development of hypothesis in social sciences domain

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

Chapter 3: Developing a Research Question

3.4 Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

Text attributions

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

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

Share This Book

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

Developing a Hypothesis

Rajiv S. Jhangiani; I-Chant A. Chiang; Carrie Cuttler; and Dana C. Leighton

Learning Objectives

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis, it is important to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. A  theory  is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition (1965) [1] . He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A  hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observations before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this  if-then  relationship. “ If   drive theory is correct,  then  cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter  and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this  question  is an interesting one  on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [2] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the  number  of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how  easily  they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method  (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). Researchers begin with a set of phenomena and either construct a theory to explain or interpret them or choose an existing theory to work with. They then make a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researchers then conduct an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, they reevaluate the theory in light of the new results and revise it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researchers can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As  Figure 2.3  shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [3] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans [Zajonc & Sales, 1966] [4] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use  deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use  inductive reasoning  which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive. That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that it really does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

• Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation.  Science, 149 , 269–274 ↵
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵

A coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena.

A specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate.

A cyclical process of theory development, starting with an observed phenomenon, then developing or using a theory to make a specific prediction of what should happen if that theory is correct, testing that prediction, refining the theory in light of the findings, and using that refined theory to develop new hypotheses, and so on.

The ability to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and the possibility to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false.

Developing a Hypothesis Copyright © by Rajiv S. Jhangiani; I-Chant A. Chiang; Carrie Cuttler; and Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• 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)

2.4 Developing a Hypothesis

Learning objectives.

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis it is imporant to distinguish betwee a theory and a hypothesis. A  theory  is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition. He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A  hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observation before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this  if-then  relationship. “ If   drive theory is correct,  then  cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter  and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this  question  is an interesting one  on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [1] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the  number  of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how  easily  they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method  (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As  Figure 2.2  shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

Figure 2.2 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the General Model of Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically motivated research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [2] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans (Zajonc & Sales, 1966) [3] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be  logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use  deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use  inductive reasoning  which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be  positive.  That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that really it does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

Key Takeaways

• A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a prediction about the outcome of a particular study.
• Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
• Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.
• Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

3 Social science theories, methods, and values

Learning Objectives for this Chapter

After reading this Chapter, you should be able to:

• understand, apply, and evaluate core social science values, concepts, and theories, which can help inform and guide our understanding of how the world works, how power is defined and exercised, and how we can critically understand and engage with these concepts when examining the world around us.

Social science theory: theories to explain the world around us

As we have discussed in previous chapters, social science research is concerned with discovering things about the social world: for instance, how people act in different situations, why people act the way they do, how their actions relate to broader social structures, and how societies function at both the micro and macro levels. However, without theory, the ‘social facts’ that we discover cannot be woven together into broader understandings about the world around us.

Theory is the ‘glue’ that holds social facts together. Theory helps us to conceptualise and explain why things are the way they are, rather than only focusing on how things are. In this sense, different theoretical perspectives, such as those discussed in this Chapter, act as different lenses through which we can see and interpret the world around us.

Theory testing and generation is also an important part of social scientific research. As shown in the image below, different theories are rooted in different philosophical foundations. That is, various theories arise in accordance with different ways of seeing and living in the world, as well as different understandings about how knowledge is understood and constructed. As we learned earlier in the book, these concern both ontological and epistemological considerations, but also axiological considerations; that is, questions about the nature of value,  and what things in the world hold value (including in relation to one another). While theory is rooted in these philosophical foundations, however, it also gives way to different ways of doing research, both in terms of the methodology and methods employed. Overall, using different theoretical perspectives to consider social questions is a bit like putting on different pairs of glasses to see the world afresh.

Below we consider some foundational social science theories. While these are certainly not the only  theoretical perspectives that exist, they are often considered to be amongst the most influential. They also provide helpful building blocks for understanding other theoretical perspectives, as well as how theory can be applied to guide and build social scientific knowledge.

Structural functionalism

Structural functionalism is a theory about social institutions, ‘social norms’ (i.e., the often unspoken rules that govern social behaviours), and social stability. We talk more about social institutions in the next Chapter of this book, but essentially they are the ‘big building blocks’ of society that act as both repositories and creators/instigators of social norms. These include things like school/education, the state (often called a meta-institution), the family, the economy, and more. In this regard, structural functionalism is considered a macro theory; that is, it considers macro (large) structures in society, and concerns how they work in an interdependent way to produce what structural functionalists believe to be ‘harmonious’ and stable societies. Structural functionalists are particularly concerned with social institutions’ manifest and latent functions, as well as their functions and dysfunctions (Merton [1910-2003]).

Manifest functions of social institutions include things that are overt and obvious. By contrast, latent functions of social institutions are those that are more hidden or secondary. For instance, a manifest function of the social institution of school is to teach students new knowledge and skills, which can assist them to move into chosen careers. Alternatively, we might also argue that school has other latent functions, such as socialisation and conformity to social norms, and building relationships with peers.

In addition to manifest and latent functions, structural functionalists are also concerned with the  functions  and  dysfunctions  of social institutions. They believe, for instance, that dysfunctions play just as much of an important role as functions, because they enable social institutions to identify and punish them, thereby making an example of dysfunctional elements (e.g., punishing those committing crime). This serves to reinforce social norms around how society should function.

Reflection exercise

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of structural functionalism. Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above?

Structural functionalism: want to learn more?

If you’d like to reinforce your understanding of structural functionalism, the below video provides a good summary that might be helpful.

Functionalism (YouTube, 5:40) :

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is the study of our experiences and how our consciousness makes sense of the phenomena (be they objects, people or ideas) around us. As a methodology or approach in the social sciences it has garnered renewed interest in the last few decades to better understand the world around us by studying how we experience the world in a subjective and often individual manner. It is, thus, considered a ‘micro’ theory.

This philosophical approach was developed by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), and his students and critics in France and Germany (key figures were philosophers Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961)) and later made it to the US via influential sociologists, such as Alfred Schütz (1899–1959).

Phenomenologists reject objectivity and instead focus on the subjective and intersubjective, the relations between people, and between people and objects. So, rather than trying to come to some objective truth, they are more interested in relationships and connections between the individual and the world around them. Indeed, there is a strong centering of and focus on the individual and their experiences of the world that phenomenologists believe can tell us about society at large. The individual is also key, as there is a focus on the sensory and the body both as instruments of enquiring as well as enquiry. Thus, we are always already part of the world around us and have to make sense of being here, but also want to go beyond ourselves by understanding others and how they relate to the world. The body features as a key site for such enquiries as it is the physical connection we have with people and objects around us. Further, there is a focus on everyday, mundane experiences as they have much to tell us about how society operates. This background environment in which we as people operate is called a lifeworld,  the shared horizon of experience we share and inhabit. It is marked by linguistic, cultural, and social codes and norms.

One key method inherent to Husserl’s early approaches is ‘bracketing’ , the process of standing back or aside from phenomena to understand it better. Such processes of ‘reflexivity’ and understanding our taken for granted attitudes and beliefs about certain phenomena are crucial to enable the social sciences to better understand the world around us. Debates in philosophy continue around whether such a bracketing is ever fully possible, especially considering that we as humans remain trapped in our minds and  bodies. Nonetheless, phenomenology has had a profound impact in most social sciences to redirect the focus towards the intersubjective nature of life and the lifeworld, within which we experience the world around us.

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of phenomenology. Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above?

Phenomenology: want to learn more?

If you’d like to reinforce your understanding of phenomenology, the below video provides a good summary that might be helpful.

Understanding Phenomenology (YouTube, 2:59) :

Symbolic interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is related to phenomenology as it is also a theory focused on the self. In this regard, it’s also a micro theory – it has particular focus on individuals and how they interact with one another. Symbolic interactionists say that symbolism is fundamental to how we see ourselves and how we see and interact with others. George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) is often regarded as the founder of this theory and his focus was on the relationship between the self and others in society. He considered our individual minds to function through interactions with others and through the shared meanings and symbols we create for the people and objects around us. Mead’s best known book Mind, Self, Society, was posthumously put together by his students and demonstrates how our individual minds allow us to use language and symbols to make sense of the world around us and how we construct a self based on how others perceive us.

Charles Cooley’s (1864-1929) concept of the “ looking glass self ” points out, for instance, that other peoples’ perceptions of us can also influence and change our perceptions of ourselves. Other sociologists, such as Erving Goffman (1922-1982), have built on this understanding, suggesting that ‘all of life is a stage’ and that each of us play different parts, like actors in a play. Goffman argued that we adapt our personality, behaviours, actions, and beliefs to suit the different contexts we find ourselves in. This understanding is often referred to as a ‘dramaturgical model’ of social interaction; it understands our social interactions to be performative – they are the outcomes of our ‘play acting’ different roles.

In explaining this theory, Goffman also referred to what he called ‘impression management’. As part of this, for instance, Goffman drew a crucial distinction between what he referred to as our ‘ front stage selves ‘ and our ‘ backstage selves ‘. For Goffman, our ‘front stage selves’ are those that we are willing to share with the ‘audience’ (e.g., the person or group with whom we are interacting). Alternatively, our ‘backstage selves’ are those that we keep for ourselves; this is the way we act when we are alone and have no audience.

Goffman also pointed to the important role that stigma can play in how we see ourselves and thus, how we act and behave in relation to others. Stigma occurs when “the reaction of others spoils normal identity”. Goffman argued that those who feel stigmatised by others (e.g., through public discourses and ‘frames’ of social issues that vilify certain groups of people) also experience changes in the way they see themselves – that is, their own sense of self-identity is ‘spoiled’. This can lead to other negative effects, such as social withdrawal and poorer health and wellbeing.

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of symbolic interactionism. Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above?

This exercise is to be conducted in small groups. First, get into a small group with other students. Then, do the following:

• Think about your daily life, activities, and interactions with others.
• Take a few moments to identify at least three examples of social symbols that you and other group members frequently use to interpret the world around you.
• Talk about how each of the group members interprets/responds to these symbols. Are there similarities? Are there differences?

Students should share/discuss their thoughts within the group, and if undertaken in a class environment, then report back to the class.

Symbolic interactionism: want to learn more?

If you’d like to reinforce your understanding of symbolic interactionism, the below videos provide good summaries that might be helpful.

Symbolic Interactionism (YouTube, 3:33) provides an easy-to-understand summary of symbolic interactionism:

What does it mean to be me? Erving Goffman and the Performed Self (YouTube, 1:58) provides a helpful summary of Erving Goffman’s conception of the ‘performed self’ – including his notions of a ‘front stage’ and ‘backstage’ self:

Conflict theories

Conflict theories focus particularly on conflict within and across societies and, thus, are particularly interested in power: where it does and doesn’t exist, who does and doesn’t hold it, and what they do or don’t do with it, for example. These theories hold that societies will always be characterised by states of conflict and competition over goods, resources, and more. These conflicts can arise along various lines, though

this group of theories emanate from the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883), who saw the capitalist economy as a primary site of conflict.

In Marx’s view, social ills emanated particularly from what he described as an upper- and lower-class structure, which had been perpetuated across multiple societies (e.g., in ancient societies in terms of slave owners/slaves, or in pre-Enlightenment times between the feudal peasantry/aristocracy). He saw capitalism as replicating this upper/lower class structure through the creation of a bourgeoisie (upper class, who own the means of production) and proletariat (lower class, who supply labour to the capitalist market). Marx also talked about a lumpenproletariat , an underclass without class consciousness and/or organised political power. Classical Marxism takes a macro lens: it is particularly concerned with how power is invested in the social institution of the capitalist economy. In this sense, classical Marxism represents a structural theory of power.

Marx argued that the only way for society to be fairer and more equal was if the proletariat was to rise up and revolt against the bourgeoisie; to “smash the chains of capitalism”! Thus, he strongly advocated for revolution as a means of creating a fairer, utopic society. He stated, “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (Marx 1968: 662). Nevertheless, a series of revolutions in the early 20th century that drew on Marxist thinking resulted in power vacuums that made way for violent, totalitarian regimes, as political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) argued in On the Origins of Totalitarianism . On this basis, subsequent conflict theorists (and critical theorists) have tended towards advocating for more incremental reforms, as opposed to revolution.

Take a few moments to watch the below two videos, which explain conflict theory in greater detail.

Key concepts: Conflict theory – definition and critiques (YouTube, 2:49) :

Political theory – Karl Marx (YouTube, 9:27) :

After watching these videos, take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a definition of conflict theories. After doing so, re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information in the above sub-section, and in the videos? Was anything missing? Is anything still unclear?

Critical theories

Marx saw the capitalist economy as a primary site of oppression, between the working class and the property owning class. Marx advocated for revolution, where the proletariat were urged to rise up and break the chains of capitalism by overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Marx saw this as being necessary for ensuring the freedom of the working classes. Critical theory develops from the work of Karl Marx, supplementing his theory of capitalism with other sociological and philosophical concepts.

Gramsci and cultural hegemony

In addition to Marx, critical theory utilised the work of Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci, specifically his concept of ‘Cultural Hegemony’. When we refer to ‘hegemonic’ social norms, we’re referring to social norms that are regarded as ‘common sense’ and thus, which overshadow and suppress alternative norms. Hegemonic norms typically reflect the values of the ruling classes (in Marxist terms, the bourgeoisie). To learn more, you might like to watch the video below:

Hegemony: WTF? An introduction to Gramsci and cultural hegemony (YouTube, 6:25)

Developing from this, critical theory also considers how power and oppression can operate in more subtle ways across the whole of society. Critical theory does not seek to actively bring about revolution, as the possibility for a revolution in the years post-World War Two was unlikely. Whilst critical theorists are by no means opposed to revolution, their focus lies more in identifying how capitalist society and its institutions limits advancement of human civilisation. In this respect, conflict theorists see more opportunities for praxis than classical Marxists.

Critical theory observes how the Enlightenment ideals of freedom, reason, and liberalism have developed throughout the first half of the 1900s. Ultimately, critical theorists see that reason has not necessarily progressed in a positive way throughout history. In fact, reason has developed to become increasingly technical, interested in classifying, regulating, and standardising all aspects of human society and culture. German philosopher Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) thought that Nazi Germany and the holocaust is a devastating example of the potential evils of rationality if developed without a critical perspective.

Another, less extreme, example of this tendency toward standardisation is in the production of art and culture. Big budget films, typically in the superhero or science fiction genre, all appear to be virtually identical: extravagant special effects, epic soundtracks, and relatively simple plots. However, this is not to say that such films are of a poor quality. Rather the similarity and popularity of these films indicates a homogenisation of culture. If culture is merely the reproduction of the same, how can society progress beyond its current point?

This critique of the development of reason throughout the 20th century does not mean that we must abandon reason entirely. To do so would be to discount the vast wealth of knowledge that humanity has come to grasp, as well as prevent further knowledge production. Instead, critical theorists argue that reason should be critiqued to uncover what has been left out of its development thus far, as well as open up the possibility for a more free, progressive form of society.

At its core, then, critical theory can be thought about as being an additional theoretical lens through which we can look at and understand the social world around us. In tune with Flyvbjerg’s (2001) conception of phronetic social science, critical theorists are also concerned with disrupting the systems they observe as a means of achieving social change. Critical theory urges us to recognise, understand and address how capitalist society reproduces itself and limits the free organisation of human beings.

Take a few moments to watch Critical theory definition and critiques (YouTube, 3:26) , which explains critical theory in greater detail.

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of critical theories. Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above and the video?

Critical theory can be applied in myriad different ways to better understand the world around us. In  Critical theory and the production of mass culture (YouTube, 2:12) , critical theory is adopted as a lens to understand and critique the production of mass culture. Watch the video and then consider the questions below.

• Can you think of examples where you could argue that the primary objective of producing art is to preserve the economic structure of the capitalist system?
• Do you agree with the proposition that mass-consumed entertainment, like popular television shows, are only  produced as a source of light entertainment and escapism from work, and thus serve to placate and pacify the worker? Why or why not? (What other  purposes might such entertainment serve, if any?)
• Do you agree with Adorno’s proposition that the products of the ‘culture industry’ are not only the artworks, but also the consumers themselves? Why or why not?

Critical race theory

Critical race theory applies a critical theory lens to the notion of race, seeking to understand how the concept of race itself can act as a site of power and oppression. Arising from the work of American legal scholars during the 1980s (including key thinkers like Derrick Bell [1930-2011] and Kimberlé Crenshaw [1959-]), it originally sought to understand and challenge “the ways in which race and racial power [were]… cosnstructed and represented in American legal culture and, more generally, in American society as a whole.” (Crenshaw et al. 1995: xiii) In particular, it questioned whether the civil rights afforded to African Americans in the aftermath of the civil rights movement had made a substantive impact on their experiences of social justice. Critical race theorists argued that more needed to be done; that civil rights had not had the desired impacts because (amongst other reasons) they:

• were imagined, shaped and brought into being by (predominantly) white, male middle- or upper-class lawyers, and thus, were only imagined within the bounds of white ontology,
• did not move beyond race – race still mattered, and
• implicitly perpetuated white privilege (e.g. they were constrained to only imagine redress and justice within the existing oppressive, white hegmonic system).

Crenshaw (1995: xiii) writes that, although critical race scholars’ work is heterogenous, they are nevertheless united by the following common interests:

• “The first is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America, and, in particular, to examine the relationship between that social structure and professed ideas such as ‘the rule of law’ and ‘equal protection’.”
• “The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it.”

In Australia, scholars have also taken up aspects of a critical race lens to understand how privilege is bound up with race. As Moreton-Robinson (2015: xiii) puts it, in Australia:

Race matters in the lives of all peoples; for some people it confers unearned privileges, and for others it is the mark of inferiority. Daily newspapers, radio, television, and social media usually portray Indigenous peoples as a deficit model of humanity. We are overrepresented as always lacking, dysfunctional, alcoholic, violent, needy, and lazy… For Indigenous people, white possession is not unmarked, unnamed or invisible; it is hypervisible…

Crenshaw has been crucial in also stressing the key importance of understanding how race can also intersect with other aspects of social identity, such as gender, to produce a ‘double’ or ‘triple’ oppression. In Australia, Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s 2000 book, Talkin’ up to the white woman, was also crucial in understanding how Australian feminism could also be oppressive of Indigenous Australian women by not seeing and hearing them or the specific issues they face/d. She called for the need for “white feminists to relinquish some power, dominance and privilege in Australian feminism to give Indigenous women’s interest some priority” (Moreton-Robinson 2000: xxv). This emphasised that an intersectional lens was needed to acknowledge the different but cumulative impacts of both racial oppression and sexism. At the centre of this argument is the reality that “all white feminists [in Australia] benefit from colonisation; they are overwhelmingly represented and disproportionately predominant, have the key roles, and constitute the norm, the ordinary and the standard of womanhood in Australia” (Moreton-Robinson 2000: xxv).

Uproar over critical race theory

During 2020, racial sensitivity training in the USA prompted widespread discussion about critical race theory. Former US President, Donald Trump, posits in the video below that the theory, and the kinds of racial sensitivity training it promotes, are fundamentally racist – against white people. Others argued that this represented a deep misunderstanding of the theory, but also an ignorance of the extent and power of white privilege.

For an example of former President Trump’s views, watch  Trump: Racial sensitivity training on white privilege is ‘racist’ (YouTube, 3:16) :

Postmodern critique of critical race theory

Postmodernists have levelled critique at critical race theory on the basis that understanding/explaining power as being rooted in racial difference has the consequence of reinforcing and perpetuating the validity of ‘race’. Postmodernism, however, rejects the distinct, conceptual bounds of ‘race’ and racialised identities. Instead, it sees race itself as a social construction, which should be questioned and disrupted, thereby leading to new insights that aren’t constrained by socially constructed definitions of race.

Kwame Anthony Appiah, for example, seeks to “probe the very definitions of race itself. He bypasses the empirical question of whether racism exists to ask the theoretical question of what race and racism are” (in Chong-Soon Lee 1995: 441)

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of critical race theory . Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above?

Putting theory into action: rethinking crime through a critical lens

Critical criminologists apply a critical theory lens to the study of crime and criminality. In this regard, critical criminology is concerned with understanding how the criminal justice system can act as a site of power and oppression; a perspective that tends to sit in contrast with western (non-critical) criminology, which sees the criminal justice system as a natural social institution that has the primarily purpose of protecting society against deviants (criminals) and making an example of those who fail to comply with hegemonic social norms. (This non-critical view draws parallels, for example, with the perceived ‘functions’ of the criminal justice system under a structural functionalist perspective, and its role in making examples of ‘dysfunctional’ elements of society.)

Critical criminologists in Australia have considered the role of the criminal justice system as a key site of oppression under, for example, Australian settler colonialism. For instance, Indigenous Australians are, per capita, the most incarcerated peoples in the entire world ( Anthony & Baldry 2017 ) and these incarceration rates are rising, not reducing (ABS 2018). In using a critical lens to understand the difference between incarceration rates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, however, we can seek better insight into how the criminal justice system operates as a site of oppression, perpetuating white settler colonial norms and values, which seek to punish alternative ontologies and epistemologies. Lynch (cited in Cunneen and Tauri 2016: 26) argued,

In short, criminology is one of the disciplines that established the conditions necessary for maintenance of the status quo of power. It can only do so by oppressing those who would undermine the status quo. In this sense, criminology must be viewed as a science of oppression.

In part, this oppression operates through the construction of knowledge and truth within (positivist) criminology (which relates to Foucault’s conception of power-knowledge, as we touched on last week). In turn, this also involves what Cunneen and Tauri (2016: 26) describe as “the ideologically driven dismissal of Indigenous knowledge about the social world as ‘subjective’, ‘unscientific’, and/or at best ‘folk epistemology’… which in turn paves the way for excluding other ways of knowing from the Western, criminological lexicon”.

In their book, Decolonising criminology, Blagg and Anthony (2019: 22-23) set out a taxonomy for what they see as a decolonised criminology (noting, though, that Blagg and Anthony themselves are non-Indigenous researchers, though they have worked closely with Indigenous peoples and communities for decades).  In their taxonomy (which we have included an adapted version of below), they include the following probing comparisons between a positivist (largely uncritical) criminology and a decolonised (critical) criminology:

A table comparing positivist and decolonial approaches to criminology.

Source: Authors’ adaptation from Blagg & Anthony (2019: 22-23 )

The probes and questions that Blagg & Anthony pose in the above taxonomy are critical in their focus and intent; they seek to critique the criminal justice system as a site of colonial power, but they also seek to change it — through research that produces knowledge about these truths. This is, in essence, a reframing (to use Bacchi’s term) of the nature of criminological research towards a richer, and more historically and culturally contextualised understanding of the Australian criminal justice system. As a result, this produces different knowledge about crime and justice in Australia: knowledge that shifts blame away from the individual (the ‘bad’ Indigenous citizen, to use Moreton-Robinson’s [2009] language) to the structures, history and continuation of colonial oppression.

Critical or radical criminology?

Radical criminology is rooted in the Marxist conflict tradition and sees the capitalist economy as being central to the definitions of crime (arrived at by the bourgeoisie) that constrict, control and suppress the working classes (proletariat).

In contrast (or in addition to), critical criminology is interested in more than just class relations and also sees different opportunities for praxis – tending to favour a more incremental approach to social change as opposed to widespread revolution ( Bernard 1981 )

Drawing on a critical criminology and decolonising perspective, consider the below graph, which shows the over-representation of Indigenous Australians in prisons, indicating an upward trend from 2008-2018. Then consider, from a critical criminology standpoint, what kinds of ‘truths’ might you draw on to help explain this trend?

(To guide your thinking, you may like to revisit the above taxonomy by Blagg and Anthony.)

Watch the below short clip of Senator Patrick Dodson talking in March 2021 about the issue of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths in custody. Consider LNP Senator, Amanda Stoker’s response to Senator Pat Dodson, in particular her comment that she “understand[s] the outrage is real… because the lives of every person, though our justice system are important, no matter the colour of their skin.”

In #Estimates , @SenatorDodson fires up over a lack of action on deaths in custody. @stoker_aj ‘s response: “I understand the outrage is real…because the lives of every person, through our justice system are important, no matter the colour of their skin.” #Auspol @SBSNews @NITV pic.twitter.com/jgsb8y9YcD — Naveen Razik (@naveenjrazik) March 26, 2021

What do you think about Senator Stoker’s response to Senator Dodson? How might you analyse her response, through a critical race theory lens?

Choose one of the following social issues:

• The gender pay gap
• The workplace ‘stress’ epidemic
• Homelessness
• Childhood obesity

Consider how your chosen social issue might be explained by drawing on the different theoretical perspectives outlined earlier in this Chapter. Record your thoughts in a short, written explanation.

Reflection exercise: a critical reading of meritocracy

Kim and Choi (2017: 112) define meritocracy as “a social system in which advancement in society is based on an individual’s capabilities and merits rather than on the basis of family, wealth, or social background.” According to Kim and Choi (2017: 116), meritocracy has two key features: “impartial competition” and “equality of opportunity”.

The notion of meritocracy has arisen over the past few centuries primarily in response to feudalism and absolute monarchy, where power and privilege are handed down on the basis of familial lines (‘nepotism’) or friendships (‘cronyism’). This kind of system could (and often did) place people into positions of power, regardless of whether they were the most appropriate or ‘best’ person for the job. In essence, then, the notion of meritocracy is intended to tie social advancement to merit; that is, the focus is supposed to be on ‘what you know’ rather than ‘who you know’, which seems a noble cause, right? Many have argued, however, that a blinkered belief in meritocracy leaves a lot of things out of the ‘frame’.

The belief in meritocracy, and its focus on ‘what you know’ rather than ‘who you know’, can have both positive and negative impacts. Take a piece of paper and write a short list of each.

If critical theory operates according to the broad Marxist understanding of history as class struggle, post-structuralism is a theory that attempts to abandon the idea of grand historical narratives altogether. Fundamentally, post-structuralism differs from other social theories in its rejection of metanarratives , its critique of binaries, and its refusal to understand all human action as being shaped solely by universal social structures. Whilst there is much disagreement between post-structuralist thinkers, these three broad trends help us to understand this social theory.

Post-structuralism

Post-structural accounts of conflict and power can take a macro and micro lens. They see power as transcending social structures, like social institutions (e.g., the state, the economy) and instead being all around us at all times. Michel Foucault (1926-1984), for example, argued that power is everywhere and acts upon us to shape our identities, bodies, behaviours, and being. In terms of a liberal democratic society, therefore, where coercive (‘sovereign’) power is only exerted by the state under certain specific circumstances, Foucault argued that the state otherwise uses its power to create ‘responsibilised’ citizens who absorb hegemonic (i.e. authoritative/dominant) social norms and use these to govern themselves . This relates to what Fairclough (1995: 257) referred to as power by consent:

We live in an age in which power is predominantly exercised through the generation of consent rather than through coercion… through the inculcation of self-disciplining practices rather than through the breaking of skulls (though there is still unfortunately no shortage of the latter).

Foucault was also particularly interested in the link between power and knowledge. He argued that those who hold the power tend to construct knowledge and ‘truth’ in certain ways, which can reinforce their power by, for example, perpetuating certain social norms. This is elaborated on by Watts and Hodgson (2019) in reading 5.2, where they describe Foucault’s conception of power/knowledge as follows:

Truth is not neutral or objective, and is not simply a thing that can be verified scientifically because its ‘truth value’ is dependent on the operation and circulation of power (think, for example, the oft-quoted phrase that ‘truth is whatever the powerful say it is’). In the context of the human and social sciences, power creates knowledge and is also a force for the translation of knowledge of and about human beings into practice… For example, the moment we speak into existence the concept of something as commonplace as ‘human being’ or ‘human rights’ or ‘social justice’ we are using some form of power (truth) to render such things thinkable and knowable as things in the world (Watts and Hodgson 2019: 85-86).

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of Foucault’s post-structural concept of power. Then, re-read the above account. Does your definition align with the information above?

Beck and Risk Society

The notion of risk society is outlined by Ulrich Beck in his 1992 book ‘Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity’. Where society was once organised around wealth distribution based on scarcity, Beck argues that society is becoming increasingly based on the distribution of risks. Risks are defined as “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself” (Beck 1992: 21). Beck argues that the process of modernisation is no longer focused exclusively on the creation of new technologies, but rather the focus lies in the management of risks of potential technologies. As such, modernisation is becoming increasingly reflexive, involved not only in the production of technologies to meet needs, but rather investigating the often unknown side-effects of technologies. For example, a nuclear energy plant might be built in order to meet society’s increasing energy demand. However, this solution to a specific problem then must deal with the new issue of disposing of this radioactive waste that modernisation itself has produced. This is just one example of the ecological risks inherent with the development of new technologies, which often have unintended side-effects, that must themselves be uncovered and solved.

Postmodernism

Before we can get to postmodernism, we need to define modernism to see what postmodernism wants to supersede. Modernism describes the social upheaval and major changes of 20th century life. It is marked by processes of industrialisation, rationalisation and bureaucratisation – in short a world in which the sciences seemed to provide ever more answers and ultimate truths about the world and us. Modernism or modernity was also about hope for a new society, unfettered technological and material progress and, with advances in scientific fields, led to longer lives and new and exciting materials to make new things to make life easier (think household machines). It was also punctured by some key social movements that brought the world to the brink of destruction in the epic fight over what ultimate truth should prevail. The key political ideologies of fascism, socialism and liberalism clashed in the second World War over their different visions for a new world order. In the post war climate of a new stand-off between socialism/communism and liberalism or the Soviet bloc and ‘the West’ many writers, academics and artists became disillusioned with the modernist project. Slowly critiques of these universalising truths and meta-narratives came to think of this time as a time of postmodernism. Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998) defined postmodernism as the ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’, by which he meant that increasingly people were no longer persuaded by grand or master narratives about themselves, a particular nation, people or even humanity. The singular, stable, coherent modern subject was thrown into a void and thus becomes fragmented, fluid and plural in the postmodern. No one truth exists anymore and the certainty of facts becomes disputed and muddied once more. Thus, postmodernity is about scepticism, deconstruction and questioning rather than offering answers and solutions. This has made it a controversial theory or topic as it offers little in the way of hope for a better world, indeed it is often seen as dystopic. Inherent in many postmodern critiques of current society is a critique of (late) capitalism and consumer or mass culture that pervade every aspect of our lives, whilst others focus on technology and its pervasive intrusion into our daily lives.

Resources for further learning

• Moreton-Robinson, A. 2015. ‘Introduction: white possession and Indigenous sovereignty matters.’ In. Moreton-Robinson, A.  The White Possessive: property, power and Indigenous sovereignty,  pp. xi-xxiv.
• Powers, C. 2009. Sociology as a coherent discipline: unifying themes. In. Powers, C. Making sense of social theory , Chapter 16.
• Watts, L. and Hodgson, D. 2019. ‘Power and knowledge’. In. Watts, L. and Hodgson, D. Social justice theory and practice for social work, Chapter 5.
• Cunneen, C. and Tauri, J. 2016. ‘Towards a critical Indigenous criminology.’ In. Cunneen, C. and Tauri, J. Indigenous criminology, pp. 23-43.
• Kim, C.H. and Choi, Y.B. 2017. How meritocracy is defined today – contemporary aspects of meritocracy. Economics and Sociology, 10(1): 112-121.
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. ‘Values in social and political inquiry.’ In. Flyvbjerg, B. Making social science matter, Chapter 5.

Other resources:

• Watego, C. 2021.  ‘Who are the real criminals? Making the case for abolishing criminology.’ (YouTube, 1:35:01),
• Anderson, E. 2017. ‘How good social science can and ought to be value-laden’ (YouTube, 17:00) .
• Zigon, J. and Throop, J. 2021. ‘ Phenomenology ‘ Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology .

Introduction to the Social Sciences Copyright © 2023 by The University of Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Theoretical Framework
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounded assumptions or predictions of behavior. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework encompasses not just the theory, but the narrative explanation about how the researcher engages in using the theory and its underlying assumptions to investigate the research problem. It is the structure of your paper that summarizes concepts, ideas, and theories derived from prior research studies and which was synthesized in order to form a conceptual basis for your analysis and interpretation of meaning found within your research.

Abend, Gabriel. "The Meaning of Theory." Sociological Theory 26 (June 2008): 173–199; Kivunja, Charles. "Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Review of Lessons from the Field." International Journal of Higher Education 7 (December 2018): 44-53; Swanson, Richard A. Theory Building in Applied Disciplines . San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2013; Varpio, Lara, Elise Paradis, Sebastian Uijtdehaage, and Meredith Young. "The Distinctions between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework." Academic Medicine 95 (July 2020): 989-994.

Importance of Theory and a Theoretical Framework

Theories can be unfamiliar to the beginning researcher because they are rarely applied in high school social studies curriculum and, as a result, can come across as unfamiliar and imprecise when first introduced as part of a writing assignment. However, in their most simplified form, a theory is simply a set of assumptions or predictions about something you think will happen based on existing evidence and that can be tested to see if those outcomes turn out to be true. Of course, it is slightly more deliberate than that, therefore, summarized from Kivunja (2018, p. 46), here are the essential characteristics of a theory.

• It is logical and coherent
• It has clear definitions of terms or variables, and has boundary conditions [i.e., it is not an open-ended statement]
• It has a domain where it applies
• It has clearly described relationships among variables
• It describes, explains, and makes specific predictions
• It comprises of concepts, themes, principles, and constructs
• It must have been based on empirical data [i.e., it is not a guess]
• It must have made claims that are subject to testing, been tested and verified
• It must be clear and concise
• Its assertions or predictions must be different and better than those in existing theories
• Its predictions must be general enough to be applicable to and understood within multiple contexts
• Its assertions or predictions are relevant, and if applied as predicted, will result in the predicted outcome
• The assertions and predictions are not immutable, but subject to revision and improvement as researchers use the theory to make sense of phenomena
• Its concepts and principles explain what is going on and why
• Its concepts and principles are substantive enough to enable us to predict a future

Given these characteristics, a theory can best be understood as the foundation from which you investigate assumptions or predictions derived from previous studies about the research problem, but in a way that leads to new knowledge and understanding as well as, in some cases, discovering how to improve the relevance of the theory itself or to argue that the theory is outdated and a new theory needs to be formulated based on new evidence.

A theoretical framework consists of concepts and, together with their definitions and reference to relevant scholarly literature, existing theory that is used for your particular study. The theoretical framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your research paper and that relate to the broader areas of knowledge being considered.

The theoretical framework is most often not something readily found within the literature . You must review course readings and pertinent research studies for theories and analytic models that are relevant to the research problem you are investigating. The selection of a theory should depend on its appropriateness, ease of application, and explanatory power.

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways :

• An explicit statement of  theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.
• The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory, you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
• Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why and how. It permits you to intellectually transition from simply describing a phenomenon you have observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
• Having a theory helps you identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest and highlights the need to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.
• The theoretical framework adds context around the theory itself based on how scholars had previously tested the theory in relation their overall research design [i.e., purpose of the study, methods of collecting data or information, methods of analysis, the time frame in which information is collected, study setting, and the methodological strategy used to conduct the research].

By virtue of its applicative nature, good theory in the social sciences is of value precisely because it fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the meaning, nature, and challenges associated with a phenomenon, often experienced but unexplained in the world in which we live, so that we may use that knowledge and understanding to act in more informed and effective ways.

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Corvellec, Hervé, ed. What is Theory?: Answers from the Social and Cultural Sciences . Stockholm: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2013; Asher, Herbert B. Theory-Building and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences . Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1984; Drafting an Argument. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Kivunja, Charles. "Distinguishing between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework: A Systematic Review of Lessons from the Field." International Journal of Higher Education 7 (2018): 44-53; Omodan, Bunmi Isaiah. "A Model for Selecting Theoretical Framework through Epistemology of Research Paradigms." African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies 4 (2022): 275-285; Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Jarvis, Peter. The Practitioner-Researcher. Developing Theory from Practice . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

Here are some strategies to develop of an effective theoretical framework:

• Examine your thesis title and research problem . The research problem anchors your entire study and forms the basis from which you construct your theoretical framework.
• Brainstorm about what you consider to be the key variables in your research . Answer the question, "What factors contribute to the presumed effect?"
• Review related literature to find how scholars have addressed your research problem. Identify the assumptions from which the author(s) addressed the problem.
• List  the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group these variables into independent and dependent categories.
• Review key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course readings and choose the theory that can best explain the relationships between the key variables in your study [note the Writing Tip on this page].
• Discuss the assumptions or propositions of this theory and point out their relevance to your research.

A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific variables and defining the specific viewpoint [framework] that the researcher will take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be gathered. It also facilitates the understanding of concepts and variables according to given definitions and builds new knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.

II.  Purpose

Think of theories as the conceptual basis for understanding, analyzing, and designing ways to investigate relationships within social systems. To that end, the following roles served by a theory can help guide the development of your framework.

• Means by which new research data can be interpreted and coded for future use,
• Response to new problems that have no previously identified solutions strategy,
• Means for identifying and defining research problems,
• Means for prescribing or evaluating solutions to research problems,
• Ways of discerning certain facts among the accumulated knowledge that are important and which facts are not,
• Means of giving old data new interpretations and new meaning,
• Means by which to identify important new issues and prescribe the most critical research questions that need to be answered to maximize understanding of the issue,
• Means of providing members of a professional discipline with a common language and a frame of reference for defining the boundaries of their profession, and
• Means to guide and inform research so that it can, in turn, guide research efforts and improve professional practice.

Adapted from: Torraco, R. J. “Theory-Building Research Methods.” In Swanson R. A. and E. F. Holton III , editors. Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice . (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1997): pp. 114-137; Jacard, James and Jacob Jacoby. Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists . New York: Guilford, 2010; Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. “What Theory is Not.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (September 1995): 371-384.

Structure and Writing Style

The theoretical framework may be rooted in a specific theory , in which case, your work is expected to test the validity of that existing theory in relation to specific events, issues, or phenomena. Many social science research papers fit into this rubric. For example, Peripheral Realism Theory, which categorizes perceived differences among nation-states as those that give orders, those that obey, and those that rebel, could be used as a means for understanding conflicted relationships among countries in Africa. A test of this theory could be the following: Does Peripheral Realism Theory help explain intra-state actions, such as, the disputed split between southern and northern Sudan that led to the creation of two nations?

However, you may not always be asked by your professor to test a specific theory in your paper, but to develop your own framework from which your analysis of the research problem is derived . Based upon the above example, it is perhaps easiest to understand the nature and function of a theoretical framework if it is viewed as an answer to two basic questions:

• What is the research problem/question? [e.g., "How should the individual and the state relate during periods of conflict?"]
• Why is your approach a feasible solution? [i.e., justify the application of your choice of a particular theory and explain why alternative constructs were rejected. I could choose instead to test Instrumentalist or Circumstantialists models developed among ethnic conflict theorists that rely upon socio-economic-political factors to explain individual-state relations and to apply this theoretical model to periods of war between nations].

The answers to these questions come from a thorough review of the literature and your course readings [summarized and analyzed in the next section of your paper] and the gaps in the research that emerge from the review process. With this in mind, a complete theoretical framework will likely not emerge until after you have completed a thorough review of the literature .

Just as a research problem in your paper requires contextualization and background information, a theory requires a framework for understanding its application to the topic being investigated. When writing and revising this part of your research paper, keep in mind the following:

• Clearly describe the framework, concepts, models, or specific theories that underpin your study . This includes noting who the key theorists are in the field who have conducted research on the problem you are investigating and, when necessary, the historical context that supports the formulation of that theory. This latter element is particularly important if the theory is relatively unknown or it is borrowed from another discipline.
• Position your theoretical framework within a broader context of related frameworks, concepts, models, or theories . As noted in the example above, there will likely be several concepts, theories, or models that can be used to help develop a framework for understanding the research problem. Therefore, note why the theory you've chosen is the appropriate one.
• The present tense is used when writing about theory. Although the past tense can be used to describe the history of a theory or the role of key theorists, the construction of your theoretical framework is happening now.
• You should make your theoretical assumptions as explicit as possible . Later, your discussion of methodology should be linked back to this theoretical framework.
• Don’t just take what the theory says as a given! Reality is never accurately represented in such a simplistic way; if you imply that it can be, you fundamentally distort a reader's ability to understand the findings that emerge. Given this, always note the limitations of the theoretical framework you've chosen [i.e., what parts of the research problem require further investigation because the theory inadequately explains a certain phenomena].

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Conceptual Framework: What Do You Think is Going On? College of Engineering. University of Michigan; Drafting an Argument. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Lynham, Susan A. “The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 4 (August 2002): 221-241; Tavallaei, Mehdi and Mansor Abu Talib. "A General Perspective on the Role of Theory in Qualitative Research." Journal of International Social Research 3 (Spring 2010); Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research . Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Reyes, Victoria. Demystifying the Journal Article. Inside Higher Education; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Weick, Karl E. “The Work of Theorizing.” In Theorizing in Social Science: The Context of Discovery . Richard Swedberg, editor. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), pp. 177-194.

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Other Disciplines

An increasingly important trend in the social and behavioral sciences is to think about and attempt to understand research problems from an interdisciplinary perspective. One way to do this is to not rely exclusively on the theories developed within your particular discipline, but to think about how an issue might be informed by theories developed in other disciplines. For example, if you are a political science student studying the rhetorical strategies used by female incumbents in state legislature campaigns, theories about the use of language could be derived, not only from political science, but linguistics, communication studies, philosophy, psychology, and, in this particular case, feminist studies. Building theoretical frameworks based on the postulates and hypotheses developed in other disciplinary contexts can be both enlightening and an effective way to be more engaged in the research topic.

CohenMiller, A. S. and P. Elizabeth Pate. "A Model for Developing Interdisciplinary Research Theoretical Frameworks." The Qualitative Researcher 24 (2019): 1211-1226; Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

Do not leave the theory hanging out there in the introduction never to be mentioned again. Undertheorizing weakens your paper. The theoretical framework you describe should guide your study throughout the paper. Be sure to always connect theory to the review of pertinent literature and to explain in the discussion part of your paper how the theoretical framework you chose supports analysis of the research problem or, if appropriate, how the theoretical framework was found to be inadequate in explaining the phenomenon you were investigating. In that case, don't be afraid to propose your own theory based on your findings.

Yet Another Writing Tip

What's a Theory? What's a Hypothesis?

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

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

The key distinctions are:

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

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

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Be Prepared to Challenge the Validity of an Existing Theory

Theories are meant to be tested and their underlying assumptions challenged; they are not rigid or intransigent, but are meant to set forth general principles for explaining phenomena or predicting outcomes. Given this, testing theoretical assumptions is an important way that knowledge in any discipline develops and grows. If you're asked to apply an existing theory to a research problem, the analysis will likely include the expectation by your professor that you should offer modifications to the theory based on your research findings.

Indications that theoretical assumptions may need to be modified can include the following:

• Your findings suggest that the theory does not explain or account for current conditions or circumstances or the passage of time,
• The study reveals a finding that is incompatible with what the theory attempts to explain or predict, or
• Your analysis reveals that the theory overly generalizes behaviors or actions without taking into consideration specific factors revealed from your analysis [e.g., factors related to culture, nationality, history, gender, ethnicity, age, geographic location, legal norms or customs , religion, social class, socioeconomic status, etc.].

Philipsen, Kristian. "Theory Building: Using Abductive Search Strategies." In Collaborative Research Design: Working with Business for Meaningful Findings . Per Vagn Freytag and Louise Young, editors. (Singapore: Springer Nature, 2018), pp. 45-71; Shepherd, Dean A. and Roy Suddaby. "Theory Building: A Review and Integration." Journal of Management 43 (2017): 59-86.

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Website and Resource Hub for the Social Domain Theory International Colloquium (SDTIC)

About this website

This site provides a central hub for all things related to the Social Domain Theory International Colloquium (SDTIC) group. Below, you will find some background information about this group and its research. On this site, we have pages for resources, information about meetings, news and updates from the community, and links for various ways to engage. Visit the pages linked here to explore the website.

Community contributed resources for research, teaching, and more.

Information about upcoming and past SDT meetings.

Recent publications and announcements from the SDT community listserv.

Researchers in the SDT community, and ways to connect and engage.

About Social Domain Theory (SDT)

Social Domain Theory (SDT) is a theory of moral psychology that examines social reasoning and behavior from a developmental perspective. It was developed by Elliot Turiel, Judi Smetana and Larry Nucci in the 1970s and 1980s. Currently, there are hundreds of researchers around the world working on Social Domain Theory.

Research in Social Domain Theory finds that most people distinguish moral issues that involve actions having an impact on the welfare and rights of others, from conventional issues pertaining to actions whose status as right or wrong is determined by prevailing social norms, standards or customs. Extensive research in Social Domain Theory shows that children as young as 2.5 years old make this distinction when judging prototypical issues. These two forms of social regulation are in turn differentiated from judgments about a personal domain of privacy and discretion around actions with consequences primarily upon the self. Many social contexts such as judgments about friendships and social exclusion involve coordination across domains. As people age, they become more capable of reasoning about multifaceted and complicated social issues.

Here are some recommended readings to learn about Social Domain Theory:

Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smetana, J. G., Jambon, M., & Ball, C. (2014). The social domain approach to children's moral and social judgments . In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 23–45). Psychology Press.

Turiel, E. (2015). Moral development . In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 1, pp. 484-522). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Turiel, E. (1983). Development of social knowledge . NY: Cambridge University Press.

For a guided introduction to classic readings in this area, click here .

A list of recent works by members of the SDTIC community is maintained here .

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
• Sage Choice

The invention of the psychosocial: An introduction

Rhodri hayward.

Queen Mary, University of London, UK

Although the compound adjective ‘psychosocial’ was first used by academic psychologists in the 1890s, it was only in the interwar period that psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers began to develop detailed models of the psychosocial domain. These models marked a significant departure from earlier ideas of the relationship between society and human nature. Whereas Freudians and Darwinians had described an antagonistic relationship between biological instincts and social forces, interwar authors insisted that individual personality was made possible through collective organization. This argument was advanced by dissenting psychoanalysts such as Ian Suttie and Karen Horney; biologists including Julian Huxley and Hans Selye; philosophers (e.g. Olaf Stapledon), anthropologists (e.g. Margaret Mead) and physicians (e.g John Ryle and James Halliday).

This introduction and the essays that follow sketch out the emergence of the psycho-social by examining the methods, tools and concepts through which it was articulated. New statistical technologies and physiological theories allowed individual pathology to be read as an index of broader social problems and placed medical expertise at the centre of new political programmes. In these arguments the intangible structure of social relationships was made visible and provided a template for the development of healthy and effective forms of social organization. By examining the range of techniques deployed in the construction of the psychosocial (from surveys of civilian neurosis, techniques of family observation through to animal models of psychotic breakdown) a critical genealogy of the biopolitical basis of modern society is developed.

In 1950, Henry V. Dicks, the deputy director of London’s Tavistock Clinic, announced that ‘mental health’ had become the goal of modern policy ( Dicks, 1950 : 3-4). Just as the values of freedom and democracy had animated previous generations of activists and statesmen, the ideal of psychological well-being, he argued, now provided the basis of a new political programme. Although Dicks’s vision was ambitious, it was not unique. Similar statements could be found in the writings of a broad section of politicians and scientists ( Nuttall, 2003 , 2006 ; Thomson, 2006 ). The faith in political planning that animated British progressives during the 1930s and 1940s was matched by a concomitant belief that human nature itself could be improved through a coordinated series of psychological interventions ( Marwick, 1964 ; Ritschel, 1997 ; Hayward, 2012 ). War-time social experiments in workplace democracy, personnel selection and infant welfare were predicated upon this belief that human potential could best be realised through central political direction and control ( Ahrenfeldt, 1958 ; Rose, 1990). This conflation of the parallel projects of social and psychological reconstruction was made possible by the ill defined and over-determined concept of the ‘psychosocial'. It is this category, along with the auxiliary concept of ‘stress’, that is explored in this special issue of History of the Human Sciences .

The changing meaning of the psychosocial

The compound noun, ‘psychosocial’, first emerges in the 1890s — although a metaphysical insistence on a deep and mutually constitutive connection between personality and social life had been a commonplace throughout the nineteenth century. Victorian moralists drew from the philosophies of Plato and Hegel an organic vision of society that emphasised the close involvement of self and community ( Harris, 1992 ; Collini, 1990 ). This vision was upheld by a broad swathe of cultural commentators, from radical socialists through to Liberal Anglicans, who agreed that working practices and social relationships were constitutive of human personality ( Burkitt, 1991 : ch. 1; Hayward, 2007 : ch. 1). Although they differed over the precise nature of this process of constitution, these proponents held up the experience of fellowship with friends, family or nation as the essential and defining aspect of human kind, whereas independence and alienation became the markers of psychological ill health ( Douglas-Fairhust, 2002 : ch. 3; Clark, 1988 ).

The emergence of psychology and sociology as academic disciplines at the end of the nineteenth century challenged such moral understandings of personality. There had been attempts in the work of Moritz Lazarus and Wilhelm Wundt to launch a form of folk psychology which could provide objective representations of this communal experience; however, the gradual institutionalisation of both psychology and sociology ended such experiments ( Klautke, 2010 ; Lepenies, 1988 ). In their stead the pioneers of both disciplines engaged in a period of intensive boundary work ( Cavalletto, 2007 : ch.1). Where Weber and Durkheim would rule out reference to psychological forces in the explanation of social phenomena, early psychologists, including Freud, attempted to depict social institutions as the outcome of emotional conflicts or developmental processes. Despite this territorial struggle, a faith in the close relationship of the sociological and the psychological persisted and by the early 1890s, the relationship took on a new substance and connotation. The statistical techniques that became the central research tools in both disciplines provided new ways of imagining and representing the psychosocial ( Bulmer et al. , 1991 ; Danziger, 1990 ; Desrosières, 1998: ch. 5)

In early descriptions, the word ‘psychosocial’ had two connotations. In the writings of ethologists and criminologists, it described a complex of factors which exist on the boundary of psychology and sociology, such as religious rituals and sexual mores ( McLane Hamilton, 1900 : 550; Gumplowicz, 1999[1899] : pt. 2, ch. 1). On a second, more complex level, in the writings of the writings of early psychologists such as J. M Baldwin and G. Stanley Hall, the term was used to describe the developmental stage around adolescence in which childish individualism is replaced by a sense of communal duty and integration: part of that moment in adolescence when the individual entered into the life of the race ( Baldwin, 1895 ; Hall, 1905 : II, 342-54). Such approaches, in the hands of later psychological commentators such as Freud and William McDougall, left social life dependent upon the play of biological instincts.

Left wing psychoanalysts led the resistance to the prioritising of the biological over the sociological in the explanation of individual and social behaviour. In the United States, Trigant Burrow, Karen Horney and Frankwood Williams used psychodynamic theories to sustain a radical critique of contemporary forms of social organisation ( Burrow, 1927 ; Horney, 1927 ; Williams, 1934 ). In a move that would anticipate the arguments of the Frankfurt School, they sought to demonstrate the psychopathological consequences of modern capitalism while demonstrating the foundational role of social life in the constitution of the psyche. In Britain, these arguments received their clearest articulation in the work of the heterodox Glaswegian psychoanalyst, Ian Suttie. Indeed, it is Suttie who established the term in British psychological discourse ( Suttie, 1922 ). A committed socialist and feminist, Suttie was unhappy with the orthodox psychoanalytic position characterised by Freud’s attempt to explain group solidarity through reference to the reproductive instinct. This was evident, Suttie believed, in the origin myths propounded in Totem and Taboo ( Freud (1990[1913]) ), in which Freud described the social group emerging from the shared sexual jealousy and fear exhibited by a ‘young ‘band of brothers’ toward their primal father. Suttie sought to displace this Oedipal narrative, rooted in a patriarchal framework, with a matriarchal theory which explained the growth of social bonds as an extension of the child’s love for his or her mother ( Suttie, 1960[1935] ).

Freud’s error, Suttie believed, was his uncritical adoption of the evolutionary theory of mental and racial recapitulation advanced by the German embryologist, Ernst Haeckel. Writing in the 1860s, Haeckel had claimed that the ontogenetic development of the individual recapitulated the phylogenetic development of the race. The infant shared in the primitive and magical thinking of uncivilised races whereas adults strove toward the enlightened rationality of modern Europeans. Suttie, by contrast, argued that forms of social organisation were not predetermined by the prehistory of the race but were in fact accidents of culture ( Suttie, 1924 ). There was, he thought, nothing natural or inevitable about patriarchy or the Oedipus complex: these were in fact distortions peculiar to Western civilisation. He looked to anthropological studies of the Arunta people of Australia to demonstrate the possibility of alternative forms of social and emotional organisation. Belief in the possibility of matriarchy received further succour from Margaret Mead's studies of Western Samoa ( 1928 ) and New Guinea (1935), and Robert Briffault’s wide ranging anthropological study, The Mothers (1936) (Passerini, 1999: ch. 4). Such studies underlined the idea that social organisation and psychological development were not predetermined by biological inheritance but contingent upon a series of historical factors. As Suttie made clear, the psychological and the sociological could not be disentangled. He argued in The Origins of Love and Hate that ‘psychologists are prone to describe mind as if it were an independent, self-contained but standardised entity, a number of which, grouped together in some mysterious way, constitutes a Society. The separation of the science of the Mind from that of Society is arbitrary’ (Suttie, 1960[1935]: 12-13).

This conflation of Mind and Society had two implications. First, it extended the possibility of therapy. Where Freud had insisted that the neurotic individual should be cured through the interrogation and recovery of their personal history, social psychologists and anthropologists insisted that individual personality could be remade through the creation of new forms of social organisation ( Thomson, 2006 : ch. 7; Overy, 2009: ch. 4). Drawing on the vocabulary of contemporary neurology (which itself was caught up in the language of British idealism), it became commonplace in interwar commentaries to hold up social integration as the key to psychological health ( Stapledon, 1939 : 292-99; Eliot, 1956 ; Smith, 2003 ). Second, following on from this, the conflation of mind and society promoted an implicit hierarchy in which the social took priority over the biological ( Smith, 2003 ). Escaping the claims of Haeckelian recapitulation that had held Freud in thrall, Suttie, Burrow and others were able to argue that cultural development had superseded biological evolution. As Suttie noted: ‘… it is glaringly obvious that the elaboration and accumulation of tradition and the devising of new ways of training and applying thought are quite independent of cerebral evolution’ (1924: 144). This dual understanding of the psychosocial would assume a central place in the philosophies of the two major British writers on the concept in the 1940s: James Halliday and Julian Huxley.

Halliday and Huxley: The psychosocial and the limits of biology

From the late 1930s until the 1950s, James Halliday commanded a broad audience in his attempt to the marry psychosomatic diagnoses advanced by Flanders Dunbar and Franz Alexander with the new epidemiologically grounded social medicine promoted by radical physicians and political reformers ( Porter, 1996 ). Working as an National Health Insurance investigator for the Glasgow Regional Health Board, Halliday saw the changing distribution of sickness claims recorded in the Department of Health’s annual returns as an index of the population’s declining psychological state. The growing level of psychopathology made manifest in the insurance returns could only be countered, Halliday believed, through a wholesale social and political reformation ( Hayward, 2009 ). In Halliday’s writings, as Andrew Hull makes clear in his contribution to this issue, the psychosocial is described as a kind of miasma of historical experience in which accumulated episodes of frustration and disappointment encourage the individual’s flight into illness. His analysis went beyond the individualistic models of primary and secondary gain developed in Freudian theory. Rather he depicted such psychopathological reversals as environmental responses experienced across large sections of the population (Halliday, 1949; Galdston, 1954 ).

The idea of the psychosocial as a new form of environment was taken up by the British biologist, Julian Huxley. Huxley shared Suttie’s conviction that the human species had escaped biological determinism, believing instead that it had entered an accelerated state of ‘psychosocial evolution’ characterised by the ever increasing frequency of cultural change ( Huxley, 1942 ). This hierarchical vision of biological, psychological, social and moral levels of reality had been present in Huxley’s writings from his early work on The Individual and the Animal Kingdom ( 1912 ), but by the Second World War, his concept of the psychosocial as a higher level of evolutionary development had taken on a more definitive form. Drawing on the ideas of the popular science broadcaster Gerald Heard, he argued that human evolution would involve the subjugation of man’s animal impulses to his conscious needs ( Heard, 1939 ). It demanded the surrender of individual aims to group ideals (Huxley, 1941). Evolutionary progress had moved from the level of the biological to the cultural and its realisation was dependent upon foresight, planning and control ( Huxley, 1942 : 571-78; 1966[1964] : 76). Although Huxley remained cautious about the over extension of biological analogies, as Mark Jackson shows in his contribution to this collection, it is striking how closely the next imagined stage in evolution matched the programmes of political reform sketched out by his Labour and Fabian contemporaries and his own colleagues in Political and Economic Planning (P.E.P. ( Marwick, 1964 )). It involved achievement of a higher form of personality through the rational control of biological resources.

The historiography of the psychosocial

In tracing the emergence of this new conceptual apparatus and the forms of identity that it made possible, the essays included here build upon the extensive historical inquiries carried out by Nikolas Rose and other members of History of the Present Network. Inspired by the work of Jacques Donzelot and Michel Foucault, these writers provided provided rich (and sometimes dazzling) accounts of the role of psychological knowledge in the constitution of modern welfare states. They concentrated on the way that psychological and sociological language and techniques made available new forms of identity and new kinds of social relationship. The writings of Rose and Peter Miller followed Foucault and Gilles Deleuze in emphasizing the productive effects of power (Rose, 1990; Miller and Rose, 2008 ). In their accounts, the rise of the psychological sciences made tangible a new domain of government populated with novel objects and forces.

More recently, revisionist social historians (notably Joanna Bourke and Mathew Thomson) have contested the defined historical narrative put forward by Rose and others. Instead of focusing on the relationship between subjectivity and government, these authors have sought to emphasise the multiplicity of actors and the various agendas involved in the production of psychological knowledge ( Bourke, 1996 ; Thomson, 2006 , 2007 ). Whereas Rose and Miller emphasize the role of state agencies such as Child Guidance Clinics or military selection boards in the production of a new psychological framework, Thomson and Bourke stress the parts taken by autonomous groups, play and popular entertainment in creating spaces in which new identities can be articulated and new transformative techniques explored ( Thomson, 2006 , 2007 ). These spaces, as Bourke has argued, make possible new forms of embodied experience which in turn provide the grounds for new psychological categories ( Bourke, 2003 , 2005 ).

Imagining the psychosocial

While the articles in this special issue all draw upon Foucauldian and revisionist approaches, their emphasis is different. Indebted to recent work in the history of science and medicine, their authors pay closer attention to the particular local conditions that give rise to new theories of psychosocial reconstruction, and the tools and concepts that have made such theories possible. They address four major questions: How is the psychosocial imagined? What tools are involved in making it visible? What values are encoded in the concept and how is the relationship between the category of the psychosocial and the biological imagined?

Of the contributions to this issue, two focus upon North American developments and the other five upon the United Kingdom. Mark Jackson opens the collection with a study of how Hans Selye, the champion of stress theory, extended his physiological studies to rationalise utopian schemes of social re-organisation, while Ed Ramsden explores the U.S. ethologist, John B. Calhoun’s attempt to model new forms of urban development in laboratory rat experiments. In the British studies, Andrew Hull examines James Halliday’s work, arguing for its location in a particular Glaswegian tradition of medical holism. Edgar Jones and Ian Burney both focus upon wartime investigations into the effects of aerial bombardment while Jonathan Toms and Teri Chettiar consider the role of the psychosocial in postwar mental hygiene and family therapy.

All these articles emphasise how the disruption wrought by war and modernity rendered the psychosocial visible. Slum clearance, aerial bombardment or organised labour schemes, as Ramsden, Hull and Burney show, transformed the social environment into a kind of experimental laboratory in which the effects of different test conditions upon a population could be measured and compared (c.f. McGonigle and Kirby, 1936 ). Moreover, it was the administrative machinery of the welfare state, developed (arguably) around the problems of modernity, that produced the vast aggregations of personal data, in doctors' records and insurance returns, that served as indices of the nation’s psychological health. These new forms of administration, as Edgar Jones makes clear, did not simply record the data upon which psychosocial theories would be grafted: they instead produced it. Wartime investigations into civilian and military neuroses elicited new patterns of somatisation -- gastric disorder in particular. As many of these studies show, the space of psychosocial analysis was opened up by the bodies and behaviour of men, women and animals under investigation.

The vast range of symptoms and behaviours recorded in the administrative machinery of the welfare state were rendered meaningful through the concept of stress. Whereas Freudian models of the unconscious have provided an imaginative mechanism for joining personal characteristics and physical disturbances to episodes in the individual past, stress escaped the individual frame. It provided a kind of conceptual glue which allowed individual failings -- whether physical, mental, social or intellectual -- to be joined to broader transformations in society or the environment. Stress is thus a productive concept allowing any number of experiences, institutions and events to be joined together to create a new landscape of meaning.

The values of the psychosocial

As seen in our discussion of Huxley and Halliday, a hierarchical vision of the relationship between culture and biology was implicit in the concept of the psychosocial. The concept also encoded a normative model of human relationships. This model, as Toms and Chettiar make clear, drew heavily on mid twentieth-century ideas of the family. Family provided a useful resource for connecting emotion and power, for setting out criteria for development and for thinking through the pathological or enabling effects of dependence and independence. Family had come under close psychiatric scrutiny during the war, as the evacuation of children and the separation of couples through mobilisation constituted a kind of natural experiment. In Bowlby’s work on evacuees, Woodside and Slater’s studies of separated families and Curle and Trist’s work on the domestic disruption created by returning prisoners of war, the family structure was revealed as delicately balanced between competing psychological needs ( Savage, 2011 ). Although the idea of psychosocial health was predicated upon the idea of the family, it was, as Chettiar demonstrates, a historically specific idea rooted in twentieth-century notions of the companionate marriage and of equality (c.f. Langhammer, 2007 ).

The psychosocial and the return of biology

In the writings of Suttie, Huxley and others, the concept of the psychosocial had been used to limit the claims of biology. It allowed for a vision of human progress to be developed which overrode ideas of racial evolution and claims of the superiority of particular ethnic groups sustained by these ideas. By the 1960s, however, this attempt to use the psychosocial to limit the jurisdiction of biology had all but failed. As Mark Jackson shows in his essay on Selye, the languages of biology and sociology remained closely bound, as scientists and social commentators turned to examples from physiology and cell biology to imagine and describe complex social processes. And it was this same metaphorical co-dependence that opened up once again the possibility of re-describing social relationships in biological terms. By the early 1960s, ethologists and evolutionary psychologists were articulating a new understanding of biological politics that would in the decades that followed eclipse the claims of the psychosocial (c.f. Harraway, 1990 ; Segerstrale, 2001 ). This vision of biology was itself very different from the version that had developed in the interwar period. It took the material of the psychosocial -- questions of rank, hierarchy, dependence and personal distress -- and recast it in biological terms. And through this process, it made available a new set of signs and objects through which society, health and human relationships could be imagined. The return to biological objects (such as cortisol counts or FMRI scans) to measure social relationships in some ways marks the end of the psychosocial project. Certainly contemporary schemes of psychological welfare, such as those developed around the happiness agenda and wellbeing economics championed in Western democracies, increasingly rely upon biological models of emotion and mental disorder to ground their programmes. A concept which had been used to mark the limits of biological explanation in the years after the Second World War is now itself imagined in biological terms.

Biographical note

Rhodri Hayward is a Senior Lecturer in the History of Medicine at Queen Mary, University of London. He has published on the history of dreams, Pentecostalism, demonology, cybernetics, and the relations between psychiatry and primary care. His current research examines the rise and political implications of psychiatric epidemiology in modern Britain. His book Resisting History: Popular Religion and the Invention of the Unconscious was published by Manchester University Press in 2007. His new books, Psychiatry in Modern Britain and Between History and Chemistry: Remaking the Self in Modern Primary Care will both be published by Bloomsbury in 2013.

• DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199958450.013.0029
• Corpus ID: 199173848

Moral development: The social domain theory view.

• Published 2013
• Psychology, Philosophy

81 Citations

Adolescents’ expectations for types of victim retaliation following direct bullying.

• Highly Influenced

Ecclesiast: A Novel Exploring Atheist Morality & Discrimination in Indonesia

Children and adolescents’ ingroup biases and developmental differences in evaluations of peers who misinform, contributions of social domain theory for the study of exclusion: a systematic literature review, adolescent views of civic responsibility and civic efficacy: differences by rurality and socioeconomic status, a admiração influencia o julgamento sobre o machucar:, the influence of power on u.s. and chinese individuals’ judgments and reasoning about intrasocietal conflicts, mother–child conversations about children's moral wrongdoing: a constructivist perspective on moral socialization, mothers' orientations to infants' moral, prudential, and pragmatic transgressions, gender-based associations between college students' disclosure to siblings and disclosure to best friends or romantic partners, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Step-by-step guide to hypothesis testing in statistics

Hypothesis testing in statistics helps us use data to make informed decisions. It starts with an assumption or guess about a group or population—something we believe might be true. We then collect sample data to check if there is enough evidence to support or reject that guess. This method is useful in many fields, like science, business, and healthcare, where decisions need to be based on facts.

Learning how to do hypothesis testing in statistics step-by-step can help you better understand data and make smarter choices, even when things are uncertain. This guide will take you through each step, from creating your hypothesis to making sense of the results, so you can see how it works in practical situations.

What is Hypothesis Testing?

Table of Contents

Hypothesis testing is a method for determining whether data supports a certain idea or assumption about a larger group. It starts by making a guess, like an average or a proportion, and then uses a small sample of data to see if that guess seems true or not.

For example, if a company wants to know if its new product is more popular than its old one, it can use hypothesis testing. They start with a statement like “The new product is not more popular than the old one” (this is the null hypothesis) and compare it with “The new product is more popular” (this is the alternative hypothesis). Then, they look at customer feedback to see if there’s enough evidence to reject the first statement and support the second one.

Simply put, hypothesis testing is a way to use data to help make decisions and understand what the data is really telling us, even when we don’t have all the answers.

Importance Of Hypothesis Testing In Decision-Making And Data Analysis

Hypothesis testing is important because it helps us make smart choices and understand data better. Here’s why it’s useful:

• Reduces Guesswork : It helps us see if our guesses or ideas are likely correct, even when we don’t have all the details.
• Uses Real Data : Instead of just guessing, it checks if our ideas match up with real data, which makes our decisions more reliable.
• Avoids Errors : It helps us avoid mistakes by carefully checking if our ideas are right so we don’t make costly errors.
• Shows What to Do Next : It tells us if our ideas work or not, helping us decide whether to keep, change, or drop something. For example, a company might test a new ad and decide what to do based on the results.
• Confirms Research Findings : It makes sure that research results are accurate and not just random chance so that we can trust the findings.

Here’s a simple guide to understanding hypothesis testing, with an example:

1. Set Up Your Hypotheses

Explanation: Start by defining two statements:

• Null Hypothesis (H0): This is the idea that there is no change or effect. It’s what you assume is true.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): This is what you want to test. It suggests there is a change or effect.

Example: Suppose a company says their new batteries last an average of 500 hours. To check this:

• Null Hypothesis (H0): The average battery life is 500 hours.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): The average battery life is not 500 hours.

2. Choose the Test

Explanation: Pick a statistical test that fits your data and your hypotheses. Different tests are used for various kinds of data.

Example: Since you’re comparing the average battery life, you use a one-sample t-test .

3. Set the Significance Level

Explanation: Decide how much risk you’re willing to take if you make a wrong decision. This is called the significance level, often set at 0.05 or 5%.

Example: You choose a significance level of 0.05, meaning you’re okay with a 5% chance of being wrong.

4. Gather and Analyze Data

Explanation: Collect your data and perform the test. Calculate the test statistic to see how far your sample result is from what you assumed.

Example: You test 30 batteries and find they last an average of 485 hours. You then calculate how this average compares to the claimed 500 hours using the t-test.

5. Find the p-Value

Explanation: The p-value tells you the probability of getting a result as extreme as yours if the null hypothesis is true.

Example: You find a p-value of 0.0001. This means there’s a very small chance (0.01%) of getting an average battery life of 485 hours or less if the true average is 500 hours.

6. Make Your Decision

Explanation: Compare the p-value to your significance level. If the p-value is smaller, you reject the null hypothesis. If it’s larger, you do not reject it.

Example: Since 0.0001 is much less than 0.05, you reject the null hypothesis. This means the data suggests the average battery life is different from 500 hours.

7. Report Your Findings

Explanation: Summarize what the results mean. State whether you rejected the null hypothesis and what that implies.

Example: You conclude that the average battery life is likely different from 500 hours. This suggests the company’s claim might not be accurate.

Hypothesis testing is a way to use data to check if your guesses or assumptions are likely true. By following these steps—setting up your hypotheses, choosing the right test, deciding on a significance level, analyzing your data, finding the p-value, making a decision, and reporting results—you can determine if your data supports or challenges your initial idea.

Understanding Hypothesis Testing: A Simple Explanation

Hypothesis testing is a way to use data to make decisions. Here’s a straightforward guide:

1. What is the Null and Alternative Hypotheses?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): This is your starting assumption. It says that nothing has changed or that there is no effect. It’s what you assume to be true until your data shows otherwise. Example: If a company says their batteries last 500 hours, the null hypothesis is: “The average battery life is 500 hours.” This means you think the claim is correct unless you find evidence to prove otherwise.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): This is what you want to find out. It suggests that there is an effect or a difference. It’s what you are testing to see if it might be true. Example: To test the company’s claim, you might say: “The average battery life is not 500 hours.” This means you think the average battery life might be different from what the company says.

2. One-Tailed vs. Two-Tailed Tests

• One-Tailed Test: This test checks for an effect in only one direction. You use it when you’re only interested in finding out if something is either more or less than a specific value. Example: If you think the battery lasts longer than 500 hours, you would use a one-tailed test to see if the battery life is significantly more than 500 hours.
• Two-Tailed Test: This test checks for an effect in both directions. Use this when you want to see if something is different from a specific value, whether it’s more or less. Example: If you want to see if the battery life is different from 500 hours, whether it’s more or less, you would use a two-tailed test. This checks for any significant difference, regardless of the direction.

3. Common Misunderstandings

• Clarification: Hypothesis testing doesn’t prove that the null hypothesis is true. It just helps you decide if you should reject it. If there isn’t enough evidence against it, you don’t reject it, but that doesn’t mean it’s definitely true.
• Clarification: A small p-value shows that your data is unlikely if the null hypothesis is true. It suggests that the alternative hypothesis might be right, but it doesn’t prove the null hypothesis is false.
• Clarification: The significance level (alpha) is a set threshold, like 0.05, that helps you decide how much risk you’re willing to take for making a wrong decision. It should be chosen carefully, not randomly.
• Clarification: Hypothesis testing helps you make decisions based on data, but it doesn’t guarantee your results are correct. The quality of your data and the right choice of test affect how reliable your results are.

Benefits and Limitations of Hypothesis Testing

• Clear Decisions: Hypothesis testing helps you make clear decisions based on data. It shows whether the evidence supports or goes against your initial idea.
• Objective Analysis: It relies on data rather than personal opinions, so your decisions are based on facts rather than feelings.
• Concrete Numbers: You get specific numbers, like p-values, to understand how strong the evidence is against your idea.
• Control Risk: You can set a risk level (alpha level) to manage the chance of making an error, which helps avoid incorrect conclusions.
• Widely Used: It can be used in many areas, from science and business to social studies and engineering, making it a versatile tool.

Limitations

• Sample Size Matters: The results can be affected by the size of the sample. Small samples might give unreliable results, while large samples might find differences that aren’t meaningful in real life.
• Risk of Misinterpretation: A small p-value means the results are unlikely if the null hypothesis is true, but it doesn’t show how important the effect is.
• Needs Assumptions: Hypothesis testing requires certain conditions, like data being normally distributed . If these aren’t met, the results might not be accurate.
• Simple Decisions: It often results in a basic yes or no decision without giving detailed information about the size or impact of the effect.
• Can Be Misused: Sometimes, people misuse hypothesis testing, tweaking data to get a desired result or focusing only on whether the result is statistically significant.
• No Absolute Proof: Hypothesis testing doesn’t prove that your hypothesis is true. It only helps you decide if there’s enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, so the conclusions are based on likelihood, not certainty.

Final Thoughts 

Hypothesis testing helps you make decisions based on data. It involves setting up your initial idea, picking a significance level, doing the test, and looking at the results. By following these steps, you can make sure your conclusions are based on solid information, not just guesses.

This approach lets you see if the evidence supports or contradicts your initial idea, helping you make better decisions. But remember that hypothesis testing isn’t perfect. Things like sample size and assumptions can affect the results, so it’s important to be aware of these limitations.

In simple terms, using a step-by-step guide for hypothesis testing is a great way to better understand your data. Follow the steps carefully and keep in mind the method’s limits.

What is the difference between one-tailed and two-tailed tests?

 A one-tailed test assesses the probability of the observed data in one direction (either greater than or less than a certain value). In contrast, a two-tailed test looks at both directions (greater than and less than) to detect any significant deviation from the null hypothesis.

How do you choose the appropriate test for hypothesis testing?

The choice of test depends on the type of data you have and the hypotheses you are testing. Common tests include t-tests, chi-square tests, and ANOVA. You get more details about ANOVA, you may read Complete Details on What is ANOVA in Statistics ?  It’s important to match the test to the data characteristics and the research question.

What is the role of sample size in hypothesis testing?  

Sample size affects the reliability of hypothesis testing. Larger samples provide more reliable estimates and can detect smaller effects, while smaller samples may lead to less accurate results and reduced power.

Can hypothesis testing prove that a hypothesis is true?  

Hypothesis testing cannot prove that a hypothesis is true. It can only provide evidence to support or reject the null hypothesis. A result can indicate whether the data is consistent with the null hypothesis or not, but it does not prove the alternative hypothesis with certainty.

Related Posts

How to Find the Best Online Statistics Homework Help

Why SPSS Homework Help Is An Important aspect for Students?

Leave a comment cancel reply.

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