific research for PhD and graduate students in social sciences. It covers a broad range of topics, research theories, research process, research design, data collection methods, qualitative and quantitative research, statistical analysis, and research ethics. This book touches on many important topics related to the scientific research process that is typically found in several different text. As the author stated in the preface, this is an introductory book that is minimalist by design, it does not contain in-depth discussions or many examples. This is both a plus and a minus, as it makes the book more compact and allow it to be used by many different disciplines, but may be harder for students to relate. The comprehensive nature of the book allows the reader to be exposed to all the necessary topics, or provides a structure for a course instructor, who then supplements with additional materials to create the depth that is specifically tailored for their discipline. Specifically, I find that the book provides a very comprehensive introduction to research philosophy and research designs, particularly in addressing how to come up with research questions, which is often a challenge for new doctoral students. However, due to the succinct nature of the book, some sections seemed lacking. Particularly, in the more practical steps of the research process (the data collection and data analysis sections), as a new doctoral student will certainly need more details than what is provided in the text to begin their first research endeavor. For example, in the quantitative analysis section, only a handful of basic analysis were discussed in detail (univariate analysis, hypothesis testing, t-test, regression). I would like to see a more practical discussion of ANOVA, as it is a very commonly used statistical analysis tool. These topics may also be more discipline specific, where instructors of research classes can supplement with additional materials. The discussion on research ethics is certainly a nice addition to the book where many other research methods texts lack. An index/glossary is not included with the text, but the table of content clearly outlines the topics discussed for each module.

The book is overall accurate and unbiased. The book covered different social science research methods fairly. I did notice a discrepancy in Figure 5.1, where “single case study” is plotted on the graph as high in external validity, but the rest of the text frequently brought up case studies (especially single case studies) having the difficulty with generalizability which should have low external validity.

The content of the book is up-to-date. The text included relevant descriptions of current softwares commonly used in research. It will also stand against the test of time as research methods do not change drastically. The content can also be updated to reflect new technological updates. One needed update noticed is on page 120, where the authors cautioned that only smaller datasets can be stored in Excel and larger datasets needs a more elaborate database system. While the statement is still relevant, the numbers the author cited appear to be old and Excel has since been updated to handle larger datasets (1,000,000 observations and 16,000 items) than what the author had listed.

The content is written in a very clear and concise manner. It is easy to read and to follow the author’s arguments. I did not notice any jargon or technical term that was used without explanation.

The book has a modular organization, with each chapter designed to be used for a different lecture. Each chapter is a self contained unit that can be used as its own reading. Each chapter also has subsections that are clearly marked with subheadings. Important terms are also highlighted by bolding, making it easy for the reader to identify the important concepts.

The chapters of the book flows logically from one to the next. The current layout of the text groups all the data collection methods together and all the data analysis methods together. It may be clearer to have quantitative data analysis methods immediately follow quantitative data collection methods, and similarly for the qualitative data collection and analysis. This could be easily done based on the course instructor preference.

No interface issues noted.

The text is generally free of grammatical and spelling errors, with the exception of 2 minor typos noticed on page 139 (“Rik”, “riska”).

The text and examples provided are not culturally insensitive or offensive.

The text is easy to read and covers a broad and comprehensive range of topics important for research. I particularly enjoyed the discussion on research ethics which is often missing in many research methods texts. I would recommend discussing that topic earlier, together with research design, as many of these ethical issues and IRB requirements come up during research design phase. As the text is a meant to be a concise overview of the research process, the more practical topics are not covered in as much detail and would require supplementary material.

Reviewed by Brock Rozich, Instructor, University of Texas at Arlington on 4/11/17

The textbook covers the majority of what would be expected for a research methods course. It builds upon basic topics to more advanced concepts, so students from various backgrounds of research experience should still find the text useful. The glossary for the text is clear and a sample syllabus is provided by the author for individuals wishing to use this text for their course. The text was lacking an index, which would prove helpful for students.

The text is accurate and up-to-date with research methods in the social sciences. A variety of data collection methods and concepts are discussed in an easy to understand manor.

The content is up-to-date with research methods in the social sciences. The text should be able to prove useful for a research methods or as supplementary material for a statistics course for the foreseeable future. While I looked through this text with a focus on using it for a psychology course, I feel that this text would be useful across other fields as well.

The book was clear and built upon concepts in a thorough manner. Technical terms were well defined, though as mentioned previously, an index would be helpful for this text for students to look up key terms if they became lost. The text would be useful for an upper-level undergraduate or introductory graduate level course.

The text is consistent throughout. There were no notable deficiencies in any of the content provided in each chapter.

The course is broken down into logical subsections and chapters. Introductory topics relating to research methods are provided early and are built upon in subsequent chapters. A sample syllabus and course outline are provided for instructors who wish to utilize the text for their class.

The book is constructed in a well-organized fashion, without any issues of chapter structure.

The PDF version of the text worked wonderfully on a laptop, with no issues of navigation or distortion of images. This text was not, however, viewed on a tablet or e-reader, which many students use for classes. Based solely on use of a PDF file on a laptop, the interface was flawless, however, if you are considering using this for a class, I would test it out on an e-reader/tablet first to make sure there are no issues with format/text size, etc.

The book did not appear to have any noticeable grammar or syntactical errors.

There were no notable instances of cultural insensitivity throughout the text. Examples were broad and not specific to an individual race or culture.

This is a wonderful open source option for a main text for a research methods course or as a supplementary option for a statistics course that also focuses on data collection.

Reviewed by Divya Varier, Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University on 2/8/17

The textbook adequately covers most fundamental concepts related to research methods in the social sciences. Areas that would need attention: a chapter introducing mixed methods research, and a deeper discussion on Research Ethics. More social science based examples on specific research designs, experimental research would be great. The research process could include steps involved in academic research with information on the publishing and peer review process.

Content is accurate for the most part. I would have liked a more nuanced discussion of reliability and validity concepts- introducing the concept of validity as conceptualized by Messick/Kane is needed. In social science, especially education (the field I work in), masters/ doctoral students need to be introduced to the complex nature of establishing reliability and validity. While the content covered is detailed, a more critical introduction of the concepts as being situated in the obtained scores as opposed to the instrument itself would have made the chapter stronger.

Content is for the most part up to date (see above comments for specific areas: reliability, validity, mixed methods); some examples may become outdated very soon (example of political movements in middle eastern countries for example).

The writing is excellent in terms of clarity. I appreciate the use of straight forward language to explain the multitude of concepts!

The text is consistent in its overall approach to research methods as well as consistent in its use of terminology.

Bold font for key terms is appreciated. More insets/boxes within chapters would be a great addition visually. Addition of research studies and discussion questions would be great.

The chapters are well-organized. Only suggestion would be to introduce research ethics early on in the book.

No issues whatsoever in this regard.

No issues with grammar

The text is best suited for universities in western countries although I did not identify any insensitivity that would hinder teaching and learning of research methods using this textbook elsewhere.

Specific chapters in this book will be useful for me, from an instructor's perspective. For example, Chapter 2 - 'thinking like a researcher' is wonderfully written. The chapter on Interpretive Research and Qual. Data Analysis are thorough and clear in presentation of concepts- I definitely would use these chapters in my Research Methods class.

Reviewed by Rachel Lucas-Thompson, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 12/5/16

As acknowledged by the author in the preface, this is intended as a survey book that doesn't cover all topics in great detail. The upside is that this is a flexible text that can be used in many disciplines; the down side is that the text is short on examples, which reduces readability. I also prefer a textbook that provides a more detailed discussion of the following issues, but could supplement the textbook with these discussion in class: a) confounding variables, b) writing a research report, and the parts of a research report, c) evaluating the internal and external validity of a study, d) how we handle Likert and Likert-type scales (with better reflection of the rich controversy about this issue), e) historical background that has informed our current ethical guidelines, and f) more detail about manipulated vs. observed independent variables. Also, the 'research process' section doesn't include a step for going through IRB review and approval, so overlooks an important step in social science research. I think more detail is provided about paradigms and theories than is necessary, but those chapters and sections could be left out of course reading assignments quite easily.

In general, I think this textbook would be best suited to a course where the textbook is seen as an overview to supplement course discussions rather than a detailed coverage of research methods principles.

As far as I can tell, the book is accurate. There are some terms that the author uses that are not widely used in my field (developmental psychology, human development & family studies) but the descriptions are clear enough that I think students will be able to understand what is meant (however, it would be great to acknowledge and discuss some of these variations in terminology so the burden isn't entirely on the students who are still learning these concepts).

Research methods and statistics content are unlikely to change rapidly, although with the increasing use of ecological momentary assessments, daily diaries, and internet sampling techniques, it might be useful down the road to include more detail about those techniques.

The book is easy to read and follow, although the lack of examples to clarify concepts sometimes reduces the clarity of ideas (but is in keeping with the philosophy of the book).

I haven't spotted any problems with internal consistency.

It would be very easy to divide this into smaller reading sections and assign at different time points.

In general the organization makes sense; the only exception is having research ethics as an epilogue, when ethical issues need to be considered before a study is completed.

My two suggestions for increasing are a) hyperlinking the table of contents so that it was easier to find exactly what you want in the textbook, and b) providing a more detailed table of contents (with subheadings) so it's easier to determine where in chapters you should reference.

I haven't found any grammatical errors.

The text is neither culturally insensitive nor offensive.

I think this book is very well-suited for intro graduate level courses in research methods, as long as instructors are comfortable with this as an overview supplement rather than a detailed stand alone resource for students.

Reviewed by Robin Bartlett, Professor, University of North Carolina at Greensboro on 12/5/16

Generally the major topics are covered. The table of contents (chapter listing) makes it easy to find content. Occasionally I found what I thought was a topic covered only minimally in a chapter - but then found additional information in a later chapter (e.g., treats to internal validity). Overall I'd say in comparison to most other texts with which I am familiar that most all topics are covered, to some degree, but some topics are covered less than I would expect in a doctoral level textbook.

I found no errors in fact in the textbook. I found it to be written in an accurate and unbiased manner.

Primarily due to the topic covered (research methods), I do not believe the text will become obsolete in a short period of time. I think updates could be easily added, and if the author decided to cover some topics more thoroughly, that could be accomplished relatively easily, too.

The book is written in an easy to read style. It is easy to understand. Technical terminology is explained appropriately. The author puts many words in bold type and then defines or describes the word. Students will like this approach.

I had no issues as I reviewed the book in terms of consistency of terms used. The text is internally consistent.

The chapters of the book are separated by natural divisions. It would be easy to use this book in a course on research methods, in fact, there is a syllabus included at the end of the book that could be used by a faculty member when course creating.

The textbook topics are presented in a logical fashion. The ordering isn't necessarily the same order I have seen in other texts, but the order is reasonable.

I had no major interface problems as I reviewed the book. Some of the diagrams in the book are a little out of focus, but, they are still readable.

I found no grammatical errors in the sections of the book that I read.

I found no cultural insensitivity in the text. I noticed the examples cited were from articles written by authors from different countries.

The book is easy to read and fairly comprehensive in terms of topics covered. Some topics are covered in less detail than in some other books I've had the chance to read / review. I am most accustomed to finding discussion of theories in separate texts and presentation of statistics that might be used to analyze quantitative data in separate texts. There are even a couple of chapters on qualitative methods in this book. So, the book covers a wide variety of topics and introduces them in a clear way. Topics are not covered in as comprehensive way as in many texts.

Reviewed by Kelly Pereira, Assistant Professor, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro on 12/5/16

This text offers a comprehensive overview of social science research methods appropriate for advanced undergraduate and graduate students. The text covers the basic concepts in theory, research design and analysis that one would expect of a text geared toward the social sciences in general. The text could be easily adapted and/or supplemented to fit any discipline-specific needs. While the text covers a broad array of topics, it is a bit superficial and lacks depth in some areas. More examples and case studies, for example, could improve the text's thoroughness. The text also lacks an index, glossary and discussion questions, all of which would have been quite useful for a text of this nature. I do like that it includes a chapter on research ethics and an appendix with a sample syllabus, however.

Based on my review, the text's content is accurate, error-free and unbiased. I liked that it presented both qualitative and quantitative research methods fairly, as this divide is often a source of bias.

The text contains up-to-date approaches to research methods and presents classic theoretical debates. The methods presented should not become obsolete in the near future. Any new trends in research methodology could be easily updated in future versions of this text. I feel the text will be relevant and useful for multiple years.

The text is generally well written. It presents the information in a clear and concise way. I find it provides sufficient contextualization and examples for graduate students with some background already in research methods. Undergraduates will likely require supplemental materials and additional case studies to grasp some of the concepts covered. The illustrations do help guide understanding of concepts presented.

The terminology and research methods frameworks presented in the text are consistent. The use of bolded terms and illustrations throughout the text provide additional consistency.

The division of the text into the following sections: theoretical foundations, concepts in research design, data collection and data analysis, make it easy for instructors to structure a course and assign readings based on these main foundational areas. This format also enables instructors to easily supplement with other materials.

Overall, this is a well-organized text. Bolded words/phrases throughout the text provide some structure to guide reading. The text is divided into 16 chapters, which corresponds seamlessly with a 16-week semester. This enables instructors to cover one chapter per week, if they so desire, or optionally spend more time on chapters relevant to their course and exclude others. As mentioned earlier, the logical division of the text chapters into the areas of theory, research design, data collection and data analysis, lends to a soundly-structured course and facilitates the assignment of readings and other coursework.

I did not experience any issues with the text's interface, navigation or displays of images/illustrations. The text is in PDF format.

I did not notice any grammatical errors that impeded reading of the text.

I did not come across any culturally-insensitive or offensive passages in the text.

Reviewed by Peter Harris, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 12/5/16

This is a comprehensive overview of research design and research methods in the social sciences. The book's introductory sections offer a discussion of the philosophy of science, the history of science, and definitions of some key terms and concepts, which will help students to contextualize their own endeavors - and their own discipline(s) - inside a larger framework. It also tackles the more familiar topics of research design - conceptualization, measurement, sampling, and so forth - and several specific approaches to data-collection. Overall, then, the book is to be commended for tackling both the philosophical issues at stake in research design as well as the 'nuts and bolts' (or 'brass tacks') of actually doing research.

One of the book's touted selling-points is its focus on phases of research that precede data collection. That is, the book aims to train students not only in research methods, but also in the critical tasks of theorizing problems, generating research questions, and designing scientific inquiries - what the author refers to as 'thinking like a researcher.' This is certainly a welcome addition to a textbook on research design, and ought to help students to overcome some familiar stumbling blocks that seem to present themselves during graduate programs.

Because of its breadth, however, parts of the book can sometimes seem thin and underdeveloped. In particular, the chapters on data collection (specific research methods) are less detailed and comprehensive than other books manage to provide. It is hard to give a detailed 'how to' guide to either survey research, experiments, case studies, or interpretive methods in just 10 pages. As a result, instructors will almost certainly want to supplement this book with more detailed material, perhaps tailored to their specific discipline.

Even so, this book is an excellent backbone for an undergraduate or graduate class on research methods. It will have to be read in conjunction with discipline-specific guides to conducting research (and, most likely, alongside examples of good and bad research), but this does nothing to detract from the book's own value: it will certainly offer a valuable overview of key concepts, ideas, and problems in research design and data-collection, and will serve students throughout the duration of their studies and not just for one class.

This book is accurate, error-free, and as unbiased as it is possible to be in the social sciences. Of course, it is possible to imagine those who simply hold different views about what social science "is" or should be; some scholars might bristle at the notion that only knowledge produced according to the narrow strictures of the scientific method can be considered "scientific knowledge," for example, while others might balk at interpretivism being given parity of esteem with what they see as more rigorous methodological practices. But for the broad mainstream of the social sciences, there will be little in this book that stands out as unusual, controversial, or one-sided.

On the whole, the content of this book will remain relevant for a long time. After all, the basics of the scientific method and the fundamentals of research design seem unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. New and cutting-edge strategies of data collection and theory-testing do emerge, of course, but these are probably best delivered to students in the form of discipline-specific books or articles that could be assigned to complement this textbook, which deals more with foundations than it does with current debates.

The book is organized well and information is presented in a clear way. The prose is accessible and each chapter proceeds methodically.

This text is certainly consistent, and proceeds according to a methodical and logical structure. Key terms and concepts are introduced early on, and there are no 'surprises' in later chapters.

This book is organized into chapters, each of which could be used as the keystone reading for a given class session, and each chapter is broken down in easy-to-digest sections, making the book as accessible as possible. The fact that there are 16 chapters mean that the book could support 16 separate class sessions - that is, just enough to orient classroom discussion for an entire semester. That said, each module does not comprise sufficient material for a whole week; the chapters will need to be supplemented with extra reading material, especially in graduate seminars. It is unlikely that instructors will want to assign only part of a given chapter. Overall, the text reads well as a whole and in terms of its individual chapters.

The chapters for this book are organized into five sections: the introductory section, a section dealing with the basics of empirical research, sections on data collection and data analysis, and a final section that deals with ethics in research. This is a sensible and logical structure for the book, and nothing seems out of place. Again, the book is an accessible and smooth read; it will pose no challenges to an informed reader, and there will be nothing in the organization of the book that will be distracting or irritating.

As a single PDF, this book is easy to navigate.

I noticed no spelling or grammatical errors in this well-written book.

I can detect no culturally insensitive or offensive remarks in this book.

It is worth mentioning that this text ought to serve students well throughout their undergraduate studies, graduate careers, and beyond. It is a timeless - if necessarily limited - resource, and be returned to again and again.

Reviewed by Tamara Falicov, Associate Professor, University of Kansas on 8/21/16

The book is divided into sixteen chapters, which seemed a bit intimidating at first. I later realized that they are not necessarily very long chapters; it varies in terms of the topic. This makes the book quite comprehensive in that the book could be used for the length of the semester, one chapter per week. This is a useful model and one can add or subtract if needed. For example, the beginning chapter which discusses what science is and uses vocabulary from the hard or natural sciences may not necessarily be relevant in a social science course, but the author is being comprehensive by explaining the origins of science and the creation of the scientific method.The vocabulary in bold is extremely effective throughout the book.

The book is meticulously researched and I did not note any egregious statements or inaccuracies. There was one strange sentence when the author was trying to contrast a liberal to a conservative’s viewpoint on page 18 that made this reader feel a bit uncomfortable in how one ideological viewpoint was portrayed, but I’m not sure it was necessarily bias; perhaps just the writing was a bit heavy handed

The book makes sure of updated case examples, discusses how students utilize the internet for research, etc. The theories outlined here are the classic important debates, and the breadth of knowledge the author imparts is extremely comprehensive and up to date. this book could definitely stand on its own for many years before changes in the field might necessitate updating.

I found the textbook to be a refreshing read. The writing is very accessible and clear, but can be dense at times (though not in a problematic way—it means that with some of the more challenging material, the students will have to dig a little deeper to glean the information. The writing was very crisp, and to the point.

The book is written in a careful, consistent manner. As mentioned earlier, the vocabulary words in bold are consistent signposts, and there are citations (not too many, not too few) that help structure the book and provide a cogent framework. Sometimes there are summaries and bullet points, and other times there aren’t, so this is not exactly consistent, but it doesn’t detract from the overall work.

The chapters are excellent stand alone essays that could be used interchangeably. Some of them, such as the first chapter, is historical and philosophical, but not essential to understanding social science research methods. The second and third chapters are excellent for the researcher who is just starting out to formulate a research question. It helps them to think about the various theories and approaches available to them in terms of the angle, focus and methodology selected. The later chapters explain in greater detail various kinds of methods such as how to measure constructs, and scale reliability. These are higher order concepts which would be useful to graduate students—chapters 1-3 could not only work for graduate students, but also for upper division undergraduates.

The book was structured in a logical progression. There were no problems there. There was some repetition with various terms such as Occum’s razor, but this is because there is some overlap with concepts which I think is fine, given that some chapters may not be used in the course of a semester.

No problems with typeface, the diagrams and graphs are incredibly useful in breaking down more complex research methods.

There were no problems with syntax, grammar, spelling that I came across, except for a minor typo in chapter 9 in the table of contents.

I felt that the author was careful in his selection of case students to try to be inclusive and culturally sensitive. There was that one sentence that raised eyebrows about liberals versus democrats that I mentioned previously, but it wasn’t a major deal.

I found this book to be extremely useful and of high quality. I will to recommend it to a colleague who is teaching research methods next semester in a different department.

Reviewed by Yen-Chu Weng, Lecturer, University of Washington on 8/21/16

Dr. Bhattacherjee’s book, Social Science Research, is a good introductory textbook for upper-level undergraduate students and graduate students to learn about the research process. Whereas most research methods textbooks either focus on “research design” or on “data analysis”, this book covers the whole research process – from theories and conceptual frameworks to research design, data collection, and analysis. This book is structured as four modules and is very adaptable to instructors who want to teach any portions of the book.

Social science is a quite diverse field, including studies of socio-economic data, human behaviors, values, perceptions, and many others. Not only are the topics wide-ranging, but the research methods and the underlying philosophy of science also vary. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to write a textbook that includes everything. Dr. Bhattacherjee’s book is a nice overview of all these different methods commonly used in the social sciences. It aims for breadth, but not depth. Once could use this book as an entry to the field, but would need to seek additional resources for specific methods or analytical skills.

Based on my review of the book, the content is accurate, error-free and unbiased. However, better consistency with terminology often used in other related fields (such as statistics) would lessen students’ confusion with concepts.

Research methods are not time-sensitive topics and are not expected to change much in the near future. The inclusion of some cases or examples showcasing how social science research methods can be applied to current events or topics would help illustrate the relevance of this book (and social science research).

The book is very clear and accessible. It’s written in a way that is easy to understand. Important terminologies are bolded and these are good signposts for key concepts. A glossary summarizing definitions for the key terminologies would help students understand these key concepts. The book includes some helpful figures illustrating concepts in research design and statistics.

Overall, the book is very consistent.

The author, Dr. Bhattacherjee, structured the book following the research process – from theories, to research design, data collection, and analysis. Each module can be a standalone unit and is very adaptable to instructors who want to teach with either the whole book or individual modules. Although each module is mostly self-contained, it is impossible not to refer to other chapters since research is an iterative process. However, I do not expect this to be a huge problem for someone who wants to teach only a section of the book.

The fact that this book is structured as modules also makes it expandable. For those who want to teach only the philosophy of science or only the research design portion, they can add more details and in-depth discussion to these topics.

The book is well-organized and flows well with the research process. The chapters are clearly titled as well as the subheadings. Some numbering with the subheadings would help with navigation. In addition, a chapter summary/conclusion would also help with summarizing the main concepts of a chapter (some chapters do have a summary, but not all chapters).

The flow of the first module (Introduction to Research) is sometimes confusing – the book jumps between big ideas (scientific reasoning, conceptual framework) and specific details (variables, units of analysis) several times in the first four chapters. I thought that reorganizing the chapters as Ch1, Ch4, Ch3, Ch2 would flow better (from big ideas to specific details).

Since the book is organized by the research process, not by the type of research (qualitative vs. quantitative), Module 3 (Data Collection) and Module 4 (Data Analysis) cover both types of research. As a result, the flow/connection between each chapter are less clear. By reorganizing these two modules into “qualitative research methods and data analysis” and “quantitative research methods and data analysis”, not only would improve the flow of the book, but also better serve researchers who are interested in a particular type of research.

There are no major problems with the book’s interface. Each chapter is clearly titled. I would like to see the subheadings being numbered as well. If the PDF could have the Table of Contents on the sidebar, it would improve the navigation even more.

There are no grammatical errors noticed.

There are no culturally insensitive or offensive materials noticed. The few examples used in the book are very general and not controversial.

This book is a nice walk-through guide for researchers new to the field of social science research. One thing I would recommend adding is examples and cases. With more examples and cases, students would be able to put research methods into context and practice how they can apply the methods to their own research projects.

Reviewed by Dana Whippo, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Economics, Dickinson State University on 1/7/16

For its purpose, as introduced by the author, this is appropriately comprehensive. However, it is much more brief, more concise, than traditional research methods texts for undergraduates – which the text does not claim to be. It lays a sufficient foundation, with room and expectation for the professor to supplement with additional materials. Supplementing would be important if using this in an undergraduate classroom. I appreciate that the author emphasizes the process of research, and takes the time to address, in the first four chapters, the logic and process of research in a way that allows the text to be used in multiple disciplines. Indeed, this is one of the strengths of the book: that it can be used broadly within the social sciences. The text does not provide either an index or a glossary. This is more challenging when planning for its use in an undergraduate research methods class; however, I think that the strengths of this book outweigh the weaknesses.

I have not noticed any errors or bias. The only issue I’ve noticed, as indicated in other parts of the review, is depth. Doctoral students would bring in a sufficient foundation for reading this on their own; undergraduates will need scaffolding and additional resources to competently understand the complexity inherent in research.

The content does not read in a way that seems (either now or in the future) likely to read as dated or obsolete. The discussion of survey methodology and analysis programs will change with technology, but that should be easy to update. One of the book’s strengths is its focus on the foundation of research methods: the relationship between theory and observation, the understanding of science, and the logic that underlies the process of research.

The book is well-written and concise. Bearing in mind the author’s stated target audience of graduate and doctoral students, it is entirely reasonable that this would require additional work and instructor support (extra time and explanations for definitions and examples, for instance) when used in an undergraduate classroom.

The terminology is consistent throughout.

Faculty would be able to easily divide the text into smaller sections, which would be useful as those smaller reading sections could be combined with targeted supplementary materials.

The topics generally flow well as presented; the only exception is having the section on research ethics at the end. However, this chapter would be easy to assign earlier in the semester.

I did not have any problems with respect to interface issues.

I did not notice any grammatical errors that interfered with the reading process.

I did not notice any offensive comments or examples. The book is brief by design; it does not include the numerous examples that populate the traditional undergraduate research methods text. I did not find it offensive or insensitive.

Reviewed by Andrew Knight, Assistant Professor of Music Therapy, Colorado State University on 1/7/16

I have not seen a more comprehensive text for this topic area, and yet it retains a concision that I would have appreciated as a PhD student when I took courses in research methods. I think that the text may lend itself to several different types of courses. The early chapters can by used for more theoretical research courses, especially for new researchers and fundamentals of research courses. The later chapters can be used for "nuts and bolts" courses for addressing specific methodological issues. The appendices are an especially nice touch and added value for faculty to understand how the author uses this text and creates a syllabus to complement it.

There are very few typographical errors, and overall, the text is rigorously unbiased in its scientific method claims and explanations.

The overwhelming majority of the content in this text is classical understandings of research and methodologies that are essential to all graduate students, particularly in business and the social sciences. There is no indication that any of the content will suffer from claims that it is obsolete or irrelevant.

The clarity of the text is sound partly due to the concision of the book. Shorter chapters, easily navigable paragraphs, and other compositional devices make the text accessible to most levels of graduate students. The bolded words invite the reader to create a self-guided glossary, not any different than a textbook in an 8th grade student collection, which is helpful to counter the sometimes sophisticated nature of research theory.

No consistency issues noted.

The chapters have a nice flow to them, and can be "chunked" out for use in more beginner or more advanced courses. One preference of this reviewer would be to assign the ethics in research chapter earlier in the course calendar, and thus earlier in the textbook, so it is part of the foundational aspects of understanding social science inquiry. Meanwhile, the qualitative and two separate quantitative chapters play well together for students who will want to review them before exams or after the course is finished while they pursue a thesis/dissertation.

Again, I think the ethics chapter should be earlier, but that is simply a personal choice and can be altered by my syllabus. One issue that I wonder if graduate students might prefer is if they are not already 13 chapters into a text/course and only then are they getting to a basic concept such as measures of central tendency. Offering some of the nuts and bolts of research methods earlier in the text and tying them into the more theoretical concepts might help with clarity of flow for the typical graduate student.

No issues, nice charts and graphics throughout.

Very few noted.

This text is not insensitive in any way. As a matter of fact, pointing out historical issues in research ethics using some sensitive vignettes actually heightens the importance of research in everyday life.

I'm looking forward to adopting it for courses and using it for my own reflections on research!

Reviewed by Allison White, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 1/7/16

This text covers a wide array of topics relevant to social science research, including some that are not traditionally included but are welcome additions, such as a chapter dedicated to research ethics. A sample syllabus for a graduate course on research design is also offered at the end of the book, facilitating course development. The book is comprehensive in its treatment of the central components of research design and the different methodological strategies that researchers can leverage to investigate various research questions. Notably absent, however, is an index, glossary of terms, or questions for discussion, which are frequently included in textbooks devoted to research design.

The content is accurate and unbiased, which may be particularly important for texts on research design, as many fields within social science are intractably polarized between quantitative and qualitative approaches. The book goes a long way toward bridging that gap by treating the multitude of methodological orientations fairly and without obvious preference for one or another.

This book will stand the test of time due to its comprehensiveness and fair and balanced approach to research design. Both cutting-edge and classic approaches to research are discussed and the book may be easily updated as warranted by important developments in the social sciences.

The text is written clearly and accessibly, providing adequate context for most of the jargon and technical terminology that is covered. For this reason, it seems suitable for a variety of graduate-level courses, including research design survey courses and more advanced courses focusing on specific approaches.

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

The book neatly compartmentalizes the topics, making it easily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course. The individual chapters stand on their own and do not require contextualization. Numerous sub-headings throughout each chapter flag the central themes.

The topics in the text are presented in a logical, clear fashion. The topics build productively throughout the textbook, beginning with the basic concepts of research design and culminating with different strategies to approach research.

The book's interface is seamless. Charts and images appear appropriately sized and undistorted and the text is free from navigation problems.

The text does not contain conspicuous grammatical errors.

The text and examples provided in it are not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way. Examples are drawn from universal theories rather than research that is culturally-specific.

Reviewed by Jim Hutchinson, Lecturer, University of Minnesota on 6/10/15

This text covers all the basic concepts expected in a book on social science research. However, it does so at a fairly superficial level. The author says this was intentional in order to provide coverage of essential topics and not distract students. As such, the book seems to do a good job introducing all the essential concepts for graduate research, but supplemental materials are likely needed depending on instructor or student needs.

The book seems to free of errors and bias.

Social science research isn't likely to change greatly so this text should remain relevant for some time and can easily be updated to accommodate new techniques as they arise.

The book is generally well-written and accessible. The writing is clear and there are sufficient examples to help students grasp concepts.

The text appears consistent with others in the field.

The text may be best used as an overview of the research process in social sciences rather than a reference. However, various chapters could also be used alone or as supplement to other materials and excluding chapters not relevant to a particular course should not cause any issues. The author even mentions excluding certain chapters that are actually full courses where he teaches.

The organization and sequence seems very logical.

I accessed the PDF version and did not experience any issues with text or graphics.

I think a good proofread would help. There are a number of places where extraneous words were left in (perhaps when rewriting and changing the structure of a sentence) or where words are not quite right. For example:

"...a researcher looking at the world through a “rational lens” will look for rational explanations of the problem such as inadequate technology or poor fit between technology and the task context where it is being utilized, while another research[er] looking at the same problem through a “social lens” may seek out social deficiencies..."

Such errors are not really problematic but they are a bit distracting at times.

I did not find the book to be insensitive or offensive. Examples used are fairly benign. For example, when discussing the tendency of lay people to view a scientific theory as mere speculation the author uses an example of teacher practice instead of a more charged example such as evolution.

Overall, this is a good book to introduce graduate (and even undergraduate) students to social science research. It is not comprehensive enough to be the only text students encounter, but it would be sufficient for say master's level programs that focus more on capstone or practical "informed by research" projects. Students planning to conduct original research, analyze data and interpret results will likely find this insufficient.

Reviewed by Paul Goren, Professor, University of Minnesota on 7/15/14

This text introduces social science doctoral students to the research process. It can be used in sociology, political science, education public health, and related disciplines. The book does an excellent job covering topics that are too often neglected in research methods classes. Standard texts devote most of their attention to different modes of data collection (e.g, lab experiments, field experiments, quasi-experiments, survey research, aggregate data collection, interpretive and case study methods, etc.). This book covers these materials but also devotes a lot of time to steps in the research process that precede data collection. These steps include formulating a research question, concept definition, theory elaboration, measurement (including reliability and validity) and sampling. There is also cursory coverage of descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (a chapter on each) as well as chapter on research ethics. In terms of coverage, then, the text can be described as comprehensive in terms of topics. In terms of depth of coverage of the topics, the text takes a minimalist approach. That is, the fundamentals of each topic are covered, but there is little discussion beyond the basics. Teachers looking for the perfect text that nails all the key points should look elsewhere or make heavy use of supplements. For instance, in the discussion on concepts, constructs, and variables, the text does not distinguish between latent variables, which are unobservable, and manifest variables, which are observable, as is common in the structural equation modeling tradition used in sociology and psychology. This is a minor omission and there are others one might quibble with. The bottom line is that most key topics in the research process are covered, but the coverage is not terribly deep.

From what I can tell, the book is accurate in terms of what it covers. There are some things that should probably be included in subsequent revisions.

The social science research process is unlikely to change in any signfiicant way for some time; therefore, I suspect the book will be relevant for years to come. The key will be ensuring that the latest research trends/improvements/refinements are added to the book. For instance, internet sampling techniques have come a long way over the past decade and there are now pollng firms that can admister online surveys to representative samples of the broader U.S. population. So long as the author keeps on these develops, this will serve as a useful introductory text for the foreseable future.

This text is extremely and unusually well-written and clear. This is one of the text's greatest selling points. No complaints on this score.

The book is very consistent from what I can see.

This book can work in a number of ways. A teacher can sample the germane chapters and incorporate them without difficulty in any research methods class.

The organization is fine. The book presents all the topics in an appropriate sequence.

The interface is fine. I didn't experience any problems.

I didn't see any errors, it looks fine.

The book is not culturally offensive.

Teachers looking for a text that they can use to introduce students to the research process and cover the foundational components of the research process should find this manuscript sufficient for their needs. Simple additions on slides or class room commentary can easily take care of the various omissions that pepper the text. Indeed, one could use this text in conjunction with discipline specific supplements quite effectively. For instance, in chapter 3 on the research process, the author devotes 5 paragraphs to common mistakes in the research process, such as pursuing trivial research questions or blind data mining. I can see how psychologists, sociologists and political scientists could provide discipline-specific examples to tailor this to their students particular needs. More generally, I suspect that the text could be used in conjunction with germane discipline specific materials quite effectively in research methodology classes. The book is not perfect. I wish there was more discussion on field experiments in the experiment chapter. Other than a brief mention that these are relatively rare, there was nothing. These are indeed relatively rare but that seems to be changing in some fields (e.g. economic, political science), and I think more discussion of this technique is warranted. The chapter on case study methods would benefit from discussion on the historical and comparative methods that are used in various social science disciplines, as well as some discussion on case selection methods. The statistical coverage is very thin and should not serve as the primary source material in any class that covers statistics. For instance, the discussion on the empirical assessment of reliability (for items or scales) does not discuss in depth the assumptions that underlie the various methods nor the modifications that need to be made across different levels of measurement. To take another example, the author presents the formulae for the variance and standard deviation on p. 122 with the customary n-1 in the denominator. Students often ask me why we divide the mean squared deviation by n-1 instead of n, which is what we do for the mean. Professors will need to make sure that their slides include discussion of the degrees of freedom idea and perhaps some discussion on unbiasedness as well. In the inferential statistics chapter there's no discussion on desirable properties of estimators (unbiasedness and efficiency). This is an unfortunate oversight. These could be added very easily using simple graphs. One thing that's lacking is a chapter on statistical graphics. The book makes great use of graphics and other visual aids throughout the chapters, but I wish there as a standalone chapter that introduces simple plots for univariate and bivariate data. This can be supplemented easily enough, but the omission seems odd. Again, this book can serve as an compact introduction in a graduate research methodology class for students across the social sciences, but it would work best in conjunction with deeper and more discipline specific materials prepared by the professor.

Reviewed by Anika Leithner, Associate Professor, California Polytechnic State University on 7/15/14

This text certainly covers all the basic concepts and processes I would expect to find in an introduction to social sciences research. What I liked in particular is that the author includes information on the ENTIRE research process, including critical thinking and research ethics, in addition to the "nuts and bolts" of research such as operationalization, data collection, and data analysis. I also find it useful that the author includes sections on both qualitative and quantitative research, which is great for an introductory level course. In general, readers can expect to find information on theory- and hypothesis building, operationalization/measurements, sampling, research design, various data collection strategies (e.g. surveys, experiments, etc.), as well as data analysis. The primary reason I did not give this text 5 stars is that the author does not provide a great amount of detail for a lot of the book's sections. He explains in the preface that he purposefully chose to reduce the text to the basics in order to keep the text compact and clutter-free. In general, I tend to agree with this approach, as so many methodology textbooks seem to get lost in examples and case studies without clearly illustrating the research process as a whole. However, as I was reading through this book, I kept thinking that I would need to supplement multiple areas of this book with more information in order to make it truly accessible to my students. To be fair, I think that A) anyone who has taught methods before would be able to use the "bones" of this book to prepare students sufficiently well for class and then easily fill in the blanks, and B) it appears that this text was written primarily with graduate students in mind, whereas I most teach undergraduates. In all, I still think that this is a great free alternative to many textbooks out there, but if your teaching style depends on your text including a lot of explanation and examples (or even applications), then this is likely not the text for you. Finally, this book does NOT include an index or a glossary. Personally, I did not find this to be a problem, as the outline/table of contents is very useful, but perhaps students using the text could benefit from an index that would allow them to quickly look up what they need to know.

I did not detect any errors or any purposeful bias in this textbook! Some readers might find that the author's choice of terminology does not necessarily match what I would consider standard practices in the broader social sciences (e.g. the use of the term "mediating variables" instead of "intervening variables"), but it is always clear what the book is referring to and it shouldn't be too difficult to bridge this "terminology gap." Occasionally, I was a bit puzzled by a definition or an explanation. For instance, the author states that "control variables" are not pertinent to explaining the dependent variable, but need to be taken into consideration because they may have "some impact" on it. I'm assuming the author means that they are not pertinent to the hypothesis being tested (as opposed to them not being pertinent to the explanation of the dependent variable). This type of ambiguity does not occur very often in the textbook and it does not necessarily represent an error. It merely seems to be an issue of miscommunication. Overall, I very much liked this text for its accuracy.

Luckily, research methods do not change drastically in a short period of time, so I expect the longevity of this book to be very high. In my experience, the biggest factor that can make a research text outdated is the use of up-to-date examples and case studies. This text includes very few of either, so I think this text could be used for many years to come.

The book is very clear and accessible, probably largely due to its minimalist approach. Aside from the above-mentioned deviations from broader social sciences terminology on a few occasions, I did not encounter any problems with the jargon/technical terminology used. The only minor problem I noted (which made me I've a ranking of 4 as opposed to 5) was a certain amount of repetitiveness in the earlier chapters, specifically with regard to positivism/post-positivism and the discussion of theory/hypothesis creation and testing.

The book is very consistent. It has a clear outline that matches the natural research process and the author very consistently adhere to this outline. Chapters naturally flow from one another and are logical.

This book is very well organized and easily accessible due to its division into logical chapters and sub-sections. In addition, the author highlights important concepts in bold, making it even easier to follow along. I would have no problem assigning smaller reading sections throughout the quarter/semester.

As mentioned above, the text is very well organized and flows naturally/logically. It follows the research process from critical thinking, conceptualization, to operationalization/measurements, research design, data collection, and data analysis. Research ethics are discussed in an appendix/addendum.

There are no major problems with the book's interface. Occasionally, graphs and tables are not as crisp and visually appealing as they might be in an expensive textbook, but personally, the ability to assign an open source text to my students far outweighs any concerns I might have about the visual attractiveness of a book. This text is easy to read and quite user-friendly.

I detected no grammatical errors.

The text includes very few examples and it is hard to imagine how research methods in general could be offensive to anyone (unless it is the practice of science itself that offends them), but for completeness' sake, allow me to state that I found no instances of insensitivity or offense in this textbook.

This text covers all the basics of the research process. It does not contain a lot of the "bells and whistles" that the expensive traditional textbooks have (e.g. lots of examples, fancy graphs, text boxes with case studies and applications, etc.), but it certainly gets the job done. Personally, I appreciate the compact nature of this text and I would much rather fill in a few gaps on my end, if it means that I can assign my students an open textbook.

Reviewed by Brendan Watson, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota on 7/15/14

See overall comments. read more

See overall comments.

Dr. Bhattacherjee's "Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices," is a comprehensive, but a bare-boned (and generic) introduction to social science research. In this case "generic" is actually a positive attribute: because the text covers social science research broadly, rather than sociology, psychology, etc. specifically, this text can easily be adapted to the needs of basic research methods courses in allied disciplines. (I teach an introductory quantitative research course for master's and Ph.D. students in a School of Journalism & Mass Communication). I describe the text as comprehensive, because if my students got a basic grasp of all of the concepts in the book, they'd be well positioned to continue on to more advanced research courses (though the text is less valuable as a reference than more comprehensive introductory texts). But while Dr. Bhattacherjee's introduction says that the book is bare-boned by design -- "I decided to focus only on essential concepts, and not fill pages with clutter that can divert the students' attention to less relevant or tangential issues" -- some topics deserve more attention. For example, Institutional Review Boards (IRB) receive only two short paragraphs, and there is no mention of the history of why such boards were deemed necessary and play an important role in the research process. I'd consider such knowledge essential for students, and this is the type of information I would like a text to focus on so that I can spend class time reviewing more complicated concepts students might have trouble grasping on their own. (Generally I found the writing to be approachable, and concepts to be well explained, though extensive examples are also part of the "clutter" omitted from this book). Another topic I would have liked to see developed further - and perhaps is especially important to the more digitally-savvy crowd interested in the open textbook movement - is the expanding role of the Internet and digital technologies in the research process itself, particularly in the era of "big data." The text, for example, mentions Internet surveys, but there is no conversation about tools one can use to build an Internet survey; how Internet surveys differ from traditional modes of surveying; or the practice of weighting Internet survey results to make them "representative" of the larger population. That said, I am balancing using this text versus a more comprehensive, but much more expensive, commercially produced text. Another thing that this book is missing are instructional resources that commercial publishers provide, but ultimately by using this text I can contribute to creating greater value for my students. However, it would have to be supplemented heavily with other materials, as well as lectures, which is not without a trade-off cost. It's certainly doable, but ultimately means a greater investment of my time, and I have to weigh investing my time in creating hands-on learning opportunities and providing students with thorough feedback on their work with the time I'd have to invest in using a text that is complete, but needs to be much more heavily supplemented with additional materials. Ideally, several faculty with similar teaching needs would team up to combine and adapt several open texts to their courses' needs. Adapting and supplementing this text for my purposes by myself, however, remains a steep, if not insurmountable task for a tenure-track professor. This text, however, is thorough enough to maintain my interested in trying to find a way to make it work.

About the book.

Part I. Main Body

Science and scientific research
Thinking like a researcher
The research process
Theories in scientific research
Research design
Measurement of constructs
Scale reliability and validity
Survey research
Experimental research
Case research
Interpretive research
Qualitative analysis
Quantitative analysis: Descriptive statistics
Quantitative analysis: Inferential statistics
Research ethics

Ancillary Material

This book is designed to introduce doctoral and postgraduate students to the process of conducting scientific research in the social sciences, business, education, public health, and related disciplines. It is a one-stop, comprehensive, and compact source for foundational concepts in behavioural research, and can serve as a standalone text or as a supplement to research readings in any doctoral seminar or research methods class. This book is currently being used as a research text at universities in 216 countries, across six continents and has been translated into seven different languages. To receive updates on this book, including the translated versions, please follow the author on Facebook or Twitter @Anol_B.

About the Contributors

Anol Bhattacherjee is a professor of information systems and Citigroup/Hidden River Fellow at the University of South Florida, USA. He is one of the top ten information systems researchers in the world, ranked eighth based on research published in the top two journals in the discipline, MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research , over the last decade (2001-2010). In a research career spanning 15 years, Dr. Bhattacherjee has published over 50 refereed journal papers and two books that have received over 4,000 citations on Google Scholar. He also served on the editorial board of MIS Quarterly for four years and is frequently invited to present his research or build new research programs at universities all over the world. More information about Dr. Bhattacherjee can be obtained from his webpage at http://ab2020.weebly.com .

Contribute to this Page

PSC/SOC 340/JS 504: Social Science Research Methods

Getting Started
The Scientific Method
How to Read Scientific Articles
Research vs Review Articles
Quantitative vs Qualitative Research
Books About Research Process
Lit Review & Research Question

What is the difference between a theory & a hypothesis?

An example of how to write a hypothesis.

Research Design
Research Instrument
Find Articles, Reports & Documents
How do I find a Quantitative article?
Find Statistics
Find Poll & Survey Results
Evaluate Your Sources
Cite Your Sources

The terms theory and hypothesis are often used interchangeably in everyday use. However, the difference between them in scholarly research is important, particularly when using an experimental design. A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories arise from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted [e.g., rational choice theory; grounded theory].

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your research.

The key distinctions are:

A theory predicts events in a broad, general context; a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.
A theory has been extensively tested and is generally accepted among scholars; a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

Cherry, Kendra. Introduction to Research Methods: Theory and Hypothesis . About.com Psychology; Gezae, Michael et al. Welcome Presentation on Hypothesis . Slideshare presentation.

A worker on a fish-farm notices that his trout seem to have more fish lice in the summer, when the water levels are low, and wants to find out why. His research leads him to believe that the amount of oxygen is the reason - fish that are oxygen stressed tend to be more susceptible to disease and parasites.

He proposes a general hypothesis.

“Water levels affect the amount of lice suffered by rainbow trout.”

This is a good general hypothesis, but it gives no guide to how to design the research or experiment . The hypothesis must be refined to give a little direction.

“Rainbow trout suffer more lice when water levels are low.”

Now there is some directionality, but the hypothesis is not really testable , so the final stage is to design an experiment around which research can be designed, a testable hypothesis.

“Rainbow trout suffer more lice in low water conditions because there is less oxygen in the water.”

This is a testable hypothesis - he has established variables , and by measuring the amount of oxygen in the water, eliminating other controlled variables , such as temperature, he can see if there is a correlation against the number of lice on the fish.

This is an example of how a gradual focusing of research helps to define how to write a hypothesis .

<< Previous: Theory
Next: Research Design >>
Last Updated: Oct 27, 2023 11:09 AM
URL: https://libguides.mssu.edu/PSC340

This site is maintained by the librarians of George A. Spiva Library . If you have a question or comment about the Library's LibGuides, please contact the site administrator .

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Research hypothesis: What it is, how to write it, types, and examples

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

in social research a hypothesis is best described as

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

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

Table of Contents

What is a hypothesis ?

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

What is a research hypothesis ?

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

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

Characteristics of a good hypothesis

Here are the characteristics of a good hypothesis :

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

How to create an effective research hypothesis

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

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

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

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

How to write a research hypothesis

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

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

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

Population: athletes

Independent variable: daily cold water showers

Dependent variable: endurance

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

Research hypothesis checklist

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

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

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

Types of research hypothesis

Different types of research hypothesis are used in scientific research:

1. Null hypothesis:

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

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

2. Alternative hypothesis:

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

Example: “ The newly identified virus is zoonotic .”

3. Directional hypothesis :

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

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

4. Non-directional hypothesis:

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

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

5. Simple hypothesis :

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

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

6 . Complex hypothesis :

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

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

7. Associative hypothesis:

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

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

8 . Causal hypothesis:

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

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

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

Research hypothesis examples

Here are some good research hypothesis examples :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of testable hypothesis

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on research hypothesis

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

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

2. When to reject null hypothesis ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Can research hypotheses be used in qualitative research?

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

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

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month !  

Tips on Writing the Acknowledgments Section

What is Confidence Interval and How to Calculate it (with Examples)

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Module 2 Chapter 1: The Nature of Social Work Research Questions

The search for empirical evidence typically begins with a question or hypothesis. The nature of the questions asked determine many features of the studies that lead to answers: the study approach, design, measurement, participant selection, data collection, data analysis, and reporting of results. Not just any type of question will do, however:

“When the question is poorly formulated, the design, analysis, sample size calculations, and presentation of results may not be optimal. The gap between research and clinical practice could be bridged by a clear, complete, and informative research question” (Mayo, Asano, & Barbic, 2013, 513).

The topic concerning the nature of social work research questions has two parts: what constitutes a research question, and what makes it a social work question. We begin this chapter by examining a general model for understanding where different types of questions fit into the larger picture of knowledge building explored in Module 1. We then look at research questions and social work questions separately. Finally, we reassemble them to identify strong social work research questions.

In this chapter, you will learn:

4 types of social work research for knowledge building,
characteristics of research questions,
characteristics of social work research questions.

Translational Science

The concept of translational science addresses the application of basic science discoveries and knowledge to routine professional practice. In medicine, the concept is sometimes described as “bench to trench,” meaning that it takes what is learned at the laboratory “bench” to practitioners’ work in the real-world, or “in the trenches.” This way of thinking is about applied science—research aimed at eventual applications to create or support change. Figure 1-1 assembles the various pieces of the translational science knowledge building enterprise:

Figure 1-1. Overview of translational science elements

Basic Research . Federal policy defines basic research as systematic study that is directed toward understanding the fundamental aspects of phenomena without specific applications in mind (adapted from 32 CFR 272.3). Basic research efforts are those designed to describe something or answer questions about its nature. Basic research in social and behavioral science addresses questions of at least two major types: epidemiology and etiology questions.

Epidemiology questions. Questions about the nature of a population, problem, or social phenomenon are often answered through epidemiological methods. Epidemiology is the branch of science (common in public health) for understanding how a problem or phenomenon is distributed in a population. Epidemiologists also ask and address questions related to the nature of relationships between problems or phenomena—such as the relationship between opioid misuse and infectious disease epidemics (NAS, 2018). One feature offered by epidemiological research is a picture of trends over time. Consider, for example, epidemiology data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) regarding trends in suicide rates in the state of Ohio over a four-year period (see Figure 1-2, created from data presented by CDC WONDER database).

Figure 1-2. Graph reflecting Ohio trend in suicide rate, 2012-2016

Since the upward trend is of concern, social workers might pursue additional questions to examine possible causes of the observed increases, as well as what the increase might mean to the expanded need for supportive services to families and friends of these individuals. The epidemiological data can help tease out some of these more nuanced answers. For example, epidemiology also tells us that firearms were the recorded cause in 46.9% of known suicide deaths among individuals aged 15-24 years across the nation during 2016 (CDC, WONDER database). Not only do we now know the numbers of suicide deaths in this age group, we know something about a relevant factor that might be addressed through preventive intervention and policy responses.

Epidemiology also addresses questions about the size and characteristics of a population being impacted by a problem or the scope of a problem. For example, a social worker might have a question about the “shape” of a problem defined as sexual violence victimization. Data from the United States’ 2010-2012 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) indicated that over 36% of woman (1 in 3) and 17% of men (1 in 6) have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact at some point in their lives; the numbers vary by state, from 29.5% to 47.5% for women and 10.4% to 29.3% for men (Smith et al., 2017).

In developing informed responses to a problem, it helps to know for whom it is a problem. Practitioners, program administrators, and policy decision makers may not be aware that the problem of sexual violence is so prevalent, or that men are victimized at worrisome rates, as well as women. It is also helpful to know how the problem of interest might interface with other problems. For example, the interface between perpetrating sexual assault and alcohol use was examined in a study of college men (Testa & Cleveland, 2017). The study investigators determined that frequently attending parties and bars was associated with a greater probability of perpetrating sexual assault. Thus, epidemiological research helps answer questions about the scope and magnitude of a problem, as well as how it relates to other issues or factors, which can then inform next steps in research to address the problem.

Etiology questions. Etiology research tests theories and hypotheses about the origins and natural course of a problem or phenomenon. This includes answering questions about factors that influence the appearance or course of a problem—these may be factors that mediate or moderate the phenomenon’s development or progression (e.g., demographic characteristics, co-occurring problems, or other environmental processes). To continue with our intimate partner violence example, multiple theories are presented in the literature concerning the etiology of intimate partner violence perpetration—theories also exist concerning the etiology of being the target of intimate partner violence (Begun, 2003). Perpetration theories include:

personality/character traits
biological/hereditary/genetic predisposition
social learning/behavior modeling
social skills
self-esteem
cultural norms (Begun, 2003, p. 642).

Evidence supporting each of these theories exists, to some degree; each theory leads to the development of a different type of prevention or intervention response. The “best” interventions will be informed by theories with the strongest evidence or will integrate elements from multiple evidence-supported theories.

Etiology research is often about understanding the mechanisms underlying the phenomena of interest. The questions are “how” questions—how does this happen (or not)? For example, scientists asked the question: how do opioid medications (used to manage pain) act on neurons compared to opioids that naturally occur in the brain (Stoeber et al., 2018)? They discovered that opioid medications used to treat pain bind to receptors inside n erve cells, which is a quite different mechanism than the conventional wisdom that they behave the same way that naturally occurring (endogenous) opioids do—binding only on the surface of nerve cells. Understanding this mechanism opens new options for developing pain relievers that are less- or non-addicting than current opioid medicines like morphine and oxycodone. Once these mechanisms of change are understood, interventions can be developed, then tested through intervention research approaches.

Intervention Research. Interventions are designed around identified needs: epidemiology research helps to support intervention design by identify the needs. Epidemiology research also helps identify theories concerning the causes and factors affecting social work problems. Intervention development is further supported by later theory-testing and etiology research. However, developing an intervention is not sufficient: interventions need to be tested and evaluated to ensure that they are (1) safe, (2) effective, and (3) cost-efficient to deliver. This is where intervention research comes into play. Consider the example of Motivational Interviewing (MI) approaches to addressing client ambivalence about engaging in a behavior change effort. Early research concerning MI addressed questions about its effectiveness. For example, a meta-analytic review reported that “MI should be considered as a treatment for adolescent substance abuse” because the evidence demonstrated small, but significant effect sizes, and that the treatment gains were retained over time (Jensen et al., 2011). Subsequently, when its safety and effectiveness were consistently demonstrated through this kind of evidence, investigators assessed MI as cost-efficient or cost-effective. For example, MI combined with providing feedback was demonstrated to be cost-effective in reducing drinking among college students who engaged in heavy drinking behavior (Cowell et al., 2012).

Intervention research not only is concerned with the outcomes of delivering an intervention, but may also address the mechanisms of change through which an intervention has its effects—not only what changes happen, but how they happen. For example, investigators are exploring how psychotherapy works, moving beyond demonstrating that it works (Ardito & Rabellino, 2011; Kazdin, 2007; Wampold, 2015). One mechanism that has garnered attention is the role of therapeutic alliance—the relationships, bonds, and interactions that occur in the context of treatment—on treatment outcomes.

Therapeutic alliance is one common factor identified across numerous types of effective psychotherapeutic approaches (Wampold, 2015). Authors summarizing a number of studies about therapeutic alliance and its positive relationship to treatment outcomes concluded that the quality of therapeutic alliance may be a more powerful predictor of positive outcome than is the nature or type of intervention delivered (Ardito & Rabellino, 2011). However, it is important to determine the extent to which (a) therapeutic alliance enhances clients’ symptom improvement, (b) gradual improvements in symptoms lead to enhanced therapeutic alliance, or (c) the relationship between therapeutic alliance and symptom improvement are iterative—they go back and forth, influencing each other over time (Kazdin, 2007).

Implementation Science . Social work and other disciplines have produced a great deal of evidence about “what works” for intervening around a great number of social work problems. Unfortunately, many best practices with this kind of evidence support are slow to become common practices. Implementation science is about understanding facilitators and barriers to these evidence-supported interventions becoming adopted into routine practice: characteristics of the interventions themselves, conditions and processes operating in the organizations where interventions are implemented, and factors external to these organizations all influence practitioners’ adoption of evidence supported interventions.

Even under optimal internal organizational conditions, implementation can be undermined by changes in organizations’ external environments, such as fluctuations in funding, adjustments in contracting practices, new technology, new legislation, changes in clinical practice guidelines and recommendations, or other environmental shifts” (Birken, et al, 2017).

Research for/about Research . In addition, social work investigators engage in research that is specifically about scientific methodology. This is where advances in measurement, participant recruitment and retention, and data analysis emerge. The results of these kinds of research studies are used to improve the research in basic, intervention, and implementation research. Later in the course you will see some of these products in action as we learn about best practices in research and evaluation methodology. Here are a few examples related to measurement methods:

Concept mapping to assess community needs of sexual minority youth (Davis, Saltzburg, & Locke, 2010)
Field methodologies for measuring college student drinking in natural environments (Clapp et al., 2007)
Intergenerational contact measurement (Jarrott, Weaver, Bowen, & Wang, 2018)
Perceived Social Competence Scale-II (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2016)
Safe-At-Home Instrument to measure readiness to change intimate partner violence behavior (Begun et al., 2003; 2008; Sielski, Begun, & Hamel, 2015)
Teamwork Scale for Youth (Lower, Newman, & Anderson-Butcher, 2016)

And, here are a few examples related to involving participants in research studies:

Conducting safe research with at risk populations (Kyriakakis, Waller, Kagotho, & Edmond, 2015)
Recruitment strategies for non-treatment samples in addiction studies (Subbaraman et al., 2015)
Variations in recruitment results across Internet platforms (Shao et al., 2015)

Take a moment to complete the following activity.

Research Questions

In this section, we take a closer look at research questions and their relationship to the types of research conducted by investigators. It may be easier to understand research questions by first ruling out what are not research questions. In that spirit, let’s begin with examples of questions where applying research methods will not help to find answers:

Trauma informed education. The first issue with this example is obvious: it is not worded as a question. The second is critically important: this is a general topic, it is not a research question. This topic is too vague and broad making it impossible to determine what answers would look like or how to approach finding answers.
How is my client feeling about what just happened? This type of question about an individual is best answered by asking clinical questions of that individual, within the context of the therapeutic relationship, not by consulting research literature or conducting a systematic research study.
Will my community come together in protest of a police-involved shooting incident? This type of question may best be answered by waiting to see what the future brings. Research might offer a guess based on data from how other communities behaved in the past but cannot predict how groups in individual situations will behave. A better research question might be: What factors predict community protest in response to police-involved shooting incidents?
Should I order salad or soup to go with my sandwich? This type of question is not of general interest, making it a poor choice as a research question. The question might be reframed as a general interest question: Is it healthier to provide salad or soup along with a sandwich? The answer to that researchable question might inform a personal decision.
Why divorce is bad for children. There are two problems with this example. First, it is a statement, not a question, despite starting with the word “why.” Second, this question starts out with a biased assumption—that divorce is bad for children. Research questions should support unbiased investigation, leading to evidence and answers representative of what exists rather than what someone sets out wanting to prove is the case. A better research question might be: How does divorce affect children?

Tuning back to our first example of what is not a research question, consider several possible school social work research questions related to that general topic:

To what extent do elementary school personnel feel prepared to engage in trauma informed education with their students?
What are the barriers and facilitators of integrating trauma informed education in middle school?
Does integrating trauma informed education result in lower rates of suicidal ideation among high school students?

Is there a relationship between parent satisfaction and the implementation of trauma informed education in their children’s schools?

Does implementing trauma informed education in middle schools affect the rate of student discipline referrals?

What is the difference between these research questions and the earlier “not research” questions? First, research questions are specific. This is an important distinction between identifying a topic of interest (e.g., trauma informed education) and asking a researchable question. For example, the question “How does divorce affect children?” is not a good research question because it remains too broad. Instead, investigators might focus their research questions on one or two specific effects of interest, such as emotional or mental health, academic performance, sibling relationships, aggression, gender role, or dating relationship outcomes.

Image of a family with a tear seperating a father from a mother with children

Related to a question being “researchable” is its feasibility for study. Being able to research a question requires that appropriate data can be collected with integrity. For example, it may not be feasible to study what would happen if every child was raised by two parents, because (a) it is impossible to study every child and (2) this reality cannot ethically be manipulated to systematically explore it. No one can ethically conduct a study whereby children are randomly assigned by study investigators to the compared conditions of being raised by two parents versus being raised by one or no parents. Instead, we settle for observing what has occurred naturally in different families.

Second, “good” research questions are relevant to knowledge building. For this reason, the question about what to eat was not a good research question—it is not relevant to others’ knowledge development. Relevance is in the “eye of the beholder,” however. A social work researcher may not see the relevance of using a 4-item stimulus array versus a 6-item stimulus array in testing children’s memory, but this may be an important research question for a cognitive psychology researcher. It may, eventually, have implications for assessment measures used in social work practice.

Third, is the issue of bias built into research questions. Remembering that investigators are a product of their own developmental and social contexts, what they choose to study and how they choose to study it are socially constructed. An important aspect at the heart of social work research relates to a question’s cultural appropriateness and acceptability. To demonstrate this point, consider an era (during the 1950s to early 1970s) when research questions were asked about the negative effects on child development of single-parent, black family households compared to two-parent, white family households in America. This “majority comparison” frame of reference is not culturally appropriate or culturally competent. Today, in social work, we adopt a strengths perspective, and avoid making comparisons of groups against a majority model. For example, we might ask questions like: What are the facilitators and barriers of children’s positive development as identified by single parents of diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds? What strengths do African American parents bring to the experience of single-parenting and how does it shape their children’s development? What are the similar and different experiences of single-parenting experienced by families of different racial/ethnic composition?

Research Questions versus Research Hypotheses . You have now seen examples of “good” research questions. Take, for example, the last one we listed about trauma informed education:

Based on a review of literature, practice experience, previous research efforts, and the school’s interests, an investigator may be prepared to be even more specific about the research question (see Figure 1-3). Assume that these sources led the investigator to believe that implementing the trauma informed education approach will have the effect of reducing the rate of disciplinary referrals. The investigator may then propose to test the following hypothesis:

Implementing trauma informed education in middle schools will result in a reduction in the number of student discipline referrals.

The research hypothesis is a clear statement that can be tested with quantitative data and will either be rejected or not, depending on the evidence. Research hypotheses are predictions about study results—what the investigator expects the results will show. The prediction, or hypothesis, is based on theory and/or other evidence. A study hypothesis is, by definition, quantifiable—the answer lies in numerical data, which is why we do not generally see hypotheses in qualitative, descriptive research reports.

Hypotheses are also specific to one question at a time. Thus, an investigator would need to state and test a second hypothesis to answer the question:

The stated hypothesis might be:

Parent satisfaction is higher in middle schools where trauma informed education is implemented.

Figure 1-3. Increasing specificity from research topic to question to hypothesis

Social Work Questions

It is difficult to find a simple way to characterize social work research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) described social work research in the following way:

Historically, social work research has focused on studies of the individual, family, group, community, policy and/or organizational level, focusing across the lifespan on prevention, intervention, treatment, aftercare and rehabilitation of acute and chronic conditions, including the effects of policy on social work practice (OBSSR, 2003, p. 5) .

For all the breadth expressed in this statement, it reflects only how social work research relates to the health arena—it does not indicate many other domains and service delivery systems of social work influence:

physical, mental, and behavioral health
substance misuse/addiction and other addictive behaviors
income/poverty
criminal justice
child and family welfare
housing and food security/insecurity
environmental social work
intimate partner, family, and community violence
and others.

In addition to breadth of topic, social work research is characterized by its biopsychosocial nature. This means that social work researchers not only pursue questions relating to biological, psychological, and social context factors, but also questions relating to their intersections and interactions. Related to this observation is that social work not only addresses questions related to the multiple social system levels, social work also addresses the ways multiple levels intersect and interact (i.e., those levels represented in the NIH statement about individuals, families, groups, communities, organizations, and policy).

It is worth noting that research need not be conducted by social workers to be relevant to social work–many disciplines and professions contribute to the knowledge base which informs social work practice (medicine, nursing, education, occupational therapy, psychology, sociology, criminal justice, political science, economics, and more). Authors of one social work research textbook summarize the relevance issue in the following statement:

“To social workers, a relevant research question is one whose answers will have an impact on policies, theories, or practices related to the social work profession” (Grinnell & Unrau, 2014, p. 46).

Social Work Research Questions and Specific Aims

The kinds of questions that help inform social work practice and policy are relevant to understanding social work problems, diverse populations, social phenomena, or interventions. Most social work research questions can be divided into two general categories: background questions and foreground questions . The major distinction between these two categories relates to the specific aims that emerge in relation to the research questions.

Background Questions. This type of question is answerable with a fact or set of facts. Background questions are generally simple in structure, and they direct a straightforward search for evidence. This type of question can usually be formulated using the classic 5 question words: who, what, when, where, or why. Here are a few examples of social work background questions related to the topic of fetal alcohol exposure:

Who is at greatest risk of fetal alcohol exposure?
What are the developmental consequences of fetal alcohol exposure?
When in gestation is the risk of fetal alcohol exposure greatest?
Where do women get information about the hazards of drinking during pregnancy?
Why is fetal alcohol exposure (FAE) presented as a spectrum disorder, different from fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS)?

These kinds of questions direct a social worker to review literature about human development, human behavior, the distribution of the problem across populations, and factors that determine the nature of a specific social work problem like fetal exposure to alcohol. Where the necessary knowledge is lacking, investigators aim to explore or describe the phenomenon of interest. Many background questions can be answered by epidemiology or etiology evidence.

Image of glasses of wine on the left and an outline of a woman with a baby inside of her on the right

Foreground Questions. This type of question is more complex than the typical background question. Foreground questions typically are concerned with making specific choices by comparing or evaluating options. These types of questions required more specialized evidence and may lead to searching different types of resources than would be helpful for answering background questions. Foreground questions are dealt with in greater detail in our second course, SWK 3402 which is about understanding social work interventions. A quick foreground question example related to the fetal exposure to alcohol topic might be:

Which is the best tool for screening pregnant women for alcohol use with the aim of reducing fetal exposure, the T-ACE, TWEAK, or AUDIT?

This type of question leads the social worker to search for evidence that compares different approaches. These kinds of evidence are usually found in comparative reviews, or require the practitioner to conduct a review of literature, locating individual efficacy and effectiveness studies. Where knowledge is found to be lacking, investigators aim to experiment with different approaches or interventions.

Three Question Types and Their Associated Research Aims

Important distinctions exist related to different types of background questions. Consider three general categories of questions that social workers might ask about populations, problems, and social phenomena: exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory. The different types of questions matter because the nature of the research questions determines the specific aims and most appropriate research approaches investigators apply in answering them.

Exploratory Research Questions. Social workers may find themselves facing a new, emerging problem where there is little previously developed knowledge available—so little, in fact, that it is premature to begin asking any more complex questions about causes or developing testable theories. Exploratory research questions open the door to beginning understanding and are basic; answers would help build the foundation of knowledge for asking more complex descriptive and explanatory questions. For example, in the early days of recognition that HIV/AIDS was emerging as a significant public health problem, it was premature to jump to questions about how to treat or prevent the problem. Not enough was known about the nature and scope of the problem, for whom it was a problem, how the problem was transmitted, factors associated with risk for exposure, what factors influenced the transition from HIV exposure to AIDS as a disease state, and what issues or problems might co-occur along with either HIV exposure or AIDS. In terms of a knowledge evolution process, a certain degree of exploration had to occur before intervention strategies for prevention and treatment could be developed, tested, and implemented.

In 1981, medical providers, public health officials, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began to circulate and publish observations about a disproportionate, unexpectedly high incidence rate of an unusual pneumonia and Kaposi’s sarcoma appearing in New York City and San Francisco/California among homosexual men (Curran, & Jaffe, 2011). As a result, a task force was formed and charged with conducting an epidemiologic investigation of this outbreak; “Within 6 months, it was clear that a new, highly concentrated epidemic of life threatening illness was occurring in the United States” (Curran & Jaffe, 2011, p. 65). The newly recognized disease was named for its symptoms: acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS. Exploratory research into the social networks of 90 living patients in 10 different cities indicated that 40 had a sexual contact link with another member of the 90-patient group (Auerbach, Darrow, Jaffe, & Curran, 1984). Additionally, cases were identified among persons who had received blood products related to their having hemophilia, persons engaged in needle sharing during substance use, women who had sexual contact with a patient, and infants born to exposed women. Combined, these pieces of information led to an understanding that the causal infectious factor (eventually named the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV) was transmitted by sexual contact, blood, and placental connection. This, in turn, led to knowledge building activities to develop both preventive and treatment strategies which could be implemented and studied. Social justice concerns relate to the slow rate at which sufficient resources were committed for evolving to the point of effective solutions for saving lives among those at risk or already affected by a heavily stigmatized problem.

The exploratory research approaches utilized in the early HIV/AIDS studies were both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Qualitative studies included in-depth interviews with identified patients—anthropological and public health interviews about many aspects of their living, work, and recreational environments, as well as many types of behavior. Quantitative studies included comparisons between homosexually active men with and without the diseases of concern. In addition, social network study methods combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. These examples of early exploratory research supported next steps in knowledge building to get us to where we are today. “Today, someone diagnosed with HIV and treated before the disease is far advanced can live nearly as long as someone who does not have HIV” (hiv.gov). While HIV infection cannot (yet) be “cured,” it can be controlled and managed as a chronic condition.

Descriptive Research Questions. Social workers often ask for descriptions about specific populations, problems, processes, or phenomena. Descriptive research questions might be expressed in terms of searching to create a profile of a group or population, create categories or types (typology) to describe elements of a population, document facts that confirm or contradict existing beliefs about a topic or issue, describe a process, or identify steps/stages in a sequential process (Grinnell & Unrau, 2014). Investigators may elect to approach the descriptive question using qualitative methods that result in a rich, deep description of certain individuals’ experiences or perceptions (Yegidis, Weinbach, & Meyers, 2018). Or, the descriptive question might lead investigators to apply quantitative methods, assigning numeric values, measuring variables that describe a population, process, or situation of interest. In descriptive research, investigators do not manipulate or experiment with the variables; investigators seek to describe what naturally occurs (Yegidis, Weinbach, & Meyers, 2018). As a result of studies answering descriptive questions, tentative theories and hypotheses may be generated.

Here are several examples of descriptive questions.

How do incarcerated women feel about the option of medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders?
What barriers to engaging in substance misuse treatment do previously incarcerated persons experience during community reentry?
How often do emerging adults engage in binge drinking in different drinking contexts (e.g., bars, parties, sporting events, at home)?
What percent of incarcerated adults experience a substance use disorder?
What is the magnitude of racial/ethnic disparities in access to treatment for substance use disorders?
Who provides supervision or coordination of services for aging adults with intellectual or other developmental disabilities?
What is the nature of the debt load among students in doctoral social work programs?

Image of a prison cell from outside of the bars

An example of descriptive research, derived from a descriptive question, is represented in an article where investigators addressed the question: How is the topic of media violence and aggression reported in print media (Martins et al., 2013)? This question led the investigators to conduct a qualitative content analysis, resulting in a description showing a shift in tone where earlier articles (prior to 2000) emphasized the link as a point of concern and later articles (since 2000) assumed a more neutral stance.

Correlational Research Questions. One important type of descriptive question asks about relationships that might exist between variables—looking to see if variable x and variable y are associated or correlated with each other. This is an example of a correlational research question; it does not indicate whether “x” causes “y” or “y” causes “x”, only whether these two are related. Consider again the topic of exposure to violence in the media and its relationship to aggression. A descriptive question asked about the existence of a relationship between exposure to media violence ( variable x ) and children’s expression of aggression ( variable y ). Investigators reported one study of school-aged children, examining the relationship between exposure to three types of media violence (television, video games, and movies/videos) and three types of aggression (verbal, relational, and physical; Gentile, Coyne, & Walsh, 2011). The study investigators reported that media violence exposure was, indeed, correlated with all three types of aggressive behavior (and less prosocial behavior, too).

For a positive correlation (the blue line), as the value of the “x” variable increases, so does the value of the “y” variable (see Figure 1-4 for a general demonstration). An example might be as age or grade in school increases (“x”), so does the number of preadolescent, adolescent, and emerging adults who have used alcohol (“y”). For a negative correlation (the orange line), as the value of the “x” variable increases, the value of the “y” variable decreases. An example might be as the number of weeks individuals are in treatment for depression symptoms (“x”), the reported depression symptoms decreases (“y”). The neutral of non-correlation line (grey) means that the two variables, “x” and “y” do not have an association with each other. For example, number of years of teachers’ education (“x”) might be unrelated to the number of students dropping out of high school (“y”).

Figure 1-4. Depicting positive, negative, and neutral correlation lines

Descriptive correlational studies are sometimes called comparison studies because the descriptive question is answered by comparing groups that differ on one of the variables (low versus high media violence exposure) to see how they might differ on the other variable (aggressive behavior).

Explanatory Research Questions. To inform the design of evidence-informed interventions, social workers need answers to questions about the nature of the relationships between potentially influential factors or variables. An explanatory research question might be mapped as: Does variable x cause, lead to or prevent changes in variable y (Grinnell & Unrau, 2014)? These types of questions often test theory related to etiology.

Comparative research might provide information about a relationship between variables. For example, the difference in outcomes between persons experiencing a substance use disorder and have been incarcerated compared to others with the same problem but have not been incarcerated may be related to their employability and ability to generate a living-wage income for themselves and their families. However, to develop evidence-informed interventions, social workers need to know that variables are not only related, but that one variable actually plays a causal role in relation to the other. Imagine, for example, that evidence demonstrated a significant relationship between adolescent self-esteem and school performance. Social workers might spend a great deal of effort developing interventions to boost self-esteem in hopes of having a positive impact on school performance. However, what if self-esteem comes from strong school performance? The self-esteem intervention efforts will not likely have the desired effect on school performance. Just because research demonstrates a significant relationship between two variables does not mean that the research has demonstrated a causal relationship between those variables. Investigators need to be cautious about the extent to which their study designs can support drawing conclusions about causality; anyone reviewing research reports also needs to be alert to where causal conclusions are properly and improperly drawn.

Person at desk with stack of books and papers

The questions that drive intervention and evaluation research studies are explanatory in nature: does the intervention ( x ) have a significant impact on outcomes of interest ( y )? Another type of explanatory question related to intervention research concerns the mechanisms of change. In other words, not only might social workers be interested to find out what outcomes or changes can be attributed to an intervention, they may also be interested to learn how the intervention causes those changes or outcomes.

$Cartoon of confusing math with man pointing at center that says "Then a Miracle Occurs" and caption below stating "I think you should be more explicit here in step two"$

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, you learned about different aspects of the knowledge building process and where different types of research questions might fit into the big picture. No single research study covers the entire spectrum; each study contributes a piece of the puzzle as a whole. Research questions come in many different forms and several different types. What is important to recall as we move through the remainder of the course is that the decisions investigators make about research approaches, designs, and procedures all start with the nature of the question being asked. And, the questions being asked are influenced by multiple factors, including what is previously known and remains unknown, the culture and context of the questioners, and what theories they have about what is to be studied. That leads us to the next chapter.

Share This Book

Social Research: Definitions, Types, Nature, and Characteristics

First Online: 27 October 2022

Cite this chapter

Kanamik Kani Khan 4 &
Md. Mohsin Reza 5

3077 Accesses

Social research is often defined as a study of mankind that helps to identify the relations between social life and social systems. This kind of research usually creates new knowledge and theories or tests and verifies existing theories. However, social research is a broad spectrum that requires a discursive understanding of its varied nature and definitions. This chapter aims to explain the multifarious definitions of social research given by different scholars. The information used in this chapter is solely based on existing literature regarding social research. There are various stages discussed regarding how social research can be effectively conducted. The types and characteristics of social research are further analysed in this chapter. Social research plays a substantial role in investigating knowledge and theories relevant to social problems. Additionally, social research is important for its contribution to national and international policymaking, which explains the importance of social research.

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

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95 (3), 529–548.

Article Google Scholar

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1 (1), 7–24.

Babin, B. J., & Svensson, G. (2012). Structural equation modeling in social science research: Issues of validity and reliability in the research process. European Business Review, 24 (4), 320–330.

Barker, R. L. (Ed.). (2013). The Social Work Dictionary (6th ed.). NASW Press.

Google Scholar

Bernard, H. R. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Sage.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Burns, D. (2007). Systemic action research: A strategy for whole system change . Policy Press.

Book Google Scholar

Carroll, W. K. (Ed.). (2004). Critical strategies for social research . Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.). Sage.

Corbetta, P. (2011). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques . Sage.

Correa, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2015). Engagement research in social and environmental accounting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6 (1), 5–28.

Crano, W. D., Brewer, M. B., & Lac, A. (2014). Principles and methods of social research . Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2018). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.

Crothers, C., & Platt, J. (2010). The history and development of sociological social research methods. In C. Crothers (Ed.), Historical Developments and Theoretical Approaches in Sociology (Vol. 1). UK: EOLSS Publishers.

De Vaus, D. (2013). Surveys in social research (6th ed.). Routledge.

Dictionary.cambridge. (n.d.). Research. Retrieved 09 May 2020 from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/research

Golovushkina, E., & Milligan, C. (2012). Developing early stage researchers: Employability perceptions of social science doctoral candidates. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3 (1), 64–78.

Green, A. G., & Gutmann, M. P. (2007). Building partnerships among social science researchers, institution-based repositories and domain specific data archives. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 23 (1), 35–53.

Gupta, V. (2012). Research methodology in social science . Enkay Publication.

Hall, R. (2008). Applied social research: Planning, designing and conducting real-world research . Victoria: Macmillan Education Australia.

Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Foard, N. (2009). A critical introduction to social research (2nd ed.). Sage.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. L. (2006). Emergent methods in social research . Sage.

Jie, Z., Xinning, S., & Sanhong, D. (2008). The academic impact of Chinese humanities and social science research. Aslib Proceedings, 60 (1), 55–74.

Kalof, L., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2008). Essentials of social research . Open University Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–603). Sage.

Kumar, A. (2002). Research methodology in social science . New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.

May, T. (2011). Social research: Issues, methods and process (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2018). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Pearson Canada Inc.

Penz, E. (2006). Researching the socio-cultural context: Putting social representations theory into action. International Marketing Review, 23 (4), 418–437.

Ragin, C. C., & Amoroso, L. M. (2019). Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method (3rd ed.). Sage.

Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (3rd ed.). Blackwell.

Sarantakos, S. (2013). Social Research (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Saunders, M., Lewis, L., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Walliman, N. (2016). Social research methods the essentials (2nd ed.). Sage.

Weller, K. (2015). Accepting the challenges of social media research. Online Information Review, 39 (3), 281–289.

Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research . Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, England

Kanamik Kani Khan

Department of Social Work, Jagannath University, Dhaka, 1100, Bangladesh

Md. Mohsin Reza

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kanamik Kani Khan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for Family and Child Studies, Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

M. Rezaul Islam

Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Niaz Ahmed Khan

Department of Social Work, School of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Rajendra Baikady

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Khan, K.K., Mohsin Reza, M. (2022). Social Research: Definitions, Types, Nature, and Characteristics. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_3

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5219-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5441-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

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

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

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

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk, "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

Collecting Data

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

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

At a Glance

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

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

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

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Operational Definitions

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

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

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

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

Replicability

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Checklist

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

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

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

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

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

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

"Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
"Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."
"Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
"Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

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

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

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

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

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

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

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

Descriptive Research Methods

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

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

Experimental Research Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Hypothesis 101

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

What is a hypothesis?

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

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

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

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

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

But that’s not good enough…

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

What is a research hypothesis?

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

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

A good research hypothesis needs to be very clear about what’s being assessed and very specific about the expected outcome.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

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

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

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

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

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

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

A good research hypothesis must be testable. In other words, you must able to collect observable data in a scientifically rigorous fashion to test it.

Defining A Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

What about the null hypothesis?

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

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

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

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell.

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

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

could you please elaborate it more

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

This is very helpful

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

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

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

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Print Friendly

1. Introducing Social Psychology

Conducting research in social psychology, learning objectives.

Explain why social psychologists rely on empirical methods to study social behavior.
Provide examples of how social psychologists measure the variables they are interested in.
Review the three types of research designs, and evaluate the strengths and limitations of each type.
Consider the role of validity in research, and describe how research programs should be evaluated.

Social psychologists are not the only people interested in understanding and predicting social behavior or the only people who study it. Social behavior is also considered by religious leaders, philosophers, politicians, novelists, and others, and it is a common topic on TV shows. But the social psychological approach to understanding social behavior goes beyond the mere observation of human actions. Social psychologists believe that a true understanding of the causes of social behavior can only be obtained through a systematic scientific approach, and that is why they conduct scientific research. Social psychologists believe that the study of social behavior should be empirical —that is, based on the collection and systematic analysis of observable data .

The Importance of Scientific Research

Because social psychology concerns the relationships among people, and because we can frequently find answers to questions about human behavior by using our own common sense or intuition, many people think that it is not necessary to study it empirically (Lilienfeld, 2011). But although we do learn about people by observing others and therefore social psychology is in fact partly common sense, social psychology is not entirely common sense.

To test for yourself whether or not social psychology is just common sense, try taking the short quiz in Table 1.1, “Is Social Psychology Just Common Sense?” and respond to each statement with either “True” or “False.” Based on your past observations of people’s behavior, along with your own common sense, you will likely have answers to each of the questions on the quiz. But how sure are you? Would you be willing to bet that all, or even most, of your answers have been shown to be correct by scientific research? If you are like most people, you will get at least some of these answers wrong. (To see the answers and a brief description of the scientific research supporting each of these topics, please go to the Chapter Summary at the end of this chapter.)

Table 1.1 “Is Social Psychology Just Common Sense?”


Opposites attract.
An athlete who wins the bronze medal (third place) in an event is happier about his or her performance than the athlete who wins the silver medal (second place).
Having good friends you can count on can keep you from catching colds.
Subliminal advertising (i.e., persuasive messages that are displayed out of our awareness on TV or movie screens) is very effective in getting us to buy products.
The greater the reward promised for an activity, the more one will come to enjoy engaging in that activity.
Physically attractive people are seen as less intelligent than less attractive people.
Punching a pillow or screaming out loud is a good way to reduce frustration and aggressive tendencies.
People pull harder in a tug-of-war when they’re pulling alone than when pulling in a group.

One of the reasons we might think that social psychology is common sense is that once we learn about the outcome of a given event (e.g., when we read about the results of a research project), we frequently believe that we would have been able to predict the outcome ahead of time. For instance, if half of a class of students is told that research concerning attraction between people has demonstrated that “opposites attract,” and if the other half is told that research has demonstrated that “birds of a feather flock together,” most of the students in both groups will report believing that the outcome is true and that they would have predicted the outcome before they had heard about it. Of course, both of these contradictory outcomes cannot be true. The problem is that just reading a description of research findings leads us to think of the many cases that we know that support the findings and thus makes them seem believable. The tendency to think that we could have predicted something that we probably would not have been able to predict is called the hindsight bias .

Our common sense also leads us to believe that we know why we engage in the behaviors that we engage in, when in fact we may not. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues have conducted a variety of studies showing that we do not always understand the causes of our own actions. When we think about a behavior before we engage in it, we believe that the thinking guided our behavior, even when it did not (Morewedge, Gray, & Wegner, 2010). People also report that they contribute more to solving a problem when they are led to believe that they have been working harder on it, even though the effort did not increase their contribution to the outcome (Preston & Wegner, 2007). These findings, and many others like them, demonstrate that our beliefs about the causes of social events, and even of our own actions, do not always match the true causes of those events.

Social psychologists conduct research because it often uncovers results that could not have been predicted ahead of time. Putting our hunches to the test exposes our ideas to scrutiny. The scientific approach brings a lot of surprises, but it also helps us test our explanations about behavior in a rigorous manner. It is important for you to understand the research methods used in psychology so that you can evaluate the validity of the research that you read about here, in other courses, and in your everyday life.

Social psychologists publish their research in scientific journals, and your instructor may require you to read some of these research articles. The most important social psychology journals are listed in “Social Psychology Journals.” If you are asked to do a literature search on research in social psychology, you should look for articles from these journals. Social Psychology Journals

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Social Psychology and Personality Science
Social Cognition
European Journal of Social Psychology
Social Psychology Quarterly
Basic and Applied Social Psychology
Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Note. The research articles in these journals are likely to be available in your college or university library. A fuller list can be found here: http://www.socialpsychology.org/journals.htm#social

We’ll discuss the empirical approach and review the findings of many research projects throughout this book, but for now let’s take a look at the basics of how scientists use research to draw overall conclusions about social behavior. Keep in mind as you read this book, however, that although social psychologists are pretty good at understanding the causes of behavior, our predictions are a long way from perfect. We are not able to control the minds or the behaviors of others or to predict exactly what they will do in any given situation. Human behavior is complicated because people are complicated and because the social situations that they find themselves in every day are also complex. It is this complexity—at least for me—that makes studying people so interesting and fun.

Measuring Affect, Behavior, and Cognition

One important aspect of using an empirical approach to understand social behavior is that the concepts of interest must be measured ( Figure 1.7, “The Operational Definition” ). If we are interested in learning how much Sarah likes Robert, then we need to have a measure of her liking for him. But how, exactly, should we measure the broad idea of “liking”? In scientific terms, the characteristics that we are trying to measure are known as conceptual variables , and the particular method that we use to measure a variable of interest is called an operational definition .

For anything that we might wish to measure, there are many different operational definitions, and which one we use depends on the goal of the research and the type of situation we are studying. To better understand this, let’s look at an example of how we might operationally define “Sarah likes Robert.”

Figure 1.7 The Operational Definition. An idea or conceptual variable (such as “how much Sarah likes Robert”) is turned into a measure through an operational definition.

One approach to measurement involves directly asking people about their perceptions using self-report measures. Self-report measures are measures in which individuals are asked to respond to questions posed by an interviewer or on a questionnaire . Generally, because any one question might be misunderstood or answered incorrectly, in order to provide a better measure, more than one question is asked and the responses to the questions are averaged together. For example, an operational definition of Sarah’s liking for Robert might involve asking her to complete the following measure:

I enjoy being around Robert. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree
I get along well with Robert. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree
I like Robert. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree

The operational definition would be the average of her responses across the three questions. Because each question assesses the attitude differently, and yet each question should nevertheless measure Sarah’s attitude toward Robert in some way, the average of the three questions will generally be a better measure than would any one question on its own.

Although it is easy to ask many questions on self-report measures, these measures have a potential disadvantage. As we have seen, people’s insights into their own opinions and their own behaviors may not be perfect, and they might also not want to tell the truth—perhaps Sarah really likes Robert, but she is unwilling or unable to tell us so. Therefore, an alternative to self-report that can sometimes provide a more valid measure is to measure behavior itself. Behavioral measures are measures designed to directly assess what people do . Instead of asking Sarah how much she likes Robert, we might instead measure her liking by assessing how much time she spends with Robert or by coding how much she smiles at him when she talks to him. Some examples of behavioral measures that have been used in social psychological research are shown in Table 1.3, “Examples of Operational Definitions of Conceptual Variables That Have Been Used in Social Psychological Research.”

Table 1.3 Examples of Operational Definitions of Conceptual Variables That Have Been Used in Social Psychological Research


	Number of seconds taken to honk the horn at the car ahead after a stoplight turns green	Number of presses of a button that administers shock to another student
	Number of millimeters of pupil dilation when one person looks at another	Number of times that a person looks at another person
	Number of hours of volunteering per week that a person engages in	Number of pieces of paper a person helps another pick up
	Number of seconds in which a group correctly solves a problem	Number of groups able to correctly solve a group performance task
	Number of inches that a person places their chair away from another person	Number of negative words used in a creative story about another person

Social Neuroscience: Measuring Social Responses in the Brain

Still another approach to measuring thoughts and feelings is to measure brain activity, and recent advances in brain science have created a wide variety of new techniques for doing so. One approach, known as electroencephalography (EEG) , is a technique that records the electrical activity produced by the brain’s neurons through the use of electrodes that are placed around the research participant’s head . An electroencephalogram (EEG) can show if a person is asleep, awake, or anesthetized because the brain wave patterns are known to differ during each state. An EEG can also track the waves that are produced when a person is reading, writing, and speaking with others. A particular advantage of the technique is that the participant can move around while the recordings are being taken, which is useful when measuring brain activity in children who often have difficulty keeping still. Furthermore, by following electrical impulses across the surface of the brain, researchers can observe changes over very fast time periods.

Figure 1.8 EEG Cap (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AEEG_cap.jpg) by Thuglas is under the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain) .

Although EEGs can provide information about the general patterns of electrical activity within the brain, and although they allow the researcher to see these changes quickly as they occur in real time, the electrodes must be placed on the surface of the skull, and each electrode measures brain waves from large areas of the brain. As a result, EEGs do not provide a very clear picture of the structure of the brain.

But techniques exist to provide more specific brain images. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a neuroimaging technique that uses a magnetic field to create images of brain structure and function . In research studies that use the fMRI, the research participant lies on a bed within a large cylindrical structure containing a very strong magnet. Nerve cells in the brain that are active use more oxygen, and the need for oxygen increases blood flow to the area. The fMRI detects the amount of blood flow in each brain region and thus is an indicator of which parts of the brain are active.

Very clear and detailed pictures of brain structures (see Figure 1.9, “MRI BOLD activation in an emotional Stroop task” ) can be produced via fMRI. Often, the images take the form of cross-sectional “slices” that are obtained as the magnetic field is passed across the brain. The images of these slices are taken repeatedly and are superimposed on images of the brain structure itself to show how activity changes in different brain structures over time. Normally, the research participant is asked to engage in tasks while in the scanner, for instance, to make judgments about pictures of people, to solve problems, or to make decisions about appropriate behaviors. The fMRI images show which parts of the brain are associated with which types of tasks. Another advantage of the fMRI is that is it noninvasive. The research participant simply enters the machine and the scans begin.

Figure 1.9 “MRI BOLD activation in an emotional Stroop task” (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FMRI_BOLD_activation_in_an_emotional_Stroop_task.jpg) by Shima Ovaysikia, Khalid A. Tahir, Jason L. Chan and Joseph F. X. DeSouza used under CC-BY-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en) . Source: “Varian4T” (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Varian4T) by A314268 is under the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain) .

Although the scanners themselves are expensive, the advantages of fMRIs are substantial, and scanners are now available in many university and hospital settings. The fMRI is now the most commonly used method of learning about brain structure, and it has been employed by social psychologists to study social cognition, attitudes, morality, emotions, responses to being rejected by others, and racial prejudice, to name just a few topics (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001; Lieberman, Hariri, Jarcho, Eisenberger, & Bookheimer, 2005; Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, & Gabrieli, 2002; Richeson et al., 2003).

Observational Research

Once we have decided how to measure our variables, we can begin the process of research itself. As you can see in Table 1.4, “Three Major Research Designs Used by Social Psychologists,” there are three major approaches to conducting research that are used by social psychologists—the observational approach , the correlational approach , and the experimental approach . Each approach has some advantages and disadvantages. Table 1.4 Three Major Research Designs Used by Social Psychologists


Observational	To create a snapshot of the current state of affairs	Provides a relatively complete picture of what is occurring at a given time. Allows the development of questions for further study.	Does not assess relationships between variables.
Correlational	To assess the relationships between two or more variables	Allows the testing of expected relationships between variables and the making of predictions. Can assess these relationships in everyday life events.	Cannot be used to draw inferences about the causal relationships between the variables.
Experimental	To assess the causal impact of one or more experimental manipulations on a dependent variable	Allows the drawing of conclusions about the causal relationships among variables.	Cannot experimentally manipulate many important variables. May be expensive and take much time to conduct.

The most basic research design, observational research , is research that involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner . Although it is possible in some cases to use observational data to draw conclusions about the relationships between variables (e.g., by comparing the behaviors of older versus younger children on a playground), in many cases the observational approach is used only to get a picture of what is happening to a given set of people at a given time and how they are responding to the social situation. In these cases, the observational approach involves creating a type of “snapshot” of the current state of affairs.

One advantage of observational research is that in many cases it is the only possible approach to collecting data about the topic of interest. A researcher who is interested in studying the impact of an earthquake on the residents of Tokyo, the reactions of Israelis to a terrorist attack, or the activities of the members of a religious cult cannot create such situations in a laboratory but must be ready to make observations in a systematic way when such events occur on their own. Thus observational research allows the study of unique situations that could not be created by the researcher. Another advantage of observational research is that the people whose behavior is being measured are doing the things they do every day, and in some cases they may not even know that their behavior is being recorded.

One early observational study that made an important contribution to understanding human behavior was reported in a book by Leon Festinger and his colleagues (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956). The book, called When Prophecy Fails , reported an observational study of the members of a “doomsday” cult. The cult members believed that they had received information, supposedly sent through “automatic writing” from a planet called “Clarion,” that the world was going to end. More specifically, the group members were convinced that Earth would be destroyed as the result of a gigantic flood sometime before dawn on December 21, 1954.

When Festinger learned about the cult, he thought that it would be an interesting way to study how individuals in groups communicate with each other to reinforce their extreme beliefs. He and his colleagues observed the members of the cult over a period of several months, beginning in July of the year in which the flood was expected. The researchers collected a variety of behavioral and self-report measures by observing the cult, recording the conversations among the group members, and conducting detailed interviews with them. Festinger and his colleagues also recorded the reactions of the cult members, beginning on December 21, when the world did not end as they had predicted. This observational research provided a wealth of information about the indoctrination patterns of cult members and their reactions to disconfirmed predictions. This research also helped Festinger develop his important theory of cognitive dissonance.

Despite their advantages, observational research designs also have some limitations. Most importantly, because the data that are collected in observational studies are only a description of the events that are occurring, they do not tell us anything about the relationship between different variables. However, it is exactly this question that correlational research and experimental research are designed to answer.

The Research Hypothesis

Because social psychologists are generally interested in looking at relationships among variables, they begin by stating their predictions in the form of a precise statement known as a research hypothesis . A research hypothesis is a specific prediction about the relationship between the variables of interest and about the specific direction of that relationship . For instance, the research hypothesis “People who are more similar to each other will be more attracted to each other” predicts that there is a relationship between a variable called similarity and another variable called attraction. In the research hypothesis “The attitudes of cult members become more extreme when their beliefs are challenged,” the variables that are expected to be related are extremity of beliefs and the degree to which the cult’s beliefs are challenged.

Because the research hypothesis states both that there is a relationship between the variables and the direction of that relationship, it is said to be falsifiable, which means that the outcome of the research can demonstrate empirically either that there is support for the hypothesis (i.e., the relationship between the variables was correctly specified) or that there is actually no relationship between the variables or that the actual relationship is not in the direction that was predicted . Thus the research hypothesis that “People will be more attracted to others who are similar to them” is falsifiable because the research could show either that there was no relationship between similarity and attraction or that people we see as similar to us are seen as less attractive than those who are dissimilar.

Correlational Research

Correlational research is designed to search for and test hypotheses about the relationships between two or more variables. In the simplest case, the correlation is between only two variables, such as that between similarity and liking, or between gender (male versus female) and helping.

In a correlational design, the research hypothesis is that there is an association (i.e., a correlation) between the variables that are being measured. For instance, many researchers have tested the research hypothesis that a positive correlation exists between the use of violent video games and the incidence of aggressive behavior, such that people who play violent video games more frequently would also display more aggressive behavior.

Figure 1.10 Correlational Design. The research hypothesis that a positive correlation exists between the use of violent video games and the incidence of aggressive behavior

A statistic known as the Pearson correlation coefficient (symbolized by the letter r ) is normally used to summarize the association, or correlation, between two variables . The Pearson correlation coefficient can range from −1 (indicating a very strong negative relationship between the variables) to +1 (indicating a very strong positive relationship between the variables). Recent research has found that there is a positive correlation between the use of violent video games and the incidence of aggressive behavior and that the size of the correlation is about r = .30 (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010).

One advantage of correlational research designs is that, like observational research (and in comparison with experimental research designs in which the researcher frequently creates relatively artificial situations in a laboratory setting), they are often used to study people doing the things that they do every day. Correlational research designs also have the advantage of allowing prediction. When two or more variables are correlated, we can use our knowledge of a person’s score on one of the variables to predict his or her likely score on another variable. Because high-school grades are correlated with university grades, if we know a person’s high-school grades, we can predict his or her likely university grades. Similarly, if we know how many violent video games a child plays, we can predict how aggressively he or she will behave. These predictions will not be perfect, but they will allow us to make a better guess than we would have been able to if we had not known the person’s score on the first variable ahead of time.

Despite their advantages, correlational designs have a very important limitation. This limitation is that they cannot be used to draw conclusions about the causal relationships among the variables that have been measured. An observed correlation between two variables does not necessarily indicate that either one of the variables caused the other. Although many studies have found a correlation between the number of violent video games that people play and the amount of aggressive behaviors they engage in, this does not mean that viewing the video games necessarily caused the aggression. Although one possibility is that playing violent games increases aggression,

Figure 1.11 Playing violent video games leads to aggressive behavior.

another possibility is that the causal direction is exactly opposite to what has been hypothesized. Perhaps increased aggressiveness causes more interest in, and thus increased viewing of, violent games. Although this causal relationship might not seem as logical, there is no way to rule out the possibility of such reverse causation on the basis of the observed correlation.

Figure 1.12 Increased aggressiveness causes more interest in, and thus increased viewing of, violent games.

Still another possible explanation for the observed correlation is that it has been produced by the presence of another variable that was not measured in the research. Common-causal variables (also known as third variables ) are variables that are not part of the research hypothesis but that cause both the predictor and the outcome variable and thus produce the observed correlation between them ( Figure 1.13, “Correlation and Causality” ). It has been observed that students who sit in the front of a large class get better grades than those who sit in the back of the class. Although this could be because sitting in the front causes the student to take better notes or to understand the material better, the relationship could also be due to a common-causal variable, such as the interest or motivation of the students to do well in the class. Because a student’s interest in the class leads him or her to both get better grades and sit nearer to the teacher, seating position and class grade are correlated, even though neither one caused the other.

Figure 1.13 Correlation and Causality. The correlation between where students sit in a large class and their grade in the class is likely caused by the influence of one or more common-causal variables.

The possibility of common-causal variables must always be taken into account when considering correlational research designs. For instance, in a study that finds a correlation between playing violent video games and aggression, it is possible that a common-causal variable is producing the relationship. Some possibilities include the family background, diet, and hormone levels of the children. Any or all of these potential common-causal variables might be creating the observed correlation between playing violent video games and aggression. Higher levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, for instance, may cause children to both watch more violent TV and behave more aggressively.

You may think of common-causal variables in correlational research designs as “mystery” variables, since their presence and identity is usually unknown to the researcher because they have not been measured. Because it is not possible to measure every variable that could possibly cause both variables, it is always possible that there is an unknown common-causal variable. For this reason, we are left with the basic limitation of correlational research: correlation does not imply causation.

Experimental Research

The goal of much research in social psychology is to understand the causal relationships among variables, and for this we use experiments. Experimental research designs are research designs that include the manipulation of a given situation or experience for two or more groups of individuals who are initially created to be equivalent, followed by a measurement of the effect of that experience .

In an experimental research design, the variables of interest are called the independent variables and the dependent variables. The independent variable refers to the situation that is created by the experimenter through the experimental manipulations , and the dependent variable refers to the variable that is measured after the manipulations have occurred . In an experimental research design, the research hypothesis is that the manipulated independent variable (or variables) causes changes in the measured dependent variable (or variables). We can diagram the prediction like this, using an arrow that points in one direction to demonstrate the expected direction of causality:

viewing violence (independent variable) → aggressive behavior (dependent variable)

Consider an experiment conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000), which was designed to directly test the hypothesis that viewing violent video games would cause increased aggressive behavior. In this research, male and female undergraduates from Iowa State University were given a chance to play either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent video game (Myst). During the experimental session, the participants played the video game that they had been given for 15 minutes. Then, after the play, they participated in a competitive task with another student in which they had a chance to deliver blasts of white noise through the earphones of their opponent. The operational definition of the dependent variable (aggressive behavior) was the level and duration of noise delivered to the opponent. The design and the results of the experiment are shown in Figure 1.14, “An Experimental Research Design (After Anderson & Dill, 2000).”

Figure 1.14 An Experimental Research Design (After Anderson & Dill, 2000). Two advantages of the experimental research design are (a) an assurance that the independent variable (also known as the experimental manipulation) occurs prior to the measured dependent variable and (b) the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment (in this case, by using random assignment to conditions).

Experimental designs have two very nice features. For one, they guarantee that the independent variable occurs prior to measuring the dependent variable. This eliminates the possibility of reverse causation. Second, the experimental manipulation allows ruling out the possibility of common-causal variables that cause both the independent variable and the dependent variable. In experimental designs, the influence of common-causal variables is controlled, and thus eliminated, by creating equivalence among the participants in each of the experimental conditions before the manipulation occurs.

The most common method of creating equivalence among the experimental conditions is through random assignment to conditions before the experiment begins, which involves determining separately for each participant which condition he or she will experience through a random process, such as drawing numbers out of an envelope or using a website such as http://randomizer.org . Anderson and Dill first randomly assigned about 100 participants to each of their two groups. Let’s call them Group A and Group B. Because they used random assignment to conditions, they could be confident that before the experimental manipulation occurred , the students in Group A were, on average , equivalent to the students in Group B on every possible variable , including variables that are likely to be related to aggression, such as family, peers, hormone levels, and diet—and, in fact, everything else.

Then, after they had created initial equivalence, Anderson and Dill created the experimental manipulation—they had the participants in Group A play the violent video game and the participants in Group B play the nonviolent video game. Then they compared the dependent variable (the white noise blasts) between the two groups and found that the students who had viewed the violent video game gave significantly longer noise blasts than did the students who had played the nonviolent game. When the researchers observed differences in the duration of white noise blasts between the two groups after the experimental manipulation, they could draw the conclusion that it was the independent variable (and not some other variable) that caused these differences because they had created initial equivalence between the groups. The idea is that the only thing that was different between the students in the two groups was which video game they had played.

When we create a situation in which the groups of participants are expected to be equivalent before the experiment begins, when we manipulate the independent variable before we measure the dependent variable, and when we change only the nature of independent variables between the conditions, then we can be confident that it is the independent variable that caused the differences in the dependent variable. Such experiments are said to have high internal validity , where internal validity is the extent to which changes in the dependent variable in an experiment can confidently be attributed to changes in the independent variable .

Despite the advantage of determining causation, experimental research designs do have limitations. One is that the experiments are usually conducted in laboratory situations rather than in the everyday lives of people. Therefore, we do not know whether results that we find in a laboratory setting will necessarily hold up in everyday life. To counter this, researchers sometimes conduct field experiments , which are experimental research studies that are conducted in a natural environment , such as a school or a factory . However, they are difficult to conduct because they require a means of creating random assignment to conditions, and this is frequently not possible in natural settings.

A second and perhaps more important limitation of experimental research designs is that some of the most interesting and important social variables cannot be experimentally manipulated. If we want to study the influence of the size of a mob on the destructiveness of its behavior, or to compare the personality characteristics of people who join suicide cults with those of people who do not join suicide cults, these relationships must be assessed using correlational designs because it is simply not possible to manipulate mob size or cult membership.

Factorial Research Designs

Social psychological experiments are frequently designed to simultaneously study the effects of more than one independent variable on a dependent variable. Factorial research designs are experimental designs that have two or more independent variables . By using a factorial design, the scientist can study the influence of each variable on the dependent variable (known as the main effects of the variables) as well as how the variables work together to influence the dependent variable (known as the interaction between the variables). Factorial designs sometimes demonstrate the person by situation interaction.

In one such study, Brian Meier and his colleagues (Meier, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2006) tested the hypothesis that exposure to aggression-related words would increase aggressive responses toward others. Although they did not directly manipulate the social context, they used a technique common in social psychology in which they primed (i.e., activated) thoughts relating to social settings. In their research, half of their participants were randomly assigned to see words relating to aggression and the other half were assigned to view neutral words that did not relate to aggression. The participants in the study also completed a measure of individual differences in agreeableness —a personality variable that assesses the extent to which people see themselves as compassionate, cooperative, and high on other-concern.

Then the research participants completed a task in which they thought they were competing with another student. Participants were told that they should press the space bar on the computer keyboard as soon as they heard a tone over their headphones, and the person who pressed the space bar the fastest would be the winner of the trial. Before the first trial, participants set the intensity of a blast of white noise that would be delivered to the loser of the trial. The participants could choose an intensity ranging from 0 (no noise) to the most aggressive response (10, or 105 decibels). In essence, participants controlled a “weapon” that could be used to blast the opponent with aversive noise, and this setting became the dependent variable. At this point, the experiment ended.

Figure 1.15 A Person-Situation Interaction. In this experiment by Meier, Robinson, and Wilkowski (2006) the independent variables are a type of priming (aggression or neutral) and participant agreeableness (high or low). The dependent variable is the white noise level selected (a measure of aggression). The participants who were low in agreeableness became significantly more aggressive after seeing aggressive words, but those high in agreeableness did not.

As you can see in Figure 1.15, “A Person-Situation Interaction,” there was a person-by-situation interaction. Priming with aggression-related words (the situational variable) increased the noise levels selected by participants who were low on agreeableness, but priming did not increase aggression (in fact, it decreased it a bit) for students who were high on agreeableness. In this study, the social situation was important in creating aggression, but it had different effects for different people.

Deception in Social Psychology Experiments

You may have wondered whether the participants in the video game study that we just discussed were told about the research hypothesis ahead of time. In fact, these experiments both used a cover story — a false statement of what the research was really about . The students in the video game study were not told that the study was about the effects of violent video games on aggression, but rather that it was an investigation of how people learn and develop skills at motor tasks like video games and how these skills affect other tasks, such as competitive games. The participants in the task performance study were not told that the research was about task performance. In some experiments, the researcher also makes use of an experimental confederate — a person who is actually part of the experimental team but who pretends to be another participant in the study . The confederate helps create the right “feel” of the study, making the cover story seem more real.

In many cases, it is not possible in social psychology experiments to tell the research participants about the real hypotheses in the study, and so cover stories or other types of deception may be used. You can imagine, for instance, that if a researcher wanted to study racial prejudice, he or she could not simply tell the participants that this was the topic of the research because people may not want to admit that they are prejudiced, even if they really are. Although the participants are always told—through the process of informed consent —as much as is possible about the study before the study begins, they may nevertheless sometimes be deceived to some extent. At the end of every research project, however, participants should always receive a complete debriefing in which all relevant information is given, including the real hypothesis, the nature of any deception used, and how the data are going to be used.

Interpreting Research

No matter how carefully it is conducted or what type of design is used, all research has limitations. Any given research project is conducted in only one setting and assesses only one or a few dependent variables. And any one study uses only one set of research participants. Social psychology research is sometimes criticized because it frequently uses university students from Western cultures as participants (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). But relationships between variables are only really important if they can be expected to be found again when tested using other research designs, other operational definitions of the variables, other participants, and other experimenters, and in other times and settings.

External validity refers to the extent to which relationships can be expected to hold up when they are tested again in different ways and for different people . Science relies primarily upon replication—that is, the repeating of research —to study the external validity of research findings. Sometimes the original research is replicated exactly, but more often, replications involve using new operational definitions of the independent or dependent variables, or designs in which new conditions or variables are added to the original design. And to test whether a finding is limited to the particular participants used in a given research project, scientists may test the same hypotheses using people from different ages, backgrounds, or cultures. Replication allows scientists to test the external validity as well as the limitations of research findings.

In some cases, researchers may test their hypotheses, not by conducting their own study, but rather by looking at the results of many existing studies, using a meta-analysis — a statistical procedure in which the results of existing studies are combined to determine what conclusions can be drawn on the basis of all the studies considered together . For instance, in one meta-analysis, Anderson and Bushman (2001) found that across all the studies they could locate that included both children and adults, college students and people who were not in college, and people from a variety of different cultures, there was a clear positive correlation (about r = .30) between playing violent video games and acting aggressively. The summary information gained through a meta-analysis allows researchers to draw even clearer conclusions about the external validity of a research finding.

Figure 1.16 Some Important Aspects of the Scientific Approach

It is important to realize that the understanding of social behavior that we gain by conducting research is a slow, gradual, and cumulative process. The research findings of one scientist or one experiment do not stand alone—no one study proves a theory or a research hypothesis. Rather, research is designed to build on, add to, and expand the existing research that has been conducted by other scientists. That is why whenever a scientist decides to conduct research, he or she first reads journal articles and book chapters describing existing research in the domain and then designs his or her research on the basis of the prior findings. The result of this cumulative process is that over time, research findings are used to create a systematic set of knowledge about social psychology ( Figure 1.16, “Some Important Aspects of the Scientific Approach” ).

Prof Pelz’ optional assignment: Read this NY Times article and discuss in the Chapter 1 forum: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html

Key Takeaways

Social psychologists study social behavior using an empirical approach. This allows them to discover results that could not have been reliably predicted ahead of time and that may violate our common sense and intuition.
The variables that form the research hypothesis, known as conceptual variables, are assessed by using measured variables such as self-report, behavioral, or neuroimaging measures.
Observational research is research that involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner. In some cases, it may be the only approach to studying behavior.
Correlational and experimental research designs are based on developing falsifiable research hypotheses.
Correlational research designs allow prediction but cannot be used to make statements about causality. Experimental research designs in which the independent variable is manipulated can be used to make statements about causality.
Social psychological experiments are frequently factorial research designs in which the effects of more than one independent variable on a dependent variable are studied.
All research has limitations, which is why scientists attempt to replicate their results using different measures, populations, and settings and to summarize those results using meta-analyses.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

Using Google Scholar find journal articles that report observational, correlational, and experimental research designs. Specify the research design, the research hypothesis, and the conceptual and measured variables in each design.
Liking another person
Life satisfaction
Visit the website http://www.socialpsychology.org/expts.htm and take part in one of the online studies listed there.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 772–790.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Aggression. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 833–863). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302 (5643), 290–292.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293 (5537), 2105–2108.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2–3), 61–83.

Lieberman, M. D., Hariri, A., Jarcho, J. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2005). An fMRI investigation of race-related amygdala activity in African-American and Caucasian-American individuals. Nature Neuroscience, 8 (6), 720–722.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011, June 13). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist. doi: 10.1037/a0023963

Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the other cheek: Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related crimes. Psychological Science, 17 (2), 136–142.

Morewedge, C. K., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Perish the forethought: Premeditation engenders misperceptions of personal control. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self-control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 260–278). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14 (8), 1215–1229

Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). The eureka error: Inadvertent plagiarism by misattributions of effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (4), 575–584.

Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., et al.#8230;Shelton, J. N. (2003). An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nature Neuroscience, 6 (12), 1323–1328.

Principles of Social Psychology - 1st International Edition. Authored by : Rajiv Jhangiani, Hammond Tarry, and Charles Stangor. Provided by : BC Campus OpenEd. Located at : https://open.bccampus.ca/find-open-textbooks/?uuid=66c0cf64-c485-442c-8183-de75151f13f5&contributor=&keyword=&subject= . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

2.2 Research Methods

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

Recall the 6 Steps of the Scientific Method
Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, field research, experiments, and secondary data analysis.
Explain the appropriateness of specific research approaches for specific topics.

Sociologists examine the social world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. Sociologists generally choose from widely used methods of social investigation: primary source data collection such as survey, participant observation, ethnography, case study, unobtrusive observations, experiment, and secondary data analysis , or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use. When you are conducting research think about the best way to gather or obtain knowledge about your topic, think of yourself as an architect. An architect needs a blueprint to build a house, as a sociologist your blueprint is your research design including your data collection method.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?”

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors or attract attention. In situations like these, other methods are needed. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire or an interview. The survey is one of the most widely used scientific research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point, most people in the United States respond to some type of survey. The 2020 U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Since 1790, United States has conducted a survey consisting of six questions to received demographical data pertaining to residents. The questions pertain to the demographics of the residents who live in the United States. Currently, the Census is received by residents in the United Stated and five territories and consists of 12 questions.

Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however, and many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. The Nielsen Ratings determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research. However, polls conducted by television programs such as American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance cannot be generalized, because they are administered to an unrepresentative population, a specific show’s audience. You might receive polls through your cell phones or emails, from grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores. They often provide you incentives for completing the survey.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel, think, and act—or at least how they say they feel, think, and act. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or information such as employment status, income, and education levels.

A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample , a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. As a result, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the survey up front. If they agree to participate, researchers thank subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information.

A common instrument is a questionnaire. Subjects often answer a series of closed-ended questions . The researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of questionnaire collects quantitative data —data in numerical form that can be counted and statistically analyzed. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or checkbox options. These types of inquiries use open-ended questions that require short essay responses. Participants willing to take the time to write those answers might convey personal religious beliefs, political views, goals, or morals. The answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do you plan to use your college education?

Some topics that investigate internal thought processes are impossible to observe directly and are difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of personal explanation is qualitative data —conveyed through words. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of in-depth material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and it is a way of conducting surveys on a topic. However, participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly.

Questions such as “How does society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. The researcher will also benefit from gaining a subject’s trust, from empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and from listening without judgment.

Surveys often collect both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, a researcher interviewing people who are incarcerated might receive quantitative data, such as demographics – race, age, sex, that can be analyzed statistically. For example, the researcher might discover that 20 percent of incarcerated people are above the age of 50. The researcher might also collect qualitative data, such as why people take advantage of educational opportunities during their sentence and other explanatory information.

The survey can be carried out online, over the phone, by mail, or face-to-face. When researchers collect data outside a laboratory, library, or workplace setting, they are conducting field research, which is our next topic.

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people think and behave. It seeks to understand why they behave that way. However, researchers may struggle to narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment. And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables. Indeed, much of the data gathered in sociology do not identify a cause and effect but a correlation .

Sociology in the Real World

Beyoncé and lady gaga as sociological subjects.

Sociologists have studied Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and their impact on music, movies, social media, fan participation, and social equality. In their studies, researchers have used several research methods including secondary analysis, participant observation, and surveys from concert participants.

In their study, Click, Lee & Holiday (2013) interviewed 45 Lady Gaga fans who utilized social media to communicate with the artist. These fans viewed Lady Gaga as a mirror of themselves and a source of inspiration. Like her, they embrace not being a part of mainstream culture. Many of Lady Gaga’s fans are members of the LGBTQ community. They see the “song “Born This Way” as a rallying cry and answer her calls for “Paws Up” with a physical expression of solidarity—outstretched arms and ﬁngers bent and curled to resemble monster claws.”

Sascha Buchanan (2019) made use of participant observation to study the relationship between two fan groups, that of Beyoncé and that of Rihanna. She observed award shows sponsored by iHeartRadio, MTV EMA, and BET that pit one group against another as they competed for Best Fan Army, Biggest Fans, and FANdemonium. Buchanan argues that the media thus sustains a myth of rivalry between the two most commercially successful Black women vocal artists.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a writer, or a sociologist, will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation , in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, experience homelessness for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in analyzing data and generating results.

In a study of small towns in the United States conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in U.S. towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised the purpose of their study.

This shaped the structure of Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture , their published results (Lynd & Lynd, 1929).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana, knew why the researchers were in their midst. But some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by? she wondered. Someone should do a study . To her surprise, her editor responded, Why don’t you do it?

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

The book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the immersion of the researcher in the natural setting of an entire social community to observe and experience their everyday life and culture. The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a social group.

An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith (1990), institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male- dominated societies and power structures. Smith’s work is seen to challenge sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from the male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their own dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography (Fensternmaker n.d.).

Sociological Research

The making of middletown: a study in modern u.s. culture.

In 1924, a young married couple named Robert and Helen Lynd undertook an unprecedented ethnography: to apply sociological methods to the study of one U.S. city in order to discover what “ordinary” people in the United States did and believed. Choosing Muncie, Indiana (population about 30,000) as their subject, they moved to the small town and lived there for eighteen months.

Ethnographers had been examining other cultures for decades—groups considered minorities or outsiders—like gangs, immigrants, and the poor. But no one had studied the so-called average American.

Recording interviews and using surveys to gather data, the Lynds objectively described what they observed. Researching existing sources, they compared Muncie in 1890 to the Muncie they observed in 1924. Most Muncie adults, they found, had grown up on farms but now lived in homes inside the city. As a result, the Lynds focused their study on the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

They observed that Muncie was divided into business and working class groups. They defined business class as dealing with abstract concepts and symbols, while working class people used tools to create concrete objects. The two classes led different lives with different goals and hopes. However, the Lynds observed, mass production offered both classes the same amenities. Like wealthy families, the working class was now able to own radios, cars, washing machines, telephones, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. This was an emerging material reality of the 1920s.

As the Lynds worked, they divided their manuscript into six chapters: Getting a Living, Making a Home, Training the Young, Using Leisure, Engaging in Religious Practices, and Engaging in Community Activities.

When the study was completed, the Lynds encountered a big problem. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had commissioned the book, claimed it was useless and refused to publish it. The Lynds asked if they could seek a publisher themselves.

Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture was not only published in 1929 but also became an instant bestseller, a status unheard of for a sociological study. The book sold out six printings in its first year of publication, and has never gone out of print (Caplow, Hicks, & Wattenberg. 2000).

Nothing like it had ever been done before. Middletown was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times. Readers in the 1920s and 1930s identified with the citizens of Muncie, Indiana, but they were equally fascinated by the sociological methods and the use of scientific data to define ordinary people in the United States. The book was proof that social data was important—and interesting—to the U.S. public.

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that while offering depth on a topic, it does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can contribute tremendous insight. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” growth and nurturing. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be obtained by any other method.

Experiments

You have probably tested some of your own personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test the theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis—a scientific approach.

There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments and natural or field experiments. In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that more data can be recorded in a limited amount of time. In a natural or field- based experiment, the time it takes to gather the data cannot be controlled but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher.

As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens (cause), then another particular thing will result (effect). To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables.

Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might provide tutoring to the experimental group of students but not to the control group. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record of a student, for example.

And if a researcher told the students they would be observed as part of a study on measuring the effectiveness of tutoring, the students might not behave naturally. This is called the Hawthorne effect —which occurs when people change their behavior because they know they are being watched as part of a study. The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research studies because sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld 1985).

A real-life example will help illustrate the process. In 1971, Frances Heussenstamm, a sociology professor at California State University at Los Angeles, had a theory about police prejudice. To test her theory, she conducted research. She chose fifteen students from three ethnic backgrounds: Black, White, and Hispanic. She chose students who routinely drove to and from campus along Los Angeles freeway routes, and who had had perfect driving records for longer than a year.

Next, she placed a Black Panther bumper sticker on each car. That sticker, a representation of a social value, was the independent variable. In the 1970s, the Black Panthers were a revolutionary group actively fighting racism. Heussenstamm asked the students to follow their normal driving patterns. She wanted to see whether seeming support for the Black Panthers would change how these good drivers were treated by the police patrolling the highways. The dependent variable would be the number of traffic stops/citations.

The first arrest, for an incorrect lane change, was made two hours after the experiment began. One participant was pulled over three times in three days. He quit the study. After seventeen days, the fifteen drivers had collected a total of thirty-three traffic citations. The research was halted. The funding to pay traffic fines had run out, and so had the enthusiasm of the participants (Heussenstamm, 1971).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis . Secondary data does not result from firsthand research collected from primary sources, but are the already completed work of other researchers or data collected by an agency or organization. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, or organizational data from any period in history.

Using available information not only saves time and money but can also add depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention. To study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies, televisions shows, and situation comedies from that period. Or to research changes in behavior and attitudes due to the emergence of television in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a sociologist would rely on new interpretations of secondary data. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the Internet, or social media.

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies. Governmental departments and global groups, like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the World Health Organization (WHO), publish studies with findings that are useful to sociologists. A public statistic like the foreclosure rate might be useful for studying the effects of a recession. A racial demographic profile might be compared with data on education funding to examine the resources accessible by different groups.

One of the advantages of secondary data like old movies or WHO statistics is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not involve direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data does not require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis , applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

Also, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not survey the topic from the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school is public record. But these figures do not necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.

When conducting content analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, when Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd gathered research in the 1920s, attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different then than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal insights about small U.S. communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s attitudes and values.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-2-research-methods

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

Some key points about hypotheses:

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

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

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Null Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Nondirectional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Falsifiability

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

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

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

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

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

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

More Examples

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

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples

Here's a look at the foundation of doing science — the scientific method.

The scientific method

Hypothesis, theory and law, a brief history of science, additional resources, bibliography.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary . True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley . Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that is designed to support or contradict a scientific theory .

"As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not."

Here's an illustration showing the steps in the scientific method.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College :

Make an observation or observations.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University . Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning . Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning uses observations to infer an explanation for those observations.
An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change), according to the University of California, Santa Barbara .
An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against, according to Britannica .

The process of generating and testing a hypothesis forms the backbone of the scientific method. When an idea has been confirmed over many experiments, it can be called a scientific theory. While a theory provides an explanation for a phenomenon, a scientific law provides a description of a phenomenon, according to The University of Waikato . One example would be the law of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

A law describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"

Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. For instance, Newton's laws of motion describe everything we've observed in the macroscopic world, but they break down at the subatomic level.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, scientists must conduct rigorous testing, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is "just a theory" confuses the scientific definition of "theory" with the layperson's definition. To most people a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is the framework for observations and facts, Tanner told Live Science.

This Copernican heliocentric solar system, from 1708, shows the orbit of the moon around the Earth, and the orbits of the Earth and planets round the sun, including Jupiter and its moons, all surrounded by the 12 signs of the zodiac.

The earliest evidence of science can be found as far back as records exist. Early tablets contain numerals and information about the solar system , which were derived by using careful observation, prediction and testing of those predictions. Science became decidedly more "scientific" over time, however.

1200s: Robert Grosseteste developed the framework for the proper methods of modern scientific experimentation, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His works included the principle that an inquiry must be based on measurable evidence that is confirmed through testing.

1400s: Leonardo da Vinci began his notebooks in pursuit of evidence that the human body is microcosmic. The artist, scientist and mathematician also gathered information about optics and hydrodynamics.

1500s: Nicolaus Copernicus advanced the understanding of the solar system with his discovery of heliocentrism. This is a model in which Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, which is the center of the solar system.

1600s: Johannes Kepler built upon those observations with his laws of planetary motion. Galileo Galilei improved on a new invention, the telescope, and used it to study the sun and planets. The 1600s also saw advancements in the study of physics as Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion.

1700s: Benjamin Franklin discovered that lightning is electrical. He also contributed to the study of oceanography and meteorology. The understanding of chemistry also evolved during this century as Antoine Lavoisier, dubbed the father of modern chemistry , developed the law of conservation of mass.

1800s: Milestones included Alessandro Volta's discoveries regarding electrochemical series, which led to the invention of the battery. John Dalton also introduced atomic theory, which stated that all matter is composed of atoms that combine to form molecules. The basis of modern study of genetics advanced as Gregor Mendel unveiled his laws of inheritance. Later in the century, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered X-rays , while George Ohm's law provided the basis for understanding how to harness electrical charges.

1900s: The discoveries of Albert Einstein , who is best known for his theory of relativity, dominated the beginning of the 20th century. Einstein's theory of relativity is actually two separate theories. His special theory of relativity, which he outlined in a 1905 paper, " The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ," concluded that time must change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer. His second theory of general relativity, which he published as " The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity ," advanced the idea that matter causes space to curve.

In 1952, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine , which reduced the incidence of polio in the United States by nearly 90%, according to Britannica . The following year, James D. Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA , which is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

2000s: The 21st century saw the first draft of the human genome completed, leading to a greater understanding of DNA. This advanced the study of genetics, its role in human biology and its use as a predictor of diseases and other disorders, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

This video from City University of New York delves into the basics of what defines science.
Learn about what makes science science in this book excerpt from Washington State University .
This resource from the University of Michigan — Flint explains how to design your own scientific study.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Scientia. 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientia

University of California, Berkeley, "Understanding Science: An Overview." 2022. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01

Highline College, "Scientific method." July 12, 2015. https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/scimeth.htm

North Carolina State University, "Science Scripts." https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/bio183de/Black/science/science_scripts.html

University of California, Santa Barbara. "What is an Independent variable?" October 31,2017. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6045

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Control group." May 14, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/control-group

The University of Waikato, "Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws." https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Robert Grosseteste. May 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Jonas Salk." October 21, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/ biography /Jonas-Salk

National Human Genome Research Institute, "Phosphate Backbone." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Phosphate-Backbone

National Human Genome Research Institute, "What is the Human Genome Project?" https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What

‌ Live Science contributor Ashley Hamer updated this article on Jan. 16, 2022.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

'The difference between alarming and catastrophic': Cascadia megafault has 1 especially deadly section, new map reveals

Arctic 'zombie fires' rising from the dead could unleash vicious cycle of warming

Epidurals may lower risk of complications after birth, study hints

SOC Chapter 2

What Is A Hypothesis?
Selecting the Appropriate Hypothesis Test [FIL]
#modi #viral #dhruvrathee #dhruvratheeshorts #indiaelection2024 #congress #rahulgandhi #tranding
leader #top5muslimleader #viralvideo #gaddafi #saddam #yasinarafat #imrankhan #erdoğan #top10video
#narendramodi #rahulgandhi #sigmarule #viralshorts #election #tranding #indiaelection2024 #democracy
top10richcountry #worldno1richcountry #top10richcountry #geography #viralvideos #viralshorstvideo

COMMENTS

Sociology ch 1-3 Flashcards
In social research, a hypothesis is best described as a(n) A. educated guess B. Description of why a particular social phenomenon occurs C. Proposed relationship between two or more variables D. Explanation for why two variables are coorelated
2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research
Describe the differences in accuracy, reliability and validity in a research study. When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in.
2.1C: Formulating the Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an assumption or suggested explanation about how two or more variables are related. It is a crucial step in the scientific method and, therefore, a vital aspect of all scientific research. There are no definitive guidelines for the production of new hypotheses. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming ...
2.3: Propositions and Hypotheses
Propositions are specified in the theoretical plane, while hypotheses are specified in the empirical plane. Hence, hypotheses are empirically testable using observed data, and may be rejected if not supported by empirical observations. Of course, the goal of hypothesis testing is to infer whether the corresponding proposition is valid.
Hypotheses
18. Hypotheses. When researchers do not have predictions about what they will find, they conduct research to answer a question or questions, with an open-minded desire to know about a topic, or to help develop hypotheses for later testing. In other situations, the purpose of research is to test a specific hypothesis or hypotheses.
How to Write a Strong Hypothesis
Developing a hypothesis (with example) Step 1. Ask a question. Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project. Example: Research question.
3.4 Hypotheses
3.4 Hypotheses. When researchers do not have predictions about what they will find, they conduct research to answer a question or questions with an open-minded desire to know about a topic, or to help develop hypotheses for later testing. In other situations, the purpose of research is to test a specific hypothesis or hypotheses.
Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices
This book is designed to introduce doctoral and postgraduate students to the process of conducting scientific research in the social sciences, business, education, public health, and related disciplines. It is a one-stop, comprehensive, and compact source for foundational concepts in behavioural research, and can serve as a standalone text or as a supplement to research readings in any ...
Hypothesis
This is a good general hypothesis, but it gives no guide to how to design the research or experiment. The hypothesis must be refined to give a little direction. "Rainbow trout suffer more lice when water levels are low." Now there is some directionality, but the hypothesis is not really testable, so the final stage is to design an ...
What is a Research Hypothesis: How to Write it, Types, and Examples
It seeks to explore and understand a particular aspect of the research subject. In contrast, a research hypothesis is a specific statement or prediction that suggests an expected relationship between variables. It is formulated based on existing knowledge or theories and guides the research design and data analysis. 7.
Module 2 Chapter 1: The Nature of Social Work Research Questions
The research hypothesis ... (NIH) described social work research in the following way: Historically, social work research has focused on studies of the individual, family, group, community, policy and/or organizational level, focusing across the lifespan on prevention, intervention, treatment, aftercare and rehabilitation of acute and chronic ...
SOC101 CH 2 Flashcards
You are employing what kind of research in your sociological search for answers?, Our knowledge and understanding of social reality usually comes from five sources: (a) personal experience, (b) common sense, (c) the media, (d) expert authorities, and (e) tradition. ... In social research, a hypothesis is best described as a(n):
Social Research: Definitions, Types, Nature, and Characteristics
Abstract. Social research is often defined as a study of mankind that helps to identify the relations between social life and social systems. This kind of research usually creates new knowledge and theories or tests and verifies existing theories. However, social research is a broad spectrum that requires a discursive understanding of its ...
Hypothesis: Definition, Examples, and Types
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process. Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test ...
What Is A Research Hypothesis? A Simple Definition
A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes - specificity, clarity and testability. Let's take a look at these more closely.
Conducting Research in Social Psychology
Because social psychologists are generally interested in looking at relationships among variables, they begin by stating their predictions in the form of a precise statement known as a research hypothesis. A research hypothesis is a specific prediction about the relationship between the variables of interest and about the specific direction of ...
Sociology Sociological Methods and Research Flashcards
In social research, a hypothesis is best described as a (n): Research subjects have a right to know that they are participating in a study and what the study consists of. This is known as: Jill wants to know more about how democratic a society is. When she begins her study, she defines the level of democracy as the proportion of people who are ...
2.2 Research Methods
Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research. Surveys As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire or an interview.
Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples
Examples. A research hypothesis, in its plural form "hypotheses," is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.
Solved In social research, a hypothesis is best described as
Question: In social research, a hypothesis is best described as a(n) In social research, a hypothesis is best described as a ( n ) Here's the best way to solve it.
Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples
When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that ...
SOC Chapter 2 Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Which of the following data collection methods are commonly used in social research? . A. historical methods, participant observation, interviews B. laboratory experiments, surveys, content analysis C. content analysis, censuses, natural experiments D. audit studies, surveys, interviews, Voluntary participation is the right of a ...

in social research a hypothesis is best described as

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Margin Size

2.3: Propositions and Hypotheses

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

Example: Hypothesis

Table of contents

Variables in hypotheses

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

4. Refine your hypothesis

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

6. Write a null hypothesis

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

3.4 Hypotheses

Share This Book

Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices - (Revised edition)

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

PSC/SOC 340/JS 504: Social Science Research Methods

What is the difference between a theory & a hypothesis?

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

What is a hypothesis ?

What is a research hypothesis ?

Characteristics of a good hypothesis

How to create an effective research hypothesis

How to write a research hypothesis

Research hypothesis checklist

Types of research hypothesis

1. Null hypothesis:

2. Alternative hypothesis:

3. Directional hypothesis :

4. Non-directional hypothesis:

5. Simple hypothesis :

6 . Complex hypothesis :

7. Associative hypothesis:

8 . Causal hypothesis:

Research hypothesis examples

Importance of testable hypothesis

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on research hypothesis

Related Posts

Tips on Writing the Acknowledgments Section

What is Confidence Interval and How to Calculate it (with Examples)

Module 2 Chapter 1: The Nature of Social Work Research Questions

Translational Science

Research Questions

Social Work Questions

Three Question Types and Their Associated Research Aims

Share This Book

Social Research: Definitions, Types, Nature, and Characteristics

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Format

Hypothesis Types

At a Glance

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

The Importance of Operational Definitions

Replicability

Hypothesis Checklist

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis