Skip to main content

How Do You Formulate a Testable Exciting Hypothesis?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
How to Write a Successful Research Grant Application
  • 4847 Accesses

Abstract

The first reaction of many reviewers to a research proposal or a journal article is either excitement or boredom. If the proposal is boring, they are unlikely to vote a high rating. In almost any science, a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be important – which in this context means being fundable, being reportable in good scientific journals, and perhaps having an impact on the field – is that it is exciting. When you talk to your friends about your research idea, your proposal should elicit excitement; if it does not, you should think more about your ideas. This chapter suggests that when someone expounds a belief or a theory, excitement is created by the credible possibility that it is not true. The greatest compliment to the person proposing the idea is to say, “I do not believe it!” This chapter shows that a way to generate excitement is to compare two or more reasonable hypotheses and propose research to show that one of them predicts data better than the other(s). It will help you to craft a proposal that says, “I believe that these relationships hold and I am going to test them in such a way that I predict something that others do not predict.”

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Carroll, J., Wiener, R.I., Coates, D., Galegher, J., & Alibrio, I.S. (1982). Evaluation, diagnosis and prediction in parole decision making. Law and Society Review, 35, 199–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M. (1971). A case study of graduate admission: Applications of three principles of human decision making. American Psychologist, 26, 180–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M., & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P.E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., & Feeney, G.J. (1968). The importance of the data generating model in probability estimation. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 42, 62–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, P. (1972). The biggest public health experiment ever: 1954 field trial of the Sulk poliomyelitis vaccine (pp. 2–13). In Tanu, J.M., Mosteller, F., Kruskal, W.A., Link, R.F., Pieters, R.S., & Rising, G.R. (eds.). Statistics: A Guide to the Unknown. San Francisco: Holden-Day.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robyn Dawes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dawes, R. (2010). How Do You Formulate a Testable Exciting Hypothesis?. In: Pequegnat, W., Stover, E., Boyce, C. (eds) How to Write a Successful Research Grant Application. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1454-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1454-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1453-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1454-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics