explanatory research paper

• Explanatory Research: Types, Examples, Pros & Cons

Explanatory research is designed to do exactly what it sounds like: explain, and explore. You ask questions, learn about your target market, and develop hypotheses for testing in your study. This article will take you through some of the types of explanatory research and what they are used for.

What is Explanatory Research?

Explanatory research is defined as a strategy used for collecting data for the purpose of explaining a phenomenon. Because the phenomenon being studied began with a single piece of data, it is up to the researcher to collect more pieces of data. 

In other words, explanatory research is a method used to investigate a phenomenon (a situation worth studying) that had not been studied before or had not been well explained previously in a proper way. It is a process in which the purpose is to find out what would be a potential answer to the problem.

This method of research enables you to find out what does not work as well as what does and once you have found this information, you can take measures for developing better alternatives that would improve the process being studied. The goal of explanatory research is to answer the question “How,” and it is most often conducted by people who want to understand why something works the way it does, or why something happens as it does.

Read: How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

By using this method, researchers are able to explain why something is happening and how it happens. In other words, explanatory research can be used to “explain” something, by providing the right context. This is usually done through the use of surveys and interviews.

Importance of Explanatory Research

Explanatory research helps researchers to better understand a subject, but it does not help them to predict what might happen in the future. Explanatory research is also known by other names, such as ex post facto (Latin for “after the fact”) and causal research.

The most important goal of explanatory research is to help understand a given phenomenon. This can be done through basic or applied research . 

Basic explanatory research, also known as pure or fundamental research, is conducted without any specific real-world application in mind. Applied explanatory research attempts to develop new knowledge that can be used to improve humans’ everyday lives. 

Read: How to Write a Thesis Statement for Your Research: Tips + Examples

For example, you might want to know why people buy certain products, why companies change their business processes, or what motivates people in the workplace. Explanatory research starts with a theory or hypothesis and then gathers evidence to prove or disprove the theory. 

Most explanatory research uses surveys to gather information from a pool of respondents . The results will then provide information about the target population as a whole.

Purpose of Explanatory Research

The purpose of explanatory research is to explore a topic and develop a deeper understanding of it so that it can be described or explained more fully. The researcher sets out with a specific question or hypothesis in mind, which will guide the data collection and analysis process.

Explanatory research can take any number of forms, from experimental studies in which researchers test a hypothesis by manipulating variables, to interviews and surveys that are used to gather insights from participants about their experiences. Explanatory research seeks neither to generate new knowledge nor solve a specific problem; rather it seeks to understand why something happens.

For example, imagine that you would like to know whether one’s age affects his or her ability to use a particular type of computer software. You develop the hypothesis that older people will have more difficulty using the software than younger people. 

In order to test your hypothesis and learn more about the relationship between age and software usage, you design and conduct an explanatory study.

Read: How to Write An Abstract For Research Papers: Tips & Examples

Characteristics of Explanatory Research

Explanatory research is used to explain something that has already happened but it doesn’t try to control anything, nor does it seek to predict what will happen. Instead, its aim is to understand what has happened when it comes to a certain phenomenon.

Here are some of the characteristics of explanatory research, they include:

• It is used when the researcher wants to explain the relationship between two variables that the researcher cannot manipulate. This means that the researcher must rely on secondary data instead to understand the variables.
• In explanatory research, the data is collected before the study begins and is usually collected by a different individual/organization than that of the researcher.
• Explanatory research does not involve random sampling or random allocation (the process of assigning subjects and participants to different study groups).

Types of Explanatory Research

Explanatory research generally focuses on the “why” questions. For example, a business might ask why customers aren’t buying their product or how they can improve their sales process. Types of explanatory research include:

1. Case studies: Case studies allow researchers to examine companies that experienced the same situation as them. This helps them understand what worked and what didn’t work for the other company.

 Explore: Formplus Customer Success Stories and Case Studies

2. Literature research: Literature research involves examining and reviewing existing academic literature on a topic related to your projects, such as a particular strategy or method. Literature research allows researchers to see how other people have discussed a similar problem and how they arrived at their conclusions.

3. Observations: Observations involve gathering information by observing events without interfering with them. They’re useful for gathering information about social interactions, such as who talks to whom on a subway platform or how people react to certain ads in public spaces, like billboards and bus shelters.

4. Pilot studies: Pilot studies are small versions of larger studies that help researchers prepare for larger studies by testing out methods, procedures, or instruments before using them in the final study design.

Read: Research Report: Definition, Types + [Writing Guide]

5. Focus groups: Focus groups involves gathering a group of people so participants can share opinions, instead of answering questions

Difference between Explanatory and Exploratory Research

Explanatory research is a type of research that answers the question “why.” It explains why something happens and it helps to understand what caused something to happen.

Explanatory research always has a clear objective in mind, and it’s all about the execution of that objective. Its main focus is to answer questions like “why?” and “how?”

Exploratory research on the other hand is a form of observational research, meaning that it involves observing and measuring what already exists. Exploratory research is also used when the researcher doesn’t know what they’re looking for. 

Its purpose is to help researchers better understand a subject so that they can develop a theory. It is not about drawing any conclusion but about learning more about the subject. 

Examples of Explanatory Research

Explanatory research will make it easier to find explanations for things that are difficult to understand. 

For example, if you’re trying to figure out why someone got sick, explanatory research can help you look at all of your options and figure out what happened.

In this way, it is also used in order to determine whether or not something was caused by a person or an event. If a person was involved, you might want to consider looking at other people who may have been involved as well.

It can also be useful for determining whether or not the person who caused the problem has changed over time. This can be especially helpful when you’re dealing with a long-term relationship where there have been many changes.

Read: 21 Chrome Extensions for Academic Researchers in 2022

Let us assume a researcher wants to figure out what happened during an accident and how it happened. 

Explanatory research will try to understand if a person was driving while intoxicated, or if the person had been under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of their death. If they were not, then they may have had some other medical condition that caused them to pass away unexpectedly.

In the two examples, explanatory research wanted to answer the question of what happened and why did it happen.

Advantages of Explanatory Research

Here are some of the advantages of explanatory research:

• Explanatory research can explain how something happened
• It also helps to understand a cause of a phenomenon
• It is great in predicting what will happen in the future based on observations made today.
• It is also a great way to start your research if you are unfamiliar with the subject.

Disadvantages of Explanatory Research

Explanatory research is beneficial in many ways as listed above, but here are a few of the disadvantages of explanatory research.

1. Clarity on what is not known: The first disadvantage is that this kind of research is not always clear about what is and isn’t known. Which means it doesn’t always make the best use of existing information or knowledge.

You need to be specific about what you know already and how much more there might be left for future studies in order for this kind of research project to be useful at all times. This can help avoid wasting time by focusing on an issue that has already been studied enough without knowing it yet (or vice versa).

2. No clear hypothesis: Another disadvantage is that when designing experiments using this method there often isn’t any clear hypothesis about what will happen next which makes it impossible for scientists to predict

Explanatory research is taking a topic and explaining it thoroughly so that audiences have a better understanding of the topic in question. With explanatory research, having great explanations takes on more importance, so if you are a researcher in the social science field, you might want to put it to use.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• analytical thesis statement
• causal research
• explanatory research
• exploratory research
• target population
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

How to do a Meta Analysis: Methodology, Pros & Cons

In this article, we’ll go through the concept of meta-analysis, what it can be used for, and how you can use it to improve how you...

Descriptive Research Designs: Types, Examples & Methods

Ultimate guide to Descriptive research. Definitions, designs, types, examples and methodology.

How to Write a Thesis Statement for Your Research: Tips + Examples

In this article, we’ll show you how to create different types of thesis statements plus examples you can learn from.

Exploratory Research: What are its Method & Examples?

Overview on exploratory research, examples and methodology. Shows guides on how to conduct exploratory research with online surveys

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• How to write an expository essay

How to Write an Expository Essay | Structure, Tips & Examples

Published on July 14, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

“Expository” means “intended to explain or describe something.” An expository essay provides a clear, focused explanation of a particular topic, process, or set of ideas. It doesn’t set out to prove a point, just to give a balanced view of its subject matter.

Expository essays are usually short assignments intended to test your composition skills or your understanding of a subject. They tend to involve less research and original arguments than argumentative essays .

Table of contents

When should you write an expository essay, how to approach an expository essay, introducing your essay, writing the body paragraphs, concluding your essay, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about expository essays.

In school and university, you might have to write expository essays as in-class exercises, exam questions, or coursework assignments.

Sometimes it won’t be directly stated that the assignment is an expository essay, but there are certain keywords that imply expository writing is required. Consider the prompts below.

The word “explain” here is the clue: An essay responding to this prompt should provide an explanation of this historical process—not necessarily an original argument about it.

Sometimes you’ll be asked to define a particular term or concept. This means more than just copying down the dictionary definition; you’ll be expected to explore different ideas surrounding the term, as this prompt emphasizes.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

An expository essay should take an objective approach: It isn’t about your personal opinions or experiences. Instead, your goal is to provide an informative and balanced explanation of your topic. Avoid using the first or second person (“I” or “you”).

The structure of your expository essay will vary according to the scope of your assignment and the demands of your topic. It’s worthwhile to plan out your structure before you start, using an essay outline .

A common structure for a short expository essay consists of five paragraphs: An introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Like all essays, an expository essay begins with an introduction . This serves to hook the reader’s interest, briefly introduce your topic, and provide a thesis statement summarizing what you’re going to say about it.

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how a typical introduction works.

In many ways, the invention of the printing press marked the end of the Middle Ages. The medieval period in Europe is often remembered as a time of intellectual and political stagnation. Prior to the Renaissance, the average person had very limited access to books and was unlikely to be literate. The invention of the printing press in the 15th century allowed for much less restricted circulation of information in Europe, paving the way for the Reformation.

The body of your essay is where you cover your topic in depth. It often consists of three paragraphs, but may be more for a longer essay. This is where you present the details of the process, idea or topic you’re explaining.

It’s important to make sure each paragraph covers its own clearly defined topic, introduced with a topic sentence . Different topics (all related to the overall subject matter of the essay) should be presented in a logical order, with clear transitions between paragraphs.

Hover over different parts of the example paragraph below to see how a body paragraph is constructed.

The invention of the printing press in 1440 changed this situation dramatically. Johannes Gutenberg, who had worked as a goldsmith, used his knowledge of metals in the design of the press. He made his type from an alloy of lead, tin, and antimony, whose durability allowed for the reliable production of high-quality books. This new technology allowed texts to be reproduced and disseminated on a much larger scale than was previously possible. The Gutenberg Bible appeared in the 1450s, and a large number of printing presses sprang up across the continent in the following decades. Gutenberg’s invention rapidly transformed cultural production in Europe; among other things, it would lead to the Protestant Reformation.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

The conclusion of an expository essay serves to summarize the topic under discussion. It should not present any new information or evidence, but should instead focus on reinforcing the points made so far. Essentially, your conclusion is there to round off the essay in an engaging way.

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how a conclusion works.

The invention of the printing press was important not only in terms of its immediate cultural and economic effects, but also in terms of its major impact on politics and religion across Europe. In the century following the invention of the printing press, the relatively stationary intellectual atmosphere of the Middle Ages gave way to the social upheavals of the Reformation and the Renaissance. A single technological innovation had contributed to the total reshaping of the continent.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

An expository essay is a broad form that varies in length according to the scope of the assignment.

Expository essays are often assigned as a writing exercise or as part of an exam, in which case a five-paragraph essay of around 800 words may be appropriate.

You’ll usually be given guidelines regarding length; if you’re not sure, ask.

An expository essay is a common assignment in high-school and university composition classes. It might be assigned as coursework, in class, or as part of an exam.

Sometimes you might not be told explicitly to write an expository essay. Look out for prompts containing keywords like “explain” and “define.” An expository essay is usually the right response to these prompts.

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Write an Expository Essay | Structure, Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved December 5, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/expository-essay/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, how to write an argumentative essay | examples & tips, what is your plagiarism score.

Insights hub solutions

Analyze data

Uncover deep customer insights with fast, powerful features, store insights, curate and manage insights in one searchable platform, scale research, unlock the potential of customer insights at enterprise scale.

Featured reads

Product updates

Engaging insights in minutes: launching five new features to speed up analysis

Built to scale: introducing video blurring plus four more features for security and collaboration

Dovetail in the details: 24 improvements to automate, tag, and share

Events and videos

© Dovetail Research Pty. Ltd.

What is explanatory research?

Last updated

12 June 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

The search for knowledge and understanding never stops in the field of research. Researchers are always finding new techniques to help analyze and make sense of the world. Explanatory research is one such technique. It provides a new perspective on various areas of study.

So, what exactly is explanatory research? This article will provide an in-depth overview of everything you need to know about explanatory research and its purpose. You’ll also get to know the different types of explanatory research and how they’re conducted.

Analyze explanatory research

Get a deeper understanding of your explanatory research when you analyze it in Dovetail

• Explanatory research: definition

Explanatory research is a technique used to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying reasons for, causes of, and relationships behind a particular phenomenon that has yet to be extensively studied.

Researchers use this method to understand why and how a particular phenomenon occurs the way it does. Since there is limited information regarding the phenomenon being studied, it’s up to the researcher to develop fresh ideas and collect more data.

The results and conclusions drawn from explanatory research give researchers a deeper understanding and help predict future occurrences.

• Descriptive research vs. explanatory research

Descriptive research aims to define or summarize an event or population without explaining why it exists. It focuses on acquiring and conveying facts.

On the other hand, explanatory research aims to explain why a phenomenon occurs by working to understand the causes and correlations between variables.

Unlike descriptive research, which focuses on providing descriptions and characteristics of a given phenomenon, explanatory research goes a step further to explain different mechanisms and the reasons behind them. Explanatory research is never concerned with producing new knowledge or solving problems. Instead, it aims to explain why and how something happens.

• Exploratory research vs. explanatory research

Explanatory research explains why specific phenomena function as they do. Meanwhile, exploratory research examines and investigates an issue that is not clearly defined. Both methods are crucial for problem analysis.

Researchers use exploratory research at the outset to discover new ideas, concepts, and opportunities. Once exploratory research has identified a potential area of interest or problem, researchers employ explanatory research to delve further into the specific subject matter.

Researchers employ the explanatory research technique when they want to explain why and how something occurs in a certain way. Researchers who employ this approach usually have an outcome in mind, and carrying it out is their top priority.

• When to use explanatory research

Explanatory research may be helpful in the following situations:

When testing a theoretical model: explanatory research can help researchers develop a theory. It can provide sufficient evidence to validate or refine existing theories based on the available data.

When establishing causality: this research method can determine the cause-and-effect relationships between study variables and determine which variable influences the predicted outcome most. Explanatory research explores all the factors that lead to a certain outcome or phenomenon.

When making informed decisions: the results and conclusions drawn from explanatory research can provide a basis for informed decision-making. It can be helpful in different industries and sectors. For example, entrepreneurs in the business sector can use explanatory research to implement informed marketing strategies to increase sales and generate more revenue.

When addressing research gaps: a research gap is an unresolved problem or unanswered question due to inadequate research in that space. Researchers can use explanatory research to gather information about a certain phenomenon and fill research gaps. It also enables researchers to answer previously unanswered questions and explain different mechanisms that haven’t yet been studied.

When conducting program evaluation: researchers can also use the technique to determine the effectiveness of a particular program and identify all the factors that are likely to contribute to its success or failure.

• Types of explanatory research

Here are the different types of explanatory research:

Case study research: this method involves the in-depth analysis of a given individual, company, organization, or event. It allows researchers to study individuals or organizations that have faced the same situation. This way, they can determine what worked for them and what didn’t.

Experimental research: this involves manipulating independent variables and observing how they affect dependent variables. This method allows researchers to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between different variables.

Quasi-experimental research: this type of research is quite similar to experimental research, but it lacks complete control over variables. It’s best suited to situations where manipulating certain variables is difficult or impossible.

Correlational research: this involves identifying underlying relationships between two or more variables without manipulating them. It determines the strength and direction of the relationship between different variables.

Historical research: this method involves studying past events to gain a better understanding of their causes and effects. It’s mostly used in fields like history and sociology.

Survey research: this type of explanatory research involves collecting data using a set of structured questionnaires or interviews given to a representative sample of participants. It helps researchers gather information about individuals’ attitudes, opinions, and behaviors toward certain phenomena.

Observational research: this involves directly observing and recording people in their natural setting, like the home, the office, or a shop. By studying their actions, needs, and challenges, researchers can gain valuable insights into their behavior, preferences, and pain points. This results in explanatory conclusions.

• How to conduct explanatory research

Take the following steps when conducting explanatory research:

Develop the research question

The first step is to familiarize yourself with the topic you’re interested in and clearly articulate your specific goals. This will help you define the research question you want to answer or the problem you want to solve. Doing this will guide your research and ensure you collect the right data.

Formulate a hypothesis

The next step is to formulate a hypothesis that will address your expectations. Some researchers find that literature material has already covered their topic in the past. If this is the case with you, you can use such material as the main foundation of your hypothesis. However, if it doesn’t exist, you must formulate a hypothesis based on your own instincts or literature material on closely related topics.

Select the research type

Choose an appropriate research type based on your research questions, available resources, and timeline. Consider the level of control you need over the variables.

Next, design and develop instruments such as surveys, interview guides, or observation guidelines to gather relevant data.

Collect the data

Collecting data involves implementing the research instruments and gathering information from a representative sample of your target audience. Ensure proper data collection protocol, ethical considerations , and appropriate documentation for the data you collect.

Analyze the data

Once you have collected the data you need for your research, you’ll need to organize, code, and interpret it.

Use appropriate analytical methods, such as statistical analysis or thematic coding , to uncover patterns, relationships, and explanations that address your research goals and questions. You may have to suggest or conduct further research based on the results to elaborate on certain areas.

Communicate the results

Finally, communicate your results to relevant stakeholders , such as team members, clients, or other involved partners. Present your insights clearly and concisely through reports, slides, or visualizations. Provide actionable recommendations and avenues for future research.

• Examples of explanatory research

Here are some real-life examples of explanatory research:

Understanding what causes high crime rates in big cities

Law enforcement organizations use explanatory research to pinpoint what causes high crime rates in particular cities. They gather information about various influencing factors, such as gang involvement, drug misuse, family structures, and firearm availability.

They then use regression analysis to examine the data further to understand the factors contributing to the high crime rates.

Factors that influence students’ academic performance

Educators and stakeholders in the Department of Education use questionnaires and interviews to gather data on factors that affect academic performance. These factors include parental engagement, learning styles, motivation, teaching quality, and peer pressure.

The data is used to ascertain how these variables affect students’ academic performance.

Examining what causes economic disparity in certain areas

Researchers use correlational and experimental research approaches to gather information on variables like education levels, household income, and employment rates. They use the information to examine the causes of economic disparity in certain regions.

• Advantages of explanatory research

Here are some of the benefits you can expect from explanatory research:

Deeper understanding : the technique helps fill research gaps in previous studies by explaining the reasons, causes, and relationships behind particular behaviors or phenomena.

Competitive edge: by understanding the underlying factors that drive customer satisfaction and behavior, companies can create more engaging products and desirable services.

Predictable capabilities: it helps researchers and teams make predictions regarding certain phenomena like user behavior or future iterations of product features.

Informed decision-making: explanatory research generates insights that can help individuals make informed decisions in various sectors.

• Disadvantages of explanatory research

Explanatory research is a great approach for better understanding various phenomena, but it has some limitations.

It’s time-consuming: explanatory research can be a time-consuming process, requiring careful planning, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The technique might extend your timeline.

It’s resource intensive: explanatory research often requires a significant allocation of resources, including financial, human, and technological. This could pose challenges for organizations with limited budgets or constraints.

You have limited control over real-world factors: this type of research often takes place in controlled environments. Researchers may find this limits their ability to capture real-world complexities and variables that influence a particular behavior or phenomenon.

Depth and breadth are difficult to balance : explanatory research mainly focuses on a narrow hypothesis, which can limit the scope of the research and prevent researchers from understanding a problem more broadly.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 August 2023

Last updated: 11 May 2023

Last updated: 11 September 2023

Last updated: 21 September 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 14 November 2023

Last updated: 19 November 2023

Last updated: 1 May 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 October 2023

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Latest articles

Related topics.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Explanatory Research: Definition, Types & Guide

There are many types of research, but today, we want to talk to you about one, in particular, that will give you a new perspective on your objects of study; for that, we have created this guide with everything you need to know about explanatory research . After all, w hat is the purpose of explanatory research?

What is Explanatory Research?

Explanatory research is a method developed to investigate a phenomenon that has not been studied or explained properly. Its main intention is to provide details about where to find a small amount of information.

With this method, the researcher gets a general idea and uses research as a tool to guide them quicker to the issues that we might address in the future. Its goal is to find the why and what of an object of study.

Explanatory research is responsible for finding the why of the events by establishing cause-effect relationships. Its results and conclusions constitute the deepest level of knowledge, according to author Fidias G. Arias. In this sense, explanatory studies can deal with the determination of causes (post-facto research) and effects ( experimental research ) through hypothesis testing.

Characteristics of Explanatory Research 

Among the most critical characteristics of explanatory research are:

• It allows for an increased understanding of a specific topic. Although it does not offer conclusive results, the researcher can find out why a phenomenon occurs.
• It uses secondary research as a source of information, such as literature or published articles, that are carefully chosen to have a broad and balanced understanding of the topic.
• It allows the researcher to have a broad understanding of the topic and refine subsequent research questions to augment the study’s conclusions.
• Researchers can distinguish the causes why phenomena arising during the research design process and anticipate changes.
• Explanatory research allows them to replicate studies to give them greater depth and gain new insights into the phenomenon.

Types of Explanatory Research

The most popular methods of explanatory research:

• Literature research: It is one of the fastest and least expensive means of determining the hypothesis of the phenomenon and collecting information. It involves searching for literature on the internet and in libraries. It can, of course, be in magazines, newspapers, commercial and academic articles.
• In-depth interview: The process involves talking to a knowledgeable person about the topic under investigation. The in-depth interview is used to take advantage of the information offered by people and their experience, whether they are professionals within or outside the organization.
• Focus groups: Focus groups consist of bringing together 8 to 12 people who have information about the phenomenon under study and organizing sessions to obtain from these people various data that will help the research.
• Case studies: This method allows researchers to deal with carefully selected cases. Case analysis allows the organization to observe companies that have faced the same issue and deal with it more efficiently.

Check out our library of QuestionPro Case Studies to learn more about how we help organizations conduct market research.

Importance of explanatory research

Explanatory research is conducted to help researchers study the research problem in greater depth and understand the phenomenon efficiently.

The primary use for explanatory research is problem-solving by finding the overlooked data that we had never investigated before. At the same time, it might not bring out conclusive data; it will allow us to understand the issue more efficiently.

In carrying out the research process, it is necessary to adapt to new findings and knowledge about the subject. Although it is impossible to conclude, it is possible to explore the variables with a high level of depth.

Explanatory research allows the researcher to become familiar with the topic to be examined and design theories to test them.

Explanatory Reseach Quick Guide

Explanatory research is a great method to use if you’re looking to understand why something is happening. Here’s a quick guide on how to conduct explanatory research:

• Clearly define your research question and objectives. This will help guide your research and ensure that you collect the right data.
• Choose your research methods. Explanatory research can be done using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Some popular methods include surveys, interviews, experiments, and observational studies.
• Collect and analyze your data. Once you’ve chosen your methods, it’s time to collect your data. Make sure to keep accurate records and organize your data so it’s easy to analyze.
• Draw conclusions and make recommendations. After analyzing your data, it’s time to draw conclusions and make recommendations based on your findings. Be sure to present your conclusions clearly and concisely and ensure your data supports them.
• Communicate your findings. Share your research findings with others, including your colleagues, stakeholders, or clients. Also, make sure to communicate your findings in a way that is easy for others to understand and act upon.

Remember that explanatory research is about understanding the relationship between variables, so be sure to keep that in mind when designing your research, collecting and analyzing your data, and communicating your findings.

Advantages and Conclusions

This method is precious for social research . It a llows researchers to find a phenomenon we did not study in depth. Although it does not conclude such a study, it helps to understand the problem efficiently. It’s essential to convey new data about a point of view on the study.

People who conduct explanatory research do so to study the interaction of the phenomenon in detail. Therefore, it is vital to have enough information to carry it out.

Finally, we invite you to refer to our market research guide . You can do incredible research and collect data free with our survey software . Get started now!

FREE TRIAL         LEARN MORE

MORE LIKE THIS

Unveiling the Best Data Collection App of 2023 | QuestionPro

Dec 4, 2023

Exploring Top 12 Net Promoter Score Tools To Boost Loyalty

Data documentation: Definition, Purpose, Principles

Dec 1, 2023

Release Notes – November 2023

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

The Plagiarism Checker Online For Your Academic Work

Start Plagiarism Check

Editing & Proofreading for Your Research Paper

Get it proofread now

Online Printing & Binding with Free Express Delivery

Configure binding now

• Academic essay overview
• The writing process
• Structuring academic essays
• Types of academic essays
• Academic writing overview
• Sentence structure
• Academic writing process
• Improving your academic writing
• Titles and headings
• APA style overview
• APA citation & referencing
• APA structure & sections
• Citation & referencing
• Structure and sections
• APA examples overview
• Commonly used citations
• Other examples
• British English vs. American English
• Chicago style overview
• Chicago citation & referencing
• Chicago structure & sections
• Chicago style examples
• Citing sources overview
• Citation format
• Citation examples
• College essay overview
• Application
• How to write a college essay
• Types of college essays
• Commonly confused words
• Definitions
• Dissertation overview
• Dissertation structure & sections
• Dissertation writing process
• Graduate school overview
• Application & admission
• Study abroad
• Master degree
• Harvard referencing overview
• Language rules overview
• Grammatical rules & structures
• Parts of speech
• Punctuation
• Methodology overview
• Analyzing data
• Experiments
• Observations
• Inductive vs. Deductive
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Types of validity
• Types of reliability
• Sampling methods
• Theories & Concepts
• Types of research studies
• Types of variables
• MLA style overview
• MLA examples
• MLA citation & referencing
• MLA structure & sections
• Plagiarism overview
• Plagiarism checker
• Types of plagiarism
• Printing production overview
• Research bias overview
• Types of research bias
• Example sections
• Types of research papers
• Research process overview
• Problem statement
• Research proposal
• Research topic
• Statistics overview
• Levels of measurment
• Frequency distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Hypothesis testing
• Parameters & test statistics
• Types of distributions
• Correlation
• Effect size
• Hypothesis testing assumptions
• Types of ANOVAs
• Types of chi-square
• Statistical data
• Statistical models
• Spelling mistakes
• Tips overview
• Academic writing tips
• Dissertation tips
• Sources tips
• Working with sources overview
• Evaluating sources
• Finding sources
• Including sources
• Types of sources

Your Step to Success

Plagiarism Check within 10min

Printing & Binding with 3D Live Preview

Explanatory Research – Guide with Definition & Examples

How do you like this article cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Explanatory research, a vital part of research methodology , is dedicated to providing a deep understanding of a phenomenon through the explanation of causal relationships among variables. Unlike exploratory research that seeks to generate new insights or ideas, explanatory research dives deeper to identify why and how certain situations occur. This methodology is often employed when there is a clear understanding of the problem but the reasons behind it remain obscure, thereby necessitating a comprehensive explanation.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Explanatory Research – In a Nutshell
• 2 Definition: Explanatory Research
• 3 The usage of explanatory research
• 4 Explanatory research questions
• 5 Explanatory research: Data collection
• 6 Explanatory research: Data analysis
• 7 The 5 Steps of explanatory research with examples
• 8 Explanatory vs. exploratory research
• 9 Advantages vs. disadvantages

Explanatory Research – In a Nutshell

• Explanatory research is a cornerstone of other research.
• Without an explanatory study, your future research will be incomplete and inefficient.
• This research improves survey and study design and reduces unintended bias.

Definition: Explanatory Research

Explanatory research is a study method that investigates the causes of a phenomenon when only limited data is presented. It can help you better grasp a topic, determine why a phenomenon is happening, and forecast future events.

This research can be described as a “cause and effect” model, researching previously unexplored patterns and trends in current data. Consequently, it is sometimes considered a sort of causal research .

The usage of explanatory research

Explanatory research investigates how or why something happens. Therefore, this type of research is one of the first steps in the research process , serving as a beginning point for future work. Your topic may have data, but the causal relationship you’re interested in may not.

This research helps evaluate patterns and generate hypotheses for future work. An explanatory study can help you comprehend a variable’s relationship. However, don’t expect conclusive outcomes.

Explanatory research questions

This research answers “why” and “how” inquiries, resulting in a better knowledge of a previously unsolved topic or clarification for relevant future research.

• Why do bilingual individuals exhibit more risky behavior than monolingual individuals during commercial negotiations?
• How does a child’s capacity to resist gratification predict their future success?
• Why are adolescents more prone to litter in highly littered areas than in clean areas?

Explanatory research: Data collection

After deciding on your research subject, you have numerous alternatives for research and data collection methods.

The following are some of the most prevalent research methods:

• Literature reviews
• Interviews and focus groups
• Pilot studies

Explanatory research: Data analysis

Ensure that your explanatory research is conducted appropriately and that your analysis is causal and not merely correlative.

Correlated variables are merely linked: when one changes, so does the other . There is no direct or indirect causal relationship.

Causation means independent variable changes cause dependent variable changes. The link between variables is direct.

The requirements for causal evidence are:

• Temporal : Cause must precede effect.
• Variation : Independent and dependent variable intervention must be systematic.
• Non-spurious : Be sure no mitigating factors or third hidden variables contradict your results.

The 5 Steps of explanatory research with examples

The data collection approach determines your explanatory research design. In most circumstances, you’ll utilize an experiment to test causality. The steps are illustrated in the following.

Step 1 of explanatory research: Research question

The initial stage in the research is familiarizing yourself with the topic of interest to formulate a research question.

Suppose you are interested in adult language retention rates.

You’ve examined language retention in adoptees. People who learned a foreign language as infants had an easier time learning it again than those who weren’t exposed.

You want to know how language exposure affects long-term retention. You’re designing an experiment to answer this question: How does early language exposure affect language retention in adoptees?

Step 2 of explanatory research: Hypothesis

Next, set your expectations. In some circumstances, you can use relevant literature to build your hypothesis. In other cases, the topic isn’t well-studied; therefore, you must create your theory based on instincts or literature on distant themes.

You hypothesize that individuals exposed to a language in infancy for a shorter duration will be less likely to retain features of this language than adults exposed for a longer time.

You express your predictions in terms of the null (H 0 ) and alternative (H 1 ) hypotheses:

• H 0 : Infancy language exposure does not affect language retention in adopted adults.
• H 1 : Exposure to a language in infancy improves language retention in adult adoptees.

Step 3 of explanatory research: Methodology and data collection

Next, choose your data collecting and data analysis methodologies and document them. After meticulously planning your research, you can begin data collection.

To test a causal relationship, you run an experiment. You gather a group of adults adopted from Colombia and raised in the U.S.

You compare:

• 0-6-month-old Colombian adoptees.
• 6-12 month-old Colombian adoptees
• 12-18-month-old Colombian adoptees.
• Unexposed monolingual adults.

Using a three-stage research design, you administer two tests of their Spanish language skills during the study:

• Pre-test : Several language proficiency tests are administered to identify group variations before instruction.
• Intervention : You deliver eight hours of Spanish lessons to each group.
• Post-test : After the intervention, you administer multiple language proficiency tests to determine whether there are any differences between the groups.

Step 4 of explanatory research: Analysis and results

After data collection, assess and report results.

After experimenting, you examine the data and observe that:

• The pre-exposed adults demonstrated more excellent Spanish language skills than individuals who were not pre-exposed. The post-test reveals an even more significant disparity.
• Adults adopted between 12 and 18 months had higher Spanish competence than those adopted between 0 and 6 months or 6 and 12 months, but there was no difference between the latter two groups.

For significance, use a mixed ANOVA . ANOVA indicates that pre-test differences aren’t significant, while post-test differences are.

You report your findings following the criteria of your chosen citation style between the groups.

Step 5 of explanatory research: Interpretation and recommendation

Try to explain unexpected results as you interpret them. In most circumstances, you’ll need to provide recommendations for future research.

Your findings were per your expectations. Adopted individuals who were pre-exposed to a language in infancy for a longer time have preserved more of this knowledge than people who weren’t pre-exposed.

After the intervention, this difference becomes large.

You decide to do more research and suggest some topics:

• Replicate the study with a larger sample
• Study other mother tongues (e.g., Korean, Lingala, Arabic)
• Study other linguistic features, like accent nativeness.

Explanatory vs. exploratory research

Explanatory and exploratory research are often confused. Remember, exploratory research establishes the framework for explanatory research.

Many exploratory research inquiries begin with “what.” They are intended to guide future studies and typically lack definite conclusions. The research is frequently employed as the initial step in the research process to assist you in refining your study topic and ideas.

Explanatory research questions begin with “why” or “how.” They assist you in understanding why and how something happens.

Advantages vs. disadvantages

As with any other study methodology, this research involves trade-offs: while it offers a unique set of benefits, it also has major drawbacks.

What is explanatory research?

An explanatory study investigates how or why something happens with limited information. It helps you understand a topic.

Is explanatory research quantitative or qualitative?

The explanatory research model is a quantitative strategy used to examine a hypothesis by gathering evidence that either supports or contradicts it.

When should I use explanatory research?

Explanatory research aims to explain a phenomenon. Consequently, this form of research is frequently one of the initial steps of the research process, acting as a springboard for subsequent analysis.

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

• External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Privacy Policy Imprint

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
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research

Mattia casula.

1 Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Strada Maggiore 45, 40125 Bologna, Italy

Nandhini Rangarajan

2 Texas State University, San Marcos, TX USA

Patricia Shields

While hypotheses frame explanatory studies and provide guidance for measurement and statistical tests, deductive, exploratory research does not have a framing device like the hypothesis. To this purpose, this article examines the landscape of deductive, exploratory research and offers the working hypothesis as a flexible, useful framework that can guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. The working hypothesis conceptual framework is introduced, placed in a philosophical context, defined, and applied to public administration and comparative public policy. Doing so, this article explains: the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research; how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive, explorative research; the nature of micro-conceptual frameworks for deductive exploratory research; and, how the working hypothesis informs data analysis when exploratory research is deductive.

Introduction

Exploratory research is generally considered to be inductive and qualitative (Stebbins 2001 ). Exploratory qualitative studies adopting an inductive approach do not lend themselves to a priori theorizing and building upon prior bodies of knowledge (Reiter 2013 ; Bryman 2004 as cited in Pearse 2019 ). Juxtaposed against quantitative studies that employ deductive confirmatory approaches, exploratory qualitative research is often criticized for lack of methodological rigor and tentativeness in results (Thomas and Magilvy 2011 ). This paper focuses on the neglected topic of deductive, exploratory research and proposes working hypotheses as a useful framework for these studies.

To emphasize that certain types of applied research lend themselves more easily to deductive approaches, to address the downsides of exploratory qualitative research, and to ensure qualitative rigor in exploratory research, a significant body of work on deductive qualitative approaches has emerged (see for example, Gilgun 2005 , 2015 ; Hyde 2000 ; Pearse 2019 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 3) the use of conceptual frameworks derived from comprehensive reviews of literature and a priori theorizing were common practices in qualitative research prior to the publication of Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) The Discovery of Grounded Theory . Gilgun ( 2015 ) coined the terms Deductive Qualitative Analysis (DQA) to arrive at some sort of “middle-ground” such that the benefits of a priori theorizing (structure) and allowing room for new theory to emerge (flexibility) are reaped simultaneously. According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 14) “in DQA, the initial conceptual framework and hypotheses are preliminary. The purpose of DQA is to come up with a better theory than researchers had constructed at the outset (Gilgun 2005 , 2009 ). Indeed, the production of new, more useful hypotheses is the goal of DQA”.

DQA provides greater level of structure for both the experienced and novice qualitative researcher (see for example Pearse 2019 ; Gilgun 2005 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 4) “conceptual frameworks are the sources of hypotheses and sensitizing concepts”. Sensitizing concepts frame the exploratory research process and guide the researcher’s data collection and reporting efforts. Pearse ( 2019 ) discusses the usefulness for deductive thematic analysis and pattern matching to help guide DQA in business research. Gilgun ( 2005 ) discusses the usefulness of DQA for family research.

Given these rationales for DQA in exploratory research, the overarching purpose of this paper is to contribute to that growing corpus of work on deductive qualitative research. This paper is specifically aimed at guiding novice researchers and student scholars to the working hypothesis as a useful a priori framing tool. The applicability of the working hypothesis as a tool that provides more structure during the design and implementation phases of exploratory research is discussed in detail. Examples of research projects in public administration that use the working hypothesis as a framing tool for deductive exploratory research are provided.

In the next section, we introduce the three types of research purposes. Second, we examine the nature of the exploratory research purpose. Third, we provide a definition of working hypothesis. Fourth, we explore the philosophical roots of methodology to see where exploratory research fits. Fifth, we connect the discussion to the dominant research approaches (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) to see where deductive exploratory research fits. Sixth, we examine the nature of theory and the role of the hypothesis in theory. We contrast formal hypotheses and working hypotheses. Seven, we provide examples of student and scholarly work that illustrates how working hypotheses are developed and operationalized. Lastly, this paper synthesizes previous discussion with concluding remarks.

Three types of research purposes

The literature identifies three basic types of research purposes—explanation, description and exploration (Babbie 2007 ; Adler and Clark 2008 ; Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Whetsell 2017 ). Research purposes are similar to research questions; however, they focus on project goals or aims instead of questions.

Explanatory research answers the “why” question (Babbie 2007 , pp. 89–90), by explaining “why things are the way they are”, and by looking “for causes and reasons” (Adler and Clark 2008 , p. 14). Explanatory research is closely tied to hypothesis testing. Theory is tested using deductive reasoning, which goes from the general to the specific (Hyde 2000 , p. 83). Hypotheses provide a frame for explanatory research connecting the research purpose to other parts of the research process (variable construction, choice of data, statistical tests). They help provide alignment or coherence across stages in the research process and provide ways to critique the strengths and weakness of the study. For example, were the hypotheses grounded in the appropriate arguments and evidence in the literature? Are the concepts imbedded in the hypotheses appropriately measured? Was the best statistical test used? When the analysis is complete (hypothesis is tested), the results generally answer the research question (the evidence supported or failed to support the hypothesis) (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ).

Descriptive research addresses the “What” question and is not primarily concerned with causes (Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Tajalli 2006 ). It lies at the “midpoint of the knowledge continuum” (Grinnell 2001 , p. 248) between exploration and explanation. Descriptive research is used in both quantitative and qualitative research. A field researcher might want to “have a more highly developed idea of social phenomena” (Strydom 2013 , p. 154) and develop thick descriptions using inductive logic. In science, categorization and classification systems such as the periodic table of chemistry or the taxonomies of biology inform descriptive research. These baseline classification systems are a type of theorizing and allow researchers to answer questions like “what kind” of plants and animals inhabit a forest. The answer to this question would usually be displayed in graphs and frequency distributions. This is also the data presentation system used in the social sciences (Ritchie and Lewis 2003 ; Strydom 2013 ). For example, if a scholar asked, what are the needs of homeless people? A quantitative approach would include a survey that incorporated a “needs” classification system (preferably based on a literature review). The data would be displayed as frequency distributions or as charts. Description can also be guided by inductive reasoning, which draws “inferences from specific observable phenomena to general rules or knowledge expansion” (Worster 2013 , p. 448). Theory and hypotheses are generated using inductive reasoning, which begins with data and the intention of making sense of it by theorizing. Inductive descriptive approaches would use a qualitative, naturalistic design (open ended interview questions with the homeless population). The data could provide a thick description of the homeless context. For deductive descriptive research, categories, serve a purpose similar to hypotheses for explanatory research. If developed with thought and a connection to the literature, categories can serve as a framework that inform measurement, link to data collection mechanisms and to data analysis. Like hypotheses they can provide horizontal coherence across the steps in the research process.

Table  1 demonstrated these connections for deductive, descriptive and explanatory research. The arrow at the top emphasizes the horizontal or across the research process view we emphasize. This article makes the case that the working hypothesis can serve the same purpose as the hypothesis for deductive, explanatory research and categories for deductive descriptive research. The cells for exploratory research are filled in with question marks.

Table 1

Connecting research purpose and frameworks for deductive inquiry

The remainder of this paper focuses on exploratory research and the answers to questions found in the table:

• What is the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research?
• What is the Micro-conceptual framework for deductive exploratory research? [ As is clear from the article title we introduce the working hypothesis as the answer .]
• How does the working hypothesis inform the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research?
• How does the working hypothesis inform data analysis of deductive exploratory research?

The nature of exploratory research purpose

Explorers enter the unknown to discover something new. The process can be fraught with struggle and surprises. Effective explorers creatively resolve unexpected problems. While we typically think of explorers as pioneers or mountain climbers, exploration is very much linked to the experience and intention of the explorer. Babies explore as they take their first steps. The exploratory purpose resonates with these insights. Exploratory research, like reconnaissance, is a type of inquiry that is in the preliminary or early stages (Babbie 2007 ). It is associated with discovery, creativity and serendipity (Stebbins 2001 ). But the person doing the discovery, also defines the activity or claims the act of exploration. It “typically occurs when a researcher examines a new interest or when the subject of study itself is relatively new” (Babbie 2007 , p. 88). Hence, exploration has an open character that emphasizes “flexibility, pragmatism, and the particular, biographically specific interests of an investigator” (Maanen et al. 2001 , p. v). These three purposes form a type of hierarchy. An area of inquiry is initially explored . This early work lays the ground for, description which in turn becomes the basis for explanation . Quantitative, explanatory studies dominate contemporary high impact journals (Twining et al. 2017 ).

Stebbins ( 2001 ) makes the point that exploration is often seen as something like a poor stepsister to confirmatory or hypothesis testing research. He has a problem with this because we live in a changing world and what is settled today will very likely be unsettled in the near future and in need of exploration. Further, exploratory research “generates initial insights into the nature of an issue and develops questions to be investigated by more extensive studies” (Marlow 2005 , p. 334). Exploration is widely applicable because all research topics were once “new.” Further, all research topics have the possibility of “innovation” or ongoing “newness”. Exploratory research may be appropriate to establish whether a phenomenon exists (Strydom 2013 ). The point here, of course, is that the exploratory purpose is far from trivial.

Stebbins’ Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences ( 2001 ), is the only book devoted to the nature of exploratory research as a form of social science inquiry. He views it as a “broad-ranging, purposive, systematic prearranged undertaking designed to maximize the discovery of generalizations leading to description and understanding of an area of social or psychological life” (p. 3). It is science conducted in a way distinct from confirmation. According to Stebbins ( 2001 , p. 6) the goal is discovery of potential generalizations, which can become future hypotheses and eventually theories that emerge from the data. He focuses on inductive logic (which stimulates creativity) and qualitative methods. He does not want exploratory research limited to the restrictive formulas and models he finds in confirmatory research. He links exploratory research to Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) flexible, immersive, Grounded Theory. Strydom’s ( 2013 ) analysis of contemporary social work research methods books echoes Stebbins’ ( 2001 ) position. Stebbins’s book is an important contribution, but it limits the potential scope of this flexible and versatile research purpose. If we accepted his conclusion, we would delete the “Exploratory” row from Table  1 .

Note that explanatory research can yield new questions, which lead to exploration. Inquiry is a process where inductive and deductive activities can occur simultaneously or in a back and forth manner, particularly as the literature is reviewed and the research design emerges. 1 Strict typologies such as explanation, description and exploration or inductive/deductive can obscures these larger connections and processes. We draw insight from Dewey’s ( 1896 ) vision of inquiry as depicted in his seminal “Reflex Arc” article. He notes that “stimulus” and “response” like other dualities (inductive/deductive) exist within a larger unifying system. Yet the terms have value. “We need not abandon terms like stimulus and response, so long as we remember that they are attached to events based upon their function in a wider dynamic context, one that includes interests and aims” (Hildebrand 2008 , p. 16). So too, in methodology typologies such as deductive/inductive capture useful distinctions with practical value and are widely used in the methodology literature.

We argue that there is a role for exploratory, deductive, and confirmatory research. We maintain all types of research logics and methods should be in the toolbox of exploratory research. First, as stated above, it makes no sense on its face to identify an extremely flexible purpose that is idiosyncratic to the researcher and then basically restrict its use to qualitative, inductive, non-confirmatory methods. Second, Stebbins’s ( 2001 ) work focused on social science ignoring the policy sciences. Exploratory research can be ideal for immediate practical problems faced by policy makers, who could find a framework of some kind useful. Third, deductive, exploratory research is more intentionally connected to previous research. Some kind of initial framing device is located or designed using the literature. This may be very important for new scholars who are developing research skills and exploring their field and profession. Stebbins’s insights are most pertinent for experienced scholars. Fourth, frameworks and deductive logic are useful for comparative work because some degree of consistency across cases is built into the design.

As we have seen, the hypotheses of explanatory and categories of descriptive research are the dominate frames of social science and policy science. We certainly concur that neither of these frames makes a lot of sense for exploratory research. They would tend to tie it down. We see the problem as a missing framework or missing way to frame deductive, exploratory research in the methodology literature. Inductive exploratory research would not work for many case studies that are trying to use evidence to make an argument. What exploratory deductive case studies need is a framework that incorporates flexibility. This is even more true for comparative case studies. A framework of this sort could be usefully applied to policy research (Casula 2020a ), particularly evaluative policy research, and applied research generally. We propose the Working Hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and as a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It can be used as an evaluative criterion particularly for process evaluation and is useful for student research because students can develop theorizing skills using the literature.

Table  1 included a column specifying the philosophical basis for each research purpose. Shifting gears to the philosophical underpinning of methodology provides useful additional context for examination of deductive, exploratory research.

What is a working hypothesis

The working hypothesis is first and foremost a hypothesis or a statement of expectation that is tested in action. The term “working” suggest that these hypotheses are subject to change, are provisional and the possibility of finding contradictory evidence is real. In addition, a “working” hypothesis is active, it is a tool in an ongoing process of inquiry. If one begins with a research question, the working hypothesis could be viewed as a statement or group of statements that answer the question. It “works” to move purposeful inquiry forward. “Working” also implies some sort of community, mostly we work together in relationship to achieve some goal.

Working Hypothesis is a term found in earlier literature. Indeed, both pioneering pragmatists, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead use the term working hypothesis in important nineteenth century works. For both Dewey and Mead, the notion of a working hypothesis has a self-evident quality and it is applied in a big picture context. 2

Most notably, Dewey ( 1896 ), in one of his most pivotal early works (“Reflex Arc”), used “working hypothesis” to describe a key concept in psychology. “The idea of the reflex arc has upon the whole come nearer to meeting this demand for a general working hypothesis than any other single concept (Italics added)” (p. 357). The notion of a working hypothesis was developed more fully 42 years later, in Logic the Theory of Inquiry , where Dewey developed the notion of a working hypothesis that operated on a smaller scale. He defines working hypotheses as a “provisional, working means of advancing investigation” (Dewey 1938 , pp. 142). Dewey’s definition suggests that working hypotheses would be useful toward the beginning of a research project (e.g., exploratory research).

Mead ( 1899 ) used working hypothesis in a title of an American Journal of Sociology article “The Working Hypothesis and Social Reform” (italics added). He notes that a scientist’s foresight goes beyond testing a hypothesis.

Given its success, he may restate his world from this standpoint and get the basis for further investigation that again always takes the form of a problem. The solution of this problem is found over again in the possibility of fitting his hypothetical proposition into the whole within which it arises. And he must recognize that this statement is only a working hypothesis at the best, i.e., he knows that further investigation will show that the former statement of his world is only provisionally true, and must be false from the standpoint of a larger knowledge, as every partial truth is necessarily false over against the fuller knowledge which he will gain later (Mead 1899 , p. 370).

Cronbach ( 1975 ) developed a notion of working hypothesis consistent with inductive reasoning, but for him, the working hypothesis is a product or result of naturalistic inquiry. He makes the case that naturalistic inquiry is highly context dependent and therefore results or seeming generalizations that may come from a study and should be viewed as “working hypotheses”, which “are tentative both for the situation in which they first uncovered and for other situations” (as cited in Gobo 2008 , p. 196).

A quick Google scholar search using the term “working hypothesis” show that it is widely used in twentieth and twenty-first century science, particularly in titles. In these articles, the working hypothesis is treated as a conceptual tool that furthers investigation in its early or transitioning phases. We could find no explicit links to exploratory research. The exploratory nature of the problem is expressed implicitly. Terms such as “speculative” (Habib 2000 , p. 2391) or “rapidly evolving field” (Prater et al. 2007 , p. 1141) capture the exploratory nature of the study. The authors might describe how a topic is “new” or reference “change”. “As a working hypothesis, the picture is only new, however, in its interpretation” (Milnes 1974 , p. 1731). In a study of soil genesis, Arnold ( 1965 , p. 718) notes “Sequential models, formulated as working hypotheses, are subject to further investigation and change”. Any 2020 article dealing with COVID-19 and respiratory distress would be preliminary almost by definition (Ciceri et al. 2020 ).

Philosophical roots of methodology

According to Kaplan ( 1964 , p. 23) “the aim of methodology is to help us understand, in the broadest sense not the products of scientific inquiry but the process itself”. Methods contain philosophical principles that distinguish them from other “human enterprises and interests” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 23). Contemporary research methodology is generally classified as quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Leading scholars of methodology have associated each with a philosophical underpinning—positivism (or post-positivism), interpretivism or constructivist and pragmatism, respectively (Guba 1987 ; Guba and Lincoln 1981 ; Schrag 1992 ; Stebbins 2001 ; Mackenzi and Knipe 2006 ; Atieno 2009 ; Levers 2013 ; Morgan 2007 ; O’Connor et al. 2008 ; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). This section summarizes how the literature often describes these philosophies and informs contemporary methodology and its literature.

Positivism and its more contemporary version, post-positivism, maintains an objectivist ontology or assumes an objective reality, which can be uncovered (Levers 2013 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). 3 Time and context free generalizations are possible and “real causes of social scientific outcomes can be determined reliably and validly (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 14). Further, “explanation of the social world is possible through a logical reduction of social phenomena to physical terms”. It uses an empiricist epistemology which “implies testability against observation, experimentation, or comparison” (Whetsell and Shields 2015 , pp. 420–421). Correspondence theory, a tenet of positivism, asserts that “to each concept there corresponds a set of operations involved in its scientific use” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 40).

The interpretivist, constructivists or post-modernist approach is a reaction to positivism. It uses a relativist ontology and a subjectivist epistemology (Levers 2013 ). In this world of multiple realities, context free generalities are impossible as is the separation of facts and values. Causality, explanation, prediction, experimentation depend on assumptions about the correspondence between concepts and reality, which in the absence of an objective reality is impossible. Empirical research can yield “contextualized emergent understanding rather than the creation of testable theoretical structures” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). The distinctively different world views of positivist/post positivist and interpretivist philosophy is at the core of many controversies in methodology, social and policy science literature (Casula 2020b ).

With its focus on dissolving dualisms, pragmatism steps outside the objective/subjective debate. Instead, it asks, “what difference would it make to us if the statement were true” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 42). Its epistemology is connected to purposeful inquiry. Pragmatism has a “transformative, experimental notion of inquiry” anchored in pluralism and a focus on constructing conceptual and practical tools to resolve “problematic situations” (Shields 1998 ; Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ). Exploration and working hypotheses are most comfortably situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective.

Research approaches

Empirical investigation relies on three types of methodology—quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.

Quantitative methods

Quantitative methods uses deductive logic and formal hypotheses or models to explain, predict, and eventually establish causation (Hyde 2000 ; Kaplan 1964 ; Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 ; Morgan 2007 ). 4 The correspondence between the conceptual and empirical world make measures possible. Measurement assigns numbers to objects, events or situations and allows for standardization and subtle discrimination. It also allows researchers to draw on the power of mathematics and statistics (Kaplan 1964 , pp. 172–174). Using the power of inferential statistics, quantitative research employs research designs, which eliminate competing hypotheses. It is high in external validity or the ability to generalize to the whole. The research results are relatively independent of the researcher (Johnson & Onwuegbunzie 2004 ).

Quantitative methods depend on the quality of measurement and a priori conceptualization, and adherence to the underlying assumptions of inferential statistics. Critics charge that hypotheses and frameworks needlessly constrain inquiry (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 19). Hypothesis testing quantitative methods support the explanatory purpose.

Qualitative methods

Qualitative researchers who embrace the post-modern, interpretivist view, 5 question everything about the nature of quantitative methods (Willis et al. 2007 ). Rejecting the possibility of objectivity, correspondence between ideas and measures, and the constraints of a priori theorizing they focus on “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize the findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). Characteristics of traditional qualitative research include “induction, discovery, exploration, theory/hypothesis generation and the researcher as the primary ‘instrument’ of data collection” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 18). It also concerns itself with forming “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). The data of qualitative methods are generated via interviews, direct observation, focus groups and analysis of written records or artifacts.

Qualitative methods provide for understanding and “description of people’s personal experiences of phenomena”. They enable descriptions of detailed “phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts.” Researchers use naturalistic settings to “study dynamic processes” and explore how participants interpret experiences. Qualitative methods have an inherent flexibility, allowing researchers to respond to changes in the research setting. They are particularly good at narrowing to the particular and on the flipside have limited external validity (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 20). Instead of specifying a suitable sample size to draw conclusions, qualitative research uses the notion of saturation (Morse 1995 ).

Saturation is used in grounded theory—a widely used and respected form of qualitative research, and a well-known interpretivist qualitative research method. Introduced by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ), this “grounded on observation” (Patten and Newhart 2000 , p. 27) methodology, focuses on “the creation of emergent understanding” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). It uses the Constant Comparative method, whereby researchers develop theory from data as they code and analyze at the same time. Data collection, coding and analysis along with theoretical sampling are systematically combined to generate theory (Kolb 2012 , p. 83). The qualitative methods discussed here support exploratory research.

A close look at the two philosophies and assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research suggests two contradictory world views. The literature has labeled these contradictory views the Incompatibility Theory, which sets up a quantitative versus qualitative tension similar to the seeming separation of art and science or fact and values (Smith 1983a , b ; Guba 1987 ; Smith and Heshusius 1986 ; Howe 1988 ). The incompatibility theory does not make sense in practice. Yin ( 1981 , 1992 , 2011 , 2017 ), a prominent case study scholar, showcases a deductive research methodology that crosses boundaries using both quantaitive and qualitative evidence when appropriate.

Mixed methods

Turning the “Incompatibility Theory” on its head, Mixed Methods research “combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches … for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al. 2007 , p. 123). It does this by partnering with philosophical pragmatism. 6 Pragmatism is productive because “it offers an immediate and useful middle position philosophically and methodologically; it offers a practical and outcome-oriented method of inquiry that is based on action and leads, iteratively, to further action and the elimination of doubt; it offers a method for selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better answer many of their research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 17). What is theory for the pragmatist “any theoretical model is for the pragmatist, nothing more than a framework through which problems are perceived and subsequently organized ” (Hothersall 2019 , p. 5).

Brendel ( 2009 ) constructed a simple framework to capture the core elements of pragmatism. Brendel’s four “p”’s—practical, pluralism, participatory and provisional help to show the relevance of pragmatism to mixed methods. Pragmatism is purposeful and concerned with the practical consequences. The pluralism of pragmatism overcomes quantitative/qualitative dualism. Instead, it allows for multiple perspectives (including positivism and interpretivism) and, thus, gets around the incompatibility problem. Inquiry should be participatory or inclusive of the many views of participants, hence, it is consistent with multiple realities and is also tied to the common concern of a problematic situation. Finally, all inquiry is provisional . This is compatible with experimental methods, hypothesis testing and consistent with the back and forth of inductive and deductive reasoning. Mixed methods support exploratory research.

Advocates of mixed methods research note that it overcomes the weaknesses and employs the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods provide precision. The pictures and narrative of qualitative techniques add meaning to the numbers. Quantitative analysis can provide a big picture, establish relationships and its results have great generalizability. On the other hand, the “why” behind the explanation is often missing and can be filled in through in-depth interviews. A deeper and more satisfying explanation is possible. Mixed-methods brings the benefits of triangulation or multiple sources of evidence that converge to support a conclusion. It can entertain a “broader and more complete range of research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 21) and can move between inductive and deductive methods. Case studies use multiple forms of evidence and are a natural context for mixed methods.

One thing that seems to be missing from mixed method literature and explicit design is a place for conceptual frameworks. For example, Heyvaert et al. ( 2013 ) examined nine mixed methods studies and found an explicit framework in only two studies (transformative and pragmatic) (p. 663).

Theory and hypotheses: where is and what is theory?

Theory is key to deductive research. In essence, empirical deductive methods test theory. Hence, we shift our attention to theory and the role and functions of the hypotheses in theory. Oppenheim and Putnam ( 1958 ) note that “by a ‘theory’ (in the widest sense) we mean any hypothesis, generalization or law (whether deterministic or statistical) or any conjunction of these” (p. 25). Van Evera ( 1997 ) uses a similar and more complex definition “theories are general statements that describe and explain the causes of effects of classes of phenomena. They are composed of causal laws or hypotheses, explanations, and antecedent conditions” (p. 8). Sutton and Staw ( 1995 , p. 376) in a highly cited article “What Theory is Not” assert the that hypotheses should contain logical arguments for “why” the hypothesis is expected. Hypotheses need an underlying causal argument before they can be considered theory. The point of this discussion is not to define theory but to establish the importance of hypotheses in theory.

Explanatory research is implicitly relational (A explains B). The hypotheses of explanatory research lay bare these relationships. Popular definitions of hypotheses capture this relational component. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines a hypothesis a “an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven”. Vocabulary.Com’s definition emphasizes explanation, a hypothesis is “an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation”. According to Wikipedia a hypothesis is “a proposed explanation for a phenomenon”. Other definitions remove the relational or explanatory reference. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a hypothesis as a “supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts.” Science Buddies defines a hypothesis as a “tentative, testable answer to a scientific question”. According to the Longman Dictionary the hypothesis is “an idea that can be tested to see if it is true or not”. The Urban Dictionary states a hypothesis is “a prediction or educated-guess based on current evidence that is yet be tested”. We argue that the hypotheses of exploratory research— working hypothesis — are not bound by relational expectations. It is this flexibility that distinguishes the working hypothesis.

Sutton and Staw (1995) maintain that hypotheses “serve as crucial bridges between theory and data, making explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical argument will be operationalized” (p. 376, italics added). The highly rated journal, Computers and Education , Twining et al. ( 2017 ) created guidelines for qualitative research as a way to improve soundness and rigor. They identified the lack of alignment between theoretical stance and methodology as a common problem in qualitative research. In addition, they identified a lack of alignment between methodology, design, instruments of data collection and analysis. The authors created a guidance summary, which emphasized the need to enhance coherence throughout elements of research design (Twining et al. 2017 p. 12). Perhaps the bridging function of the hypothesis mentioned by Sutton and Staw (1995) is obscured and often missing in qualitative methods. Working hypotheses can be a tool to overcome this problem.

For reasons, similar to those used by mixed methods scholars, we look to classical pragmatism and the ideas of John Dewey to inform our discussion of theory and working hypotheses. Dewey ( 1938 ) treats theory as a tool of empirical inquiry and uses a map metaphor (p. 136). Theory is like a map that helps a traveler navigate the terrain—and should be judged by its usefulness. “There is no expectation that a map is a true representation of reality. Rather, it is a representation that allows a traveler to reach a destination (achieve a purpose). Hence, theories should be judged by how well they help resolve the problem or achieve a purpose ” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 , p. 23). Note that we explicitly link theory to the research purpose. Theory is never treated as an unimpeachable Truth, rather it is a helpful tool that organizes inquiry connecting data and problem. Dewey’s approach also expands the definition of theory to include abstractions (categories) outside of causation and explanation. The micro-conceptual frameworks 7 introduced in Table  1 are a type of theory. We define conceptual frameworks as the “way the ideas are organized to achieve the project’s purpose” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 p. 24). Micro-conceptual frameworks do this at the very close to the data level of analysis. Micro-conceptual frameworks can direct operationalization and ways to assess measurement or evidence at the individual research study level. Again, the research purpose plays a pivotal role in the functioning of theory (Shields and Tajalli 2006 ).

Working hypothesis: methods and data analysis

We move on to answer the remaining questions in the Table  1 . We have established that exploratory research is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic. Given this, we will proceed with a few examples and draw out lessons for developing an exploratory purpose, building a framework and from there identifying data collection techniques and the logics of hypotheses testing and analysis. Early on we noted the value of the Working Hypothesis framework for student empirical research and applied research. The next section uses a masters level student’s work to illustrate the usefulness of working hypotheses as a way to incorporate the literature and structure inquiry. This graduate student was also a mature professional with a research question that emerged from his job and is thus an example of applied research.

Master of Public Administration student, Swift ( 2010 ) worked for a public agency and was responsible for that agency’s sexual harassment training. The agency needed to evaluate its training but had never done so before. He also had never attempted a significant empirical research project. Both of these conditions suggest exploration as a possible approach. He was interested in evaluating the training program and hence the project had a normative sense. Given his job, he already knew a lot about the problem of sexual harassment and sexual harassment training. What he did not know much about was doing empirical research, reviewing the literature or building a framework to evaluate the training (working hypotheses). He wanted a framework that was flexible and comprehensive. In his research, he discovered Lundvall’s ( 2006 ) knowledge taxonomy summarized with four simple ways of knowing ( Know - what, Know - how, Know - why, Know - who ). He asked whether his agency’s training provided the participants with these kinds of knowledge? Lundvall’s categories of knowing became the basis of his working hypotheses. Lundvall’s knowledge taxonomy is well suited for working hypotheses because it is so simple and is easy to understand intuitively. It can also be tailored to the unique problematic situation of the researcher. Swift ( 2010 , pp. 38–39) developed four basic working hypotheses:

• WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual harassment training
• WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual harassment training
• WH3: Capital Metro provides adequate know - why knowledge in its sexual harassment training
• WH4: Capital Metro provides adequate know - who knowledge in its sexual harassment training

From here he needed to determine what would determine the different kinds of knowledge. For example, what constitutes “know what” knowledge for sexual harassment training. This is where his knowledge and experience working in the field as well as the literature come into play. According to Lundvall et al. ( 1988 , p. 12) “know what” knowledge is about facts and raw information. Swift ( 2010 ) learned through the literature that laws and rules were the basis for the mandated sexual harassment training. He read about specific anti-discrimination laws and the subsequent rules and regulations derived from the laws. These laws and rules used specific definitions and were enacted within a historical context. Laws, rules, definitions and history became the “facts” of Know-What knowledge for his working hypothesis. To make this clear, he created sub-hypotheses that explicitly took these into account. See how Swift ( 2010 , p. 38) constructed the sub-hypotheses below. Each sub-hypothesis was defended using material from the literature (Swift 2010 , pp. 22–26). The sub-hypotheses can also be easily tied to evidence. For example, he could document that the training covered anti-discrimination laws.

WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual Harassment training

• WH1a: The sexual harassment training includes information on anti-discrimination laws (Title VII).
• WH1b: The sexual harassment training includes information on key definitions.
• WH1c: The sexual harassment training includes information on Capital Metro’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment policy.
• WH1d: Capital Metro provides training on sexual harassment history.

Know-How knowledge refers to the ability to do something and involves skills (Lundvall and Johnson 1994 , p. 12). It is a kind of expertise in action. The literature and his experience allowed James Smith to identify skills such as how to file a claim or how to document incidents of sexual harassment as important “know-how” knowledge that should be included in sexual harassment training. Again, these were depicted as sub-hypotheses.

WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual Harassment training

• WH2a: Training is provided on how to file and report a claim of harassment
• WH2b: Training is provided on how to document sexual harassment situations.
• WH2c: Training is provided on how to investigate sexual harassment complaints.
• WH2d: Training is provided on how to follow additional harassment policy procedures protocol

Note that the working hypotheses do not specify a relationship but rather are simple declarative sentences. If “know-how” knowledge was found in the sexual harassment training, he would be able to find evidence that participants learned about how to file a claim (WH2a). The working hypothesis provides the bridge between theory and data that Sutton and Staw (1995) found missing in exploratory work. The sub-hypotheses are designed to be refined enough that the researchers would know what to look for and tailor their hunt for evidence. Figure  1 captures the generic sub-hypothesis design.

A Common structure used in the development of working hypotheses

When expected evidence is linked to the sub-hypotheses, data, framework and research purpose are aligned. This can be laid out in a planning document that operationalizes the data collection in something akin to an architect’s blueprint. This is where the scholar explicitly develops the alignment between purpose, framework and method (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019b ).

Table  2 operationalizes Swift’s working hypotheses (and sub-hypotheses). The table provide clues as to what kind of evidence is needed to determine whether the hypotheses are supported. In this case, Smith used interviews with participants and trainers as well as a review of program documents. Column one repeats the sub-hypothesis, column two specifies the data collection method (here interviews with participants/managers and review of program documents) and column three specifies the unique questions that focus the investigation. For example, the interview questions are provided. In the less precise world of qualitative data, evidence supporting a hypothesis could have varying degrees of strength. This too can be specified.

Table 2

Operationalization of the working hypotheses: an example

For Swift’s example, neither the statistics of explanatory research nor the open-ended questions of interpretivist, inductive exploratory research is used. The deductive logic of inquiry here is somewhat intuitive and similar to a detective (Ulriksen and Dadalauri 2016 ). It is also a logic used in international law (Worster 2013 ). It should be noted that the working hypothesis and the corresponding data collection protocol does not stop inquiry and fieldwork outside the framework. The interviews could reveal an unexpected problem with Smith’s training program. The framework provides a very loose and perhaps useful ways to identify and make sense of the data that does not fit the expectations. Researchers using working hypotheses should be sensitive to interesting findings that fall outside their framework. These could be used in future studies, to refine theory or even in this case provide suggestions to improve sexual harassment training. The sensitizing concepts mentioned by Gilgun ( 2015 ) are free to emerge and should be encouraged.

Something akin to working hypotheses are hidden in plain sight in the professional literature. Take for example Kerry Crawford’s ( 2017 ) book Wartime Sexual Violence. Here she explores how basic changes in the way “advocates and decision makers think about and discuss conflict-related sexual violence” (p. 2). She focused on a subsequent shift from silence to action. The shift occurred as wartime sexual violence was reframed as a “weapon of war”. The new frame captured the attention of powerful members of the security community who demanded, initiated, and paid for institutional and policy change. Crawford ( 2017 ) examines the legacy of this key reframing. She develops a six-stage model of potential international responses to incidents of wartime violence. This model is fairly easily converted to working hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. Table  3 shows her model as a set of (non-relational) working hypotheses. She applied this model as a way to gather evidence among cases (e.g., the US response to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) to show the official level of response to sexual violence. Each case study chapter examined evidence to establish whether the case fit the pattern formalized in the working hypotheses. The framework was very useful in her comparative context. The framework allowed for consistent comparative analysis across cases. Her analysis of the three cases went well beyond the material covered in the framework. She freely incorporated useful inductively informed data in her analysis and discussion. The framework, however, allowed for alignment within and across cases.

Table 3

Example illustrating a set of working hypotheses as a framework for comparative case studies

Source : Adaptation from Table 1.1 of Crawford’s ( 2017 ) book Wartime Sexual Violence

In this article we argued that the exploratory research is also well suited for deductive approaches. By examining the landscape of deductive, exploratory research, we proposed the working hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It has the potential to guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. After presenting the nature of exploratory research purpose and how it differs from two types of research purposes identified in the literature—explanation, and description. We focused on answering four different questions in order to show the link between micro-conceptual frameworks and research purposes in a deductive setting. The answers to the four questions are summarized in Table  4 .

Table 4

Linking micro-conceptual frameworks and research purposes in deductive research

Firstly, we argued that working hypothesis and exploration are situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective. Pragmatism allows for pluralism in theory and data collection techniques, which is compatible with the flexible exploratory purpose. Secondly, after introducing and discussing the four core elements of pragmatism (practical, pluralism, participatory, and provisional), we explained how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research through a presentation of the benefits of triangulation provided by mixed methods research. Thirdly, as is clear from the article title, we introduced the working hypothesis as the micro-conceptual framework for deductive explorative research. We argued that the hypotheses of explorative research, which we call working hypotheses are distinguished from those of the explanatory research, since they do not require a relational component and are not bound by relational expectations. A working hypothesis is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic, and it could be viewed as a statement or group of statements of expectations tested in action depending on the research question. Using examples, we concluded by explaining how working hypotheses inform data collection and analysis for deductive exploratory research.

Crawford’s ( 2017 ) example showed how the structure of working hypotheses provide a framework for comparative case studies. Her criteria for analysis were specified ahead of time and used to frame each case. Thus, her comparisons were systemized across cases. Further, the framework ensured a connection between the data analysis and the literature review. Yet the flexible, working nature of the hypotheses allowed for unexpected findings to be discovered.

The evidence required to test working hypotheses is directed by the research purpose and potentially includes both quantitative and qualitative sources. Thus, all types of evidence, including quantitative methods should be part of the toolbox of deductive, explorative research. We show how the working hypotheses, as a flexible exploratory framework, resolves many seeming dualisms pervasive in the research methods literature.

To conclude, this article has provided an in-depth examination of working hypotheses taking into account philosophical questions and the larger formal research methods literature. By discussing working hypotheses as applied, theoretical tools, we demonstrated that working hypotheses fill a unique niche in the methods literature, since they provide a way to enhance alignment in deductive, explorative studies.

Acknowledgements

The authors contributed equally to this work. The authors would like to thank Quality & Quantity’ s editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable advice and comments on previous versions of this paper.

Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. There are no funders to report for this submission.

Compliance with ethical standards

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

1 In practice, quantitative scholars often run multivariate analysis on data bases to find out if there are correlations. Hypotheses are tested because the statistical software does the math, not because the scholar has an a priori, relational expectation (hypothesis) well-grounded in the literature and supported by cogent arguments. Hunches are just fine. This is clearly an inductive approach to research and part of the large process of inquiry.

2 In 1958 , Philosophers of Science, Oppenheim and Putnam use the notion of Working Hypothesis in their title “Unity of Science as Working Hypothesis.” They too, use it as a big picture concept, “unity of science in this sense, can be fully realized constitutes an over-arching meta-scientific hypothesis, which enables one to see a unity in scientific activities that might otherwise appear disconnected or unrelated” (p. 4).

3 It should be noted that the positivism described in the research methods literature does not resemble philosophical positivism as developed by philosophers like Comte (Whetsell and Shields 2015 ). In the research methods literature “positivism means different things to different people….The term has long been emptied of any precise denotation …and is sometimes affixed to positions actually opposed to those espoused by the philosophers from whom the name derives” (Schrag 1992 , p. 5). For purposes of this paper, we are capturing a few essential ways positivism is presented in the research methods literature. This helps us to position the “working hypothesis” and “exploratory” research within the larger context in contemporary research methods. We are not arguing that the positivism presented here is anything more. The incompatibility theory discussed later, is an outgrowth of this research methods literature…

4 It should be noted that quantitative researchers often use inductive reasoning. They do this with existing data sets when they run correlations or regression analysis as a way to find relationships. They ask, what does the data tell us?

5 Qualitative researchers are also associated with phenomenology, hermeneutics, naturalistic inquiry and constructivism.

6 See Feilzer ( 2010 ), Howe ( 1988 ), Johnson and Onwuegbunzie ( 2004 ), Morgan ( 2007 ), Onwuegbuzie and Leech ( 2005 ), Biddle and Schafft ( 2015 ).

7 The term conceptual framework is applicable in a broad context (see Ravitch and Riggan 2012 ). The micro-conceptual framework narrows to the specific study and informs data collection (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019a ) .

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Mattia Casula, Email: [email protected] .

Nandhini Rangarajan, Email: ude.etatsxt@11rn .

Patricia Shields, Email: ude.etatsxt@70sp .

• Adler E, Clark R. How It’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research. 3. Belmont: Thompson-Wadsworth; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnold RW. Multiple working hypothesis in soil genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1965; 29 (6):717–724. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1965.03615995002900060034x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atieno O. An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Probl. Educ. 21st Century. 2009; 13 :13–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research. 11. Belmont: Thompson-Wadsworth; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biddle C, Schafft KA. Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2015; 9 (4):320–334. doi: 10.1177/1558689814533157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brendel DH. Healing Psychiatry: Bridging the Science/Humanism Divide. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. Qualitative Research on Leadership: A Critical but Appreciative Review. Leadersh. Q. 2004; 15 (6):729–769. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casula, M.: Under which conditions is cohesion policy effective: proposing an Hirschmanian approach to EU structural funds, Regional & Federal Studies, 10.1080/13597566.2020.1713110 (2020a)
• Casula, M.: Economic gowth and cohesion policy implementation in Italy and Spain, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (2020b)
• Ciceri F, et al. Microvascular COVID-19 lung vessels obstructive thromboinflammatory syndrome (MicroCLOTS): an atypical acute respiratory distress syndrome working hypothesis. Crit. Care Resusc. 2020; 15 :1–3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford, K.F.: Wartime sexual violence: From silence to condemnation of a weapon of war. Georgetown University Press (2017)
• Cronbach, L.: Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology American Psychologist. 30 116–127 (1975)
• Dewey J. The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychol. Rev. 1896; 3 (4):357. doi: 10.1037/h0070405. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt & Co; 1938. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feilzer Y. Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2010; 4 (1):6–16. doi: 10.1177/1558689809349691. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilgun JF. Qualitative research and family psychology. J. Fam. Psychol. 2005; 19 (1):40–50. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.40. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilgun, J.F.: Methods for enhancing theory and knowledge about problems, policies, and practice. In: Katherine Briar, Joan Orme., Roy Ruckdeschel., Ian Shaw. (eds.) The Sage handbook of social work research pp. 281–297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2009)
• Gilgun JF. Deductive Qualitative Analysis as Middle Ground: Theory-Guided Qualitative Research. Seattle: Amazon Digital Services LLC; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobo G. Re-Conceptualizing Generalization: Old Issues in a New Frame. In: Alasuutari P, Bickman L, Brannen J, editors. The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods. Los Angeles: Sage; 2008. pp. 193–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grinnell, R.M.: Social work research and evaluation: quantitative and qualitative approaches. New York: F.E. Peacock Publishers (2001)
• Guba EG. What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Eval. Pract. 1987; 8 (1):23–43. doi: 10.1177/109821408700800102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guba E, Lincoln Y. Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habib M. The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia: an overview and working hypothesis. Brain. 2000; 123 (12):2373–2399. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.12.2373. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P. Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual. Quant. 2013; 47 (2):659–676. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hildebrand D. Dewey: A Beginners Guide. Oxford: Oneworld Oxford; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howe, K.R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Edu. Res. 17 (8), 10–16 (1988)
• Hothersall, S.J.: Epistemology and social work: enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism. Eur. J. Social Work 22 (5), 860–870 (2019)
• Hyde KF. Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qual. Market Res. Int. J. 2000; 3 (2):82–90. doi: 10.1108/13522750010322089. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 2004; 33 (7):14–26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2007; 1 (2):112–133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan A. The Conduct of Inquiry. Scranton: Chandler; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolb SM. Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: valid research strategies for educators. J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 2012; 3 (1):83–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levers, M.J.D.: Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open 3 (4), 2158244013517243 (2013)
• Lundvall, B.A.: Knowledge management in the learning economy. In: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics Working Paper Working Paper, vol. 6, pp. 3–5 (2006)
• Lundvall B-Å, Johnson B. Knowledge management in the learning economy. J. Ind. Stud. 1994; 1 (2):23–42. doi: 10.1080/13662719400000002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundvall B-Å, Jenson MB, Johnson B, Lorenz E, et al. Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation—From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In: Dosi G, et al., editors. Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maanen, J., Manning, P., Miller, M.: Series editors’ introduction. In: Stebbins, R. (ed.) Exploratory research in the social sciences. pp. v–vi. Thousands Oak, CA: SAGE (2001)
• Mackenzie N, Knipe S. Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues Educ. Res. 2006; 16 (2):193–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marlow CR. Research Methods for Generalist Social Work. New York: Thomson Brooks/Cole; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mead GH. The working hypothesis in social reform. Am. J. Sociol. 1899; 5 (3):367–371. doi: 10.1086/210897. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milnes AG. Structure of the Pennine Zone (Central Alps): a new working hypothesis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1974; 85 (11):1727–1732. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1974)85<1727:SOTPZC>2.0.CO;2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan DL. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2007; 1 (1):48–76. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. The significance of saturation. Qual. Health Res. 1995; 5 (2):147–149. doi: 10.1177/104973239500500201. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor MK, Netting FE, Thomas ML. Grounded theory: managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qual. Inq. 2008; 14 (1):28–45. doi: 10.1177/1077800407308907. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (5), 375–387 (2005)
• Oppenheim, P., Putnam, H.: Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II, pp. 3–36 (1958)
• Patten ML, Newhart M. Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials. 2. New York: Routledge; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearse, N.: An illustration of deductive analysis in qualitative research. In: European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, pp. 264–VII. Academic Conferences International Limited (2019)
• Prater DN, Case J, Ingram DA, Yoder MC. Working hypothesis to redefine endothelial progenitor cells. Leukemia. 2007; 21 (6):1141–1149. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404676. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch B, Riggan M. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Beverley Hills: Sage; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiter, B.: The epistemology and methodology of exploratory social science research: Crossing Popper with Marcuse. In: Government and International Affairs Faculty Publications. Paper 99. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gia_facpub/99 (2013)
• Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrag F. In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educ. Res. 1992; 21 (5):5–8. doi: 10.3102/0013189X021005005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shields, P.M.: Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A tool for public administration. Res. Pub. Admin. 41995-225 (1998)
• Shields, P.M., Rangarajan, N.: A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management. New Forums Press (2013)
• Shields PM, Tajalli H. Intermediate theory: the missing link in successful student scholarship. J. Public Aff. Educ. 2006; 12 (3):313–334. doi: 10.1080/15236803.2006.12001438. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shields, P., & Whetsell, T.: Public administration methodology: A pragmatic perspective. In: Raadshelders, J., Stillman, R., (eds). Foundations of Public Administration, pp. 75–92. New York: Melvin and Leigh (2017)
• Shields P, Rangarajan N, Casula M. It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part I) Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2019; 10 :39–47. doi: 10.31857/S013216250007107-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shields P, Rangarajan N, Casula M. It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part 2) Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2019; 11 :40–51. doi: 10.31857/S013216250007459-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JK. Quantitative versus qualitative research: an attempt to clarify the issue. Educ. Res. 1983; 12 (3):6–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X012003006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JK. Quantitative versus interpretive: the problem of conducting social inquiry. In: House E, editor. Philosophy of Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1983. pp. 27–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JK, Heshusius L. Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educ. Res. 1986; 15 (1):4–12. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015001004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stebbins RA. Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strydom H. An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Soc. Work/Maatskaplike Werk. 2013; 49 (2):149–164. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutton, R. I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Administrative science quarterly. 371–384 (1995)
• Swift, III, J.: Exploring Capital Metro’s Sexual Harassment Training using Dr. Bengt-Ake Lundvall’s taxonomy of knowledge principles. Applied Research Project, Texas State University https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3671 (2010)
• Thomas E, Magilvy JK. Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. J. Spec. Pediatric Nurs. 2011; 16 (2):151–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twining P, Heller RS, Nussbaum M, Tsai CC. Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Comput. Educ. 2017; 107 :A1–A9. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulriksen M, Dadalauri N. Single case studies and theory-testing: the knots and dots of the process-tracing method. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2016; 19 (2):223–239. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2014.979718. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Evera S. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whetsell TA, Shields PM. The dynamics of positivism in the study of public administration: a brief intellectual history and reappraisal. Adm. Soc. 2015; 47 (4):416–446. doi: 10.1177/0095399713490157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willis JW, Jost M, Nilakanta R. Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Beverley Hills: Sage; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Worster WT. The inductive and deductive methods in customary international law analysis: traditional and modern approaches. Georget. J. Int. Law. 2013; 45 :445. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge. 1981; 3 (1):97–114. doi: 10.1177/107554708100300106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. The case study method as a tool for doing evaluation. Curr. Sociol. 1992; 40 (1):121–137. doi: 10.1177/001139292040001009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Applications of Case Study Research. Beverley Hills: Sage; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]

How to Write an Explanatory Essay: Comprehensive Guide with Examples

What Is an Explanatory Essay: Definition

Have you ever been tasked with explaining a complex topic to someone without prior knowledge? It can be challenging to break down complex ideas into simple terms that are easy to understand. That's where explanatory writing comes in! An explanatory essay, also known as an expository essay, is a type of academic writing that aims to explain a particular topic or concept clearly and concisely. These essays are often used in academic settings but can also be found in newspapers, magazines, and online publications.

For example, if you were asked to explain how a car engine works, you would need to provide a step-by-step explanation of the different parts of the engine and how they work together to make the car move. Or, if you were asked to explain the process of photosynthesis, you would need to explain how plants use sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to create energy.

When wondering - 'what is an explanatory essay?', remember that the goal of an explanatory paper is to provide the reader with a better understanding of the topic at hand. Unlike an opinion essay , this type of paper does not argue for or against a particular viewpoint but rather presents information neutrally and objectively. By the end of the essay, the reader should clearly understand the topic and be able to explain it to others in their own words.

Also, there is no set number of paragraphs in an explanatory essay, as it can vary depending on the length and complexity of the topic. However, when wondering - 'how many paragraphs in an explanatory essay?', know that a typical example of explanatory writing will have an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

However, some essays may have more or fewer body paragraphs, depending on the topic and the writer's preference. Ultimately, an explanatory essay format aims to provide a clear and thorough explanation of the topic, using as many paragraphs as necessary.

20 Interesting Explanatory Essay Topics 

Now that we have defined what is explanatory essay, the next step is choosing a good explanatory topic. A well-chosen topic is interesting and relevant to your audience while also being something you are knowledgeable about and can provide valuable insights on. By selecting a topic that is too broad or too narrow, you run the risk of either overwhelming your audience with too much information or failing to provide enough substance to fully explain the topic. Additionally, choosing a topic that is too controversial or biased can lead to difficulty in presenting information objectively and neutrally. By choosing a good explanatory topic, you can ensure that your essay is well-informed, engaging, and effective in communicating your ideas to your audience.

Here are 20 creative explanatory essay topics by our admission essay service to consider:

• How does the human brain process emotions?
• The benefits and drawbacks of remote work.
• The science behind climate change and its effects.
• The history and evolution of hip-hop music.
• The impact of social media on mental health.
• The benefits of learning a second language.
• The process of how a computer operates.
• The causes and effects of bullying in schools.
• The impact of technology on modern education.
• The reasons for the decline of bee populations and their importance to the ecosystem.
• The effects of caffeine on the human body.
• The process of how vaccines work to prevent disease.
• The impact of video games on youth behavior and development.
• The reasons for the gender pay gap and how to close it.
• The benefits and drawbacks of renewable energy sources.
• The history and cultural significance of tattoos.
• The causes and effects of income inequality in society.
• The process of how a book is published.
• The impact of social media on political discourse.
• The benefits and drawbacks of the gig economy.

How to Start an Explanatory Essay: Important Steps

Starting an explanatory essay can be challenging, especially if you are unsure where to begin. However, by following a few simple steps, you can effectively kick-start your writing process and produce a clear and concise essay. Here are some tips and examples from our term paper writing services on how to start an explanatory essay:

• Choose an engaging topic : Your topic should be interesting, relevant, and meaningful to your audience. For example, if you're writing about climate change, you might focus on a specific aspect of the issue, such as the effects of rising sea levels on coastal communities.
• Conduct research : Gather as much information as possible on your topic. This may involve reading scholarly articles, conducting interviews, or analyzing data. For example, if you're writing about the benefits of mindfulness meditation, you might research the psychological and physical benefits of the practice.
• Develop an outline : Creating an outline will help you logically organize your explanatory essay structure. For example, you might organize your essay on the benefits of mindfulness meditation by discussing its effects on mental health, physical health, and productivity.
• Provide clear explanations: When writing an explanatory article, it's important to explain complex concepts clearly and concisely. Use simple language and avoid technical jargon. For example, if you're explaining the process of photosynthesis, you might use diagrams and visual aids to help illustrate your points.
• Use evidence to support your claims : Use evidence from reputable sources to support your claims and arguments. This will help to build credibility and persuade your readers. For example, if you're writing about the benefits of exercise, you might cite studies that demonstrate its positive effects on mental health and cognitive function.

By following these tips and examples, you can effectively start your expository essays and produce a well-structured, informative, and engaging piece of writing.

Do You Need a Perfect Essay?

To get a high-quality piece that meets your strict deadlines, seek out the help of our professional paper writers

Explanatory Essay Outline

As mentioned above, it's important to create an explanatory essay outline to effectively organize your ideas and ensure that your essay is well-structured and easy to follow. An outline helps you organize your thoughts and ideas logically and systematically, ensuring that you cover all the key points related to your topic. It also helps you identify gaps in your research or argument and allows you to easily revise and edit your essay. In this way, an outline can greatly improve the overall quality and effectiveness of your explanatory essay.

Explanatory Essay Introduction

Here are some tips from our ' do my homework ' service to create a good explanatory essay introduction that effectively engages your readers and sets the stage for the entire essay:

• Start with a hook: Begin your introduction with an attention-grabbing statement or question that draws your readers in. For example, you might start your essay on the benefits of exercise with a statistic on how many Americans suffer from obesity.
• Provide context: Give your readers some background information on the topic you'll be discussing. This helps to set the stage and ensures that your readers understand the importance of the topic. For example, you might explain the rise of obesity rates in the United States over the past few decades.
• State your thesis: A good explanatory thesis example should be clear, concise, and focused. It should state the main argument or point of your essay. For example, you might state, ' Regular exercise is crucial to maintaining a healthy weight and reducing the risk of chronic diseases.'
• Preview your main points: Give your readers an idea of what to expect in the body of your essay by previewing your main points. For example, you might explain that you'll be discussing the benefits of exercise for mental health, physical health, and longevity.
• Keep it concise: Your introduction should be brief and to the point. Avoid getting bogged down in too much detail or providing too much background information. A good rule of thumb is to keep your introduction to one or two paragraphs.

The Body Paragraphs

By following the following tips, you can create well-organized, evidence-based explanation essay body paragraphs that effectively support your thesis statement.

• Use credible sources: When providing evidence to support your arguments, use credible sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals or reputable news outlets. For example, if you're writing about the benefits of a plant-based diet, you might cite a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
• Organize your paragraphs logically: Each body paragraph should focus on a specific aspect or argument related to your topic. Organize your paragraphs logically so that each one builds on the previous one. For example, if you're writing about the causes of climate change, you might organize your paragraphs to focus on human activity, natural causes, and the effects of climate change.
• Use transitional phrases: Use transitional phrases to help your readers follow the flow of your ideas. For example, you might use phrases such as 'in addition,' 'furthermore,' or 'on the other hand' to indicate a shift in your argument.
• Provide analysis: Don't just present evidence; provide analysis and interpretation of the evidence. For example, if you're writing about the benefits of early childhood education, you might analyze the long-term effects on academic achievement and future earnings.
• Summarize your main points: End each body paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point or argument you've made. This helps to reinforce your thesis statement and keep your essay organized. For example, you might end a paragraph on the benefits of exercise by stating, 'Regular exercise has been shown to improve mental and physical health, making it a crucial aspect of a healthy lifestyle.'

Explanatory Essay Conclusion

Here are some unique tips on how to write an explanatory essay conclusion that leaves a lasting impression on your readers.

• Offer a solution or recommendation: Instead of summarizing your main points, offer suggestions based on the information you've presented. This can help to make your essay more impactful and leave a lasting impression on your readers. For example, if you're writing about the effects of pollution on the environment, you might recommend using more eco-friendly products or investing in renewable energy sources.
• Emphasize the importance of your topic: Use your concluding statement to emphasize the importance of your topic and why it's relevant to your readers. This can help to inspire action or change. For example, suppose you're writing about the benefits of volunteering. In that case, you might emphasize how volunteering helps others and has personal benefits such as improved mental health and a sense of purpose.
• End with a powerful quote or statement: End your explanatory essay conclusion with a powerful quote or statement that reinforces your main point or leaves a lasting impression on your readers. For example, if you're writing about the importance of education, you might end your essay with a quote from Nelson Mandela, such as, 'Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.'

Explanatory Essay Example

Here is an example of an explanatory essay:

Explanatory Essay Example:

Importance of Basketball

Final Thoughts

Now you understand whats an explanatory essay. However, if you're still feeling overwhelmed or unsure about writing an explanatory essay, don't worry. Our team of experienced writers is here to provide you with top-notch academic assistance tailored to your specific needs. Whether you need to explain what is an appendix in your definition essay or rewrite essay in five paragraphs, we've got you covered! With our professional help, you can ensure that your essay is well-researched, well-written, and meets all the academic requirements.

And if you'd rather have a professional craft flawless explanatory essay examples, know that our friendly team is dedicated to helping you succeed in your academic pursuits. So why not take the stress out of writing and let us help you achieve the academic success you deserve? Contact us today with your ' write paper for me ' request, and we will support you every step of the way.

Tired of Struggling to Put Your Thoughts into Words? 

Say goodbye to stress and hello to A+ grades with our top-notch academic writing services.

Related Articles

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Explanatory Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples

Explanatory Research | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on 7 May 2022 by Tegan George and Julia Merkus. Revised on 20 January 2023.

Explanatory research is a research method that explores why something occurs when limited information is available. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic, ascertain how or why a particular phenomenon is occurring, and predict future occurrences.

Explanatory research can also be explained as a ’cause and effect’ model, investigating patterns and trends in existing data that haven’t been previously investigated. For this reason, it is often considered a type of causal research .

Table of contents

When to use explanatory research, explanatory research questions, explanatory research data collection, explanatory research data analysis, step-by-step example of explanatory research, explanatory vs exploratory research, advantages and disadvantages of exploratory research, frequently asked questions about explanatory research.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon takes place. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process, serving as a jumping-off point for future research. While there is often data available about your topic, it’s possible the particular causal relationship you are interested in has not been robustly studied.

Explanatory research helps you analyse these patterns, formulating hypotheses that can guide future endeavors. If you are seeking a more complete understanding of a relationship between variables, explanatory research is a great place to start. However, keep in mind that it will likely not yield conclusive results.

You analysed their final grades and noticed that the students who take your course in the first semester always obtain higher grades than students who take the same course in the second semester.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Explanatory research answers ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions, leading to an improved understanding of a previously unresolved problem or providing clarity for related future research initiatives.

Here are a few examples:

• Why do undergraduate students obtain higher average grades in the first semester than in the second semester?
• How does marital status affect labour market participation?
• Why do multilingual individuals show more risky behaviour during business negotiations than monolingual individuals?
• How does a child’s ability to delay immediate gratification predict success later in life?
• Why are teenagers more likely to litter in a highly littered area than in a clean area?

After choosing your research question, there is a variety of options for research and data collection methods to choose from.

A few of the most common research methods include:

• Literature reviews
• Interviews and focus groups
• Pilot studies
• Observations
• Experiments

The method you choose depends on several factors, including your timeline, your budget, and the structure of your question.

If there is already a body of research on your topic, a literature review is a great place to start. If you are interested in opinions and behaviour, consider an interview or focus group format. If you have more time or funding available, an experiment or pilot study may be a good fit for you.

In order to ensure you are conducting your explanatory research correctly, be sure your analysis is definitively causal in nature, and not just correlated.

Always remember the phrase ‘correlation doesn’t imply causation’. Correlated variables are merely associated with one another: when one variable changes, so does the other. However, this isn’t necessarily due to a direct or indirect causal link.

Causation means that changes in the independent variable bring about changes in the dependent variable. In other words, there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between variables.

Causal evidence must meet three criteria:

• Temporal : What you define as the ’cause’ must precede what you define as the ‘effect’.
• Variation : Intervention must be systematic between your independent variable and dependent variable.
• Non-spurious : Be careful that there are no mitigating factors or hidden third variables that confound your results.

Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but causation always implies correlation. In order to get conclusive causal results, you’ll need to conduct a full experimental design .

Your explanatory research design depends on the research method you choose to collect your data . In most cases, you’ll use an experiment to investigate potential causal relationships. We’ll walk you through the steps using an example.

Step 1: Develop the research question

The first step in conducting explanatory research is getting familiar with the topic you’re interested in, so that you can develop a research question .

Let’s say you’re interested in language retention rates in adults.

You are interested in finding out how the duration of exposure to language influences language retention ability later in life.

Step 2: Formulate a hypothesis

The next step is to address your expectations. In some cases, there is literature available on your subject or on a closely related topic that you can use as a foundation for your hypothesis . In other cases, the topic isn’t well studied, and you’ll have to develop your hypothesis based on your instincts or on existing literature on more distant topics.

• H 0 : The duration of exposure to a language in infancy does not influence language retention in adults who were adopted from abroad as children.
• H 1 : The duration of exposure to a language in infancy has a positive effect on language retention in adults who were adopted from abroad as children.

Step 3: Design your methodology and collect your data

Next, decide what data collection and data analysis methods you will use and write them up. After carefully designing your research, you can begin to collect your data.

• Adults who were adopted from Colombia between 0 and 6 months of age
• Adults who were adopted from Colombia between 6 and 12 months of age
• Adults who were adopted from Colombia between 12 and 18 months of age
• Monolingual adults who have not been exposed to a different language

During the study, you test their Spanish language proficiency twice in a research design that has three stages:

• Pretest : You conduct several language proficiency tests to establish any differences between groups pre-intervention.
• Intervention : You provide all groups with 8 hours of Spanish class.
• Posttest : You again conduct several language proficiency tests to establish any differences between groups post-intervention.

You made sure to control for any confounding variables , such as age, gender, and proficiency in other languages.

Step 4: Analyse your data and report results

After data collection is complete, proceed to analyse your data and report the results.

• The pre-exposed adults showed higher language proficiency in Spanish than those who had not been pre-exposed. The difference is even greater for the posttest.
• The adults who were adopted between 12 and 18 months of age had a higher Spanish language proficiency level than those who were adopted between 0 and 6 months or 6 and 12 months of age, but there was no difference found between the latter two groups.

To determine whether these differences are significant, you conduct a mixed ANOVA. The ANOVA shows that all differences are not significant for the pretest, but they are significant for the posttest.

Step 5: Interpret your results and provide suggestions for future research

As you interpret the results, try to come up with explanations for the results that you did not expect. In most cases, you want to provide suggestions for future research.

However, this difference is only significant after the intervention (the Spanish class).

You decide it’s worth it to further research the matter, and propose a few additional research ideas:

• Replicate the study with a larger sample
• Replicate the study for other maternal languages (e.g., Korean, Lingala, Arabic)
• Replicate the study for other language aspects, such as nativeness of the accent

It can be easy to confuse explanatory research with exploratory research. If you’re in doubt about the relationship between exploratory and explanatory research, just remember that exploratory research lays the groundwork for later explanatory research.

Exploratory research questions often begin with ‘what’. They are designed to guide future research and do not usually have conclusive results. Exploratory research is often utilised as a first step in your research process, to help you focus your research question and fine-tune your hypotheses.

Explanatory research questions often start with ‘why’ or ‘how’. They help you study why and how a previously studied phenomenon takes place.

Like any other research design , exploratory research has its trade-offs: while it provides a unique set of benefits, it also has significant downsides:

• It gives more meaning to previous research. It helps fill in the gaps in existing analyses and provides information on the reasons behind phenomena.
• It is very flexible and often replicable, since the internal validity tends to be high when done correctly.
• As you can often use secondary research, explanatory research is often very cost- and time-effective, allowing you to utilise pre-existing resources to guide your research before committing to heavier analyses.

Disadvantages

• While explanatory research does help you solidify your theories and hypotheses, it usually lacks conclusive results.
• Results can be biased or inadmissible to a larger body of work and are not generally externally valid . You will likely have to conduct more robust (often quantitative ) research later to bolster any possible findings gleaned from explanatory research.
• Coincidences can be mistaken for causal relationships , and it can sometimes be challenging to ascertain which is the causal variable and which is the effect.

Explanatory research is a research method used to investigate how or why something occurs when only a small amount of information is available pertaining to that topic. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.

Exploratory research explores the main aspects of a new or barely researched question.

Explanatory research explains the causes and effects of an already widely researched question.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. & Merkus, J. (2023, January 20). Explanatory Research | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 5 December 2023, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/explanatory-research-design/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, exploratory research | definition, guide, & examples, descriptive research design | definition, methods & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

• Privacy Policy
• SignUp/Login

Home » Exploratory Vs Explanatory Research

Exploratory Vs Explanatory Research

Table of Contents

Exploratory research and explanatory research are two fundamental types of research studies, and they have different objectives, approaches, and outcomes.

Exploratory Research

Exploratory research is usually conducted when the researcher is trying to gain a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon, situation, or problem. The primary purpose of exploratory research is to explore and generate ideas, hypotheses, and theories about a topic or issue that is not well understood. The researcher typically uses qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, or observational studies, to collect data. The data collected in exploratory research is usually descriptive and helps the researcher to identify patterns and trends, generate hypotheses, and develop a deeper understanding of the research problem. Exploratory research is usually the first step in a larger research project, and its results are used to guide the design of subsequent studies.

Explanatory Research

Explanatory research , on the other hand, is conducted when the researcher is trying to explain the relationship between variables or to test hypotheses that have been generated through exploratory research. The primary purpose of explanatory research is to explain why and how things happen. The researcher typically uses quantitative research methods, such as surveys or experiments, to collect data. The data collected in explanatory research is usually analyzed statistically to test hypotheses and to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables.

Differences Between Exploratory and Explanatory Research

In summary, exploratory research is used to gain a deeper understanding of a research problem, while explanatory research is used to explain the relationship between variables or to test hypotheses. Both types of research are important and complement each other in the research process. Exploratory research is usually the first step in a larger research project, while explanatory research is conducted after exploratory research to test hypotheses and to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Primary Vs Secondary Research

Correlational Research Vs Experimental Research

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research

Clinical Research Vs Lab Research

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Introductions, Body Paragraphs, and Conclusions for Exploratory Papers

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This resource will help you with exploratory/inquiry essay assignments.

Many paper assignments call for you to establish a position and defend that position with an effective argument. However, some assignments are not argumentative, but rather, they are exploratory. Exploratory essays ask questions and gather information that may answer these questions. However, the main point of the exploratory or inquiry essay is not to find definite answers. The main point is to conduct inquiry into a topic, gather information, and share that information with readers.

Introductions for Exploratory Essays

The introduction is the broad beginning of the paper that answers three important questions:

• What is this?
• Why am I reading it?
• What do you want me to do?

You should answer these questions in an exploratory essay by doing the following:

• Set the context – provide general information about the main idea, explaining the situation so the reader can make sense of the topic and the questions you will ask
• State why the main idea is important – tell the reader why they should care and keep reading. Your goal is to create a compelling, clear, and educational essay people will want to read and act upon
• State your research question – compose a question or two that clearly communicate what you want to discover and why you are interested in the topic. An overview of the types of sources you explored might follow your research question.

If your inquiry paper is long, you may want to forecast how you explored your topic by outlining the structure of your paper, the sources you considered, and the information you found in these sources. Your forecast could read something like this:

In order to explore my topic and try to answer my research question, I began with news sources. I then conducted research in scholarly sources, such as peer-reviewed journals. Lastly, I conducted an interview with a primary source. All these sources gave me a better understanding of my topic, and even though I was not able to fully answer my research questions, I learned a lot and narrowed my subject for the next paper assignment, the problem-solution report.

For this OWL resource, the example exploratory process investigates a local problem to gather more information so that eventually a solution may be suggested.

Identify a problem facing your University (institution, students, faculty, staff) or the local area and conduct exploratory research to find out as much as you can on the following:

• Causes of the problem and other contributing factors
• People/institutions involved in the situation: decision makers and stakeholders
• Possible solutions to the problem.

You do not have to argue for a solution to the problem at this point. The point of the exploratory essay is to ask an inquiry question and find out as much as you can to try to answer your question. Then write about your inquiry and findings.

How to Format a Thesis for a Research Paper

Every good research paper needs a clear and concise thesis statement to present the main topic and preview the paper’s contents. The question is, “How do you format a research paper thesis?” “What is standard, and what do readers and professors expect to see?”

Here we explain how to write a thesis for a research paper. We’ll explain the best format for a research paper thesis and share some examples for different types of papers. We’ll even discuss the difference between a thesis statement, a research question, and a hypothesis.

Give your writing extra polish Grammarly helps you communicate confidently Write with Grammarly

What is a thesis statement in a research paper?

A thesis statement is a single sentence in a research paper that plainly and succinctly explains the main point the research attempts to prove. For example, if you were researching the effects of exercise on stress, your thesis statement might be:

Due to the neurological effects of exercise, people who exercise regularly report lower stress levels than those who do not exercise.

Notice how the thesis statement gives a complete overview of the topic without saying too much. Thesis statements act only as an introduction to the topic, while the rest of the paper covers the details and explains the finer points.

Understanding what goes into a good thesis statement is a necessary part of knowing how to write a research paper . By previewing what the paper is about, a thesis statement prepares the reader so they know what to expect. Because thesis statements play this role, they usually come at the beginning of a paper, typically in the introduction.

6 tips for formatting a research paper thesis

Although there are no official rules for a research paper thesis statement, some generally accepted best practices can help you write yours. Keep these guidelines in mind when writing your research paper thesis:

1 It should be clear and concise: A research paper thesis statement should use plain language and explain the topic briefly, without going into too much detail.

2 It’s a single sentence: A thesis statement is generally only one sentence, which helps keep the topic simple and makes it easier to understand.

3 It should establish the scope of the topic: After reading the research paper thesis, your reader should know what the paper will—and will not—discuss.

4 It asserts a claim: Thesis statements should not be ambiguous; they should present a clear assertion that is backed by evidence, which you discuss in the body of the paper.

5 It’s located at the beginning: A research paper thesis statement should come early in the paper, typically in the first paragraph of the introduction.

6 It’s reiterated at the end: A thesis statement is usually either repeated or rephrased at the end of the paper in the research paper conclusion as a way to wrap everything up.

A thesis statement can also help you organize your entire research paper. You must decide on a topic before you begin your research, and phrasing your topic as a thesis statement can further refine the direction your research will go in. In this way, your thesis statement can help you write your research paper outline and structure your evidence in a logical sequence to improve the flow of your paper.

Example format of research paper thesis by type

Argumentative.

The argumentative style of research paper attempts to convince the reader of a certain point of view using evidence and factual data. Often this style is used for topics that include opposing points of view; however, this is not a prerequisite.

A thesis statement in an argumentative paper clearly defines the author’s position and often uses persuasive language to appeal to the reader.

Example format of research paper thesis: Argumentative

Although washing your hands is an effective way to kill germs, our research finds that washing your hands excessively can actually weaken certain immunities and make the skin vulnerable to new afflictions.

As the name suggests, expository writing aims to expose new information that the reader is likely not familiar with. It is common in both journalism and research papers as a way to educate and inform readers.

Expository research papers often present their main point directly in the thesis statement, sometimes phrasing it as a hook to keep the reader engaged and curious enough to keep reading.

Example format of research paper thesis: Expository

Our research has found that cyberbullies are motivated primarily by recreation and entertainment, unlike offline bullies, who are more likely motivated by rage, revenge, or a misguided reward system.

An analytical style of research takes a focused, methodical approach to a single topic. Analytical research papers are a deep dive into one particular issue, exploring it from multiple angles and accounting for even the smallest details.

The thesis statement for an analytical research paper should briefly mention each key point of the topic without overexplaining or listing too many details.

Example format of research paper thesis: Analytical

Despite Sigmund Freud being regarded as the “father of modern psychology,” a present-day review of his famous theories and practices reveals that most of his ideas are, in retrospect, deeply flawed.

Thesis statement vs. research question vs. hypothesis

Thesis statements are often confused with research questions and hypotheses, all of which aim to encapsulate an entire paper’s idea in a single sentence at the beginning of the document. So what’s the difference between a thesis statement, a research question, and a hypothesis?

A thesis statement is a general overview that’s used not only for research papers but also for essay writing and other nonfiction works. A thesis statement is essentially a summary of the main idea in a paper that introduces the topic to the reader.

A research question is an interrogative sentence that your research attempts to answer. For example, if your research paper is about how long it takes different temperatures of water to reach a boiling point, your research question could be, “What is the optimal temperature for boiling water quickly?” Research questions are mainly for research papers that have a particular emphasis on empirical data.

A hypothesis is a prediction about what will happen that is made before the actual research begins. A hypothesis in a research paper is proven either correct or incorrect based on the research. You can include a hypothesis in addition to your thesis statement or research question.

Thesis statement format FAQs

What is a thesis statement.

A thesis statement is a sentence in a research paper that concisely and clearly explains what the research is attempting to prove.

What are the guidelines for writing a well-formatted thesis statement?

A well-formatted thesis statement has the following qualities:

• It’s clear and concise.
• It’s a single sentence.
• It establishes the scope of the topic.
• It asserts a claim.
• It’s located in the introduction.
• It’s reiterated in the conclusion.

What’s the difference between a thesis statement, a research question, and a hypothesis?

A thesis statement is a general overview used in research papers and other nonfiction writing. A research question is an interrogative sentence that your research attempts to answer, and a hypothesis is a prediction made before the actual research begins about what will happen.

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: explanatory argument extraction of correct answers in resident medical exams.

Abstract: Developing the required technology to assist medical experts in their everyday activities is currently a hot topic in the Artificial Intelligence research field. Thus, a number of large language models (LLMs) and automated benchmarks have recently been proposed with the aim of facilitating information extraction in Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) using natural language as a tool for mediating in human-AI interaction. The most representative benchmarks are limited to either multiple-choice or long-form answers and are available only in English. In order to address these shortcomings, in this paper we present a new dataset which, unlike previous work: (i) includes not only explanatory arguments for the correct answer, but also arguments to reason why the incorrect answers are not correct; (ii) the explanations are written originally by medical doctors to answer questions from the Spanish Residency Medical Exams. Furthermore, this new benchmark allows us to setup a novel extractive task which consists of identifying the explanation of the correct answer written by medical doctors. An additional benefit of our setting is that we can leverage the extractive QA paradigm to automatically evaluate performance of LLMs without resorting to costly manual evaluation by medical experts. Comprehensive experimentation with language models for Spanish shows that sometimes multilingual models fare better than monolingual ones, even outperforming models which have been adapted to the medical domain. Furthermore, results across the monolingual models are mixed, with supposedly smaller and inferior models performing competitively. In any case, the obtained results show that our novel dataset and approach can be an effective technique to help medical practitioners in identifying relevant evidence-based explanations for medical questions.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Download PDF
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research

• Open access
• Published: 08 December 2020
• volume  55 ,  pages 1703–1725 ( 2021 )

You have full access to this open access article

• Mattia Casula   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7081-8153 1 ,
• Nandhini Rangarajan 2 &
• Patricia Shields   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0960-4869 2  

46k Accesses

63 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Cite this article

While hypotheses frame explanatory studies and provide guidance for measurement and statistical tests, deductive, exploratory research does not have a framing device like the hypothesis. To this purpose, this article examines the landscape of deductive, exploratory research and offers the working hypothesis as a flexible, useful framework that can guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. The working hypothesis conceptual framework is introduced, placed in a philosophical context, defined, and applied to public administration and comparative public policy. Doing so, this article explains: the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research; how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive, explorative research; the nature of micro-conceptual frameworks for deductive exploratory research; and, how the working hypothesis informs data analysis when exploratory research is deductive.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Exploratory research is generally considered to be inductive and qualitative (Stebbins 2001 ). Exploratory qualitative studies adopting an inductive approach do not lend themselves to a priori theorizing and building upon prior bodies of knowledge (Reiter 2013 ; Bryman 2004 as cited in Pearse 2019 ). Juxtaposed against quantitative studies that employ deductive confirmatory approaches, exploratory qualitative research is often criticized for lack of methodological rigor and tentativeness in results (Thomas and Magilvy 2011 ). This paper focuses on the neglected topic of deductive, exploratory research and proposes working hypotheses as a useful framework for these studies.

To emphasize that certain types of applied research lend themselves more easily to deductive approaches, to address the downsides of exploratory qualitative research, and to ensure qualitative rigor in exploratory research, a significant body of work on deductive qualitative approaches has emerged (see for example, Gilgun 2005 , 2015 ; Hyde 2000 ; Pearse 2019 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 3) the use of conceptual frameworks derived from comprehensive reviews of literature and a priori theorizing were common practices in qualitative research prior to the publication of Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) The Discovery of Grounded Theory . Gilgun ( 2015 ) coined the terms Deductive Qualitative Analysis (DQA) to arrive at some sort of “middle-ground” such that the benefits of a priori theorizing (structure) and allowing room for new theory to emerge (flexibility) are reaped simultaneously. According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 14) “in DQA, the initial conceptual framework and hypotheses are preliminary. The purpose of DQA is to come up with a better theory than researchers had constructed at the outset (Gilgun 2005 , 2009 ). Indeed, the production of new, more useful hypotheses is the goal of DQA”.

DQA provides greater level of structure for both the experienced and novice qualitative researcher (see for example Pearse 2019 ; Gilgun 2005 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 4) “conceptual frameworks are the sources of hypotheses and sensitizing concepts”. Sensitizing concepts frame the exploratory research process and guide the researcher’s data collection and reporting efforts. Pearse ( 2019 ) discusses the usefulness for deductive thematic analysis and pattern matching to help guide DQA in business research. Gilgun ( 2005 ) discusses the usefulness of DQA for family research.

Given these rationales for DQA in exploratory research, the overarching purpose of this paper is to contribute to that growing corpus of work on deductive qualitative research. This paper is specifically aimed at guiding novice researchers and student scholars to the working hypothesis as a useful a priori framing tool. The applicability of the working hypothesis as a tool that provides more structure during the design and implementation phases of exploratory research is discussed in detail. Examples of research projects in public administration that use the working hypothesis as a framing tool for deductive exploratory research are provided.

In the next section, we introduce the three types of research purposes. Second, we examine the nature of the exploratory research purpose. Third, we provide a definition of working hypothesis. Fourth, we explore the philosophical roots of methodology to see where exploratory research fits. Fifth, we connect the discussion to the dominant research approaches (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) to see where deductive exploratory research fits. Sixth, we examine the nature of theory and the role of the hypothesis in theory. We contrast formal hypotheses and working hypotheses. Seven, we provide examples of student and scholarly work that illustrates how working hypotheses are developed and operationalized. Lastly, this paper synthesizes previous discussion with concluding remarks.

2 Three types of research purposes

The literature identifies three basic types of research purposes—explanation, description and exploration (Babbie 2007 ; Adler and Clark 2008 ; Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Whetsell 2017 ). Research purposes are similar to research questions; however, they focus on project goals or aims instead of questions.

Explanatory research answers the “why” question (Babbie 2007 , pp. 89–90), by explaining “why things are the way they are”, and by looking “for causes and reasons” (Adler and Clark 2008 , p. 14). Explanatory research is closely tied to hypothesis testing. Theory is tested using deductive reasoning, which goes from the general to the specific (Hyde 2000 , p. 83). Hypotheses provide a frame for explanatory research connecting the research purpose to other parts of the research process (variable construction, choice of data, statistical tests). They help provide alignment or coherence across stages in the research process and provide ways to critique the strengths and weakness of the study. For example, were the hypotheses grounded in the appropriate arguments and evidence in the literature? Are the concepts imbedded in the hypotheses appropriately measured? Was the best statistical test used? When the analysis is complete (hypothesis is tested), the results generally answer the research question (the evidence supported or failed to support the hypothesis) (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ).

Descriptive research addresses the “What” question and is not primarily concerned with causes (Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Tajalli 2006 ). It lies at the “midpoint of the knowledge continuum” (Grinnell 2001 , p. 248) between exploration and explanation. Descriptive research is used in both quantitative and qualitative research. A field researcher might want to “have a more highly developed idea of social phenomena” (Strydom 2013 , p. 154) and develop thick descriptions using inductive logic. In science, categorization and classification systems such as the periodic table of chemistry or the taxonomies of biology inform descriptive research. These baseline classification systems are a type of theorizing and allow researchers to answer questions like “what kind” of plants and animals inhabit a forest. The answer to this question would usually be displayed in graphs and frequency distributions. This is also the data presentation system used in the social sciences (Ritchie and Lewis 2003 ; Strydom 2013 ). For example, if a scholar asked, what are the needs of homeless people? A quantitative approach would include a survey that incorporated a “needs” classification system (preferably based on a literature review). The data would be displayed as frequency distributions or as charts. Description can also be guided by inductive reasoning, which draws “inferences from specific observable phenomena to general rules or knowledge expansion” (Worster 2013 , p. 448). Theory and hypotheses are generated using inductive reasoning, which begins with data and the intention of making sense of it by theorizing. Inductive descriptive approaches would use a qualitative, naturalistic design (open ended interview questions with the homeless population). The data could provide a thick description of the homeless context. For deductive descriptive research, categories, serve a purpose similar to hypotheses for explanatory research. If developed with thought and a connection to the literature, categories can serve as a framework that inform measurement, link to data collection mechanisms and to data analysis. Like hypotheses they can provide horizontal coherence across the steps in the research process.

Table  1 demonstrated these connections for deductive, descriptive and explanatory research. The arrow at the top emphasizes the horizontal or across the research process view we emphasize. This article makes the case that the working hypothesis can serve the same purpose as the hypothesis for deductive, explanatory research and categories for deductive descriptive research. The cells for exploratory research are filled in with question marks.

The remainder of this paper focuses on exploratory research and the answers to questions found in the table:

What is the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research?

What is the Micro-conceptual framework for deductive exploratory research? [ As is clear from the article title we introduce the working hypothesis as the answer .]

How does the working hypothesis inform the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research?

How does the working hypothesis inform data analysis of deductive exploratory research?

3 The nature of exploratory research purpose

Explorers enter the unknown to discover something new. The process can be fraught with struggle and surprises. Effective explorers creatively resolve unexpected problems. While we typically think of explorers as pioneers or mountain climbers, exploration is very much linked to the experience and intention of the explorer. Babies explore as they take their first steps. The exploratory purpose resonates with these insights. Exploratory research, like reconnaissance, is a type of inquiry that is in the preliminary or early stages (Babbie 2007 ). It is associated with discovery, creativity and serendipity (Stebbins 2001 ). But the person doing the discovery, also defines the activity or claims the act of exploration. It “typically occurs when a researcher examines a new interest or when the subject of study itself is relatively new” (Babbie 2007 , p. 88). Hence, exploration has an open character that emphasizes “flexibility, pragmatism, and the particular, biographically specific interests of an investigator” (Maanen et al. 2001 , p. v). These three purposes form a type of hierarchy. An area of inquiry is initially explored . This early work lays the ground for, description which in turn becomes the basis for explanation . Quantitative, explanatory studies dominate contemporary high impact journals (Twining et al. 2017 ).

Stebbins ( 2001 ) makes the point that exploration is often seen as something like a poor stepsister to confirmatory or hypothesis testing research. He has a problem with this because we live in a changing world and what is settled today will very likely be unsettled in the near future and in need of exploration. Further, exploratory research “generates initial insights into the nature of an issue and develops questions to be investigated by more extensive studies” (Marlow 2005 , p. 334). Exploration is widely applicable because all research topics were once “new.” Further, all research topics have the possibility of “innovation” or ongoing “newness”. Exploratory research may be appropriate to establish whether a phenomenon exists (Strydom 2013 ). The point here, of course, is that the exploratory purpose is far from trivial.

Stebbins’ Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences ( 2001 ), is the only book devoted to the nature of exploratory research as a form of social science inquiry. He views it as a “broad-ranging, purposive, systematic prearranged undertaking designed to maximize the discovery of generalizations leading to description and understanding of an area of social or psychological life” (p. 3). It is science conducted in a way distinct from confirmation. According to Stebbins ( 2001 , p. 6) the goal is discovery of potential generalizations, which can become future hypotheses and eventually theories that emerge from the data. He focuses on inductive logic (which stimulates creativity) and qualitative methods. He does not want exploratory research limited to the restrictive formulas and models he finds in confirmatory research. He links exploratory research to Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) flexible, immersive, Grounded Theory. Strydom’s ( 2013 ) analysis of contemporary social work research methods books echoes Stebbins’ ( 2001 ) position. Stebbins’s book is an important contribution, but it limits the potential scope of this flexible and versatile research purpose. If we accepted his conclusion, we would delete the “Exploratory” row from Table  1 .

Note that explanatory research can yield new questions, which lead to exploration. Inquiry is a process where inductive and deductive activities can occur simultaneously or in a back and forth manner, particularly as the literature is reviewed and the research design emerges. Footnote 1 Strict typologies such as explanation, description and exploration or inductive/deductive can obscures these larger connections and processes. We draw insight from Dewey’s ( 1896 ) vision of inquiry as depicted in his seminal “Reflex Arc” article. He notes that “stimulus” and “response” like other dualities (inductive/deductive) exist within a larger unifying system. Yet the terms have value. “We need not abandon terms like stimulus and response, so long as we remember that they are attached to events based upon their function in a wider dynamic context, one that includes interests and aims” (Hildebrand 2008 , p. 16). So too, in methodology typologies such as deductive/inductive capture useful distinctions with practical value and are widely used in the methodology literature.

We argue that there is a role for exploratory, deductive, and confirmatory research. We maintain all types of research logics and methods should be in the toolbox of exploratory research. First, as stated above, it makes no sense on its face to identify an extremely flexible purpose that is idiosyncratic to the researcher and then basically restrict its use to qualitative, inductive, non-confirmatory methods. Second, Stebbins’s ( 2001 ) work focused on social science ignoring the policy sciences. Exploratory research can be ideal for immediate practical problems faced by policy makers, who could find a framework of some kind useful. Third, deductive, exploratory research is more intentionally connected to previous research. Some kind of initial framing device is located or designed using the literature. This may be very important for new scholars who are developing research skills and exploring their field and profession. Stebbins’s insights are most pertinent for experienced scholars. Fourth, frameworks and deductive logic are useful for comparative work because some degree of consistency across cases is built into the design.

As we have seen, the hypotheses of explanatory and categories of descriptive research are the dominate frames of social science and policy science. We certainly concur that neither of these frames makes a lot of sense for exploratory research. They would tend to tie it down. We see the problem as a missing framework or missing way to frame deductive, exploratory research in the methodology literature. Inductive exploratory research would not work for many case studies that are trying to use evidence to make an argument. What exploratory deductive case studies need is a framework that incorporates flexibility. This is even more true for comparative case studies. A framework of this sort could be usefully applied to policy research (Casula 2020a ), particularly evaluative policy research, and applied research generally. We propose the Working Hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and as a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It can be used as an evaluative criterion particularly for process evaluation and is useful for student research because students can develop theorizing skills using the literature.

Table  1 included a column specifying the philosophical basis for each research purpose. Shifting gears to the philosophical underpinning of methodology provides useful additional context for examination of deductive, exploratory research.

4 What is a working hypothesis

The working hypothesis is first and foremost a hypothesis or a statement of expectation that is tested in action. The term “working” suggest that these hypotheses are subject to change, are provisional and the possibility of finding contradictory evidence is real. In addition, a “working” hypothesis is active, it is a tool in an ongoing process of inquiry. If one begins with a research question, the working hypothesis could be viewed as a statement or group of statements that answer the question. It “works” to move purposeful inquiry forward. “Working” also implies some sort of community, mostly we work together in relationship to achieve some goal.

Working Hypothesis is a term found in earlier literature. Indeed, both pioneering pragmatists, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead use the term working hypothesis in important nineteenth century works. For both Dewey and Mead, the notion of a working hypothesis has a self-evident quality and it is applied in a big picture context. Footnote 2

Most notably, Dewey ( 1896 ), in one of his most pivotal early works (“Reflex Arc”), used “working hypothesis” to describe a key concept in psychology. “The idea of the reflex arc has upon the whole come nearer to meeting this demand for a general working hypothesis than any other single concept (Italics added)” (p. 357). The notion of a working hypothesis was developed more fully 42 years later, in Logic the Theory of Inquiry , where Dewey developed the notion of a working hypothesis that operated on a smaller scale. He defines working hypotheses as a “provisional, working means of advancing investigation” (Dewey 1938 , pp. 142). Dewey’s definition suggests that working hypotheses would be useful toward the beginning of a research project (e.g., exploratory research).

Mead ( 1899 ) used working hypothesis in a title of an American Journal of Sociology article “The Working Hypothesis and Social Reform” (italics added). He notes that a scientist’s foresight goes beyond testing a hypothesis.

Given its success, he may restate his world from this standpoint and get the basis for further investigation that again always takes the form of a problem. The solution of this problem is found over again in the possibility of fitting his hypothetical proposition into the whole within which it arises. And he must recognize that this statement is only a working hypothesis at the best, i.e., he knows that further investigation will show that the former statement of his world is only provisionally true, and must be false from the standpoint of a larger knowledge, as every partial truth is necessarily false over against the fuller knowledge which he will gain later (Mead 1899 , p. 370).

Cronbach ( 1975 ) developed a notion of working hypothesis consistent with inductive reasoning, but for him, the working hypothesis is a product or result of naturalistic inquiry. He makes the case that naturalistic inquiry is highly context dependent and therefore results or seeming generalizations that may come from a study and should be viewed as “working hypotheses”, which “are tentative both for the situation in which they first uncovered and for other situations” (as cited in Gobo 2008 , p. 196).

A quick Google scholar search using the term “working hypothesis” show that it is widely used in twentieth and twenty-first century science, particularly in titles. In these articles, the working hypothesis is treated as a conceptual tool that furthers investigation in its early or transitioning phases. We could find no explicit links to exploratory research. The exploratory nature of the problem is expressed implicitly. Terms such as “speculative” (Habib 2000 , p. 2391) or “rapidly evolving field” (Prater et al. 2007 , p. 1141) capture the exploratory nature of the study. The authors might describe how a topic is “new” or reference “change”. “As a working hypothesis, the picture is only new, however, in its interpretation” (Milnes 1974 , p. 1731). In a study of soil genesis, Arnold ( 1965 , p. 718) notes “Sequential models, formulated as working hypotheses, are subject to further investigation and change”. Any 2020 article dealing with COVID-19 and respiratory distress would be preliminary almost by definition (Ciceri et al. 2020 ).

5 Philosophical roots of methodology

According to Kaplan ( 1964 , p. 23) “the aim of methodology is to help us understand, in the broadest sense not the products of scientific inquiry but the process itself”. Methods contain philosophical principles that distinguish them from other “human enterprises and interests” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 23). Contemporary research methodology is generally classified as quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Leading scholars of methodology have associated each with a philosophical underpinning—positivism (or post-positivism), interpretivism or constructivist and pragmatism, respectively (Guba 1987 ; Guba and Lincoln 1981 ; Schrag 1992 ; Stebbins 2001 ; Mackenzi and Knipe 2006 ; Atieno 2009 ; Levers 2013 ; Morgan 2007 ; O’Connor et al. 2008 ; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). This section summarizes how the literature often describes these philosophies and informs contemporary methodology and its literature.

Positivism and its more contemporary version, post-positivism, maintains an objectivist ontology or assumes an objective reality, which can be uncovered (Levers 2013 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). Footnote 3 Time and context free generalizations are possible and “real causes of social scientific outcomes can be determined reliably and validly (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 14). Further, “explanation of the social world is possible through a logical reduction of social phenomena to physical terms”. It uses an empiricist epistemology which “implies testability against observation, experimentation, or comparison” (Whetsell and Shields 2015 , pp. 420–421). Correspondence theory, a tenet of positivism, asserts that “to each concept there corresponds a set of operations involved in its scientific use” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 40).

The interpretivist, constructivists or post-modernist approach is a reaction to positivism. It uses a relativist ontology and a subjectivist epistemology (Levers 2013 ). In this world of multiple realities, context free generalities are impossible as is the separation of facts and values. Causality, explanation, prediction, experimentation depend on assumptions about the correspondence between concepts and reality, which in the absence of an objective reality is impossible. Empirical research can yield “contextualized emergent understanding rather than the creation of testable theoretical structures” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). The distinctively different world views of positivist/post positivist and interpretivist philosophy is at the core of many controversies in methodology, social and policy science literature (Casula 2020b ).

With its focus on dissolving dualisms, pragmatism steps outside the objective/subjective debate. Instead, it asks, “what difference would it make to us if the statement were true” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 42). Its epistemology is connected to purposeful inquiry. Pragmatism has a “transformative, experimental notion of inquiry” anchored in pluralism and a focus on constructing conceptual and practical tools to resolve “problematic situations” (Shields 1998 ; Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ). Exploration and working hypotheses are most comfortably situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective.

6 Research approaches

Empirical investigation relies on three types of methodology—quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.

6.1 Quantitative methods

Quantitative methods uses deductive logic and formal hypotheses or models to explain, predict, and eventually establish causation (Hyde 2000 ; Kaplan 1964 ; Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 ; Morgan 2007 ). Footnote 4 The correspondence between the conceptual and empirical world make measures possible. Measurement assigns numbers to objects, events or situations and allows for standardization and subtle discrimination. It also allows researchers to draw on the power of mathematics and statistics (Kaplan 1964 , pp. 172–174). Using the power of inferential statistics, quantitative research employs research designs, which eliminate competing hypotheses. It is high in external validity or the ability to generalize to the whole. The research results are relatively independent of the researcher (Johnson & Onwuegbunzie 2004 ).

Quantitative methods depend on the quality of measurement and a priori conceptualization, and adherence to the underlying assumptions of inferential statistics. Critics charge that hypotheses and frameworks needlessly constrain inquiry (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 19). Hypothesis testing quantitative methods support the explanatory purpose.

6.2 Qualitative methods

Qualitative researchers who embrace the post-modern, interpretivist view, Footnote 5 question everything about the nature of quantitative methods (Willis et al. 2007 ). Rejecting the possibility of objectivity, correspondence between ideas and measures, and the constraints of a priori theorizing they focus on “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize the findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). Characteristics of traditional qualitative research include “induction, discovery, exploration, theory/hypothesis generation and the researcher as the primary ‘instrument’ of data collection” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 18). It also concerns itself with forming “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). The data of qualitative methods are generated via interviews, direct observation, focus groups and analysis of written records or artifacts.

Qualitative methods provide for understanding and “description of people’s personal experiences of phenomena”. They enable descriptions of detailed “phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts.” Researchers use naturalistic settings to “study dynamic processes” and explore how participants interpret experiences. Qualitative methods have an inherent flexibility, allowing researchers to respond to changes in the research setting. They are particularly good at narrowing to the particular and on the flipside have limited external validity (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 20). Instead of specifying a suitable sample size to draw conclusions, qualitative research uses the notion of saturation (Morse 1995 ).

Saturation is used in grounded theory—a widely used and respected form of qualitative research, and a well-known interpretivist qualitative research method. Introduced by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ), this “grounded on observation” (Patten and Newhart 2000 , p. 27) methodology, focuses on “the creation of emergent understanding” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). It uses the Constant Comparative method, whereby researchers develop theory from data as they code and analyze at the same time. Data collection, coding and analysis along with theoretical sampling are systematically combined to generate theory (Kolb 2012 , p. 83). The qualitative methods discussed here support exploratory research.

A close look at the two philosophies and assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research suggests two contradictory world views. The literature has labeled these contradictory views the Incompatibility Theory, which sets up a quantitative versus qualitative tension similar to the seeming separation of art and science or fact and values (Smith 1983a , b ; Guba 1987 ; Smith and Heshusius 1986 ; Howe 1988 ). The incompatibility theory does not make sense in practice. Yin ( 1981 , 1992 , 2011 , 2017 ), a prominent case study scholar, showcases a deductive research methodology that crosses boundaries using both quantaitive and qualitative evidence when appropriate.

6.3 Mixed methods

Turning the “Incompatibility Theory” on its head, Mixed Methods research “combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches … for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al. 2007 , p. 123). It does this by partnering with philosophical pragmatism. Footnote 6 Pragmatism is productive because “it offers an immediate and useful middle position philosophically and methodologically; it offers a practical and outcome-oriented method of inquiry that is based on action and leads, iteratively, to further action and the elimination of doubt; it offers a method for selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better answer many of their research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 17). What is theory for the pragmatist “any theoretical model is for the pragmatist, nothing more than a framework through which problems are perceived and subsequently organized ” (Hothersall 2019 , p. 5).

Brendel ( 2009 ) constructed a simple framework to capture the core elements of pragmatism. Brendel’s four “p”’s—practical, pluralism, participatory and provisional help to show the relevance of pragmatism to mixed methods. Pragmatism is purposeful and concerned with the practical consequences. The pluralism of pragmatism overcomes quantitative/qualitative dualism. Instead, it allows for multiple perspectives (including positivism and interpretivism) and, thus, gets around the incompatibility problem. Inquiry should be participatory or inclusive of the many views of participants, hence, it is consistent with multiple realities and is also tied to the common concern of a problematic situation. Finally, all inquiry is provisional . This is compatible with experimental methods, hypothesis testing and consistent with the back and forth of inductive and deductive reasoning. Mixed methods support exploratory research.

Advocates of mixed methods research note that it overcomes the weaknesses and employs the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods provide precision. The pictures and narrative of qualitative techniques add meaning to the numbers. Quantitative analysis can provide a big picture, establish relationships and its results have great generalizability. On the other hand, the “why” behind the explanation is often missing and can be filled in through in-depth interviews. A deeper and more satisfying explanation is possible. Mixed-methods brings the benefits of triangulation or multiple sources of evidence that converge to support a conclusion. It can entertain a “broader and more complete range of research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 21) and can move between inductive and deductive methods. Case studies use multiple forms of evidence and are a natural context for mixed methods.

One thing that seems to be missing from mixed method literature and explicit design is a place for conceptual frameworks. For example, Heyvaert et al. ( 2013 ) examined nine mixed methods studies and found an explicit framework in only two studies (transformative and pragmatic) (p. 663).

7 Theory and hypotheses: where is and what is theory?

Theory is key to deductive research. In essence, empirical deductive methods test theory. Hence, we shift our attention to theory and the role and functions of the hypotheses in theory. Oppenheim and Putnam ( 1958 ) note that “by a ‘theory’ (in the widest sense) we mean any hypothesis, generalization or law (whether deterministic or statistical) or any conjunction of these” (p. 25). Van Evera ( 1997 ) uses a similar and more complex definition “theories are general statements that describe and explain the causes of effects of classes of phenomena. They are composed of causal laws or hypotheses, explanations, and antecedent conditions” (p. 8). Sutton and Staw ( 1995 , p. 376) in a highly cited article “What Theory is Not” assert the that hypotheses should contain logical arguments for “why” the hypothesis is expected. Hypotheses need an underlying causal argument before they can be considered theory. The point of this discussion is not to define theory but to establish the importance of hypotheses in theory.

Explanatory research is implicitly relational (A explains B). The hypotheses of explanatory research lay bare these relationships. Popular definitions of hypotheses capture this relational component. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines a hypothesis a “an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven”. Vocabulary.Com’s definition emphasizes explanation, a hypothesis is “an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation”. According to Wikipedia a hypothesis is “a proposed explanation for a phenomenon”. Other definitions remove the relational or explanatory reference. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a hypothesis as a “supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts.” Science Buddies defines a hypothesis as a “tentative, testable answer to a scientific question”. According to the Longman Dictionary the hypothesis is “an idea that can be tested to see if it is true or not”. The Urban Dictionary states a hypothesis is “a prediction or educated-guess based on current evidence that is yet be tested”. We argue that the hypotheses of exploratory research— working hypothesis — are not bound by relational expectations. It is this flexibility that distinguishes the working hypothesis.

Sutton and Staw (1995) maintain that hypotheses “serve as crucial bridges between theory and data, making explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical argument will be operationalized” (p. 376, italics added). The highly rated journal, Computers and Education , Twining et al. ( 2017 ) created guidelines for qualitative research as a way to improve soundness and rigor. They identified the lack of alignment between theoretical stance and methodology as a common problem in qualitative research. In addition, they identified a lack of alignment between methodology, design, instruments of data collection and analysis. The authors created a guidance summary, which emphasized the need to enhance coherence throughout elements of research design (Twining et al. 2017 p. 12). Perhaps the bridging function of the hypothesis mentioned by Sutton and Staw (1995) is obscured and often missing in qualitative methods. Working hypotheses can be a tool to overcome this problem.

For reasons, similar to those used by mixed methods scholars, we look to classical pragmatism and the ideas of John Dewey to inform our discussion of theory and working hypotheses. Dewey ( 1938 ) treats theory as a tool of empirical inquiry and uses a map metaphor (p. 136). Theory is like a map that helps a traveler navigate the terrain—and should be judged by its usefulness. “There is no expectation that a map is a true representation of reality. Rather, it is a representation that allows a traveler to reach a destination (achieve a purpose). Hence, theories should be judged by how well they help resolve the problem or achieve a purpose ” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 , p. 23). Note that we explicitly link theory to the research purpose. Theory is never treated as an unimpeachable Truth, rather it is a helpful tool that organizes inquiry connecting data and problem. Dewey’s approach also expands the definition of theory to include abstractions (categories) outside of causation and explanation. The micro-conceptual frameworks Footnote 7 introduced in Table  1 are a type of theory. We define conceptual frameworks as the “way the ideas are organized to achieve the project’s purpose” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 p. 24). Micro-conceptual frameworks do this at the very close to the data level of analysis. Micro-conceptual frameworks can direct operationalization and ways to assess measurement or evidence at the individual research study level. Again, the research purpose plays a pivotal role in the functioning of theory (Shields and Tajalli 2006 ).

8 Working hypothesis: methods and data analysis

We move on to answer the remaining questions in the Table  1 . We have established that exploratory research is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic. Given this, we will proceed with a few examples and draw out lessons for developing an exploratory purpose, building a framework and from there identifying data collection techniques and the logics of hypotheses testing and analysis. Early on we noted the value of the Working Hypothesis framework for student empirical research and applied research. The next section uses a masters level student’s work to illustrate the usefulness of working hypotheses as a way to incorporate the literature and structure inquiry. This graduate student was also a mature professional with a research question that emerged from his job and is thus an example of applied research.

Master of Public Administration student, Swift ( 2010 ) worked for a public agency and was responsible for that agency’s sexual harassment training. The agency needed to evaluate its training but had never done so before. He also had never attempted a significant empirical research project. Both of these conditions suggest exploration as a possible approach. He was interested in evaluating the training program and hence the project had a normative sense. Given his job, he already knew a lot about the problem of sexual harassment and sexual harassment training. What he did not know much about was doing empirical research, reviewing the literature or building a framework to evaluate the training (working hypotheses). He wanted a framework that was flexible and comprehensive. In his research, he discovered Lundvall’s ( 2006 ) knowledge taxonomy summarized with four simple ways of knowing ( Know - what, Know - how, Know - why, Know - who ). He asked whether his agency’s training provided the participants with these kinds of knowledge? Lundvall’s categories of knowing became the basis of his working hypotheses. Lundvall’s knowledge taxonomy is well suited for working hypotheses because it is so simple and is easy to understand intuitively. It can also be tailored to the unique problematic situation of the researcher. Swift ( 2010 , pp. 38–39) developed four basic working hypotheses:

WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual harassment training

WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual harassment training

WH3: Capital Metro provides adequate know - why knowledge in its sexual harassment training

WH4: Capital Metro provides adequate know - who knowledge in its sexual harassment training

From here he needed to determine what would determine the different kinds of knowledge. For example, what constitutes “know what” knowledge for sexual harassment training. This is where his knowledge and experience working in the field as well as the literature come into play. According to Lundvall et al. ( 1988 , p. 12) “know what” knowledge is about facts and raw information. Swift ( 2010 ) learned through the literature that laws and rules were the basis for the mandated sexual harassment training. He read about specific anti-discrimination laws and the subsequent rules and regulations derived from the laws. These laws and rules used specific definitions and were enacted within a historical context. Laws, rules, definitions and history became the “facts” of Know-What knowledge for his working hypothesis. To make this clear, he created sub-hypotheses that explicitly took these into account. See how Swift ( 2010 , p. 38) constructed the sub-hypotheses below. Each sub-hypothesis was defended using material from the literature (Swift 2010 , pp. 22–26). The sub-hypotheses can also be easily tied to evidence. For example, he could document that the training covered anti-discrimination laws.

WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual Harassment training

WH1a: The sexual harassment training includes information on anti-discrimination laws (Title VII).

WH1b: The sexual harassment training includes information on key definitions.

WH1c: The sexual harassment training includes information on Capital Metro’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment policy.

WH1d: Capital Metro provides training on sexual harassment history.

Know-How knowledge refers to the ability to do something and involves skills (Lundvall and Johnson 1994 , p. 12). It is a kind of expertise in action. The literature and his experience allowed James Smith to identify skills such as how to file a claim or how to document incidents of sexual harassment as important “know-how” knowledge that should be included in sexual harassment training. Again, these were depicted as sub-hypotheses.

WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual Harassment training

WH2a: Training is provided on how to file and report a claim of harassment

WH2b: Training is provided on how to document sexual harassment situations.

WH2c: Training is provided on how to investigate sexual harassment complaints.

WH2d: Training is provided on how to follow additional harassment policy procedures protocol

Note that the working hypotheses do not specify a relationship but rather are simple declarative sentences. If “know-how” knowledge was found in the sexual harassment training, he would be able to find evidence that participants learned about how to file a claim (WH2a). The working hypothesis provides the bridge between theory and data that Sutton and Staw (1995) found missing in exploratory work. The sub-hypotheses are designed to be refined enough that the researchers would know what to look for and tailor their hunt for evidence. Figure  1 captures the generic sub-hypothesis design.

A Common structure used in the development of working hypotheses

When expected evidence is linked to the sub-hypotheses, data, framework and research purpose are aligned. This can be laid out in a planning document that operationalizes the data collection in something akin to an architect’s blueprint. This is where the scholar explicitly develops the alignment between purpose, framework and method (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019b ).

Table  2 operationalizes Swift’s working hypotheses (and sub-hypotheses). The table provide clues as to what kind of evidence is needed to determine whether the hypotheses are supported. In this case, Smith used interviews with participants and trainers as well as a review of program documents. Column one repeats the sub-hypothesis, column two specifies the data collection method (here interviews with participants/managers and review of program documents) and column three specifies the unique questions that focus the investigation. For example, the interview questions are provided. In the less precise world of qualitative data, evidence supporting a hypothesis could have varying degrees of strength. This too can be specified.

For Swift’s example, neither the statistics of explanatory research nor the open-ended questions of interpretivist, inductive exploratory research is used. The deductive logic of inquiry here is somewhat intuitive and similar to a detective (Ulriksen and Dadalauri 2016 ). It is also a logic used in international law (Worster 2013 ). It should be noted that the working hypothesis and the corresponding data collection protocol does not stop inquiry and fieldwork outside the framework. The interviews could reveal an unexpected problem with Smith’s training program. The framework provides a very loose and perhaps useful ways to identify and make sense of the data that does not fit the expectations. Researchers using working hypotheses should be sensitive to interesting findings that fall outside their framework. These could be used in future studies, to refine theory or even in this case provide suggestions to improve sexual harassment training. The sensitizing concepts mentioned by Gilgun ( 2015 ) are free to emerge and should be encouraged.

Something akin to working hypotheses are hidden in plain sight in the professional literature. Take for example Kerry Crawford’s ( 2017 ) book Wartime Sexual Violence. Here she explores how basic changes in the way “advocates and decision makers think about and discuss conflict-related sexual violence” (p. 2). She focused on a subsequent shift from silence to action. The shift occurred as wartime sexual violence was reframed as a “weapon of war”. The new frame captured the attention of powerful members of the security community who demanded, initiated, and paid for institutional and policy change. Crawford ( 2017 ) examines the legacy of this key reframing. She develops a six-stage model of potential international responses to incidents of wartime violence. This model is fairly easily converted to working hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. Table  3 shows her model as a set of (non-relational) working hypotheses. She applied this model as a way to gather evidence among cases (e.g., the US response to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) to show the official level of response to sexual violence. Each case study chapter examined evidence to establish whether the case fit the pattern formalized in the working hypotheses. The framework was very useful in her comparative context. The framework allowed for consistent comparative analysis across cases. Her analysis of the three cases went well beyond the material covered in the framework. She freely incorporated useful inductively informed data in her analysis and discussion. The framework, however, allowed for alignment within and across cases.

9 Conclusion

In this article we argued that the exploratory research is also well suited for deductive approaches. By examining the landscape of deductive, exploratory research, we proposed the working hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It has the potential to guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. After presenting the nature of exploratory research purpose and how it differs from two types of research purposes identified in the literature—explanation, and description. We focused on answering four different questions in order to show the link between micro-conceptual frameworks and research purposes in a deductive setting. The answers to the four questions are summarized in Table  4 .

Firstly, we argued that working hypothesis and exploration are situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective. Pragmatism allows for pluralism in theory and data collection techniques, which is compatible with the flexible exploratory purpose. Secondly, after introducing and discussing the four core elements of pragmatism (practical, pluralism, participatory, and provisional), we explained how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research through a presentation of the benefits of triangulation provided by mixed methods research. Thirdly, as is clear from the article title, we introduced the working hypothesis as the micro-conceptual framework for deductive explorative research. We argued that the hypotheses of explorative research, which we call working hypotheses are distinguished from those of the explanatory research, since they do not require a relational component and are not bound by relational expectations. A working hypothesis is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic, and it could be viewed as a statement or group of statements of expectations tested in action depending on the research question. Using examples, we concluded by explaining how working hypotheses inform data collection and analysis for deductive exploratory research.

Crawford’s ( 2017 ) example showed how the structure of working hypotheses provide a framework for comparative case studies. Her criteria for analysis were specified ahead of time and used to frame each case. Thus, her comparisons were systemized across cases. Further, the framework ensured a connection between the data analysis and the literature review. Yet the flexible, working nature of the hypotheses allowed for unexpected findings to be discovered.

The evidence required to test working hypotheses is directed by the research purpose and potentially includes both quantitative and qualitative sources. Thus, all types of evidence, including quantitative methods should be part of the toolbox of deductive, explorative research. We show how the working hypotheses, as a flexible exploratory framework, resolves many seeming dualisms pervasive in the research methods literature.

To conclude, this article has provided an in-depth examination of working hypotheses taking into account philosophical questions and the larger formal research methods literature. By discussing working hypotheses as applied, theoretical tools, we demonstrated that working hypotheses fill a unique niche in the methods literature, since they provide a way to enhance alignment in deductive, explorative studies.

In practice, quantitative scholars often run multivariate analysis on data bases to find out if there are correlations. Hypotheses are tested because the statistical software does the math, not because the scholar has an a priori, relational expectation (hypothesis) well-grounded in the literature and supported by cogent arguments. Hunches are just fine. This is clearly an inductive approach to research and part of the large process of inquiry.

In 1958 , Philosophers of Science, Oppenheim and Putnam use the notion of Working Hypothesis in their title “Unity of Science as Working Hypothesis.” They too, use it as a big picture concept, “unity of science in this sense, can be fully realized constitutes an over-arching meta-scientific hypothesis, which enables one to see a unity in scientific activities that might otherwise appear disconnected or unrelated” (p. 4).

It should be noted that the positivism described in the research methods literature does not resemble philosophical positivism as developed by philosophers like Comte (Whetsell and Shields 2015 ). In the research methods literature “positivism means different things to different people….The term has long been emptied of any precise denotation …and is sometimes affixed to positions actually opposed to those espoused by the philosophers from whom the name derives” (Schrag 1992 , p. 5). For purposes of this paper, we are capturing a few essential ways positivism is presented in the research methods literature. This helps us to position the “working hypothesis” and “exploratory” research within the larger context in contemporary research methods. We are not arguing that the positivism presented here is anything more. The incompatibility theory discussed later, is an outgrowth of this research methods literature…

It should be noted that quantitative researchers often use inductive reasoning. They do this with existing data sets when they run correlations or regression analysis as a way to find relationships. They ask, what does the data tell us?

Qualitative researchers are also associated with phenomenology, hermeneutics, naturalistic inquiry and constructivism.

See Feilzer ( 2010 ), Howe ( 1988 ), Johnson and Onwuegbunzie ( 2004 ), Morgan ( 2007 ), Onwuegbuzie and Leech ( 2005 ), Biddle and Schafft ( 2015 ).

The term conceptual framework is applicable in a broad context (see Ravitch and Riggan 2012 ). The micro-conceptual framework narrows to the specific study and informs data collection (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019a ) .

Adler, E., Clark, R.: How It’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research, 3rd edn. Thompson-Wadsworth, Belmont (2008)

Google Scholar  

Arnold, R.W.: Multiple working hypothesis in soil genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 29 (6), 717–724 (1965)

Article   Google Scholar  

Atieno, O.: An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 13 , 13–18 (2009)

Babbie, E.: The Practice of Social Research, 11th edn. Thompson-Wadsworth, Belmont (2007)

Biddle, C., Schafft, K.A.: Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 9 (4), 320–334 (2015)

Brendel, D.H.: Healing Psychiatry: Bridging the Science/Humanism Divide. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)

Bryman, A.: Qualitative research on leadership: a critical but appreciative review. Leadersh. Q. 15 (6), 729–769 (2004)

Casula, M.: Under which conditions is cohesion policy effective: proposing an Hirschmanian approach to EU structural funds, Regional & Federal Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2020.1713110 (2020a)

Casula, M.: Economic gowth and cohesion policy implementation in Italy and Spain, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (2020b)

Ciceri, F., et al.: Microvascular COVID-19 lung vessels obstructive thromboinflammatory syndrome (MicroCLOTS): an atypical acute respiratory distress syndrome working hypothesis. Crit. Care Resusc. 15 , 1–3 (2020)

Crawford, K.F.: Wartime sexual violence: From silence to condemnation of a weapon of war. Georgetown University Press (2017)

Cronbach, L.: Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology American Psychologist. 30 116–127 (1975)

Dewey, J.: The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychol. Rev. 3 (4), 357 (1896)

Dewey, J.: Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt & Co, New York (1938)

Feilzer, Y.: Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 4 (1), 6–16 (2010)

Gilgun, J.F.: Qualitative research and family psychology. J. Fam. Psychol. 19 (1), 40–50 (2005)

Gilgun, J.F.: Methods for enhancing theory and knowledge about problems, policies, and practice. In: Katherine Briar, Joan Orme., Roy Ruckdeschel., Ian Shaw. (eds.) The Sage handbook of social work research pp. 281–297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2009)

Gilgun, J.F.: Deductive Qualitative Analysis as Middle Ground: Theory-Guided Qualitative Research. Amazon Digital Services LLC, Seattle (2015)

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago (1967)

Gobo, G.: Re-Conceptualizing Generalization: Old Issues in a New Frame. In: Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L., Brannen, J. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods, pp. 193–213. Sage, Los Angeles (2008)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Grinnell, R.M.: Social work research and evaluation: quantitative and qualitative approaches. New York: F.E. Peacock Publishers (2001)

Guba, E.G.: What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Eval. Pract. 8 (1), 23–43 (1987)

Guba, E., Lincoln, Y.: Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1981)

Habib, M.: The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia: an overview and working hypothesis. Brain 123 (12), 2373–2399 (2000)

Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., Onghena, P.: Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual. Quant. 47 (2), 659–676 (2013)

Hildebrand, D.: Dewey: A Beginners Guide. Oneworld Oxford, Oxford (2008)

Howe, K.R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Edu. Res. 17 (8), 10–16 (1988)

Hothersall, S.J.: Epistemology and social work: enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism. Eur. J. Social Work 22 (5), 860–870 (2019)

Hyde, K.F.: Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qual. Market Res. Int. J. 3 (2), 82–90 (2000)

Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33 (7), 14–26 (2004)

Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (2), 112–133 (2007)

Kaplan, A.: The Conduct of Inquiry. Chandler, Scranton (1964)

Kolb, S.M.: Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: valid research strategies for educators. J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 3 (1), 83–86 (2012)

Levers, M.J.D.: Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open 3 (4), 2158244013517243 (2013)

Lundvall, B.A.: Knowledge management in the learning economy. In: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics Working Paper Working Paper, vol. 6, pp. 3–5 (2006)

Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B.: Knowledge management in the learning economy. J. Ind. Stud. 1 (2), 23–42 (1994)

Lundvall, B.-Å., Jenson, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E.: Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation—From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In: Dosi, G., et al. (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London (1988)

Maanen, J., Manning, P., Miller, M.: Series editors’ introduction. In: Stebbins, R. (ed.) Exploratory research in the social sciences. pp. v–vi. Thousands Oak, CA: SAGE (2001)

Mackenzie, N., Knipe, S.: Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues Educ. Res. 16 (2), 193–205 (2006)

Marlow, C.R.: Research Methods for Generalist Social Work. Thomson Brooks/Cole, New York (2005)

Mead, G.H.: The working hypothesis in social reform. Am. J. Sociol. 5 (3), 367–371 (1899)

Milnes, A.G.: Structure of the Pennine Zone (Central Alps): a new working hypothesis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 85 (11), 1727–1732 (1974)

Morgan, D.L.: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (1), 48–76 (2007)

Morse, J.: The significance of saturation. Qual. Health Res. 5 (2), 147–149 (1995)

O’Connor, M.K., Netting, F.E., Thomas, M.L.: Grounded theory: managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qual. Inq. 14 (1), 28–45 (2008)

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (5), 375–387 (2005)

Oppenheim, P., Putnam, H.: Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II, pp. 3–36 (1958)

Patten, M.L., Newhart, M.: Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York (2000)

Pearse, N.: An illustration of deductive analysis in qualitative research. In: European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, pp. 264–VII. Academic Conferences International Limited (2019)

Prater, D.N., Case, J., Ingram, D.A., Yoder, M.C.: Working hypothesis to redefine endothelial progenitor cells. Leukemia 21 (6), 1141–1149 (2007)

Ravitch, B., Riggan, M.: Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Sage, Beverley Hills (2012)

Reiter, B.: The epistemology and methodology of exploratory social science research: Crossing Popper with Marcuse. In: Government and International Affairs Faculty Publications. Paper 99. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gia_facpub/99 (2013)

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J.: Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage, London (2003)

Schrag, F.: In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educ. Res. 21 (5), 5–8 (1992)

Shields, P.M.: Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A tool for public administration. Res. Pub. Admin. 41995-225 (1998)

Shields, P.M., Rangarajan, N.: A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management. New Forums Press (2013)

Shields, P.M., Tajalli, H.: Intermediate theory: the missing link in successful student scholarship. J. Public Aff. Educ. 12 (3), 313–334 (2006)

Shields, P., & Whetsell, T.: Public administration methodology: A pragmatic perspective. In: Raadshelders, J., Stillman, R., (eds). Foundations of Public Administration, pp. 75–92. New York: Melvin and Leigh (2017)

Shields, P., Rangarajan, N., Casula, M.: It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part I). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 10 , 39–47 (2019a)

Shields, P., Rangarajan, N., Casula, M.: It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part 2). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 11 , 40–51 (2019b)

Smith, J.K.: Quantitative versus qualitative research: an attempt to clarify the issue. Educ. Res. 12 (3), 6–13 (1983a)

Smith, J.K.: Quantitative versus interpretive: the problem of conducting social inquiry. In: House, E. (ed.) Philosophy of Evaluation, pp. 27–52. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1983b)

Smith, J.K., Heshusius, L.: Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educ. Res. 15 (1), 4–12 (1986)

Stebbins, R.A.: Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2001)

Book   Google Scholar  

Strydom, H.: An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Soc. Work/Maatskaplike Werk 49 (2), 149–164 (2013)

Sutton, R. I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Administrative science quarterly. 371–384 (1995)

Swift, III, J.: Exploring Capital Metro’s Sexual Harassment Training using Dr. Bengt-Ake Lundvall’s taxonomy of knowledge principles. Applied Research Project, Texas State University https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3671 (2010)

Thomas, E., Magilvy, J.K.: Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. J. Spec. Pediatric Nurs. 16 (2), 151–155 (2011)

Twining, P., Heller, R.S., Nussbaum, M., Tsai, C.C.: Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Comput. Educ. 107 , A1–A9 (2017)

Ulriksen, M., Dadalauri, N.: Single case studies and theory-testing: the knots and dots of the process-tracing method. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 19 (2), 223–239 (2016)

Van Evera, S.: Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1997)

Whetsell, T.A., Shields, P.M.: The dynamics of positivism in the study of public administration: a brief intellectual history and reappraisal. Adm. Soc. 47 (4), 416–446 (2015)

Willis, J.W., Jost, M., Nilakanta, R.: Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Sage, Beverley Hills (2007)

Worster, W.T.: The inductive and deductive methods in customary international law analysis: traditional and modern approaches. Georget. J. Int. Law 45 , 445 (2013)

Yin, R.K.: The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge 3 (1), 97–114 (1981)

Yin, R.K.: The case study method as a tool for doing evaluation. Curr. Sociol. 40 (1), 121–137 (1992)

Yin, R.K.: Applications of Case Study Research. Sage, Beverley Hills (2011)

Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills (2017)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors contributed equally to this work. The authors would like to thank Quality & Quantity’ s editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable advice and comments on previous versions of this paper.

Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. There are no funders to report for this submission.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Strada Maggiore 45, 40125, Bologna, Italy

Mattia Casula

Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA

Nandhini Rangarajan & Patricia Shields

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattia Casula .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Casula, M., Rangarajan, N. & Shields, P. The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research. Qual Quant 55 , 1703–1725 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9

Download citation

Accepted : 05 November 2020

Published : 08 December 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Exploratory research
• Working hypothesis
• Deductive qualitative research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Research Paper Example

Explanatory Research Papers Samples For Students

27 samples of this type

No matter how high you rate your writing skills, it's always an appropriate idea to check out an expertly written Research Paper example, especially when you're handling a sophisticated Explanatory topic. This is precisely the case when WowEssays.com collection of sample Research Papers on Explanatory will prove useful. Whether you need to think up an original and meaningful Explanatory Research Paper topic or survey the paper's structure or formatting peculiarities, our samples will provide you with the necessary material.

Another activity area of our write my paper website is providing practical writing support to students working on Explanatory Research Papers. Research help, editing, proofreading, formatting, plagiarism check, or even crafting completely unique model Explanatory papers upon your demand – we can do that all! Place an order and buy a research paper now.

Free Research Paper On Analyzing Impact Of Number Of Years Of Employment On Annual Wages

Example of research paper on factors affecting gold prices, influence of culture on substance abuse research paper examples, more information about affiliation, research grants, conflict of interest and how to contact..

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your research paper done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Learn To Craft Research Papers On Solow Model With This Example

The solow model, write by example of this understanding the purposes of research research paper, free research paper about economic analysis, economic motivation, learning journal 7 research paper, introduction, in addition instead of using deterministic rules genetic algorithms uses probabilistic research paper sample, analysis of various models used in predicting bankruptcy, research paper on social psychology bringing all together.

[Student Number] [Faculty]

Free Quantitative Research Report For Sta Research Paper: Top-Quality Sample To Follow

Mental health effects on correction officers: example research paper by an expert writer to follow, research approach, good measuring motives for cultural consumption research paper example, article summary, the relationship between poverty rate and gdp growth research paper samples, good research paper on other common social behaviors such as displaying, threatening, attacking, playing, part i: observation, good example of slang & language research paper, discussing the use of idioms in the english language, the keynesian theory of economics research paper examples, example of research paper on nursing and health sciences, example of research paper on suicide rates.

<Student’s name> <Professor’s name>

Research Paper On Q 3 Company 1

Amr corporation, the effect of foreign direct investments (fdi) on mexicos gross domestic product research paper, cultural influence paper research paper, free research paper on diabetes research, executive summary, research paper on research design, causal design, back ground information research paper.

Does increasing Cigarette Tax Help in Reducing Number of Smokers? To what extend does it decrease smokers if it leads to decreased smokers?

Free Research Paper On The Role Of Emirates Airlines In Indian Economy

The role of emirates airlines in indian economy, research paper on balance sheet, example of determinants of the annual income of truck drivers in the us research paper.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

65 Explanatory Essay Topics

Any essay writing meant to define, explain, compare, or present is usually deemed an explanatory essay.

Most commonly an assignment in journalism, history, and civics courses, these essays provide an insight into how something works, how it came to be, its effects on a population/person who created it, or its function and purpose.

There are several different types of explanatory essays that can be written, but the most common include:

• biographical
• journalistic
• instructional/how-to
• personal experience
• political analysis
• product analysis
• social guidance

Each type of explanatory essay is employed to answer a specific question about these topics related to a person, event, or situation.

Is Writing an Explanatory Essay Hard?

Writing an explanatory essay may or may not be difficult for students depending on their ability to:

• come up with a neutral topic
• research and gather relevant information and facts
• outline thesis and examples into a logical format
• stay unbiased in the writing

If a student has strong research and writing skills, then writing an explanatory essay may be somewhat easier. However, it may be more challenging for students who struggle with these skills to complete this type of assignment.

Regardless of ability level, students need to take the time to plan and organize their thoughts before beginning the writing process. This will help ensure a more successful outcome.

How to Write an Explanatory Essay?

When writing an explanatory essay, many students struggle with the first most crucial step, coming up with a topic. Fortunately, this article concludes with a list of 65 explanatory essay topics perfect for any level of writing ability or grade.

But before students jump to the bottom to check out the list of explanatory essay topics, it’s important to understand how to write an explanatory essay so that they know how to approach their topic and research.

When it comes to explanatory essays, students need to ask three key questions:

• What is the best way for me to learn about this?
• What information or facts should I gather or find?
• How do I structure my explanations and examples into a logical essay format?

Often, asking these questions allows students to more effectively come up with a topic suited to their abilities and interests.

Once a topic is selected, it’s time for students to research their essay. Students should look to history or current news sources for factual information and statistics for topics that deal with people, events, or devices.

To make writing an explanatory essay easier, it’s recommended to choose topics that are non-fiction or can easily be backed up with facts or resources. This is because the overall tone of an explanatory essay should be unbiased and neutral – not a representation of the writer’s personal thoughts or feelings.

Once the research is complete, it’s time for students to start organizing their thoughts and information into a logical format. This is usually done by creating an outline that has three major sections: introduction, body, and conclusion.

The introduction should introduce the topic of the essay with an interesting hook statement such as:

“In the early 1900s, people who wanted to travel from Europe to America would have to board a ship and endure an extremely long journey.”

The hook statement draws readers in by explaining the main topic. After the hook statement, students should include a brief bit of background information on the main topic and define any key terms the reader should know. Continuing the example from above:

“Today, the process of traveling from Europe to America is much easier and can be done in a matter of hours. However, this was not always the case.”

This background information will help set up the rest of the essay by explaining why it is important or relevant to the topic at hand.

After introducing the topic and providing relevant background information, the student should lay out the essay’s thesis statement or overall point. Continuing with the current example, a good thesis statement would be:

“The process of traveling from Europe to America has dramatically changed over the years due to technological advances.”

This thesis statement states the essay’s main point and will be further developed in the body paragraphs.

The body of the explanatory essay is where students will provide detailed explanations and examples to support their thesis statement. Each paragraph should have one main point that is explained and supported with evidence.

The conclusion of the essay should summarize the main points that have been made and leave the reader with a final thought on the topic.

By following this structure while writing an explanatory essay, students can ensure that they can stay on topic and provide the information required in an unbiased, neutral, and informative way.

Any of the following 65 explanatory essay topics will be instrumental in helping students craft a well-written and informative explanatory essay.

Explanatory Essay Topics About History

• What was the cause of the American Civil War?
• What were the effects of the Black Plague on medieval Europe?
• How did Ancient Greece influence western civilization?
• What was the fall of the Roman Empire like?
• What caused World War II?
• How has terrorism changed over the years?
• What caused the Cold War?
• What is the impact of the Industrial Revolution?
• How did the fall of the Berlin wall impact European governments?
• Why was the Treaty of Versaille so important for its time?
• What was the significance of The Great Depression in America?
• How did World War I impact European countries?
• What is the role of the United Nations today, and how has it changed over time?
• How did human rights policies change after World War II?

Explanatory Essay Topics About Science

• What is the difference between a galaxy and a universe?
• How does the human brain work?
• What is an element?
• What are the three states of matter?
• What does photosynthesis do for plants?
• How do earthquakes happen?
• What are black holes?
• Why do we have seasons?
• What is the difference between a meteor and an asteroid?
• How does light travel from one place to another?
• Why do humans need sleep?
• How do fireworks operate?
• What causes tsunamis?
• What are four ways to treat illness or disease in the body?

Explanatory Essay Topics About Literature

• What is the difference between a protagonist and an antagonist?
• What is the difference between a fiction and a non-fiction text?
• How does point of view affect a story?
• What are the different types of literary devices?
• How does symbolism create meaning in a text?
• What is the difference between a monologue and a dialogue?
• How does the setting impact a story?
• What is the difference between plot and theme?
• How does genre affect a story?
• What is a literary device?
• How does character development occur in literature?

Explanatory Essay Topics About Technology

• How did social media change the way we communicate?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of new technology?
• How has the Internet changed the way we live our lives?
• What is the future of technology?
• How will artificial intelligence impact the world?
• What are the effects of technology on children?
• What are five ways that technology can help the environment?
• How has social media changed politics?
• How has social media impacted local news stations?
• Why should students learn how to code?
• How did video games change over the years?
• What are the effects of technology on our mental health?

Explanatory Essay Topics About Everyday Life

• What is the best way to clean a swimming pool?
• What are the three best recipes when cooking for one person?
• What does it mean to be a successful student?
• How can people save money when grocery shopping?
• What is the best way to pack for a trip?
• How can people stay healthy during the winter?
• What is the best way to study for exams?
• Why is it important to volunteer in your community?
• How can people reduce their stress levels?
• What are the best ways to stay organized?
• How can people make time for themselves?
• What is the best way to develop a budget?
• How can people build good credit over time?
• What are the three benefits of exercising regularly?

With these topics, any student can research and craft a well-informed explanatory essay that will earn them a good grade.

Related Posts

• 160 Rhetorical Essay Topics
• 85 Illustration Essay Topics
• 220 Psychology Essay Topics
• 25 College Admission Essay Topics
• 120 Literary Essay Topics

Categories:

• Essay Samples
• Essay Topics
• Essay Writing Guides

Recent posts:

• 170 Ethics Essay Topics
• 160 Satire Essay Topics
• 155 Criminal Justice Essay Topics
• 150 Political Essay Topics
• 145 Classification Essay Topics
• 140 Sociology Essay Topics
• 140 Opinion Essay Topics
• 140 Environmental Essay Topics
• 135 Controversial Essay Topics
• 125 Classification and Division Essay Topics
• 100 Profile Essay Topics
• 90 Heart of Darkness Essay Topics
• 80 Holocaust Essay Topics

Testimonials