THE DECLINING RELEVANCE OF HYPOTHESES IN CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH: TOWARD FLEXIBLE, EXPLORATORY, AND DATA-DRIVEN INQUIRY

Wycliffe Amukowa, Jane Kere Imbunya

Abstract


For decades, the hypothesis has occupied a central position in research methodology, particularly within positivist and hypothetico-deductive traditions. Historically, research quality was frequently judged by the formulation and testing of hypotheses through empirical procedures. However, contemporary developments in qualitative inquiry, mixed methods research, grounded theory, big data analytics, complexity theory, pragmatism, and post-positivist philosophy increasingly challenge the necessity of hypotheses as a universal requirement. This paper presents a meta-analytic and philosophical argument that the traditional hypothesis is no longer indispensable in modern scholarship and, in many contexts, has become methodologically restrictive. Drawing from methodological literature across the social sciences, education, philosophy of science, qualitative inquiry, and data science, this study demonstrates that many contemporary research designs operate effectively without formal hypotheses. The paper proposes alternative frameworks for conducting rigorous research without hypotheses, including exploratory research questions, abductive reasoning, grounded theory, thematic inquiry, emergent design, and data-driven discovery models. The paper concludes that while hypotheses remain useful in some experimental and confirmatory studies, they should no longer be treated as mandatory components of all scholarly research.

Keywords


hypothesis, research methodology, grounded theory, exploratory research, post-positivism, qualitative inquiry, abductive reasoning, emergent research design, data-driven research

Full Text:

PDF

References


Amsteus, M. N. (2014). The validity of divergent grounded theory method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 281–300. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300133

Avis, M. (2003). Do we need methodological theory to do qualitative research? Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303253298

Bonell, C., & Moore, G. (2018). Are randomised controlled trials positivist? Trials, 19(238), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2589-4

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/The_Discovery_of_Grounded_Theory.html?id=oUxEAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

Hernandez, C. A. (2008). Are there two methods of grounded theory? Grounded Theory Review, 7(2).

Holton, J. A. (2008). Grounded theory as a general research methodology. Grounded Theory Review, 7(2).

Jun, E., Birchfield, M., de Moura, N., Heer, J., & Just, R. (2021). Hypothesis formalization: Empirical findings, software limitations, and design implications. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02657

Levers, M. D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE Open, 3(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243

Schneider, J. W. (2015). Null hypothesis significance tests: A mix-up of two different theories. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06866

Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918758086

Åge, L. J. (2011). Grounded theory methodology: Positivism, hermeneutics, and pragmatism. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1319

Zanotti, L. (2004). Talking hypothetically: The Duhem–Quine thesis and the demise of hypothetico-deductivism. Geoforum, 35(6), 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.06.005




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejsss.v12i3.2217

Copyright (c) 2026 Wycliffe Amukowa, Jane Kere Imbunya

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2016 - 2026. European Journal Of Social Sciences Studies (ISSN 2501-8590) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and  Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.