That's an insightful question! The frameworks of the Five W's and the Five I's are not standard, universal models specifically for hypotheses in scientific research, but they are often adapted from other fields (like journalism, problem-solving, or design) to help structure thinking around a problem, a story, or a research idea.
When applied to developing and evaluating a hypothesis, they provide excellent checklists for clarity and completeness.
- The Five W's (5 W's) for a Hypothesis
The Five W's framework (Who, What, Where, When, Why) is traditionally a guide for gathering complete information. For a hypothesis, it ensures you have clearly defined the scope and motivation.
| W | Question for a Hypothesis | Application to Research |
|---|---|---|
| Who | Who/What are the subjects, participants, or variables? | Defines the population (e.g., adult women, certain chemicals, specific genes). |
| What | What is the action or outcome being predicted? | Identifies the independent (cause) and dependent (effect) variables. |
| Where | Where will this effect be observed? | Specifies the setting or context of the study (e.g., in a lab, a specific geographical area, a particular biological pathway). |
| When | When will the change or outcome occur? | Establishes the timeframe or conditions for observation (e.g., after 6 weeks of treatment, during peak migration season, immediately following the stimulus). |
| Why | Why do you believe this relationship or outcome exists? | Provides the rationale or theory supporting the hypothesis (this is the core of the expected contribution). |
Applying the 5 W's ensures your hypothesis is specific and testable by making the key elements of your prediction explicit. - The Five I's (5 I's) for a Hypothesis
The Five I's is a less standardized model, but one common interpretation, often used in journalism or academic communication, relates to the quality and value of the information or idea. When applied to a hypothesis, they help evaluate its strength and potential impact.
| I | Quality of a Hypothesis | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Informed | Is it grounded in existing knowledge? | The hypothesis must be supported by a strong literature review and theory, not just a guess. |
| Intelligent | Is it logically sound and well-reasoned? | The proposed relationship between variables should make sense and be consistent with current scientific principles. |
| Interesting | Does it address a meaningful gap or question? | It should not be a trivial restatement of known facts; it should seek to advance understanding. |
| Insightful | Does it offer a new perspective or a novel solution? | It should lead to a deeper comprehension of the underlying phenomenon. |
| Interpretative | Does it allow for clear analysis and generalization? | The results of testing the hypothesis must be interpretable and applicable to a broader theory or context. |
This framework encourages you to move beyond simply stating a prediction (the what) and instead focus on the significance and rigor (the value) of the hypothesis within the broader academic discourse.
Would you like to try applying these ten points to a sample hypothesis to see how they work in practice?