What does "motivating" a hypothesis mean in dissertation writing? What are some best practices to theoretically frame my hypothesis(es) for scholarship, a presentation, and/or a journal?

Answer 1

Motivating a Hypothesis - Simple Steps to Demystifying the Pre-Hypothetical, Theoretical Framework and Argumentation Section of a Quantitative/Hypo-Deductive Dissertation or Journal Section

  

Many who read that question prompt may now be asking, "Motivating a what!?!? How can a hypothesis be motivated?" However, some of us, particularly new quantitative or (post-positivist/) positivist scholars, will not only have heard that phrase, but we may also be quite daunted in our need to accomplish this act. 

 

What is it?

"Motivating a hypothesis" is phrase that refers to the systematic argumentation and logical explanation for why you believe the predicted relationships between your focal variables occur. Instead of just dropping your hypothesis(es) into a paper without explicitly setting them up, the pre-hypothetical section of a theoretical framework allows other scholars and scientists to understand your a priori (think “before observation” in Latin) uses of precedent, extant studies, and/or theory to bridge novel relationships. Just prior to actually stating your formal hypothesis, you’ll work through this process that can be referred to as a hypo-deductive method.

 

How to "do" it?

One of the successes I have had with my tens of dozens of doctoral students, committees, and advisees is to walk them through the following simplified steps for motivating hypotheses (in a hypo-deductive method). With some variance across discipline expectations and field rigor, this hypothesis motivation can take anywhere from a paragraph (on the low end) to multiple pages per hypothesis.

 

Summary Upfront

Start by stating your hypothesis in plain English, define/characterize the focal variables, introduce and walk through the theory and/or logic that allows you to bridge the variables, and then restate your hypothesis informally/formally.

 

First step –

Prior to trying out the remaining steps below, I encourage you to find what a I'll call a template article (or an article you can model your writing on) from a quantitative, peer-reviewed study published in a respected journal of your discipline (ask me separately about journal rankings). Find the theoretical framework and pre-hypothesis, argumentation section of the article (look at the paragraphs just prior to the first hypothesis). Then compare how they go about tackling my recommended steps below (e.g., does the template article skip portions below, overly develop, add more, and, most importantly, how do they communicate these steps below). Disclaimer: These are steps are not meant to address every discipline or situation. However, they are generic steps that I’ve been able to help many with getting started (and from which to deviate according to their particular study's needs -- I'd be happy to help personalize them for you).

 

Second step – 

Draft out your hypothesis in plain language as if you were sharing with a friend. You can start your drafting simple, e.g., "This study will argue that x leads to y given the theory of ABC."

 

Third step –

Define and/or characterize the focal variables in this particular hypothesis according to citations that matter in this stream of research. E.g., "Author (2025), defines [the study's predictor variable, xx,] as the…. This construct has been previously found to relate to [share relevant, extant relationships/study findings]…(Citation, 2023)"

 

Fourth step –

Returning to the novel relationship you're proposing between the focal variables, explain what theory and/or argument allows you to posit the [new] relationship. E.g., “…while Social & Scientist found similar results with the slightly related construct of [different but similar variable] (2024), this study uses the social theory of SSTT to argue that x leads to y. The social theory of SSTT has been explained as…. (Scholar, 2023). In this context, SSTT enables the x to ….and so on." For this section, really study how your template article models the theoretical argumentation. If you still would like help, let me know. I help quite often here.

 

Fifth step –

If you haven't in the prior step, walk through your positive and negative relationships in plain English. Speaking of which, what do I mean by a positive relationship? When your predictor variable has a high score, walk us through what you expect. E.g., use the SSTT social theory above to explain the consequences on your outcome variable if the predictor has a high score/level. Visa versa, now walk through in plain English what you expect when your predictor variable is negative.

 

Sixth step –

You're almost done. Often, top-tier studies will then wrap up their hypo-deductive argumentation by stating the hypothesis one more time in plain English (written similarly as up in the Second step) before, separately writing the formal hypothesis. The formal hypothesis is often formatted as a bolded "Hypothesis 1: …." or "H1:…" depending on your program or journal's formatting requirements (again, let me know if I can help with quantitative design or formatting). Once you've done this and the above steps for all your hypotheses, you're "hypothetically" done (at least with your first draft and I'll quit trying puns ;).

Answer 2

"Motivating" a hypothesis in dissertation writing means providing a strong rationale for why your hypothesis is important, relevant, and logically derived from existing research and theory. It involves demonstrating the gap in the literature, justifying the theoretical basis, and linking the hypothesis to broader scholarly conversations.

Best Practices for Theoretically Framing Your Hypothesis

1. Root Your Hypothesis in Theory

1. Clearly define the theoretical framework that underpins your hypothesis.
2. Use established theories, conceptual models, or prior empirical findings to justify why your hypothesis is plausible.
3. Example: If studying intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ community, using the Minority Stress Theory or Intersectionality Theory can strengthen your argument.

2. Identify Gaps in Literature

1. Show how existing studies have addressed (or failed to address) similar research questions.
2. Emphasize contradictions, limitations, or underexplored areas in previous research.
3. Example: "While prior studies have examined IPV in heterosexual relationships, there is limited research on how substance use and mental health intersect with IPV in LGBTQ relationships."

3. Establish Logical Progression

1. Explain how your independent variables influence the dependent variable logically.
2. Use causal mechanisms or explanatory pathways to bridge the theoretical framework and the hypothesis.
3. Example: "According to the ABCX Model, stress appraisal and resources moderate the impact of stressors on parenting. Thus, I hypothesize that parental resilience will mediate the relationship between economic hardship and parenting stress."

4. Make Your Hypothesis Testable

1. Ensure your hypothesis is specific, measurable, and falsifiable.
2. Example: "Individuals with higher levels of internalized homophobia will report greater intent to stay in toxic relationships due to increased self-blame and lower perceived alternatives."

5. Tailor Framing for Different Audiences

1. Scholarship/Dissertation: Provide comprehensive theoretical grounding and cite key scholars.
2. Presentation: Use concise and compelling statements to keep your audience engaged.
3. Journal Article: Align with the theoretical frameworks dominant in that journal’s discipline.

6. Use Visual Aids (for Presentations & Papers)

1. A conceptual model or theoretical diagram can help illustrate how variables relate.
2. Example: A flowchart showing how mental health mediates the relationship between past trauma and IPV risk.

I hope this was helpful. If you have additional questions about this process, please let me know.

Take care,

Dr. Christal-Joy Turner