The research problem, review of literature and hypothesis

1. The research problem

A research problem is a question, arising from a gap or difficulty in existing knowledge or practice, that the researcher sets out to answer. Nothing in a project matters more: a vague problem produces a vague thesis. Dewey’s first two phases of reflective thinking — the felt difficulty and its definition — describe exactly this stage.

Sources of problems: one’s own reading and practice, conflicting judgments, new legislation, Law Commission reports that remain unimplemented, gaps identified in earlier research, and social developments the law has not caught up with (artificial intelligence, gig work, climate change).

Criteria for selecting a problem:

• significance — does the answer matter to law, policy or theory?
• novelty — has it already been answered?
• feasibility — can it be done with the available time, money, access and skills?
• researchability — can evidence or argument actually settle it?
• interest and competence of the researcher;
• ethical acceptability.

Stating the problem. Narrow the topic from an area (“bail”) to an issue (“default bail”) to a question (“Do courts in Karnataka grant default bail when the charge-sheet is filed late, and what explains refusals?”). Define the key terms, state the scope (period, jurisdiction, statute) and set out the objectives.

2. Review of literature

The literature review surveys what has already been written on the problem. Its purposes are to avoid duplication, to locate the gap that the research will fill, to identify theories and concepts, to learn from the methods others used, and to frame the hypothesis. It should be critical and organised by theme, not a list of book summaries. For a legal project, the literature includes books, articles, Law Commission and committee reports, earlier theses, and relevant foreign and comparative writing.

3. Research questions

Research questions are the specific questions the study will answer. Exploratory and qualitative studies often proceed on research questions alone. Explanatory studies convert them into hypotheses to be tested.

4. Hypothesis: meaning

A hypothesis is a tentative statement of the relationship between two or more variables, or a tentative answer to the research problem, put forward for testing. Goode and Hatt (Methods in Social Research, 1952) describe it as a proposition that can be put to a test to determine its validity. Lundberg called it a tentative generalisation whose validity remains to be tested. The word means a “supposition” that sits below a thesis: it is assumed for the purpose of inquiry, not asserted as true.

5. Sources of hypotheses

• existing theory (a theory of deterrence suggests that certainty of punishment matters more than severity);
• earlier research and the literature review;
• analogy with other fields or other countries;
• the researcher’s experience and insight;
• a pilot study or preliminary observation;
• culture and common observation, which may then be tested.

6. Functions

• it gives direction: it tells the researcher what data to collect and what to ignore;
• it links theory and observation;
• it suggests the research design and the method of testing;
• it provides a framework for conclusions: the study ends by saying whether the hypothesis stands;
• a refuted hypothesis still adds knowledge.

7. Kinds

A directional hypothesis states which way the effect runs; a non-directional one states only that there is a difference. Statistical tests are usually framed against the null hypothesis: the researcher asks whether the data allow it to be rejected.

8. Qualities of a good hypothesis

1. Clear and precise, with defined concepts;
2. testable — there must be a method of verifying it, and it must be falsifiable in Popper’s sense;
3. specific — it states the variables and the expected relationship;
4. consistent with known facts and related to existing theory;
5. simple — the most economical explanation (the principle of parsimony, often called Occam’s razor);
6. manageable with the time and tools available.

9. Testing

The hypothesis is tested by deducing what should be observed if it is true and comparing that with the data. In quantitative work this is done by statistical tests of significance (chi-square, t-test and so on), which estimate how likely it is that the observed pattern arose by chance. Two kinds of error are possible: rejecting a true null hypothesis (Type I) and failing to reject a false one (Type II). In doctrinal work, a hypothesis is tested by argument against the authorities: does the line of cases support the proposed reading?

10. Problems in formulating hypotheses

• absence of a clear theoretical framework;
• lack of knowledge of the methods by which it could be tested;
• the temptation to state a conclusion already reached and then look only for supporting evidence (confirmation bias);
• value-laden terms that cannot be measured.

How this is examined

For an 8-mark short note on hypothesis: definition (Goode and Hatt), sources, functions, three or four kinds with legal examples, qualities, and one line on testing. For a 16-mark essay on the research problem, combine sections 1–3 and link them to the steps of research in the next note.