hypothesis research proposal sample

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

The Craft of Writing a Strong Hypothesis

Table of Contents

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

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

What is a Hypothesis?

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

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

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

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

Different Types of Hypotheses‌

Types of hypotheses

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

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

1. Null hypothesis

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

2. Alternative hypothesis

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

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

3. Simple hypothesis

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

4. Complex hypothesis

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

5. Associative and casual hypothesis

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

6. Empirical hypothesis

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

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

7. Statistical hypothesis

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

Separating a Hypothesis from a Prediction

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis

Quick tips on writing a hypothesis

1.  Be clear about your research question

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

2. Carry out a recce

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

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

3. Create a 3-dimensional hypothesis

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

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

4. Write the first draft

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

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

5. Proof your hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is the definition of hypothesis.

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

2. What is an example of hypothesis?

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

3. What is an example of null hypothesis?

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

4. What are the types of research?

• Fundamental research

• Applied research

• Qualitative research

• Quantitative research

• Mixed research

• Exploratory research

• Longitudinal research

• Cross-sectional research

• Field research

• Laboratory research

• Fixed research

• Flexible research

• Action research

• Policy research

• Classification research

• Comparative research

• Causal research

• Inductive research

• Deductive research

5. How to write a hypothesis?

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

• Avoid wordiness by keeping it simple and brief.

• Your hypothesis should contain observable and testable outcomes.

• Your hypothesis should be relevant to the research question.

6. What are the 2 types of hypothesis?

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

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

7. Difference between research question and research hypothesis?

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

8. What is plural for hypothesis?

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

9. What is the red queen hypothesis?

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

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

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

11. When to reject null hypothesis?

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

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.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, 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 variables . An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls. A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

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 identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalise 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.

Step 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

Step 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.

Step 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 .

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.

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).

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (‘ x affects y because …’).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses. In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 5 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, operationalisation | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

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

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

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

Table of Contents

What is a hypothesis ?  

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

What is a research hypothesis ?  

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

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

Characteristics of a good hypothesis  

Here are the characteristics of a good hypothesis :  

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

How to create an effective research hypothesis  

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

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

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

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

How to write a research hypothesis  

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

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

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

Population: athletes  

Independent variable: daily cold water showers  

Dependent variable: endurance  

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

Research hypothesis checklist  

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

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

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

Types of research hypothesis  

Different types of research hypothesis are used in scientific research:  

1. Null hypothesis:

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

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

2. Alternative hypothesis:

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

Example: “ The newly identified virus is zoonotic .”  

3. Directional hypothesis :

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

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

4. Non-directional hypothesis:

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

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

5. Simple hypothesis :

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

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

6 . Complex hypothesis :

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

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

7. Associative hypothesis:  

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

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

8 . Causal hypothesis:

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

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

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

Research hypothesis examples  

Here are some good research hypothesis examples :  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of testable hypothesis  

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on research hypothesis  

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

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

2. When to reject null hypothesis ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Can research hypotheses be used in qualitative research?

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

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

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

Related Posts

What is IMRaD Format in Research?

What is a Review Article? How to Write it?

• 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
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

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

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

At a Glance

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

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

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

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Operational Definitions

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

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

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

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

Replicability

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Checklist

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

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

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

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

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

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

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

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

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

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

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

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

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

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

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

Descriptive Research Methods

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

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

Experimental Research Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Research Hypothesis: Good & Bad Examples

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis is an attempt at explaining a phenomenon or the relationships between phenomena/variables in the real world. Hypotheses are sometimes called “educated guesses”, but they are in fact (or let’s say they should be) based on previous observations, existing theories, scientific evidence, and logic. A research hypothesis is also not a prediction—rather, predictions are ( should be) based on clearly formulated hypotheses. For example, “We tested the hypothesis that KLF2 knockout mice would show deficiencies in heart development” is an assumption or prediction, not a hypothesis. 

The research hypothesis at the basis of this prediction is “the product of the KLF2 gene is involved in the development of the cardiovascular system in mice”—and this hypothesis is probably (hopefully) based on a clear observation, such as that mice with low levels of Kruppel-like factor 2 (which KLF2 codes for) seem to have heart problems. From this hypothesis, you can derive the idea that a mouse in which this particular gene does not function cannot develop a normal cardiovascular system, and then make the prediction that we started with. 

What is the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction?

You might think that these are very subtle differences, and you will certainly come across many publications that do not contain an actual hypothesis or do not make these distinctions correctly. But considering that the formulation and testing of hypotheses is an integral part of the scientific method, it is good to be aware of the concepts underlying this approach. The two hallmarks of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability (an evaluation standard that was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in 1934) and testability —if you cannot use experiments or data to decide whether an idea is true or false, then it is not a hypothesis (or at least a very bad one).

So, in a nutshell, you (1) look at existing evidence/theories, (2) come up with a hypothesis, (3) make a prediction that allows you to (4) design an experiment or data analysis to test it, and (5) come to a conclusion. Of course, not all studies have hypotheses (there is also exploratory or hypothesis-generating research), and you do not necessarily have to state your hypothesis as such in your paper. 

But for the sake of understanding the principles of the scientific method, let’s first take a closer look at the different types of hypotheses that research articles refer to and then give you a step-by-step guide for how to formulate a strong hypothesis for your own paper.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Hypotheses can be simple , which means they describe the relationship between one single independent variable (the one you observe variations in or plan to manipulate) and one single dependent variable (the one you expect to be affected by the variations/manipulation). If there are more variables on either side, you are dealing with a complex hypothesis. You can also distinguish hypotheses according to the kind of relationship between the variables you are interested in (e.g., causal or associative ). But apart from these variations, we are usually interested in what is called the “alternative hypothesis” and, in contrast to that, the “null hypothesis”. If you think these two should be listed the other way round, then you are right, logically speaking—the alternative should surely come second. However, since this is the hypothesis we (as researchers) are usually interested in, let’s start from there.

Alternative Hypothesis

If you predict a relationship between two variables in your study, then the research hypothesis that you formulate to describe that relationship is your alternative hypothesis (usually H1 in statistical terms). The goal of your hypothesis testing is thus to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis, rather than evidence for the possibility that there is no such relationship. The alternative hypothesis is usually the research hypothesis of a study and is based on the literature, previous observations, and widely known theories. 

Null Hypothesis

The hypothesis that describes the other possible outcome, that is, that your variables are not related, is the null hypothesis ( H0 ). Based on your findings, you choose between the two hypotheses—usually that means that if your prediction was correct, you reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative. Make sure, however, that you are not getting lost at this step of the thinking process: If your prediction is that there will be no difference or change, then you are trying to find support for the null hypothesis and reject H1. 

Directional Hypothesis

While the null hypothesis is obviously “static”, the alternative hypothesis can specify a direction for the observed relationship between variables—for example, that mice with higher expression levels of a certain protein are more active than those with lower levels. This is then called a one-tailed hypothesis. 

Another example for a directional one-tailed alternative hypothesis would be that 

H1: Attending private classes before important exams has a positive effect on performance. 

Your null hypothesis would then be that

H0: Attending private classes before important exams has no/a negative effect on performance.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A nondirectional hypothesis does not specify the direction of the potentially observed effect, only that there is a relationship between the studied variables—this is called a two-tailed hypothesis. For instance, if you are studying a new drug that has shown some effects on pathways involved in a certain condition (e.g., anxiety) in vitro in the lab, but you can’t say for sure whether it will have the same effects in an animal model or maybe induce other/side effects that you can’t predict and potentially increase anxiety levels instead, you could state the two hypotheses like this:

H1: The only lab-tested drug (somehow) affects anxiety levels in an anxiety mouse model.

You then test this nondirectional alternative hypothesis against the null hypothesis:

H0: The only lab-tested drug has no effect on anxiety levels in an anxiety mouse model.

How to Write a Hypothesis for a Research Paper

Now that we understand the important distinctions between different kinds of research hypotheses, let’s look at a simple process of how to write a hypothesis.

Writing a Hypothesis Step:1

Ask a question, based on earlier research. Research always starts with a question, but one that takes into account what is already known about a topic or phenomenon. For example, if you are interested in whether people who have pets are happier than those who don’t, do a literature search and find out what has already been demonstrated. You will probably realize that yes, there is quite a bit of research that shows a relationship between happiness and owning a pet—and even studies that show that owning a dog is more beneficial than owning a cat ! Let’s say you are so intrigued by this finding that you wonder: 

What is it that makes dog owners even happier than cat owners? 

Let’s move on to Step 2 and find an answer to that question.

Writing a Hypothesis Step 2:

Formulate a strong hypothesis by answering your own question. Again, you don’t want to make things up, take unicorns into account, or repeat/ignore what has already been done. Looking at the dog-vs-cat papers your literature search returned, you see that most studies are based on self-report questionnaires on personality traits, mental health, and life satisfaction. What you don’t find is any data on actual (mental or physical) health measures, and no experiments. You therefore decide to make a bold claim come up with the carefully thought-through hypothesis that it’s maybe the lifestyle of the dog owners, which includes walking their dog several times per day, engaging in fun and healthy activities such as agility competitions, and taking them on trips, that gives them that extra boost in happiness. You could therefore answer your question in the following way:

Dog owners are happier than cat owners because of the dog-related activities they engage in.

Now you have to verify that your hypothesis fulfills the two requirements we introduced at the beginning of this resource article: falsifiability and testability . If it can’t be wrong and can’t be tested, it’s not a hypothesis. We are lucky, however, because yes, we can test whether owning a dog but not engaging in any of those activities leads to lower levels of happiness or well-being than owning a dog and playing and running around with them or taking them on trips.  

Writing a Hypothesis Step 3:

Make your predictions and define your variables. We have verified that we can test our hypothesis, but now we have to define all the relevant variables, design our experiment or data analysis, and make precise predictions. You could, for example, decide to study dog owners (not surprising at this point), let them fill in questionnaires about their lifestyle as well as their life satisfaction (as other studies did), and then compare two groups of active and inactive dog owners. Alternatively, if you want to go beyond the data that earlier studies produced and analyzed and directly manipulate the activity level of your dog owners to study the effect of that manipulation, you could invite them to your lab, select groups of participants with similar lifestyles, make them change their lifestyle (e.g., couch potato dog owners start agility classes, very active ones have to refrain from any fun activities for a certain period of time) and assess their happiness levels before and after the intervention. In both cases, your independent variable would be “ level of engagement in fun activities with dog” and your dependent variable would be happiness or well-being . 

Examples of a Good and Bad Hypothesis

Let’s look at a few examples of good and bad hypotheses to get you started.

Good Hypothesis Examples

Bad Hypothesis Examples

Tips for Writing a Research Hypothesis

If you understood the distinction between a hypothesis and a prediction we made at the beginning of this article, then you will have no problem formulating your hypotheses and predictions correctly. To refresh your memory: We have to (1) look at existing evidence, (2) come up with a hypothesis, (3) make a prediction, and (4) design an experiment. For example, you could summarize your dog/happiness study like this:

(1) While research suggests that dog owners are happier than cat owners, there are no reports on what factors drive this difference. (2) We hypothesized that it is the fun activities that many dog owners (but very few cat owners) engage in with their pets that increases their happiness levels. (3) We thus predicted that preventing very active dog owners from engaging in such activities for some time and making very inactive dog owners take up such activities would lead to an increase and decrease in their overall self-ratings of happiness, respectively. (4) To test this, we invited dog owners into our lab, assessed their mental and emotional well-being through questionnaires, and then assigned them to an “active” and an “inactive” group, depending on… 

Note that you use “we hypothesize” only for your hypothesis, not for your experimental prediction, and “would” or “if – then” only for your prediction, not your hypothesis. A hypothesis that states that something “would” affect something else sounds as if you don’t have enough confidence to make a clear statement—in which case you can’t expect your readers to believe in your research either. Write in the present tense, don’t use modal verbs that express varying degrees of certainty (such as may, might, or could ), and remember that you are not drawing a conclusion while trying not to exaggerate but making a clear statement that you then, in a way, try to disprove . And if that happens, that is not something to fear but an important part of the scientific process.

Similarly, don’t use “we hypothesize” when you explain the implications of your research or make predictions in the conclusion section of your manuscript, since these are clearly not hypotheses in the true sense of the word. As we said earlier, you will find that many authors of academic articles do not seem to care too much about these rather subtle distinctions, but thinking very clearly about your own research will not only help you write better but also ensure that even that infamous Reviewer 2 will find fewer reasons to nitpick about your manuscript. 

Perfect Your Manuscript With Professional Editing

Now that you know how to write a strong research hypothesis for your research paper, you might be interested in our free AI Proofreader , Wordvice AI, which finds and fixes errors in grammar, punctuation, and word choice in academic texts. Or if you are interested in human proofreading , check out our English editing services , including research paper editing and manuscript editing .

On the Wordvice academic resources website , you can also find many more articles and other resources that can help you with writing the other parts of your research paper , with making a research paper outline before you put everything together, or with writing an effective cover letter once you are ready to submit.

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

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

What is a Research Hypothesis?

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

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Define the variables

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

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

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

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

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

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

2. Complex Hypothesis

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

3. Directional Hypothesis

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

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

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

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

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

6. Null Hypothesis

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

7. Alternative Hypothesis

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

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

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

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

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

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

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

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

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

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

Nicely explained

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

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

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

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

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

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

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

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

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

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

• Industry News

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

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

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

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

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

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

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

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

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Research Hypothesis

• Research Process
• Peer Review

Since grade school, we've all been familiar with hypotheses. The hypothesis is an essential step of the scientific method. But what makes an effective research hypothesis, how do you create one, and what types of hypotheses are there? We answer these questions and more.

Updated on April 27, 2022

What is a research hypothesis?

General hypothesis.

Since grade school, we've all been familiar with the term “hypothesis.” A hypothesis is a fact-based guess or prediction that has not been proven. It is an essential step of the scientific method. The hypothesis of a study is a drive for experimentation to either prove the hypothesis or dispute it.

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is more specific than a general hypothesis. It is an educated, expected prediction of the outcome of a study that is testable.

What makes an effective research hypothesis?

A good research hypothesis is a clear statement of the relationship between a dependent variable(s) and independent variable(s) relevant to the study that can be disproven.

Research hypothesis checklist

Once you've written a possible hypothesis, make sure it checks the following boxes:

• It must be testable: You need a means to prove your hypothesis. If you can't test it, it's not a hypothesis.
• It must include a dependent and independent variable: At least one independent variable ( cause ) and one dependent variable ( effect ) must be included.
• The language must be easy to understand: Be as clear and concise as possible. Nothing should be left to interpretation.
• It must be relevant to your research topic: You probably shouldn't be talking about cats and dogs if your research topic is outer space. Stay relevant to your topic.

How to create an effective research hypothesis

Pose it as a question first.

Start your research hypothesis from a journalistic approach. Ask one of the five W's: Who, what, when, where, or why.

A possible initial question could be: Why is the sky blue?

Do the preliminary research

Once you have a question in mind, read research around your topic. Collect research from academic journals.

If you're looking for information about the sky and why it is blue, research information about the atmosphere, weather, space, the sun, etc.

Write a draft hypothesis

Once you're comfortable with your subject and have preliminary knowledge, create a working hypothesis. Don't stress much over this. Your first hypothesis is not permanent. Look at it as a draft.

Your first draft of a hypothesis could be: Certain molecules in the Earth's atmosphere are responsive to the sky being the color blue.

Make your working draft perfect

Take your working hypothesis and make it perfect. Narrow it down to include only the information listed in the “Research hypothesis checklist” above.

Now that you've written your working hypothesis, narrow it down. Your new hypothesis could be: Light from the sun hitting oxygen molecules in the sky makes the color of the sky appear blue.

Write a null hypothesis

Your null hypothesis should be the opposite of your research hypothesis. It should be able to be disproven by your research.

In this example, your null hypothesis would be: Light from the sun hitting oxygen molecules in the sky does not make the color of the sky appear blue.

Why is it important to have a clear, testable hypothesis?

One of the main reasons a manuscript can be rejected from a journal is because of a weak hypothesis. “Poor hypothesis, study design, methodology, and improper use of statistics are other reasons for rejection of a manuscript,” says Dr. Ish Kumar Dhammi and Dr. Rehan-Ul-Haq in Indian Journal of Orthopaedics.

According to Dr. James M. Provenzale in American Journal of Roentgenology , “The clear declaration of a research question (or hypothesis) in the Introduction is critical for reviewers to understand the intent of the research study. It is best to clearly state the study goal in plain language (for example, “We set out to determine whether condition x produces condition y.”) An insufficient problem statement is one of the more common reasons for manuscript rejection.”

Characteristics that make a hypothesis weak include:

• Unclear variables
• Unoriginality
• Too general
• Too specific

A weak hypothesis leads to weak research and methods . The goal of a paper is to prove or disprove a hypothesis - or to prove or disprove a null hypothesis. If the hypothesis is not a dependent variable of what is being studied, the paper's methods should come into question.

A strong hypothesis is essential to the scientific method. A hypothesis states an assumed relationship between at least two variables and the experiment then proves or disproves that relationship with statistical significance. Without a proven and reproducible relationship, the paper feeds into the reproducibility crisis. Learn more about writing for reproducibility .

In a study published in The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India by Dr. Suvarna Satish Khadilkar, she reviewed 400 rejected manuscripts to see why they were rejected. Her studies revealed that poor methodology was a top reason for the submission having a final disposition of rejection.

Aside from publication chances, Dr. Gareth Dyke believes a clear hypothesis helps efficiency.

“Developing a clear and testable hypothesis for your research project means that you will not waste time, energy, and money with your work,” said Dyke. “Refining a hypothesis that is both meaningful, interesting, attainable, and testable is the goal of all effective research.”

Types of research hypotheses

There can be overlap in these types of hypotheses.

Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a hypothesis at its most basic form. It shows the relationship of one independent and one independent variable.

Example: Drinking soda (independent variable) every day leads to obesity (dependent variable).

Complex hypothesis

A complex hypothesis shows the relationship of two or more independent and dependent variables.

Example: Drinking soda (independent variable) every day leads to obesity (dependent variable) and heart disease (dependent variable).

Directional hypothesis

A directional hypothesis guesses which way the results of an experiment will go. It uses words like increase, decrease, higher, lower, positive, negative, more, or less. It is also frequently used in statistics.

Example: Humans exposed to radiation have a higher risk of cancer than humans not exposed to radiation.

Non-directional hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis says there will be an effect on the dependent variable, but it does not say which direction.

Associative hypothesis

An associative hypothesis says that when one variable changes, so does the other variable.

Alternative hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis states that the variables have a relationship.

• The opposite of a null hypothesis

Example: An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Null hypothesis

A null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the two variables. It is posed as the opposite of what the alternative hypothesis states.

Researchers use a null hypothesis to work to be able to reject it. A null hypothesis:

• Can never be proven
• Can only be rejected
• Is the opposite of an alternative hypothesis

Example: An apple a day does not keep the doctor away.

Logical hypothesis

A logical hypothesis is a suggested explanation while using limited evidence.

Example: Bats can navigate in the dark better than tigers.

In this hypothesis, the researcher knows that tigers cannot see in the dark, and bats mostly live in darkness.

Empirical hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is also called a “working hypothesis.” It uses the trial and error method and changes around the independent variables.

• An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
• Two apples a day keep the doctor away.
• Three apples a day keep the doctor away.

In this case, the research changes the hypothesis as the researcher learns more about his/her research.

Statistical hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a look of a part of a population or statistical model. This type of hypothesis is especially useful if you are making a statement about a large population. Instead of having to test the entire population of Illinois, you could just use a smaller sample of people who live there.

Example: 70% of people who live in Illinois are iron deficient.

Causal hypothesis

A causal hypothesis states that the independent variable will have an effect on the dependent variable.

Example: Using tobacco products causes cancer.

Final thoughts

Make sure your research is error-free before you send it to your preferred journal . Check our our English Editing services to avoid your chances of desk rejection.

Jonny Rhein, BA

See our "Privacy Policy"

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

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

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

• 4 minute read
• 347.9K views

Table of Contents

One of the most important aspects of conducting research is constructing a strong hypothesis. But what makes a hypothesis in research effective? In this article, we’ll look at the difference between a hypothesis and a research question, as well as the elements of a good hypothesis in research. We’ll also include some examples of effective hypotheses, and what pitfalls to avoid.

What is a Hypothesis in Research?

Simply put, a hypothesis is a research question that also includes the predicted or expected result of the research. Without a hypothesis, there can be no basis for a scientific or research experiment. As such, it is critical that you carefully construct your hypothesis by being deliberate and thorough, even before you set pen to paper. Unless your hypothesis is clearly and carefully constructed, any flaw can have an adverse, and even grave, effect on the quality of your experiment and its subsequent results.

Research Question vs Hypothesis

It’s easy to confuse research questions with hypotheses, and vice versa. While they’re both critical to the Scientific Method, they have very specific differences. Primarily, a research question, just like a hypothesis, is focused and concise. But a hypothesis includes a prediction based on the proposed research, and is designed to forecast the relationship of and between two (or more) variables. Research questions are open-ended, and invite debate and discussion, while hypotheses are closed, e.g. “The relationship between A and B will be C.”

A hypothesis is generally used if your research topic is fairly well established, and you are relatively certain about the relationship between the variables that will be presented in your research. Since a hypothesis is ideally suited for experimental studies, it will, by its very existence, affect the design of your experiment. The research question is typically used for new topics that have not yet been researched extensively. Here, the relationship between different variables is less known. There is no prediction made, but there may be variables explored. The research question can be casual in nature, simply trying to understand if a relationship even exists, descriptive or comparative.

How to Write Hypothesis in Research

Writing an effective hypothesis starts before you even begin to type. Like any task, preparation is key, so you start first by conducting research yourself, and reading all you can about the topic that you plan to research. From there, you’ll gain the knowledge you need to understand where your focus within the topic will lie.

Remember that a hypothesis is a prediction of the relationship that exists between two or more variables. Your job is to write a hypothesis, and design the research, to “prove” whether or not your prediction is correct. A common pitfall is to use judgments that are subjective and inappropriate for the construction of a hypothesis. It’s important to keep the focus and language of your hypothesis objective.

An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions.

Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis:

• Predicts the relationship and outcome
• Simple and concise – avoid wordiness
• Clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
• Observable and testable results
• Relevant and specific to the research question or problem

Research Hypothesis Example

Perhaps the best way to evaluate whether or not your hypothesis is effective is to compare it to those of your colleagues in the field. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to writing a powerful research hypothesis. As you’re reading and preparing your hypothesis, you’ll also read other hypotheses. These can help guide you on what works, and what doesn’t, when it comes to writing a strong research hypothesis.

Here are a few generic examples to get you started.

Eating an apple each day, after the age of 60, will result in a reduction of frequency of physician visits.

Budget airlines are more likely to receive more customer complaints. A budget airline is defined as an airline that offers lower fares and fewer amenities than a traditional full-service airline. (Note that the term “budget airline” is included in the hypothesis.

Workplaces that offer flexible working hours report higher levels of employee job satisfaction than workplaces with fixed hours.

Each of the above examples are specific, observable and measurable, and the statement of prediction can be verified or shown to be false by utilizing standard experimental practices. It should be noted, however, that often your hypothesis will change as your research progresses.

Language Editing Plus

Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus service can help ensure that your research hypothesis is well-designed, and articulates your research and conclusions. Our most comprehensive editing package, you can count on a thorough language review by native-English speakers who are PhDs or PhD candidates. We’ll check for effective logic and flow of your manuscript, as well as document formatting for your chosen journal, reference checks, and much more.

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

How to Write an Effective Problem Statement for Your Research Paper

You may also like.

Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• How it works

How to Write a Hypothesis – Steps & Tips

Published by Alaxendra Bets at August 14th, 2021 , Revised On October 26, 2023

What is a Research Hypothesis?

You can test a research statement with the help of experimental or theoretical research, known as a hypothesis.

If you want to find out the similarities, differences, and relationships between variables, you must write a testable hypothesis before compiling the data, performing analysis, and generating results to complete.

The data analysis and findings will help you test the hypothesis and see whether it is true or false. Here is all you need to know about how to write a hypothesis for a  dissertation .

Research Hypothesis Definition

Not sure what the meaning of the research hypothesis is?

A research hypothesis predicts an answer to the research question  based on existing theoretical knowledge or experimental data.

Some studies may have multiple hypothesis statements depending on the research question(s).  A research hypothesis must be based on formulas, facts, and theories. It should be testable by data analysis, observations, experiments, or other scientific methodologies that can refute or support the statement.

Variables in Hypothesis

Developing a hypothesis is easy. Most research studies have two or more variables in the hypothesis, particularly studies involving correlational and experimental research. The researcher can control or change the independent variable(s) while measuring and observing the independent variable(s).

“How long a student sleeps affects test scores.”

In the above statement, the dependent variable is the test score, while the independent variable is the length of time spent in sleep. Developing a hypothesis will be easy if you know your research’s dependent and independent variables.

Once you have developed a thesis statement, questions such as how to write a hypothesis for the dissertation and how to test a research hypothesis become pretty straightforward.

Looking for dissertation help?

Researchprospect to the rescue then.

We have expert writers on our team who are skilled at helping students with quantitative dissertations across a variety of STEM disciplines. Guaranteeing 100% satisfaction!

Step-by-Step Guide on How to Write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps involved in how to write a hypothesis for a dissertation.

Step 1: Start with a Research Question

• Begin by asking a specific question about a topic of interest.
• This question should be clear, concise, and researchable.

Example: Does exposure to sunlight affect plant growth?

Step 2: Do Preliminary Research

• Before formulating a hypothesis, conduct background research to understand existing knowledge on the topic.
• Familiarise yourself with prior studies, theories, or observations related to the research question.

Step 3: Define Variables

• Independent Variable (IV): The factor that you change or manipulate in an experiment.
• Dependent Variable (DV): The factor that you measure.

Example: IV: Amount of sunlight exposure (e.g., 2 hours/day, 4 hours/day, 8 hours/day) DV: Plant growth (e.g., height in centimetres)

Step 4: Formulate the Hypothesis

• A hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables.
• It is often written as an “if-then” statement.

Example: If plants receive more sunlight, then they will grow taller.

Step 5: Ensure it is Testable

A good hypothesis is empirically testable. This means you should be able to design an experiment or observation to test its validity.

Example: You can set up an experiment where plants are exposed to varying amounts of sunlight and then measure their growth over a period of time.

Step 6: Consider Potential Confounding Variables

• Confounding variables are factors other than the independent variable that might affect the outcome.
• It is important to identify these to ensure that they do not skew your results.

Example: Soil quality, water frequency, or type of plant can all affect growth. Consider keeping these constant in your experiment.

Step 7: Write the Null Hypothesis

• The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no effect or no relationship between the variables.
• It is what you aim to disprove or reject through your research.

Example: There is no difference in plant growth regardless of the amount of sunlight exposure.

Step 8: Test your Hypothesis

Design an experiment or conduct observations to test your hypothesis.

Example: Grow three sets of plants: one set exposed to 2 hours of sunlight daily, another exposed to 4 hours, and a third exposed to 8 hours. Measure and compare their growth after a set period.

Step 9: Analyse the Results

After testing, review your data to determine if it supports your hypothesis.

Step 10: Draw Conclusions

• Based on your findings, determine whether you can accept or reject the hypothesis.
• Remember, even if you reject your hypothesis, it’s a valuable result. It can guide future research and refine questions.

Three Ways to Phrase a Hypothesis

Try to use “if”… and “then”… to identify the variables. The independent variable should be present in the first part of the hypothesis, while the dependent variable will form the second part of the statement. Consider understanding the below research hypothesis example to create a specific, clear, and concise research hypothesis;

If an obese lady starts attending Zomba fitness classes, her health will improve.

In academic research, you can write the predicted variable relationship directly because most research studies correlate terms.

The number of Zomba fitness classes attended by the obese lady has a positive effect on health.

If your research compares two groups, then you can develop a hypothesis statement on their differences.

An obese lady who attended most Zumba fitness classes will have better health than those who attended a few.

How to Write a Null Hypothesis

If a statistical analysis is involved in your research, then you must create a null hypothesis. If you find any relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis will be the default position that there is no relationship between them. H0 is the symbol for the null hypothesis, while the hypothesis is represented as H1. The null hypothesis will also answer your question, “How to test the research hypothesis in the dissertation.”

H0: The number of Zumba fitness classes attended by the obese lady does not affect her health.

H1: The number of Zumba fitness classes attended by obese lady positively affects health.

Also see:  Your Dissertation in Education

Hypothesis Examples

Research Question: Does the amount of sunlight a plant receives affect its growth? Hypothesis: Plants that receive more sunlight will grow taller than plants that receive less sunlight.

Research Question: Do students who eat breakfast perform better in school exams than those who don’t? Hypothesis: Students who eat a morning breakfast will score higher on school exams compared to students who skip breakfast.

Research Question: Does listening to music while studying impact a student’s ability to retain information? Hypothesis 1 (Directional): Students who listen to music while studying will retain less information than those who study in silence. Hypothesis 2 (Non-directional): There will be a difference in information retention between students who listen to music while studying and those who study in silence.

How can ResearchProspect Help?

If you are unsure about how to rest a research hypothesis in a dissertation or simply unsure about how to develop a hypothesis for your research, then you can take advantage of our dissertation services which cover every tiny aspect of a dissertation project you might need help with including but not limited to setting up a hypothesis and research questions,  help with individual chapters ,  full dissertation writing ,  statistical analysis , and much more.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 5 rules for writing a good hypothesis.

• Clear Statement: State a clear relationship between variables.
• Testable: Ensure it can be investigated and measured.
• Specific: Avoid vague terms, be precise in predictions.
• Falsifiable: Design to allow potential disproof.
• Relevant: Address research question and align with existing knowledge.

What is a hypothesis in simple words?

A hypothesis is an educated guess or prediction about something that can be tested. It is a statement that suggests a possible explanation for an event or phenomenon based on prior knowledge or observation. Scientists use hypotheses as a starting point for experiments to discover if they are true or false.

What is the hypothesis and examples?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation for an observation or phenomenon. For example, if plants are given sunlight, then they will grow. In this case, the hypothesis suggests that sunlight has a positive effect on plant growth. It can be tested by experimenting with plants in varying light conditions.

What is the hypothesis in research definition?

A hypothesis in research is a clear, testable statement predicting the possible outcome of a study based on prior knowledge and observation. It serves as the foundation for conducting experiments or investigations. Researchers test the validity of the hypothesis to draw conclusions and advance knowledge in a particular field.

Why is it called a hypothesis?

The term “hypothesis” originates from the Greek word “hypothesis,” which means “base” or “foundation.” It’s used to describe a foundational statement or proposition that can be tested. In scientific contexts, it denotes a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, serving as a starting point for investigation or experimentation.

You May Also Like

Find how to write research questions with the mentioned steps required for a perfect research question. Choose an interesting topic and begin your research.

Penning your dissertation proposal can be a rather daunting task. Here are comprehensive guidelines on how to write a dissertation proposal.

Let’s briefly examine the concept of research paradigms, their pillars, purposes, types, examples, and how they can be combined.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

17 Research Proposal Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

A research proposal systematically and transparently outlines a proposed research project.

The purpose of a research proposal is to demonstrate a project’s viability and the researcher’s preparedness to conduct an academic study. It serves as a roadmap for the researcher.

The process holds value both externally (for accountability purposes and often as a requirement for a grant application) and intrinsic value (for helping the researcher to clarify the mechanics, purpose, and potential signficance of the study).

Key sections of a research proposal include: the title, abstract, introduction, literature review, research design and methods, timeline, budget, outcomes and implications, references, and appendix. Each is briefly explained below.

Watch my Guide: How to Write a Research Proposal

Get your Template for Writing your Research Proposal Here (With AI Prompts!)

Research Proposal Sample Structure

Title: The title should present a concise and descriptive statement that clearly conveys the core idea of the research projects. Make it as specific as possible. The reader should immediately be able to grasp the core idea of the intended research project. Often, the title is left too vague and does not help give an understanding of what exactly the study looks at.

Abstract: Abstracts are usually around 250-300 words and provide an overview of what is to follow – including the research problem , objectives, methods, expected outcomes, and significance of the study. Use it as a roadmap and ensure that, if the abstract is the only thing someone reads, they’ll get a good fly-by of what will be discussed in the peice.

Introduction: Introductions are all about contextualization. They often set the background information with a statement of the problem. At the end of the introduction, the reader should understand what the rationale for the study truly is. I like to see the research questions or hypotheses included in the introduction and I like to get a good understanding of what the significance of the research will be. It’s often easiest to write the introduction last

Literature Review: The literature review dives deep into the existing literature on the topic, demosntrating your thorough understanding of the existing literature including themes, strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the literature. It serves both to demonstrate your knowledge of the field and, to demonstrate how the proposed study will fit alongside the literature on the topic. A good literature review concludes by clearly demonstrating how your research will contribute something new and innovative to the conversation in the literature.

Research Design and Methods: This section needs to clearly demonstrate how the data will be gathered and analyzed in a systematic and academically sound manner. Here, you need to demonstrate that the conclusions of your research will be both valid and reliable. Common points discussed in the research design and methods section include highlighting the research paradigm, methodologies, intended population or sample to be studied, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures . Toward the end of this section, you are encouraged to also address ethical considerations and limitations of the research process , but also to explain why you chose your research design and how you are mitigating the identified risks and limitations.

Timeline: Provide an outline of the anticipated timeline for the study. Break it down into its various stages (including data collection, data analysis, and report writing). The goal of this section is firstly to establish a reasonable breakdown of steps for you to follow and secondly to demonstrate to the assessors that your project is practicable and feasible.

Budget: Estimate the costs associated with the research project and include evidence for your estimations. Typical costs include staffing costs, equipment, travel, and data collection tools. When applying for a scholarship, the budget should demonstrate that you are being responsible with your expensive and that your funding application is reasonable.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: A discussion of the anticipated findings or results of the research, as well as the potential contributions to the existing knowledge, theory, or practice in the field. This section should also address the potential impact of the research on relevant stakeholders and any broader implications for policy or practice.

References: A complete list of all the sources cited in the research proposal, formatted according to the required citation style. This demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the relevant literature and ensures proper attribution of ideas and information.

Appendices (if applicable): Any additional materials, such as questionnaires, interview guides, or consent forms, that provide further information or support for the research proposal. These materials should be included as appendices at the end of the document.

Research Proposal Examples

Research proposals often extend anywhere between 2,000 and 15,000 words in length. The following snippets are samples designed to briefly demonstrate what might be discussed in each section.

1. Education Studies Research Proposals

See some real sample pieces:

• Assessment of the perceptions of teachers towards a new grading system
• Does ICT use in secondary classrooms help or hinder student learning?
• Digital technologies in focus project
• Urban Middle School Teachers’ Experiences of the Implementation of
• Restorative Justice Practices
• Experiences of students of color in service learning

Consider this hypothetical education research proposal:

The Impact of Game-Based Learning on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Middle School Mathematics

Abstract: The proposed study will explore multiplayer game-based learning techniques in middle school mathematics curricula and their effects on student engagement. The study aims to contribute to the current literature on game-based learning by examining the effects of multiplayer gaming in learning.

Introduction: Digital game-based learning has long been shunned within mathematics education for fears that it may distract students or lower the academic integrity of the classrooms. However, there is emerging evidence that digital games in math have emerging benefits not only for engagement but also academic skill development. Contributing to this discourse, this study seeks to explore the potential benefits of multiplayer digital game-based learning by examining its impact on middle school students’ engagement and academic performance in a mathematics class.

Literature Review: The literature review has identified gaps in the current knowledge, namely, while game-based learning has been extensively explored, the role of multiplayer games in supporting learning has not been studied.

Research Design and Methods: This study will employ a mixed-methods research design based upon action research in the classroom. A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test control group design will first be used to compare the academic performance and engagement of middle school students exposed to game-based learning techniques with those in a control group receiving instruction without the aid of technology. Students will also be observed and interviewed in regard to the effect of communication and collaboration during gameplay on their learning.

Timeline: The study will take place across the second term of the school year with a pre-test taking place on the first day of the term and the post-test taking place on Wednesday in Week 10.

Budget: The key budgetary requirements will be the technologies required, including the subscription cost for the identified games and computers.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: It is expected that the findings will contribute to the current literature on game-based learning and inform educational practices, providing educators and policymakers with insights into how to better support student achievement in mathematics.

2. Psychology Research Proposals

See some real examples:

• A situational analysis of shared leadership in a self-managing team
• The effect of musical preference on running performance
• Relationship between self-esteem and disordered eating amongst adolescent females

Consider this hypothetical psychology research proposal:

The Effects of Mindfulness-Based Interventions on Stress Reduction in College Students

Abstract: This research proposal examines the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on stress reduction among college students, using a pre-test/post-test experimental design with both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods .

Introduction: College students face heightened stress levels during exam weeks. This can affect both mental health and test performance. This study explores the potential benefits of mindfulness-based interventions such as meditation as a way to mediate stress levels in the weeks leading up to exam time.

Literature Review: Existing research on mindfulness-based meditation has shown the ability for mindfulness to increase metacognition, decrease anxiety levels, and decrease stress. Existing literature has looked at workplace, high school and general college-level applications. This study will contribute to the corpus of literature by exploring the effects of mindfulness directly in the context of exam weeks.

Research Design and Methods: Participants ( n= 234 ) will be randomly assigned to either an experimental group, receiving 5 days per week of 10-minute mindfulness-based interventions, or a control group, receiving no intervention. Data will be collected through self-report questionnaires, measuring stress levels, semi-structured interviews exploring participants’ experiences, and students’ test scores.

Timeline: The study will begin three weeks before the students’ exam week and conclude after each student’s final exam. Data collection will occur at the beginning (pre-test of self-reported stress levels) and end (post-test) of the three weeks.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: The study aims to provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in reducing stress among college students in the lead up to exams, with potential implications for mental health support and stress management programs on college campuses.

3. Sociology Research Proposals

• Understanding emerging social movements: A case study of ‘Jersey in Transition’
• The interaction of health, education and employment in Western China
• Can we preserve lower-income affordable neighbourhoods in the face of rising costs?

Consider this hypothetical sociology research proposal:

The Impact of Social Media Usage on Interpersonal Relationships among Young Adults

Abstract: This research proposal investigates the effects of social media usage on interpersonal relationships among young adults, using a longitudinal mixed-methods approach with ongoing semi-structured interviews to collect qualitative data.

Introduction: Social media platforms have become a key medium for the development of interpersonal relationships, particularly for young adults. This study examines the potential positive and negative effects of social media usage on young adults’ relationships and development over time.

Literature Review: A preliminary review of relevant literature has demonstrated that social media usage is central to development of a personal identity and relationships with others with similar subcultural interests. However, it has also been accompanied by data on mental health deline and deteriorating off-screen relationships. The literature is to-date lacking important longitudinal data on these topics.

Research Design and Methods: Participants ( n = 454 ) will be young adults aged 18-24. Ongoing self-report surveys will assess participants’ social media usage, relationship satisfaction, and communication patterns. A subset of participants will be selected for longitudinal in-depth interviews starting at age 18 and continuing for 5 years.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of five years, including recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide insights into the complex relationship between social media usage and interpersonal relationships among young adults, potentially informing social policies and mental health support related to social media use.

4. Nursing Research Proposals

• Does Orthopaedic Pre-assessment clinic prepare the patient for admission to hospital?
• Nurses’ perceptions and experiences of providing psychological care to burns patients
• Registered psychiatric nurse’s practice with mentally ill parents and their children

Consider this hypothetical nursing research proposal:

The Influence of Nurse-Patient Communication on Patient Satisfaction and Health Outcomes following Emergency Cesarians

Abstract: This research will examines the impact of effective nurse-patient communication on patient satisfaction and health outcomes for women following c-sections, utilizing a mixed-methods approach with patient surveys and semi-structured interviews.

Introduction: It has long been known that effective communication between nurses and patients is crucial for quality care. However, additional complications arise following emergency c-sections due to the interaction between new mother’s changing roles and recovery from surgery.

Literature Review: A review of the literature demonstrates the importance of nurse-patient communication, its impact on patient satisfaction, and potential links to health outcomes. However, communication between nurses and new mothers is less examined, and the specific experiences of those who have given birth via emergency c-section are to date unexamined.

Research Design and Methods: Participants will be patients in a hospital setting who have recently had an emergency c-section. A self-report survey will assess their satisfaction with nurse-patient communication and perceived health outcomes. A subset of participants will be selected for in-depth interviews to explore their experiences and perceptions of the communication with their nurses.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of six months, including rolling recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing within the hospital.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide evidence for the significance of nurse-patient communication in supporting new mothers who have had an emergency c-section. Recommendations will be presented for supporting nurses and midwives in improving outcomes for new mothers who had complications during birth.

5. Social Work Research Proposals

• Experiences of negotiating employment and caring responsibilities of fathers post-divorce
• Exploring kinship care in the north region of British Columbia

Consider this hypothetical social work research proposal:

The Role of a Family-Centered Intervention in Preventing Homelessness Among At-Risk Youthin a working-class town in Northern England

Abstract: This research proposal investigates the effectiveness of a family-centered intervention provided by a local council area in preventing homelessness among at-risk youth. This case study will use a mixed-methods approach with program evaluation data and semi-structured interviews to collect quantitative and qualitative data .

Introduction: Homelessness among youth remains a significant social issue. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of family-centered interventions in addressing this problem and identify factors that contribute to successful prevention strategies.

Literature Review: A review of the literature has demonstrated several key factors contributing to youth homelessness including lack of parental support, lack of social support, and low levels of family involvement. It also demonstrates the important role of family-centered interventions in addressing this issue. Drawing on current evidence, this study explores the effectiveness of one such intervention in preventing homelessness among at-risk youth in a working-class town in Northern England.

Research Design and Methods: The study will evaluate a new family-centered intervention program targeting at-risk youth and their families. Quantitative data on program outcomes, including housing stability and family functioning, will be collected through program records and evaluation reports. Semi-structured interviews with program staff, participants, and relevant stakeholders will provide qualitative insights into the factors contributing to program success or failure.

Timeline: The study will be conducted over a period of six months, including recruitment, data collection, analysis, and report writing.

Budget: Expenses include access to program evaluation data, interview materials, data analysis software, and any related travel costs for in-person interviews.

Expected Outcomes and Implications: This study aims to provide evidence for the effectiveness of family-centered interventions in preventing youth homelessness, potentially informing the expansion of or necessary changes to social work practices in Northern England.

Research Proposal Template

Get your Detailed Template for Writing your Research Proposal Here (With AI Prompts!)

This is a template for a 2500-word research proposal. You may find it difficult to squeeze everything into this wordcount, but it’s a common wordcount for Honors and MA-level dissertations.

Your research proposal is where you really get going with your study. I’d strongly recommend working closely with your teacher in developing a research proposal that’s consistent with the requirements and culture of your institution, as in my experience it varies considerably. The above template is from my own courses that walk students through research proposals in a British School of Education.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

8 thoughts on “17 Research Proposal Examples”

Very excellent research proposals

very helpful

Very helpful

Dear Sir, I need some help to write an educational research proposal. Thank you.

Hi Levi, use the site search bar to ask a question and I’ll likely have a guide already written for your specific question. Thanks for reading!

very good research proposal

Thank you so much sir! ❤️

Very helpful 👌

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
• - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
• “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
• EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
• “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
• Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
• EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
• - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
• “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
• STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
• EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
• - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
• “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
• EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
• “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
• “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
• “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
• EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
• - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
• “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
• “Conclusion
• Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
• EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
• “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
• Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
• EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
• “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
• “Statistical Analysis
• ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

• EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
• “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
• “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
• EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
• “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
• EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
• “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
• “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
• “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

Science & Quantitative Reasoning Education

Yale undergraduate research, how to write a proposal.

The abstract should summarize your proposal. Include one sentence to introduce the problem you are investigating, why this problem is significant, the hypothesis to be tested, a brief summary of experiments that you wish to conduct and a single concluding sentence. (250 word limit)

Introduction

The introduction discusses the background and significance of the problem you are investigating. Lead the reader from the general to the specific. For example, if you want to write about the role that Brca1 mutations play in breast cancer pathogenesis, talk first about the significance of breast cancer as a disease in the US/world population, then about familial breast cancer as a small subset of breast cancers in general, then about discovery of Brca1 mutations in familial breast cancer, then Brca1’s normal functions in DNA repair, then about how Brca1 mutations result in damaged DNA and onset of familial breast cancer, etc. Definitely include figures with properly labeled text boxes (designated as Figure 1, Figure 2, etc) here to better illustrate your points and help your reader wade through unfamiliar science. (3 pages max)

Formulate a hypothesis that will be tested in your grant proposal. Remember, you are doing hypothesis-driven research so there should be a hypothesis to be tested! The hypothesis should be focused, concise and flow logically from the introduction. For example, your hypothesis could be “I hypothesize that overexpressing wild type Brca1 in Brca1 null tumor cells will prevent metastatic spread in a mouse xenograph model.” Based on your hypothesis, your Specific Aims section should be geared to support it. The hypothesis is stated in one sentence in the proposal. 

Specific Aims (listed as Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2)

This is where you will want to work with your mentor to craft the experimental portion of your proposal. Propose two original specific aims to test your hypothesis. Don’t propose more than two aims-you will NOT have enough time to do more. In the example presented, Specific Aim 1 might be “To determine the oncogenic potential of Brca1 null cell lines expressing wild type Brca1 cDNA”. Specific aim 2 might be “To determine the metastatic potential of Brca1 null cells that express WT Brca1”. You do not have to go into extensive technical details, just enough for the reader to understand what you propose to do. The best aims yield mechanistic insights-that is, experiments proposed address some mechanisms of biology. A less desirable aim proposes correlative experiments that does not address mechanistically how BRCA1 mutations generate cancer. It is also very important that the two aims are related but NOT interdependent. What this means is that if Aim 1 doesn’t work, Aim 2 is not automatically dead. For example, say you propose in Aim 1 to generate a BRCA1 knockout mouse model, and in Aim 2 you will take tissues from this mouse to do experiments. If knocking out BRCA1 results in early embryonic death, you will never get a mouse that yields tissues for Aim 2. You can include some of your mentor’s data here as “Preliminary data”. Remember to carefully cite all your sources. (4 pages max; 2 pages per Aim)

Potential pitfalls and alternative strategies

This is a very important part of any proposal. This is where you want to discuss the experiments you propose in Aims 1 and 2. Remember, no experiment is perfect. Are there any reasons why experiments you proposed might not work? Why? What will you do to resolve this? What are other possible strategies you might use if your experiments don’t work? If a reviewer spots these deficiencies and you don’t propose methods to correct them, your proposal will not get funded. You will want to work with your mentor to write this section. (1/2 page per Aim)

Cite all references, including unpublished data from your mentor. Last, First, (year), Title, Journal, volume, pages.

*8 page proposal limit (not including References), 1.5 spacing, 12pt Times New Roman font

• View an example of a research proposal submitted for the Yale College First-Year Summer Research Fellowship (PDF).  
• View an example of a research proposal submitted for the Yale College Dean’s Research Fellowship and the Rosenfeld Science Scholars Program (PDF) .

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

Published on October 30, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on October 19, 2023.

The research question is one of the most important parts of your research paper , thesis or dissertation . It’s important to spend some time assessing and refining your question before you get started.

The exact form of your question will depend on a few things, such as the length of your project, the type of research you’re conducting, the topic , and the research problem . However, all research questions should be focused, specific, and relevant to a timely social or scholarly issue.

Once you’ve read our guide on how to write a research question , you can use these examples to craft your own.

Note that the design of your research question can depend on what method you are pursuing. Here are a few options for qualitative, quantitative, and statistical research questions.

Other interesting articles

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.

Methodology

• 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

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, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved August 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article

From diagnosis to dialogue – reconsidering the dsm as a conversation piece in mental health care: a hypothesis and theory.

• 1 Department of Psychiatry, Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, Netherlands
• 2 Digital Innovation in Health, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, Netherlands
• 3 Department of Research and Innovation, KieN VIP Mental Health Care Services, Leeuwarden, Netherlands
• 4 Department of Child and Family Welfare, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, abbreviated as the DSM, is one of mental health care’s most commonly used classification systems. While the DSM has been successful in establishing a shared language for researching and communicating about mental distress, it has its limitations as an empirical compass. In the transformation of mental health care towards a system that is centered around shared decision-making, person-centered care, and personal recovery, the DSM is problematic as it promotes the disengagement of people with mental distress and is primarily a tool developed for professionals to communicate about patients instead of with patients. However, the mental health care system is set up in such a way that we cannot do without the DSM for the time being. In this paper, we aimed to describe the position and role the DSM may have in a mental health care system that is evolving from a medical paradigm to a more self-contained profession in which there is increased accommodation of other perspectives. First, our analysis highlights the DSM’s potential as a boundary object in clinical practice, that could support a shared language between patients and professionals. Using the DSM as a conversation piece, a language accommodating diverse perspectives can be co-created. Second, we delve into why people with lived experience should be involved in co-designing spectra of distress. We propose an iterative design and test approach for designing DSM spectra of distress in co-creation with people with lived experience to prevent the development of ‘average solutions’ for ‘ordinary people’. We conclude that transforming mental health care by reconsidering the DSM as a boundary object and conversation piece between activity systems could be a step in the right direction, shifting the power balance towards shared ownership in a participation era that fosters dialogue instead of diagnosis.

1 Introduction

The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has great authority in practice. The manual, released by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), provides a common language and a classification system for clinicians to communicate about people’s experiences of mental distress and for researchers to study social phenomena that include mental distress and its subsequent treatments. Before the DSM was developed, a plethora of mental health-related documents circulated in the United States ( 1 ). In response to the confusion that arose from this diversity of documents, the APA Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics standardized these into one manual, the DSM-I ( 2 ). In this first edition of the manual, released in 1952, mental distress was understood as a reaction to stress caused by psychological and interpersonal factors in the person’s life ( 3 ). Although the DSM-I had limited impact on practice ( 4 ), it did set the stage for increasingly standardized categorization of mental disorders ( 5 ).

The DSM-II was released in 1968. In this second iteration, mental disorders were understood as the patient’s attempts to control overwhelming anxiety with unconscious, intrapsychic conflicts ( 3 ). In this edition, the developers attempted to describe the symptoms of disorders and define their etiologies. They had chosen to base them predominantly on psychodynamic psychiatry but also included the biological focus of Kraepelin’s system of classification ( 5 , 6 ). During the development of the DSM-III, the task force added the goal to improve the reliability — the likelihood that different professionals arrive at the same diagnosis — of psychiatric diagnosis, which now became an important feature of the design process. The developers abandoned the psychodynamic view and shifted the focus to atheoretical descriptions, aiming to specify objective criteria for diagnosing mental disorders ( 3 ). Although it was explicitly stated in DSM-III that there was no underlying assumption that the categories were validated entities ( 7 ), the categorical approach still assumed each pattern of symptoms in a category reflected an underlying pathology. The definition of ‘mental illness’ was thereby altered from what one did or was (“you react anxious/you are anxious”) to something one had (“you have anxiety”). This resulted in descriptive, criteria-based classifications that reflected a perceived need for standardization of psychiatric diagnoses ( 5 , 6 ). The DSM-III was released in 1980 and had a big impact on practice ( 6 ) as it inaugurated an attempt to “re-medicalize” American psychiatry ( 5 ).

In hindsight, it is not surprising that after the release of the DSM-III, the funding for psychopharmacological research skyrocketed ( 8 ). At the same time, the debate on the relationship between etiology and description in psychiatric diagnosis continued ( 9 ). As sociologist Andrew Scull ( 10 ) showed, the election of President Reagan prompted a shift towards a focus on biology. His successor, President Bush, claimed that the 1990s were ‘the decade of the brain,’ which fueled a sharp increase in funding for research on genetics and neuroscience ( 10 ). Despite the public push for biological research, the DSM-IV aimed to arrive at a purely atheoretical description of psychiatric diagnostic criteria and was released in 1994 ( 11 ). The task force conducted multi-center field trials to relate diagnoses to clinical practice to improve reliability, which remained a goal of the design process ( 12 ). While the DSM-IV aimed to be atheoretical, researchers argued that the underlying ontologies were easily deducible from their content: psychological and social causality were eliminated and replaced implicitly with biological causality ( 13 ). In the DSM-5, validity — whether a coherent syndrome is being measured and whether it is what it is assumed to be — took center stage ( 10 ). The definition of mental disorder in the DSM-5 was thereby conceptualized as:

“… a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning.” ( 14 ).

With the release of the DSM-5, the debate surrounding the conceptualization of mental distress started all over again, but this can be best seen as re-energizing longstanding debates around the utility and validity of APA nosology ( 15 ). Three important design goals from the DSM-III until current editions can be observed: providing an international language on mental distress, developing a reliable classification system, and creating a valid classification system.

1.1 The limitations of the DSM as an empirical compass

The extent to which these three design goals were attained is only partial. The development of an international language has been accomplished, as the DSM (as well as the International Classification of Diseases) is now widely employed across most Western countries. Although merely based on consensus, the DSM enables — to an extent — professionals and researchers to quantify the prevalence of certain behaviors and find one or more classifications that best suit these observed behaviors. To this date, the expectation that diagnostic criteria would be empirically validated through research has not yet been fulfilled ( 10 , 16 , 17 ). As stated by the authors of the fourth edition ( 11 ), the disorders listed in the DSM are “valuable heuristic constructs” that serve a purpose in research and practice. However, it was already emphasized in the DSM-IV guidebook that they do not precisely depict nature as it is, being characterized as not “well-defined entities” ( 18 ). Furthermore, while the fifth edition refers to “syndromes,” it is again described that “there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder” ( 14 ). Consequently, there are no laboratory tests or biological markers to set the boundary between ‘normal’ and ‘pathological,’ thus, it cannot confirm or reject the presumed pathologies underlying the DSM classifications, thereby rendering the validity goal of the design unattained. Therefore, the reliability of the current major DSM (i.e., DSM-5) still raises concerns ( 19 ).

By focusing conceptually on mental distress as an individual experience, the DSM task forces have neglected the role of social context, potentially restricting a comprehensive clinical understanding of mental distress ( 20 ). There is mounting evidence and increased attention, however, that the social environment, including its determinants and factors, is crucial for the onset, course, and outcome of mental distress ( 21 – 27 ). Moreover, exposure to factors such as early life adversity, poverty, unemployment, trauma, and minority group position is strongly associated with the onset of mental distress ( 28 , 29 ). It is also established that the range of ontological perspectives — what mental distress is and how it exists — is far broader than what is typically covered in prevailing scientific and educational discussions ( 30 ). These diverse perspectives are also evident in the epistemic pluralism among theoretical models on mental health problems ( 31 ).

1.2 The DSM is problematic in the transformation of mental health care

In the context of contemporary transformations in mental health care, the role of the DSM as an empirical instrument becomes even more problematic. In recent years, significant shifts have been witnessed in mental health care services, with a growing focus on promoting mental well-being, preventive measures, and person-centered and rights-based approaches ( 32 ). In contrast to the 1950s definition of health in which health was seen as the absence of disease, health today is defined as “the ability to adapt and to self-manage” ( 33 ), also known as ‘positive health.’ Furthermore, the recovery movement ( 34 ), person-centered care ( 35 ), and the integration of professionals’ lived experiences ( 36 ) all contributed to a more person-centered mental health care that promotes shared-decision making as a fundamental principle in practice in which no one perspective holds the wisdom. Shared decision-making is “an approach where clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and where patients are supported to consider options, to achieve informed preferences” ( 37 ). To realize and enable a more balanced relationship between professional and patient in shared decision-making, the interplay of healthcare professionals’ and patients’ skills, the support for a patient, and a good relationship between professional and patient are important to facilitate patients’ autonomy ( 38 ). Thus, mental health care professionals in the 21st century should collaborate, embrace ideography, and maximize effects mediated by therapeutic relationships and the healing effects of ritualized care interactions ( 39 ).

The DSM and its designed classifications, as well as their use in the community, can hinder a person-centered approach in which meaning is collaboratively derived for mental health issues, where a balanced relationship is needed, and where decisions are made together. We can demonstrate this with a brief example involving the ADHD classification and its criteria, highlighting how its design tends to marginalize individuals with mental distress, reducing their behavior to objectification from the clinician’s viewpoint. The ADHD classification delineates an ideal self that highly esteems disengagement from one’s feelings and needs, irrespective of contextual factors ( 40 ). This inclination is apparent in the criteria, including criterion 1a concerning inattention: “often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort”. This indicates that disliking something is viewed as a symptom rather than a personal preference ( 40 ). Due to a lack of attention to the person’s meaning, a behavior that may be a preference of the individual can become a symptom of a disease. Another instance can be observed in criterion 2c: “often runs about or climbs in situations where it is inappropriate.” Although such behavior might be deemed inappropriate in certain contexts, many individuals derive enjoyment from running and climbing. In this way, ‘normal’ human behavior can be pathologized because there is no room for the meaning of the individual.

A parallel disengagement is evident in the DSM’s viewpoint on individuals with mental distress ( 40 ), as the diagnostic process appears to necessitate no interaction with an individual; instead, it fosters disengagement rather than engagement. For example, according to the DSM-5, when a child is “engaged in especially interesting activities,” the clinician is warned that the ‘symptoms’ may not manifest. Although it appears most fitting to assist the child by exploring their interests, clinicians are instead encouraged to seek situations the child finds uninteresting and assess whether the child can concentrate ( 40 ). If the child cannot concentrate, a ‘diagnosis’ might be made, and intervention can be initiated. This highlights that the design of the DSM promotes professionals to locate individual disorders in a person at face value without considering contextual factors, personal preferences, or other idiosyncrasies in a person’s present or history ( 41 ). It is also apparent that the term ‘symptom’ in the DSM implies an underlying entity as its cause, obscuring that it is a subjective criterion based on human assessment and interpretation ( 42 ). These factors make it difficult for the DSM in its current form to have a place in person-centered mental health care that promotes shared decision-making.

1.3 The problem and hypotheses

Diagnostic manuals like the DSM function similarly to standard operating procedures: they streamline decision-making and assist professionals in making approximate diagnoses when valid and specific measures are lacking or not readily accessible ( 43 ). However, the DSM is often (mis)used as a manual providing explanations for mental distress. This hinders a personalized approach that prioritizes the patient’s needs. Furthermore, this approach does not align with the principles of shared decision-making, as the best available evidence indicates that classifications are not explanations for mental distress. Also, disengagement is promoted in the design of the DSM, which is problematic in the person-centered transformation of mental health care in which a range of perspectives and human-centered interventions are needed. This paper aims to describe the position and role the DSM may have in a mental health care system that is evolving from a medical paradigm to a more self-contained profession in which there is increased accommodation of other perspectives. For this hypothesis and theory paper, we have formulated the following hypotheses:

(1) Reconsidering the DSM as a boundary object that can be used as a conversation piece allows for other perspectives on what is known about mental distress and aligns with the requirements of person-centered mental health care needed for shared decision-making;.

(2) Embracing design approaches in redesigning the DSM to a conversation piece that uses spectra of mental distress instead of classifications will stimulate the integration of diverse perspectives and voices in reshaping mental health care.

2 Co-creation of a real common language

The DSM originally aimed to develop a common language, and it has achieved that to some extent, but it now primarily serves as a common language among professionals. This does not align with the person-centered transformation in mental health care, where multiple perspectives come into play ( 32 , 44 ). In this section, we will address our first hypothesis: reconsidering the DSM as a boundary object that can be used as a conversation piece allows for other perspectives on what is known about mental distress and aligns with the requirements of person-centered mental health care needed for shared decision-making. First, we will examine several unintended consequences of classifications. After that, we propose considering the DSM as boundary objects to arrive at a real common language in which the perspective of people with lived experience is promoted. This perspective views the DSM as a conversation piece that can be used as a subject, the meaning of which can be attributed from various perspectives where the premise is that there is not an omniscient perspective.

2.1 Validation, stigma, and making up people

Classifications influence what we see or do not see, what is valorized, and what is silenced ( 45 ). DSM classifications and the process of getting them can provide validation and relief for some service users, while for others, it can be stigmatizing and distressing ( 46 , 47 ). The stigma people encounter can be worse than the mental problems themselves ( 48 ). The classification of people’s behaviors is not simply a passive reflection of pre-existing characteristics but is influenced by social and cultural factors. The evolution of neurasthenia serves as a fascinating illustration of the notable ontological changes in the design of the DSM, constantly reflecting and constructing reality. Initially, neurasthenia was considered a widespread mental disorder with presumed somatic roots. Still, it was subsequently discarded from use, only to resurface several decades later as a culture-bound manifestation of individual mental distress ( 49 ). Consequently, certain mental disorders, as depicted in the DSM, may not have existed in the same way as before the classifications were designed. This has been called ‘making up people’, which entails the argument that different kinds of human beings and human acts come into being hand in hand with our invention of the categories labeling them ( 50 ). Furthermore, it is important to consider that whether behavior is deemed dysfunctional or functional is always influenced by the prevailing norms and traditions within a specific society at a given time. Therefore, the individual meaning of the patient in its context is always more important than general descriptions and criteria of functional and dysfunctional behavior (i.e., ADHD climbing example).

Individuals might perceive themselves differently and develop emotions and behaviors partly due to the classifications imposed upon them. Over time, this can result in alterations to the classification itself, a phenomenon referred to as the classificatory looping effect ( 51 ). Moreover, when alterations are made to the world that align with the system’s depiction of reality, ‘blindness’ can occur ( 45 ). To illustrate, let’s consider an altered scenario of Bowker and Star ( 45 ) in which all mental distress is categorized solely based on physiological factors. In this context, medical frameworks for observation and treatment are designed to recognize physical manifestations of distress, such as symptoms, and the available treatments are limited to physical interventions, such as psychotropic medications. Consequently, in such a design, mental distress may solely be a consequence of a chemical imbalance in the brain, making it nearly inconceivable to consider alternative conceptualizations or solutions. Thus, task forces responsible for designing mental disorder classifications should be acutely aware that they actively contribute to the co-creation of reality with the classifications they construct upon reality ( 49 ).

2.2 Reification and disorderism

Another unintended consequence is the reification of classifications. Reification involves turning a broad and potentially diverse range of human experiences into a fixed and well-defined category. Take, for example, the case of the classification of ADHD and its reification mechanisms (i.e., language choice, logical fallacies, genetic reductionism, and textual silence) ( 42 ). Teachers sometimes promote the classification of ADHD as they believe it acknowledges a prior feeling that something is the matter with a pupil. The classification is then seen as a plausible explanation for the emergence of specific behaviors, academic underperformance, or deviations from the expected norm within a peer group ( 52 , 53 ). At first glance, this may seem harmless. However, it reinforces the notion that a complex and multifaceted set of contextual behaviors, experiences, and psychological phenomena are instead a discrete, objective entity residing in the individual. This is associated with presuppositions in the DSM that are not explicitly articulated, such as attributing a mental disorder to the individual rather than the system, resulting in healthcare that is organized around the individual instead of organized around the system ( 54 ).

In this way, DSM classifications can decontextualize mental distress, leading to ‘disorderism’. Disorderism is defined as the systemic decontextualization of mental distress by framing it in terms of individual disorders ( 55 ). The processes by which people are increasingly diagnosed and treated as having distinct treatable individual disorders, exemplified by the overdiagnosis of ADHD in children and adolescents ( 56 ), while at the same time, the services of psychiatry shape more areas of life, has been called the ‘psychiatrization of society’ ( 57 ). The psychiatrization of society encompasses a pervasive influence whereby the reification and disorderism extend beyond clinical settings and infiltrate various facets of daily life. It is a double-edged sword that fosters increased awareness of mental health issues and seeks to reduce stigma, but at the same time, raises concerns about the overemphasis on medical models, potentially neglecting the broader social, cultural, and environmental factors that contribute to individual well-being as well as population salutogenesis ( 58 ).

2.3 The DSM as a boundary object between activity systems in clinical practice

Instead of using the DSM as a scientific and professional tool in order to classify, the DSM can be reconsidered as a boundary object. When stakeholders with different objectives and needs have to work together constructively without making concessions, like patients and professionals in person-centered mental health care, objects can play a bridging role. Star and Griesemer ( 59 ) introduced the term boundary objects for this purpose.

“Boundary objects are objects that are plastic enough to adapt to the local needs and constraints of the different parties using them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity in different locations. They are weakly structured in common use and become strongly structured in use in individual locations. They can be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds, but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation.” ( 59 ).

Before exploring the benefits of a boundary object perspective for the DSM, it is important to note that it remains questionable whether the DSM in its current form can help establish a shared understanding or provide diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic value ( 60 – 63 ). To make the DSM more suitable for accommodating different perspectives and types of knowledge, the DSM task force can focus its redesign on leaving the discrete disease entities — which classifications imply — behind by creating spectra. This way of thinking has already found its way to the DSM-5, in which mental distress as a spectrum was introduced in the areas of autism, substance use, and nearly personality disorders, and following these reconceptualization, also a psychosis spectrum was proposed ( 43 ), but this proposition was eventually not adopted in the manual. As mental distress can be caused by an extensive range of factors and mechanisms that result from interactions in networks of behaviors and patterns that have complex dynamics that unfold over time ( 64 ), spectra of mental distress may be more suitable for conversations about an individual’s narrative and needs in clinical practice, as each experience of mental distress is unique and contextual.

If the DSM is reconsidered as a boundary object that is intended to provide a shared language for interpreting mental distress while addressing the unintended consequences of classifications, it is also essential to consider where this language now primarily manifests itself, how it relates to shared decision-making, and the significant role it plays for patients in the treatment process. In recent decades, the DSM has positioned itself primarily as a professional tool for clinical judgment (see Figure 1 ). In this way, professionals have more or less acquired a monopoly on the language of classifications and the associated behaviors and complaints described in the DSM. It provides professionals with a tool to pursue their professional objectives and legitimacy for their professional steps with patients, resulting in a lack of equality from which different perspectives can be examined side by side. However, with shared decision-making, patients are expected to be engaged and to help determine the course of treatment; the language surrounding classifications and symptoms does not currently allow that to happen sufficiently.

Figure 1 DSM as a professional tool, adapted from Figure 1, ‘Design of a Digital Comic Creator (It’s Me) to Facilitate Social Skills Training for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Design Research Approach’, by Terlouw et al., CC-BY ( 65 ).

This is where boundary objects come into play. The focused shaping of boundary objects can ensure a more equal role for different stakeholders ( 65 – 67 ). Boundary objects can also trigger perspective-making and -taking from a reflective dialogical learning mechanism ( 68 – 70 ), which ensures a better shared understanding of all perspectives. Boundary objects and their dialogical learning mechanisms also align well with co-design ( 71 ). If we consider the DSM a boundary object, it positions itself between the activity system of the professionals, patients, and other people close to the patient ( Figure 2 ). The boundary between activity systems represents not only the cultural differences and potential challenges in actions and interactions but also the significant value in establishing communication and collaboration ( 71 ). All sides can give meaning to the DSM language from their perspective. By effectively considering the DSM as a boundary object, the DSM serves as a conversation piece—a product that elicits and provides room for questions and comments from other people, literally one that encourages conversation ( 72 ). As a conversation piece rather than a determinative classification system, it can contribute to mapping the meaning of complaints, behaviors, signs, and patterns for different invested parties. It also provides space for the patient’s contextual factors, subjective experience, needs, and life events, which are essential to giving constructive meaning to mental distress. This allows for interpretative flexibility; professionals can structure their work, while patients can give meaning to their subjective experience of mental distress.

Figure 2 DSM as a boundary object, adapted from Figure 1, ‘Design of a Digital Comic Creator (It’s Me) to Facilitate Social Skills Training for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Design Research Approach’, by Terlouw et al., CC-BY ( 65 ).

As the DSM as a boundary object enables interpretative flexibility, it could then be used to enact conversations and develop a shared understanding in partnership between the patient and the professional; patients are no longer ‘diagnosed’ with a disorder from a professional point of view. It is important to note that the conceptual history of understanding the diagnostic process as essentially dialogical and not as a merely technical-quantitative procedure was already started in the early 1900s. For example, in the 1913 released ‘General Psychopathology,’ Karl Jaspers presented a phenomenological and comprehensive perspective for psychiatry with suggestions about how to understand the psychopathological phenomena as experienced by the patient through empathic understanding, allowing to understand the patient’s worldview and existential meanings ( 73 ). A century after its first publication, academics continue to leverage Jaspers’ ideas to critique modern operationalist epistemology ( 74 ). Following the notion of the diagnostic process as a dialogical one, the reconsideration of the DSM as a boundary object could accommodate the patient’s idiographic experience and the professional’s knowledge about mental distress by using these potential spectra as conversation pieces, shifting the power balance in clinical practice towards co-creation and dialogue. The spectra can then be explained as umbrella terms that indicate a collection of frequently occurring patterns and signs that can function as a starting point for a co-creative inquiry that promotes dialogue, aligning more with current empirical evidence of lived experience than using classifications as diagnoses.

Considering the advantages and strengths boundary objects bring to a mental health care system centered around shared decision-making and co-creation, the DSM could be a boundary object that is interpreted from various perspectives. Take, for example, altered perceptions, which is a characteristic commonly seen in people who receive a psychosis-related classification in clinical care. For some, these perceptions have person-specific meaning ( 75 , 76 ). By using the DSM as a boundary object and as a conversation piece, the patient and professional can give meaning by using the spectra in the manual as a starting point for a common language instead of using a classification to explain the distress. This requires a phenomenological and idiographic approach considering person-specific meaning and idiosyncrasies. Consequently, diagnostic practices should be iterative to align with the dynamic circumstances, with the individual’s narrative taking center stage in co-creation between professional and patient ( 41 , 49 ), as this reconsidered role fosters the engagement instead of the disengagement of patients. Additionally, the potential role of the DSM as a boundary object and conversation piece may also have a positive effect on societal and scientific levels, specifically on how mental distress is perceived and conceptualized. It can ‘systemically contextualize’ mental distress, which could eliminate the disorderism and the psychiatrization of society, and in the end, hopefully, contribute to population salutogenesis.

3 Co-design of DSM spectra of mental distress

If the DSM is reconsidered as a conversation piece in which spectra of mental distress replace classifications, it is important to address that these must be co-designed to accommodate diverse stakeholder perspectives and various types of knowledge side by side in clinical practice. Therefore, developers and designers need to embrace lived experience in the co-development of these spectra of mental distress to ensure patients’ engagement in clinical practice, as the patient effectively becomes a stakeholder of the DSM. This requires a different approach and procedure than DSM task forces used in past iterations. In this section, we will address our second hypothesis: embracing design approaches in redesigning the DSM to a conversation piece that uses spectra of mental distress instead of classifications will stimulate the integration of diverse perspectives and voices in reshaping mental health care. While we focus a little on the what (spectra of mental distress), we mainly focus on the how (the procedure that could be followed to arrive at the what). First, we will discuss the importance of lived experience leadership in design and research. Second, we argue that in the conceptual co-design of DSM spectra, lived experience leadership can be a way forward. Third, we take the stance that a designerly way of thinking and doing can shift the premature overcommitment task forces had to iterative exploration. In the concluding paragraph, we propose a design procedure that embraces engagement and iteration as core values for developing robust and flexible spectra of mental distress that are meaningful for service users and professionals.

3.1 Lived experience leadership and initiatives in design and research

First, let us briefly examine the evolution of lived experience in design and science over time to provide context for why engaging people with lived experience in the design of spectra of mental distress is important for innovation. Since 1960, people with lived experiences have tried to let their voices be heard, but initially to no avail, and their civil rights movement of reformist psychiatry was labeled as ‘anti-psychiatry’ ( 77 ). During the turn of the millennium, lived experience received increased recognition and eventually became an important pillar of knowledge that informed practice and continues to do so on various levels of mental health care ( 34 , 36 , 78 – 81 ). While there is currently growing attention to the perspective of lived experience in, for example, mental health research ( 79 , 80 , 82 , 83 ) and mental health care design and innovation ( 84 – 90 ), overall, their involvement remains too low in the majority of research and design projects ( 88 , 91 , 92 ). While there has been a significant increase in the annual publication of articles claiming to employ collaborative methods with people with lived experience, these studies often use vague terms to suggest a higher engagement level than is the case ( 93 ). This has led to initiatives such as that of The Lancet Psychiatry to facilitate transparent reporting of lived experience work ( 93 , 94 ).

Although the involvement of people with lived experience and its reporting needs attention in order to prevent tokenism and co-optation ( 89 ), some great user-driven initiatives resulted in innovative design and research that improved mental health care and exemplifies why their engagement should be mandatory. The Co-Design Living Labs is such an initiative. Its program exemplifies an adaptive and embedded approach for people with lived experiences of mental distress to drive mental health research design to translation ( 95 ). In this community-based approach, people with lived experience, their caregivers, family members, and support networks collaboratively drive research with university researchers, which is very innovative considering the relatively low engagement of people with lived experience in general mental health research. Another example is the development of person-specific tapering medication initiated by people with lived experience of withdrawal symptoms. People with lived experience began to devise practical methods to discontinue medications on their own safely because of the lack of a systematic and professional response to severe and persistent withdrawal. This resulted in the accumulation of experience-based knowledge about withdrawal, ultimately leading to co-creating what is now known as tapering strips ( 81 ). The development of these tapering strips shows that people with lived experience have novel experience-based ideas for design and research that can result in human-centered innovation. Both examples underline the importance of human-centered design in which people with lived experience and knowledge are taken seriously and why the participation era requires that individuals with lived experience are decision-makers from the project’s start to produce novel perspectives for innovative design and research ( 88 , 93 ).

3.2 The conceptual co-design of DSM spectra of mental distress and the potential of integrating lived experiences

Engaging people with lived experience of mental distress in redesigning the DSM towards a spectrum-based guideline is of special importance, albeit a more conceptual design task in comparison to the earlier examples. What mental distress is remains a fundamental philosophical and ontological question that should be addressed in partnership as it sits at the core of how mental health care is organized. To allow novel ontologies to reach their full potential and act as drivers of a landscape of promising innovative scientific and clinical approaches, investment is required in development and elaboration ( 30 ). This, as well as the epistemic pluralism among theoretical models on mental health problems ( 31 ), makes it evident there is currently not one coherent accepted explanation or consensus on what mental distress is and how it exists. Without clear etiological understanding, the most logical first step should be to involve people with lived experience of mental distress in the redevelopment of the DSM. Accounts from people with lived experience of mental distress are directly relevant to the design of the DSM, as they provide a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of mental distress and its treatment ( 96 ). Moreover, the DSM’s conceptualization as a major determinative classification system could be standing at the core of psychiatry’s “identity crisis”, where checklists of symptoms replaced thoughtful diagnoses despite after decades of brain research, no biomarker has been established for any disorders defined in the DSM ( 10 , 97 ).

Design approaches can help DSM task forces prioritize integrating lived experiences to co-create a framework that can accommodate a range of perspectives to make it viable as a conversation piece. As DSM classifications do not reflect reality ( 98 ), listening to people with firsthand experiences is necessary. The CHIME framework – a conceptual framework of people’s experiences of recovery – shows, for example, a clear need to diagnose not solely based on symptoms but also considering people’s stages in their journey of personal recovery ( 80 ). Further, bottom-up research shows that the lived experience perspective of psychosis can seem very different compared to conventional psychiatric conceptualizations ( 82 ). This is also the case for the lived experience of depression ( 99 ). Design approaches can ensure that such much-needed perspectives and voices are adhered to in developing meaningful innovations ( 88 ), which brings us back to the design of the DSM. Although the DSM aims to conceptualize the reality of mental distress, engaging people with experiences of living with mental distress has never been prioritized by the DSM task force as an important epistemic resource. This is evidenced by the historically low engagement of people with lived experiences and their contexts. For example, although “individuals with mental disorders and families of individuals with mental disorders” participated in providing feedback in the DSM-5 revisions process ( 14 ), when and how they were involved, what feedback they gave, and how this was incorporated are not described. According to the Involvement Matrix ( 100 ) — a matrix that can be used to assess the contribution of patients in research and design —, giving feedback can be classified as ‘listeners’ or ‘co-thinkers,’ which are both low-involvement roles. Moreover, a review of the members of the DSM task forces and working groups listed in the introductions of the DSMs shows patients have never been part of the DSM task force and thus never been part of the decision-making process ( 96 ). Human-centered design is difficult to achieve when people with lived experience are not involved from preparation to implementation but are only asked to give feedback on expert consensus ( 88 ).

In the participation era, using a design approach in mental health care without engaging important stakeholders can be problematic. For example, it is evident that the involvement of people with lived experience changes the nature of an intervention dramatically, as people’s unique first-hand experiences, insights about mental states, and individual meaning and needs are often different in design activities as opposed to what general scientific and web-related resources suggest ( 101 , 102 ). Further, clear differences are reported around designers, researchers, and clinicians on one side and service user ideas of meaningful interventions on the other ( 102 , 103 ). Thus, the meaningful engagement of people with lived experience in design processes always exposes gaps between general research and the interests and lives of service users ( 104 ). This makes the participation of people with lived experience in developing innovative concepts — and, as such, in the conceptual design of DSM spectra of mental distress — essential because their absence in design processes may lead to ineffective outcomes ( 102 ). This design perspective may explain some of the negative effects of the DSM. The classifications aimed to be empirical constructs reflecting reality, yet phenomena such as reification and the classificatory looping effect emerged ( 42 , 51 ). From a design perspective, the emergence of these effects may have a simpler explanation than previously presumed: the premature over-commitment in the DSM’s design processes without input from individuals with firsthand experiences.

3.3 Shifting the premature over-commitment to iterative exploration

The centrist development approach used to design the DSM implicitly frames people with mental distress as ‘ordinary people,’ resulting in ‘average solutions’ because their experiences are decontextualized and lumped together on a group level — eventually leading to general descriptions for a universal appliance. Instead, a more human-centered iterative design process in which people with lived experience play an important role, preferably as decision-makers, can promote the design of spectra of mental distress that leave room for idiosyncrasies that correspond with people’s living environments on an individual level. This can potentially ensure that they are actually helpful for shared decision-making between patients and professionals and resonate in person-centered mental health care. A design approach is feasible for this aim because design processes are not searching for a singular ‘truth’ but rather exploring the multiple ‘truths’ that may be relevant in different contexts ( 105 ). This can be of added value to conceptualizing spectra of mental distress, which is known to have characteristics that overlap between people but also to have a unique phenomenology and contextual foundation for each individual — in the case of mental distress, there literally are multiple truths dependable on who and what you ask in what time and place. Furthermore, design approaches enable exploration and discovery ( 106 ). Designers consistently draw cues from the environment and introduce new variables into the same environment to eventually discover what does and does not work ( 107 ). This explorative attitude also ensures the discovery of unique insights, such as people’s experiential knowledge and contexts. Therefore, from a design perspective, predetermining solutions might be ineffective for arriving at DSM innovation. This is, for example, aptly described by Owens et al. ( 101 ):

“… the iterative nature of the participatory process meant that, although a preliminary programme for the whole workshop series was drawn up at the outset, plans had to be revised in response to the findings from each session. The whole process required flexibility, a constantly open mind and a willingness to embrace the unexpected”.

These insights illustrate the core of design that can guide the development of future DSM iterations: design enables the task force to learn about mental health problems without an omniscient perspective by iteratively developing and testing conceptualizations in the environment in partnership with the target group. As participatory design studies consistently demonstrate, solutions cannot be predetermined solely based on research and resources. The involvement of individuals with lived experience and their contexts invariably uncovers crucial serendipitous insights that challenge the perspectives on the problem. This can expose important misconceptions, such as the tendency to underestimate the complexity of human experience and decontextualize it from its environment.

3.4 Insights that could inform a procedure for co-designing spectra of mental distress

People with lived experience need to be highly involved in developing meaningful spectra of mental distress to guide conversations in clinical practice. As we now have a comprehensive understanding of what design approaches can offer to the development procedure of a lived experience-informed DSM, we will highlight these insights in this paragraph.

3.4.1 Balance academic research with lived experience insights

In the design procedure of a future DSM, academic research can be used to learn about people’s experiences of mental distress but never as the source alone for the development of spectra of mental distress. In this way, designers and researchers in mental health care need to involve people with lived experience at the heart of design processes as partners and come to unique insights together without an omniscient perspective. The aim should not be to design general descriptions but to design spectra that are flexible enough to adapt to local needs and constraints for the various parties using them yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across different locations. This allows the DSM to have different meanings in different social worlds, while at the same time, their structure is common enough for more than one world to recognize them.

3.4.2 Prevent premature overcommitment in the design process

Conceptualizations of spectra of mental distress must not be predetermined, and there should be no overcommitment to concepts in the early phases of the project. Thus, the task force should avoid viewing mental distress too narrowly, too early on in the process. This enables the evolution of lived experience-based spectra in an iterative design- and test process. The starting point should be an open representation of mental distress and discover together with people with lived experience how this could be best conceptualized and what language should be used. This allows room for exploring and discovering what works and aligns with patients’ needs and experiences in their living environments and professionals’ needs in their work environments.

3.4.3 Designing and testing is also a form of research

Researchers and designers should realize that designing and testing conceptualizations in partnership with people with lived experience also results in unique knowledge that can guide the development — designing and testing the developed concepts is a form of research. For example, exploring if a certain designed spectrum resonates as a conversation piece between patients and professionals in clinical practice provides qualitative insights that cannot be predicted beforehand. In this way, science and design can complement the innovation of the DSM: science benefits from a design approach, while design benefits from scientific methods ( 108 ). Flexible navigation between design and science would indicate that the developed DSM can be meaningful as a conversation piece in clinical practice.

3.4.4 Good design comes before effective science

Good design comes before effective science, as innovations are useless if not used, even if they are validated by science ( 85 ). Although the development of the DSM is often described as a scientific process, our analysis indicates that it is more accurately described as a design process. As a design process, it requires a methodologically sound design approach that is suitable for involving patients and people with lived experience. Co-design is a great contender for this purpose, as a systematic review showed this approach had the highest level of participant involvement in mental health care innovation ( 89 ). Although people with lived experience have never been involved as decision-makers, this should be the aim of the design process of a novel DSM in the participation era. This promotes lived experience leadership in design and, ultimately, contributes to more effective science.

3.4.5 Avoid tokenism and co-optation

Involving people with lived experience as decision-makers in redesigning the DSM must avoid tokenism and co-optation and address power imbalances. The first step that the task force can take is to use the Involvement Matrix ( 100 ) together with people with lived experiences to systematically and transparently plan, reflect, and report on everyone’s contribution to the design process. This has not been prioritized in the past DSM revisions. In the end, transparency and honesty about collaboration can support the empowerment of people with firsthand perspectives and shift the power imbalance towards co-creation for more human-centered mental health care. This is needed, as the involvement of people with lived experience in design and research processes is currently too low and obscured by vague terms and bad reporting.

4 Discussion and conclusion

In this hypothesis and theory paper, we have argued that the current role of the DSM, as an operating manual for professionals, can be reconsidered as a boundary object and conversation piece for patients and professionals in clinical practice that stimulates dialogue about mental distress. In this discussion, we will address five themes. First, while we argued that research acknowledges the absence of empirical support for biological causation, we believe characterizing the DSM as entirely non-empirical may be incorrect. Second, we discuss our perspective on balancing between a too-narrow medical perspective and a too-broadly individualized perspective. Third, we discuss why mental health care also needs novel methods for inquiry if the DSM is reconsidered as a conversation piece. Fourth, we discuss that while we are certain that design approaches can be fruitful for redesigning the DSM, some challenges regarding tokenism, co-optation must be addressed. We conclude by examining various methodological challenges and offering recommendations for the co-design process of the DSM.

4.1 Redesigning instead of discarding the DSM

The DSM is too deeply entrenched in mental health care to discard it simply. The DSM is embedded in not only mental health care but also society. For instance, a DSM classification is necessary in the Netherlands to get mental health care reimbursement, qualify for additional education test time, or receive subsidized assisted living. Moreover, it is ingrained in research and healthcare funding, making it unproductive and somewhat dangerous to discard without an alternative, as it may jeopardize access to care and impact insurance coverage for treatment and services that people with mental distress need. Therefore, we posited that instead of discarding the DSM, its role should be reconsidered in a mental health care system centered around shared decision-making and co-creation to eliminate pervasive effects such as the disengagement of patients, reification, disorderism, and the psychiatrization of society. However, the DSM categories are not entirely a priori constructed as is sometimes claimed, as the psychiatric symptom space and diagnostic categories took shape in the late nineteenth century through decades of observation ( 109 ).

While this adds important nuance to the idea that the design of the DSM is entirely non-empirical, it does not invalidate the argument that the DSM design is grounded in a potentially false ontology ( 64 ). Though the lack of evidence does not necessarily indicate evidence of absence, and the biological context in some way plays a role, research shows various other dimensions of life — including the social, historical, relational, environmental, and more — also influence mental distress, yet are significantly underemphasized in its current design. We believe that we showed this manifests itself most prominently in the various highly arbitrary classification designs that can confuse the professional and the patient and appear limited in providing meaningful guidance for clinical practice, design, and research. That is why we have proposed redesigning the next iteration of the DSM to primarily focus on formulating a set of spectra of distress. Reconsidering the DSM leverages one of its biggest strengths: the DSM is not bound by an analytic procedure but rather is guided by scientific debate ( 17 ). Further, developments and amendments to psychiatric classification systems have always reflected wider social and cultural developments ( 110 ). The recognition, implementation, and impact of the DSM in Western countries can even be seen as a reason not to focus on developing alternative models but rather to redesign the DSM so that it conceptually aligns with the social developments, scientific findings, and needs of people in the 21st century, as it is already deeply embedded in systems. Given that DSM classifications are now recognized as inaccurate depictions of the reality of mental distress ( 98 ) and that, at the same time, mental health care is shifting towards person-centeredness and shared decision-making, we believe the proposals in this article are not radical but rather the most meaningful way forward to accommodate diverse perspectives.

4.2 Balancing between a too-narrow medical categorization and a too-broadly individualized approach

From a classical psychopathological perspective, integrating the lived experiences of those with mental distress into the redevelopment of the DSM as a boundary object presents certain conceptual challenges. For example, uncritically overemphasizing individual experiences might lead to an underappreciation of psychopathological manifestations like, for example, altered perceptions. Conversely, excluding people with lived experience from the DSM’s design processes has resulted in its own conceptual and epistemic issues, such as undervaluing the idiographic, contextual, and phenomenological aspects of individual mental distress. Therefore, we argue that achieving a balance between these differing but crucial perspectives should result from a co-design procedure for a revised DSM. Determining this balance before obtaining results from such a process is too premature and arbitrary and would contradict our recommendation to prevent over-commitment in the early stages of the design process. As people with lived experience were never previously involved, it is impossible to predict the outcomes of a co-design procedure or hypothesize about a clear distinction between these perspectives in the DSM’s conceptual development beforehand. As seen in past iterations, prematurely drawing rigid lines could hinder the design process and result in design fixation. From the perspective of boundary objects, the DSM cannot have one dominant perspective if it is to function effectively. All stakeholders must be able to give meaning to the spectra of mental distress from their own activity systems, and these perspectives should be equal in order to create a shared awareness of the different perspectives involved. A DSM designed as a boundary object triggers dialogical learning mechanisms, ensuring the multiple perspectives are harmonized rather than adjusted to fit one another, ensuring no single perspective prevails over the others or consensus is pursued ( 71 , 111 ).

4.3 Novel methods for inquiry to accompany the reconsidered role of the DSM

If the DSM is reconsidered and designed as a conversation piece and classifications are replaced by spectra, in clinical practice, a unique language needs to be co-developed between the patient and the professional, and an equal relationship is important to ally. For example, if we consider the person-specific meanings of altered perceptions, they need to be explored, as they have clinical relevance. However, for such purposes, current diagnostic methods in clinical practice are limiting because they are highly linguistic and tailored to classification systems and the needs and praxis of the professionals. This can impede the DSM’s effectiveness as a tool for dialogue. Expressing the uniqueness of an experience of mental distress is difficult — especially during a mental crisis — let alone effectively communicating it to a professional. While people with mental distress can effectively communicate their behaviors and complaints, which fits the current use of the DSM, people have far more embodied and experiential knowledge of their distress. How people cope with their mental distress in the contexts they are living in is very difficult to put into words without first making these personal and contextual insights tangible ( 41 ), yet this is essential information for when the DSM is used as a boundary object and conversation piece. To accommodate the patient in making this knowledge tangible, the professional becomes more of a facilitator than an expert, emphasizing therapeutic relationships and the healing effects of ritualized care interactions ( 39 ). This transformation requires novel co-creative methods for inquiry ( 41 ) and professional training ( 39 ). Therefore, expanding the diagnostic toolkit with innovative and creative tools and embracing professionals such as art therapists, social workers, and advanced nurse practitioners to enable and support patients to convey their narratives and needs in their own way is essential if the DSM is to be used as a boundary object and conversation piece.

4.4 Promoting lived experience leadership in the co-design procedure

Despite longstanding calls for the APA to include people with lived experience in the decision-making processes for diagnostic criteria, the DSM-5 task force did not accept this inclusion. The task force believed incorporating these perspectives could compromise objectivity in the scientific process ( 96 ). This mindset ensures that research, design, and practice remain predominantly shaped by academics and professionals, causing conventional mental health care to perpetuate itself. It continues to repeat the same approaches and consequently achieves the same results. Therefore, people with lived experience should have more influence in the participation era to accelerate change in mental health care. This proposition comes with some challenges regarding power imbalances that need addressing. While it is acknowledged that the involvement of individuals with lived experience yields unique insights and can serve as strong collaborators and knowledgeable contributors, they are never given decision-making authority in design processes in mental health care ( 88 , 89 , 92 ) or in the DSM’s development processes ( 96 ). This lack of authority impedes lived experience leadership ( 91 , 112 ) and subsequently stands in the way of effectively reconsidering and redesigning the DSM. To avoid tokenism, the DSM revision process should not settle for low engagement and involvement but set the bar higher by redressing power imbalances ( 113 ). Furthermore, in the co-design process of the DSM, the task force should not view objectivity as the opposite of subjectivity or strive for consensus. Instead, they should value group discussions and disagreements, encouraging stakeholders to debate and explore the sources of their differing perspectives and knowledge ( 96 ). Shifting towards lived experience leadership starts with perceiving and engaging people with lived experiences of mental distress as experts of their experiences in iterative design and research processes and giving them this role in revising the DSM.

4.5 Methodological considerations for a co-design procedure of the DSM

Merely positioning people with lived experience as partners and decision-makers is insufficient; there are also significant methodological concerns regarding the execution of design research in mental health care. Although iteration and participation are essential for design in mental health care, as designers focus on the unmet needs of service users and ways to improve care ( 114 ), research shows design is not always executed iteratively, and end users are not always involved. For example, about one-third of projects that designed mental health interventions did not adopt an iterative process ( 85 ). The engagement of end users in design processes in mental health is also not yet a common practice. For instance, a systematic review of serious games in mental health for anxiety and depression found that only half of these games, even while reporting using a participatory approach, were designed with input from the intended end-users ( 115 ). A systematic review of design processes that aimed to design innovations for people with psychotic symptoms overlaps these findings, as less than half of the studies demonstrated a high level of participant involvement in their design processes ( 89 ).

The low level of involvement and lack of iterative approaches in mental health care design offer valuable insights for future processes. If the DSM task force aims to adopt a co-design approach, it should incorporate these lessons to enhance design effectiveness. First, the task force must understand that design has a different aim, culture, and methods than the sciences ( 116 ). The scientific approach typically implies investigating the natural world through controlled experiments, classifications, and analysis, emphasizing objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a commitment to truth. In contrast, a design approach focuses on studying the artificial world, employing methods such as modeling, pattern formation, and synthesis, guided by core values of practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and concern for appropriateness. Second, the task force should consider the known challenges they will encounter and need to navigate to let the paradigms be complementary in practice ( 117 ). Further, the task force should consider that the nature of design is exploratory, iterative, uncertain, and a social form of inquiry and synthesis that is never perfect and never quite finished ( 84 ). This requires tolerating ambiguity and having trust ( 101 ). Lastly, more transparency in the participatory work of the task force is called for, beginning with being honest, being detailed, addressing power imbalances, being participatory in reporting the participatory approach, and being excited and enthusiastic about going beyond tokenistic engagement ( 118 ).

Despite these challenges, transforming psychiatric diagnoses by reconsidering and redesigning the DSM as a boundary object and conversation piece could be a step in the right direction. This would shift the power balance towards shared ownership in a participation era that fosters dialogue instead of diagnosis. We hope this hypothesis and theory paper can give decisive impulses to the much-needed debate on and development of psychiatric diagnoses and, in the end, contribute to lived experience-informed psychiatric epistemology. Furthermore, as a product of an equal co-production process between various disciplines and types of knowledge, this paper shows it is possible to harmonize perspectives on a controversial topic such as the DSM.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author contributions

LV: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GT: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JVO: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SM: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JV: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. We appreciate the financial support of the FAITH Research Consortium, GGZ-VS University of Applied Science, as well as from the NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences PhD program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their thorough reading of our manuscript and valuable comments, which improved the quality of our hypothesis and theory paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Fischer BA. A review of american psychiatry through its diagnoses. J Nervous Ment Dis . (2012) 200:1022–30. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318275cf19

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Grob GN. Origins of DSM-I: a study in appearance and reality. Am J Psychiatry . (1991) 148:421–31. doi: 10.1176/ajp.148.4.421

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Brendel DH. Healing psychiatry: A pragmatic approach to bridging the science/humanism divide. Harvard Rev Psychiatry . (2004) 12:150–7. doi: 10.1080/10673220490472409

4. Braslow JT. Therapeutics and the history of psychiatry. Bull History Med . (2000) 74:794–802. doi: 10.1353/bhm.2000.0161

5. Kawa S, Giordano J. A brief historicity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Issues and implications for the future of psychiatric canon and practice. Philosophy Ethics Humanities Med . (2012) 7:2. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-7-2

6. Mayes R, Horwitz AV. DSM-III and the revolution in the classification of mental illness. J History Behav Sci . (2005) 41:249–67. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6696

7. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic & Statistical manual of Mental Disorders . 3rd edition. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association (1980).

Google Scholar

8. Gambardella A. Science and innovation: the US pharmaceutical industry during the 1980s . New York: Cambridge University Press (1995). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511522031

9. Klerman GL, Vaillant GE, Spitzer RL, Michels R. A debate on DSM-III. Am J Psychiatry . (1984) 141:539–53. doi: 10.1176/ajp.141.4.539

10. Scull A. American psychiatry in the new millennium: a critical appraisal. psychol Med . (2021) 51:1–9. doi: 10.1017/S0033291721001975

11. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders . 4th edition. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association (1994).

12. Shaffer D. A participant’s observations: preparing DSM-IV. Can J Psychiatry . (1996) 41:325–9. doi: 10.1177/070674379604100602

13. Follette WC, Houts AC. Models of scientific progress and the role of theory in taxonomy development: A case study of the DSM. J Consulting Clin Psychol . (1996) 64:1120–32. doi: 10.1037//0022-006X.64.6.1120

14. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5-TR . 5th ed. Washington, Dc: American Psychiatric Association Publishing (2022). doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

15. Pickersgill MD. Debating DSM-5: diagnosis and the sociology of critique. J Med Ethics . (2013) 40:521–5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101762

16. Hyman SE. The diagnosis of mental disorders: the problem of reification. Annu Rev Clin Psychol . (2010) 6:155–79. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091532

17. Zachar P, Kendler KS. Psychiatric disorders: A conceptual taxonomy. Am J Psychiatry . (2007) 164:557–65. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.4.557

18. Francis A, First MB, Pincus HA. DSM-IV Guidebook . Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association (1995).

19. Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Endicott J. Standards for DSM-5 reliability. Am J Psychiatry . (2012) 169:537–7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12010083

20. Gómez-Carrillo A, Kirmayer LJ, Aggarwal NK, Bhui KS, Fung KP-L, Kohrt BA, et al. Integrating neuroscience in psychiatry: a cultural–ecosocial systemic approach. Lancet Psychiatry . (2023) 10:296–304. doi: 10.1016/s2215-0366(23)00006-8

21. Morgan C, Charalambides M, Hutchinson G, Murray RM. Migration, ethnicity, and psychosis: toward a sociodevelopmental model. Schizophr Bull . (2010) 36:655–64. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbq051

22. Howes OD, Murray RM. Schizophrenia: an integrated sociodevelopmental-cognitive model. Lancet . (2014) 383:1677–87. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62036-X

23. Alegría M, NeMoyer A, Falgàs Bagué I, Wang Y, Alvarez K. Social determinants of mental health: where we are and where we need to go. Curr Psychiatry Rep . (2018) 20. doi: 10.1007/s11920-018-0969-9

24. Jeste DV, Pender VB. Social determinants of mental health. JAMA Psychiatry . (2022) 79:283–4. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4385

25. Huggard L, Murphy R, O’Connor C, Nearchou F. The social determinants of mental illness: A rapid review of systematic reviews. Issues Ment Health Nurs . (2023) 44:1–11. doi: 10.1080/01612840.2023.2186124

26. Kirkbride JB, Anglin DM, Colman I, Dykxhoorn J, Jones PB, Patalay P, et al. The social determinants of mental health and disorder: evidence, prevention and recommendations. World psychiatry: Off J World Psychiatr Assoc (WPA) . (2024) 23:58–90. doi: 10.1002/wps.21160

27. Alon N, Macrynikola N, Jester DJ, Keshavan M, Reynolds ICF, Saxena S, et al. Social determinants of mental health in major depressive disorder: umbrella review of 26 meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Psychiatry Res . (2024) 335:115854. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115854

28. Read J, Bentall RP. Negative childhood experiences and mental health: theoretical, clinical and primary prevention implications. Br J Psychiatry . (2012) 200:89–91. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096727

29. van Os J, Kenis G, Rutten BPF. The environment and schizophrenia. Nature . (2010) 468:203–12. doi: 10.1038/nature09563

30. Köhne A, de Graauw LP, Leenhouts-van der Maas R, van Os J. Clinician and patient perspectives on the ontology of mental disorder: a qualitative study. Front Psychiatry . (2023) 14:1081925. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1081925

31. Richter D, Dixon J. Models of mental health problems: a quasi-systematic review of theoretical approaches. J Ment Health . (2022) 32:1–11. doi: 10.1080/09638237.2021.2022638

32. World Health Organization. Guidance on community mental health services: Promoting person-centred and rights-based approaches (2021). Available online at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025707 .

33. Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, Horst HVD, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, et al. How should we define health? BMJ . (2011) 343:d4163–3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4163

34. Davidson L. The recovery movement: implications for mental health care and enabling people to participate fully in life. Health Affairs . (2016) 35:1091–7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0153

35. Dixon LB, Holoshitz Y, Nossel I. Treatment engagement of individuals experiencing mental illness: review and update. World Psychiatry . (2016) 15:13–20. doi: 10.1002/wps.20306

36. Karbouniaris S. Let’s tango! Integrating professionals’ lived experience in the tranformation of mental health services. (2023). Available online at: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/3640655 .

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

37. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ . (2010) 341:c5146–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5146

38. Oueslati R, Woudstra AJ, Alkirawan R, Reis R, Zaalen Yv, Slager MT, et al. What value structure underlies shared decision making? A qualitative synthesis of models of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns . (2024) 124:108284. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108284

39. van Os J, Guloksuz S, Vijn TW, Hafkenscheid A, Delespaul P. The evidence-based group-level symptom-reduction model as the organizing principle for mental health care: time for change? World Psychiatry . (2019) 18:88–96. doi: 10.1002/wps.20609

40. Meerman S. ADHD and the power of generalization: exploring the faces of reification. researchrugnl . (2019). doi: 10.33612/diss.84379221

41. Veldmeijer L, Terlouw G, van ‘t VJ, van Os J, Boonstra N. Design for mental health: can design promote human-centred diagnostics? Design Health . (2023) 7:1–19. doi: 10.1080/24735132.2023.2171223

42. te Meerman S, Freedman JE, Batstra L. ADHD and reification: Four ways a psychiatric construct is portrayed as a disease. Front Psychiatry . (2022) 13:1055328. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1055328

43. Guloksuz S, van Os J. The slow death of the concept of schizophrenia and the painful birth of the psychosis spectrum. psychol Med . (2017) 48:229–44. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717001775

44. Os Jv, Scheepers F, Milo M, Ockeloen G, Guloksuz S, Delespaul P. It has to be better, otherwise we will get stuck.” A Review of Novel Directions for Mental Health Reform and Introducing Pilot Work in the Netherlands. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health . (2023) 19. doi: 10.2174/0117450179271206231114064736

45. Bowker GC. Susan Leigh Star. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences (Inside technology) . Cambridge, MA: Mit Press (1999). doi: 10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001

46. Perkins A, Ridler J, Browes D, Peryer G, Notley C, Hackmann C. Experiencing mental health diagnosis: a systematic review of service user, clinician, and carer perspectives across clinical settings. Lancet Psychiatry . (2018) 5:747–64. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30095-6

47. Ben-Zeev D, Young MA, Corrigan PW. DSM-V and the stigma of mental illness. J Ment Health . (2010) 19:318–27. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2010.492484

48. Thornicroft G. Shunned: discrimination against people with mental illness . Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009).

49. Köhne ACJ. The ontological status of a psychiatric diagnosis: the case of neurasthenia. Philosophy Psychiatry Psychol . (2019) 26:E–1-E-11. doi: 10.1353/ppp.2019.0008

50. Hacking I. Kinds of people: moving targets. Proceedings of the British Academy . Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc (2007). doi: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264249.003.0010

51. Hacking I. The social construction of what? Harvard: Harvard University Press (1999).

52. Wienen AW, Sluiter MN, Thoutenhoofd E, de Jonge P, Batstra L. The advantages of an ADHD classification from the perspective of teachers. Eur J Special Needs Educ . (2019) 34:1–14. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2019.1580838

53. Franz DJ, Richter T, Lenhard W, Marx P, Stein R, Ratz C. The influence of diagnostic labels on the evaluation of students: a multilevel meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev . (2023) 35. doi: 10.1007/s10648-023-09716-6

54. Köhne ACJ. In search of a better ontology of mental disorder. (2022). doi: 10.33540/1591

55. de Ridder B, van Hulst BM. Disorderism: what it is and why it’s a problem. Tijdschr Psychiatr . (2023) 65:163–6.

56. Kazda L, Bell K, Thomas R, McGeechan K, Sims R, Barratt A. Overdiagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in children and adolescents. JAMA Network Open . (2021) 4. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5335

57. Beeker T, Mills C, Bhugra D, te Meerman S, Thoma S, Heinze M, et al. Psychiatrization of society: A conceptual framework and call for transdisciplinary research. Front Psychiatry . (2021) 12:645556. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.645556

58. Os Jv, Guloksuz S. Population salutogenesis—The future of psychiatry? JAMA Psychiatry . (2024) 81:115–5. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4582

59. Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional ecology, `Translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci . (1989) 19:387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001

60. Marsman A, Pries L-K, ten Have M, de Graaf R, van Dorsselaer S, Bak M, et al. Do current measures of polygenic risk for mental disorders contribute to population variance in mental health? Schizophr Bull . (2020). doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa086

61. van Os J. Personalized psychiatry: Geen vervanger van persoonlijke psychiatrie. Tijdschrift voor Psychiatr . (2018) 60:199–204.

62. Hyman SE. Psychiatric disorders: grounded in human biology but not natural kinds. Perspect Biol Med . (2021) 64:6–28. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2021.0002

63. Schleim S. Why mental disorders are brain disorders. And why they are not: ADHD and the challenges of heterogeneity and reification. Front Psychiatry . (2022) 13:943049. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.943049

64. Köhne ACJ. The relationalist turn in understanding mental disorders: from essentialism to embracing dynamic and complex relations. Philosophy Psychiatry Psychol . (2020) 27:119–40. doi: 10.1353/ppp.2020.0020

65. Terlouw G, Veer JTv’t, Prins JT, Kuipers DA, Pierie J-PEN. Design of a digital comic creator (It’s me) to facilitate social skills training for children with autism spectrum disorder: design research approach. JMIR Ment Health . (2020) 7:e17260. doi: 10.2196/17260

66. Terlouw G, Kuipers D, van ’t Veer J, Prins JT, Pierie JPEN. The development of an escape room–based serious game to trigger social interaction and communication between high-functioning children with autism and their peers: iterative design approach. JMIR Serious Games . (2021) 9:e19765. doi: 10.2196/19765

67. Kuipers DA, Terlouw G, Wartena BO, Prins JT, Pierie JPEN. Maximizing authentic learning and real-world problem-solving in health curricula through psychological fidelity in a game-like intervention: development, feasibility, and pilot studies. Med Sci Educator . (2018) 29:205–14. doi: 10.1007/s40670-018-00670-5

68. Kajamaa A. Boundary breaking in a hospital. Learn Organ . (2011) 18:361–77. doi: 10.1108/09696471111151710

69. Sajtos L, Kleinaltenkamp M, Harrison J. Boundary objects for institutional work across service ecosystems. J Service Manage . (2018) 29:615–40. doi: 10.1108/JOSM-01-2017-0011

70. Jensen S, Kushniruk A. Boundary objects in clinical simulation and design of eHealth. Health Inf J . (2014) 22:248–64. doi: 10.1177/1460458214551846

71. Terlouw G, Kuipers D, Veldmeijer L, van ’t Veer J, Prins J, Pierie J-P. Boundary objects as dialogical learning accelerators for social change in design for health: systematic review. JMIR Hum Factors . (2021). doi: 10.2196/31167

72. Wiener HJD. Conversation pieces: the role of products in facilitating conversation. Dukespace . (2017). Available online at: https://hdl.handle.net/10161/14430 .

73. Jaspers K. General psychopathology . Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press (1998).

74. Parnas J, Sass LA, Zahavi D. Rediscovering psychopathology: the epistemology and phenomenology of the psychiatric object. Schizophr Bull . (2012) 39:270–7. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbs153

75. Feyaerts J, Henriksen MG, Vanheule S, Myin-Germeys I, Sass LA. Delusions beyond beliefs: a critical overview of diagnostic, aetiological, and therapeutic schizophrenia research from a clinical-phenomenological perspective. Lancet Psychiatry . (2021) 8:237–49. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30460-0

76. Ritunnano R, Kleinman J, Whyte Oshodi D, Michail M, Nelson B, Humpston CS, et al. Subjective experience and meaning of delusions in psychosis: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. Lancet Psychiatry . (2022) 9:458–76. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00104-3

77. Köhne ACJ, van Os J. Precision psychiatry: promise for the future or rehash of a fossilised foundation? psychol Med . (2021) 51:1409–11. doi: 10.1017/S0033291721000271

78. Boevink WA. From being a disorder to dealing with life: an experiential exploration of the association between trauma and psychosis. Schizophr Bull . (2005) 32:17–9. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbi068

79. Slade M, Longden E. Empirical evidence about recovery and mental health. BMC Psychiatry . (2015) 15. doi: 10.1186/s12888-015-0678-4

80. Leamy M, Bird V, Boutillier CL, Williams J, Slade M. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry . (2011) 199:445–52. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083733

81. Groot PC, van Os J. How user knowledge of psychotropic drug withdrawal resulted in the development of person-specific tapering medication. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol . (2020) 10:204512532093245. doi: 10.1177/2045125320932452

82. Fusar-Poli P, Estradé A, Stanghellini G, Venables J, Onwumere J, Messas G, et al. The lived experience of psychosis: A bottom-up review co-written by experts by experience and academics. World Psychiatry . (2022) 21:168–88. doi: 10.1002/wps.20959

83. Jakobsson C, Genovesi E, Afolayan A, Bella-Awusah T, Omobowale O, Buyanga M, et al. Co-producing research on psychosis: a scoping review on barriers, facilitators and outcomes. Int J Ment Health Syst . (2023) 17. doi: 10.1186/s13033-023-00594-7

84. Orlowski S, Matthews B, Bidargaddi N, Jones G, Lawn S, Venning A, et al. Mental health technologies: designing with consumers. JMIR Hum Factors . (2016) 3. doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.4336

85. Vial S, Boudhraâ S, Dumont M. Human-centered design approaches in digital mental health interventions: exploratory mapping review. JMIR Ment Health . (2021) 9. doi: 10.2196/35591

86. Tindall RM, Ferris M, Townsend M, Boschert G, Moylan S. A first-hand experience of co-design in mental health service design: Opportunities, challenges, and lessons. Int J Ment Health Nurs . (2021) 30. doi: 10.1111/inm.12925

87. Schouten SE, Kip H, Dekkers T, Deenik J, Beerlage-de Jong N, Ludden GDS, et al. Best-practices for co-design processes involving people with severe mental illness for eMental health interventions: a qualitative multi-method approach. Design Health . (2022) 6:316–44. doi: 10.1080/24735132.2022.2145814

88. Veldmeijer L, Terlouw G, van Os J, van Dijk O, van ’t Veer J, Boonstra N. The involvement of service users and people with lived experience in mental health care innovation through design: systematic review. JMIR Ment Health . (2023) 10:e46590. doi: 10.2196/46590

89. Veldmeijer L, Terlouw G, van Os J, van ’t Veer J, Boonstra N. The frequency of design studies targeting people with psychotic symptoms and features in mental health care innovation: A research letter of a secondary data analysis. JMIR Ment Health . (2023) 11. doi: 10.2196/54202

90. Hawke LD, Sheikhan NY, Bastidas-Bilbao H, Rodak T. Experience-based co-design of mental health services and interventions: A scoping review. SSM Ment Health . (2024) 5:100309. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmmh.2024.100309

91. Scholz B, Gordon S, Happell B. Consumers in mental health service leadership: A systematic review. Int J Ment Health Nurs . (2016) 26:20–31. doi: 10.1111/inm.12266

92. Brotherdale R, Berry K, Branitsky A, Bucci S. Co-producing digital mental health interventions: A systematic review. Digital Health . (2024) 10. doi: 10.1177/20552076241239172

93. Scholz B. Mindfully reporting lived experience work. Lancet Psychiatry . (2024) 11:168–8. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00007-5

94. Davis S, Pinfold V, Catchpole J, Lovelock C, Senthi B, Kenny A. Reporting lived experience work. Lancet Psychiatry . (2024) 11:8–9. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00402-9

95. Palmer VJ, Bibb J, Lewis M, Densley K, Kritharidis R, Dettmann E, et al. A co-design living labs philosophy of practice for end-to-end research design to translation with people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer/family and kinship groups. Front Public Health . (2023) 11:1206620. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1206620

96. Tekin Ş. Participatory interactive objectivity in psychiatry. Philosophy Sci . (2022), 1–20. doi: 10.1017/psa.2022.47

97. Gardner C, Kleinman A. Medicine and the mind — The consequences of psychiatry’s identity crisis. New Engl J Med . (2019) 381:1697–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1910603

98. Kendler KS. Potential lessons for DSM from contemporary philosophy of science. JAMA Psychiatry . (2022) 79:99. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.3559

99. Fusar-Poli P, Estradé Andrés, Stanghellini G, Esposito CM, Rosfort René, Mancini M, et al. The lived experience of depression: a bottom-up review co-written by experts by experience and academics. World Psychiatry . (2023) 22:352–65. doi: 10.1002/wps.21111

100. Smits D-W, van Meeteren K, Klem M, Alsem M, Ketelaar M. Designing a tool to support patient and public involvement in research projects: the Involvement Matrix. Res Involvement Engagement . (2020) 6. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00188-4

101. Owens C, Farrand P, Darvill R, Emmens T, Hewis E, Aitken P. Involving service users in intervention design: a participatory approach to developing a text-messaging intervention to reduce repetition of self-harm. Health Expectations . (2010) 14:285–95. doi: 10.1111/hex.2011.14.issue-3

102. Nakarada-Kordic I, Hayes N, Reay SD, Corbet C, Chan A. Co-designing for mental health: creative methods to engage young people experiencing psychosis. Design Health . (2017) 1:229–44. doi: 10.1080/24735132.2017.1386954

103. Orlowski SK, Lawn S, Venning A, Winsall M, Jones GM, Wyld K, et al. Participatory research as one piece of the puzzle: A systematic review of consumer involvement in design of technology-based youth mental health and well-being interventions. JMIR Hum Factors . (2015) 2:e12. doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.4361

104. Gammon D, Strand M, Eng LS. Service users’ perspectives in the design of an online tool for assisted self-help in mental health: a case study of implications. Int J Ment Health Syst . (2014) 8. doi: 10.1186/1752-4458-8-2

105. Wendt T. Design for Dasein: understanding the design of experiences . San Bernardino, California: Thomas Wendt (2015).

106. Bateson G. Steps to an ecology of mind . Chicago: University Of Chicago Press (1972).

107. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action . Aldershot, U.K: Ashgate, Cop (1991).

108. Verkerke GJ, van der Houwen EB, Broekhuis AA, Bursa J, Catapano G, McCullagh P, et al. Science versus design; comparable, contrastive or conducive? J Mechanical Behav Biomed Materials . (2013) 21:195–201. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.009

109. Zachar P. Psychopathology beyond psychiatric symptomatology. Philosophy Psychiatry Psychol . (2020) 27:141–3. doi: 10.1353/ppp.2020.0021

110. Foucault M. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason . London: Routledge (1961). doi: 10.4324/9780203278796

111. Star SL. This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science Technology Hum Values . (2010) 35:601–17. doi: 10.1177/0162243910377624

112. Jones N. Lived experience leadership in peer support research as the new normal. Psychiatr Serv . (2022) 73:125. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.73201

113. Scholz B. We have to set the bar higher: towards consumer leadership, beyond engagement or involvement. Aust Health Rev . (2022) 46. doi: 10.1071/AH22022

114. Rivard L, Lehoux P, Hagemeister N. Articulating care and responsibility in design: A study on the reasoning processes guiding health innovators’ “care-making” practices. Design Stud . (2021) 72:100986. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2020.100986

115. Dekker MR, Williams AD. The use of user-centered participatory design in serious games for anxiety and depression. Games Health J . (2017) 6:327–33. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2017.0058

116. Cross N. Designerly ways of knowing . London: Springer (2006).

117. Groeneveld B, Dekkers T, Boon B, D’Olivo P. Challenges for design researchers in healthcare. Design Health . (2018) 2:305–26. doi: 10.1080/24735132.2018.1541699

118. Scholz B, Stewart S, Pamoso A, Gordon S, Happell B, Utomo B. The importance of going beyond consumer or patient involvement to lived experience leadership. Int J Ment Health Nurs . (2023) 33:1–4. doi: 10.1111/inm.13282

Keywords: psychiatry, diagnosis, design, innovation, mental health care

Citation: Veldmeijer L, Terlouw G, van Os J, te Meerman S, van ‘t Veer J and Boonstra N (2024) From diagnosis to dialogue – reconsidering the DSM as a conversation piece in mental health care: a hypothesis and theory. Front. Psychiatry 15:1426475. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1426475

Received: 01 May 2024; Accepted: 22 July 2024; Published: 06 August 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Veldmeijer, Terlouw, van Os, te Meerman, van ‘t Veer and Boonstra. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lars Veldmeijer, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.