Table of Content

Table of cases iii

List of Abbreviations iv

Research Objective and Methodology v

Acknowledgement vi

Chapter- I Introduction 1
1.1. Meaning of Research 1
1.2. Definitions 1
1.3. Objectives of Research 3
1.4. Research Methodology of Legal Studies 4
1.5. Meaning of Legal Resaerch 4
1.6. Characteristics of Legal Research 5
1.7. Socio-Legal Research 5

i
Chapter- II Legal Theory 7
2.1. Introduction 7
2.2. Theory and Facts 8
2.3. Theory and Hypothesis 9
2.4. Theory and Law 9
2.5. Process of Theory Building 10
2.6. The role of Theory for Research 11
2.7. Contribution of Research to Theory 12

Chapter- III Hypothesis 13

3.1. Introduction and Meaning of Hypothesis 13
3.2. Definitions 14
3.3. Characteristics of a Useful Hypothesis 15

3.4. Sources of Hypothesis

Table of Cases.................................................................................................iii

List of Abbreviations......................................................................................iv
Research Objective and Methodology...................................................................................v

Acknowledgement..........................................................................................vi

CHAPTER-I.....................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1
Meaning of Research:.............................................................................................................1
Definitions:.............................................................................................................................1
Objectives of Research: .........................................................................................................3
Research Methodology of Legal Studies:..............................................................................3
Meaning of Legal Research: ..................................................................................................4
1.6 Characteristics of Legal Research: ..................................................................................5
Socio-Legal Research:............................................................................................................5

ii
CHAPTER- II..................................................................................................7

LEGAL THEORY...........................................................................................7
2.1 Introduction:....................................................................................................................7
2.2 Theory and Facts: ...........................................................................................................8
2.3 Theory and Hypothesis:...................................................................................................9
2.4 Theory and Law: .............................................................................................................9
2.5 Process of Theory Building:..........................................................................................10
2.6 The Role of Theory for Research:..................................................................................11
2.7 Contribution of Research to Theory:..............................................................................12

CHAPTER-III...............................................................................................13

HYPOTHESIS...............................................................................................13
3.1 Introduction and Meaning of Hypothesis:......................................................................13
3.2 Definitions: ...................................................................................................................14
3.3 Characteristics of a Usable Hypothesis:.........................................................................15
3.4 Sources of Hypothesis:...................................................................................................16
3.5 Importance of Hypothesis:.............................................................................................17
3.6 Types of Hypotheses:.....................................................................................................18
3.7 Different Forms of Hypotheses:.....................................................................................20
The hypothesis can be stated in number of forms which are:-.............................................20
3.8 Problems in Formulating the Hypothesis:......................................................................21
3.9 How should the Researcher Ideally Formulate Hypothesis for Research? ...................21
3.10 Testing the Hypothesis:................................................................................................23
The proof of the worth of the hypothesis lies in its ability to meet the test of the validity.
After formulating a hypothesis, it is necessary to: (i) deduce its consequences; (ii) select or
develop tools that will determine whether these consequences actually occur, and (iii) use
the tools thereby collecting facts that will either confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.....23

CHAPTER- IV...............................................................................................24

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION.......................................................24

iii
Bibliography..................................................................................................vii

iv
 Table of Cases

Mc Dowell and Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 4

iii
 List of Abbreviations

1. AIR - All India Reporter

2. cit. - Citation
3. ed. - Edition

4. p. - Page

5. pp. - Pages

6. rep. - Reprint

7. rev. - Review

8. SC - Supreme Court

9. SCC - Supreme Court Cases

10. SCR - Supreme Court Reports

11. v. - Verses

12. vol. - Volume

iv
 Research Objective and Methodology

In this project, I have tried to find out the importance and use of Hypothesis in any
legal research. I have based my research on the Doctrinal Method of Research, confining
myself to the library. Various books and commentaries on the subject have been referred. I
have also been guided by the case laws and also have referred to articles published in
various law journals and internet.

The research paper is Doctrinaire in nature. Sources: Primary (Non Doctrinal) as

well as Secondary (Doctrinal) sources of information has been utilized in the writing of
this research paper. Mode of Citation: A uniform mode of citation has been followed
throughout the paper.

Articles: [Author], [Title of Article], [Name of Journal], [volume number], [page

numbers on which article starts], [page number], [year of publication].

Books: [Author], [Book], [page number], [publisher], [place of publication] [year

of publication].

Web sites: [name of the site], [URL of the site], [date of researcher’s visiting the
site]

I have divided my project in 4 Chapters. 1st Chapter deals with the Introduction of
Research and Legal Research

2nd Chapter deals with the Legal Theory, its role, contribution and relation with
hypothesis and law

3rd Chapter deals with Hypothesis, its character, sources, types etc.

4th and the last Chapter is the Conclusion.

v
 Acknowledgement

It is indeed a proud privilege to express my deep sense of gratitude and

indebtedness to our respected teacher and guide Prof. (Dr.) Vijendra Kumar, for his

valuable guidance, scholarly inspiration, which he has extended to me for the successful

completion of this endeavor. I humbly express my profound gratitude to him for his

valuable suggestions and guidance in Research Methodology and Techniques. I sincerely

acknowledge the help rendered by the Librarian and Staff of the NALSAR University,

Hyderabad whose cordial relations helped me for successful completion of project.

vi
 CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

Meaning of Research:

The word ‘Research’ is composed of two words, re and search. The dictionary
defines the former as a prefix meaning again, a new or over again and the letter as a verb
meaning, to examine, closely and carefully, to test and try or to probe. Together they form
a noun describing a careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in some field or
knowledge to undertake to establish facts or principles or one can also define research as a
scientific and systematic search for pertinent information on a specific topic.
Research in common parlance refers to a search for knowledge. One can also define
research as a scientific and systematic search for pertinent information on a specific topic.
In fact, research is an art of scientific, investigation. Some people consider research as a
movement, a movement from the known to the unknown. It is actually a voyage of
discovery. We all possess the vital instinct of inquisitiveness for, when the unknown
confronts us, we wonder and our inquisitiveness makes us probe and attain full and fuller
understanding of the unknown. This inquisitiveness is the mother of all knowledge and the
method, which man employs for obtaining the knowledge of whatever the unknown, can
be termed as research. There are accepted truth and theories in all the fields of knowledge.
The theories with differing levels of generality and degree of conformation existing
at a given point of time are known to all. The intellectuals of the society are always
inclined to probe for facts of the empirical world and confirm the proved truth of his
investigations by accepting or correcting the existing theories. Such probing is called
research. Thus, research is a systematic attempt to push back the bonds of comprehension
and seek beyond the horizons of our knowledge, some ‘truth’ or some ‘reality’.

Definitions:

According to the Webster’s International Dictionary,

1
 “Research is a careful, critical inquiry or explanation in seeking facts
or principles; diligent investigation in order to ascertain something”.1
According to Encyclopedia Britannica,
“Research is an act of searching into a matter closely and carefully,
inquiry directly to the discovery of truth and in particular the trained
scientific investigation of the principles and facts of any subject, based
on original and first hand study of authorities or experiment”.2
The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English lays down the meaning of
research as
“A careful investigation or inquiry especially through search for new
facts in any branch of knowledge”3
Redman and Mary define research as a “systematized effort to gain new
knowledge.’’4
In. their Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, D. Slesinger and M. Stephenson
considered the research as
“the manipulation of things, concepts or symbols for the purpose of
generalizing to extend, correct or verify knowledge, whether the knowledge
aids in construction of theory or in the practice of an art”.5
According to Manheim6,
“Research is the careful, diligent, and exhaustive investigation of a specific
subject-matter, which has as its aim the advancement of mankind’s
knowledge”.
According to Lundberg7,
“Research is a method sufficiently objective and systematic to make
possible classification, generalization and verification of the date
observed”.
Thus we can say that the research is a critical and exhaustive investigation or
experimentation having as its aims the revision of accepted conclusions in the light of
1
Webster’s International Dictionary, 12th ed. 2006, p. 1016.
2
Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. VI, 10th ed. 2001, p. 1241.
3
The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 3rd ed. 1952, p. 1069.
4
L.V. Redman and A.V.H. Mary, THE ROMANCE OF RESEARCH, 1st ed. 1923, p. 10.
5
The Encyclopedia of Social Science, Vol. IX, 1st ed. 1930. p. 22.
6
L. K. Manheim, Legal Research, 2nd ed. 1998, p. 118.
7
J. H. Lundberg, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 4th ed. 1997, p. 123.

2
newly discovered facts. In simple words, the research is any inquiry or search for fact or
truth. Investigation of every kind which is based on original sources of knowledge may be
said as research.
Though all these quoted definitions of Research are by different scholars, but there
are something common in all these definitions:-
a) Research is a kind of investigation, or examination.
b) Research is a purposeful endeavour. There is a purpose in every exercise of
research and especially it is called the Research problem.
c) All the above quoted definitions emphasize the need of a particular kind of
methodology in the conduct of the research.
In short, Research is the pursuit of truth with the help of study, observation,
comparison and experiment.

Objectives of Research:

The purpose of research is to discover answers to questions through the application

of scientific procedures. The main aim of research is to find out the truth which is hidden
and which has not been discovered as yet. Though each research study has its own specific
purpose, the purposes or objectives of research may broadly be classified as follows:-
1. To gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to achieve new insights into it (studies
with this object in view are termed as exploratory or formulative research studies);
2. To portray accurately the characteristics of a particular individual, situation or a
group (studies with this object in view are known as descriptive research studies);
3. To determine the frequency with which something occurs or with which it is
associated with something else (studies with this object in view are known as
diagnostic research studies);
4. To test a hypothesis of a causal relationship between variables (such studies are
known as hypothesis-testing research studies).

Research Methodology of Legal Studies:

Legal phenomena require their own research methodology. Such research

methodology may be applicable to subjects of International or Municipal law, evaluation

3
of Acts of different countries, implementation and consequences of Codes and Acts of
different nations. Many statistical techniques and methods cannot automatically be
considered as useful in legal studies simply because they have proved useful in other
disciplines.
The nature of legal issues and the subject matter of law are radically different from
other sciences. Therefore the content of the propositions and explanations is also different.
The methodology of legal studies involves their own rules, interpretations and criteria for
admissible explanations as well as research designs, data-collecting techniques and data-
process routines. Legal studies lack the appropriate methods, tools and techniques suitable
for the legal issues. In most of the legal investigations, qualitative data has to be analyzed.
Hence this separate study of legal methodology is taken up.

Meaning of Legal Research:

‘Legal Research’ means research in that branch of knowledge which deals with the
principles of law and legal institution. The contents of various sources of law (legislation,
precedent, custom, etc.) change with the changing requirement of the society and if these
changes are not taken into account in interpreting the law, the existing law is bound to be
doomed. Therefore, the aim of the law is to regulate the human behavior in the present day
society and hence legal research is directed to the study of relation between the world of
law and the world that the law purports to govern.
In other words, the systematic investigation of problems of and matters concerned
with law such as codes acts etc. is legal research. Judges, lawyers, Law Commissions and
researchers constantly do research in law. They do make systematic research into the
social, political and other fact conditions which give rise to the individual rules. For
example, in the case of Mc Dowell and Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer,8 Justice Chin-
napa Reddy presented his investigation and analysis of cases of tax avoidance in his
separate judgment. It is a research report of tax avoidance in terms of legal methodology.
Research area in law is related to pure law or law in relation to society.
Legal researchers do make systematic research into social, political and other fact
conditions which give rise to the individual rules, acts or codes. They also examine the
8
Mc Dowell and Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1986 SC 649: (1985) 3 SCC 230: [1985] 3
SCR 791.

4
socio-legal and other effects of those acts or rules. A research of this kind is called ‘Fact
Research in Law’. Research may be pursued to obtain better knowledge and understanding
of any problem of legal philosophy, legal history, comparative study of law, or any system
of positive law – International or Municipal.

1.6 Characteristics of Legal Research:

1. The legal research deals with the social and behavioral phenomena. It studies
behavior of human beings as members of society, and their feeling responses,
attitudes under different circumstances.
2. Legal research is carried on both for discovering new legal facts and verification
of the old ones.
3. Legal research tries to establish causal connection between various human
activities. At the first causal look at various human behavior attitudes, moods
and temperaments, the presence of any system may appear to be an impossible
but a close research study is bound to disclose the truth, that most of them are
motivated by definite rules and universal laws.
4. Legal research tries to give solutions of legal problems.

Socio-Legal Research:

Law is not for law sake. Law is an instrument of social control. It originates and
functions in a society and for society. The need for a new law, a change in existing law and
the difficulties that surround its implementation cannot be studied in a better manner
without the sociological enquiry.
Law is an important variable in any social investigation. Researchers cannot do
anything in sociological research if they do not know at least the basics of law, legal
system and law institutions. Similarly a legal researcher cannot do justice to the legal
inquiry if he does not know about the mechanics of social research methods.
Law and society are not divisible as water-tight compartments. They are
interlinked. Co-operative inter disciplinary research is required to deal with socio-legal
problems. Upendra Baxi says that the lawyer must know much of sociology and the
sociologists must know much of law.9 For any legal research, the research based on society
9
Upendra Baxi, SOCIO-LEGAL RESEARCH IN INDIA – A PROGRAM, 1st ed. 1975, p. 87.

5
is an indivisible part of such research and hence the research shall be based on socio-legal
aspect.

6
 CHAPTER- II

LEGAL THEORY

2.1 Introduction:

The term ‘legal theory’ has been, for the first time, coined by W. Friedmann 10 in
1945 when his ‘Legal Theory’ appeared and since then it has become popular. The term
‘legal theory’ is generally used in the sense as an evaluative and normative study of the
concept of law and its relationship with morality and justice which the law sub-serves.
Such a study of law involves value judgments of the social goals and of ideological and
sociological goals which the legal system is to conserve or cater.
Fitzgerald11 says that legal theory is an attempt to answer the question ‘What is
law’ in order to clarify the most of all legal concepts, the concept of law itself. It means
legal theory is essentially a theoretical evaluation and an objective inquiry of the basic
nature, meaning and purpose of law – not what legislature or court define in their day-to-
day affairs but of basic concept of law in order to ascertain whether and to what extent the
inter-relationship between law, morality and justice is necessary to determine the true
nature and functions of law.
Indeed, the essential task of legal theory is to examine and analyze the
philosophical notion of law which itself is confounded by divergent philosophical, political
and ideological controversies. The principal concern and attempt of legal theory is to
analyze what can be described as fundamental or core elements of the phenomenon ‘law’.
According to Finch, John D,12 “legal theory involves a study of the characteristic
feature essential to law and common to legal systems, an analysis of the basic elements of
law which made it law and distinguish it from other forms of rules and standards, from
systems which cannot be described as legal systems and from other social phenomena. In
fact, it is not possible to reach one dogmatic answer to the question: “What is law” or
10
W. Freedmann, LEGAL THEORY, 1st ed. 1945, p. 6.
11
Morris L. Fitzgerald, HOW TO FIND THE LAW, 1st ed. 1977. p. 12.
12
John D. Finch, THE TECHNIQUE OF ADVOCACY, 1st ed. 1986 rep., pp. 98-99.

7
provide exclusive answers to many questions which are asked about its essential nature.
The nature of legal theory lies in a study of the light which theories may shed on the
distinctive attributes of law, by an examination of the relative merits and demerits of the
principal expositions of the subject.

2.2 Theory and Facts:

Theory refers to the relationship between facts or to the ordering of them in some
meaningful way. Theory is the gradual outgrowth of constructive study of the accumulated
stored facts empirically verified over a period of time, until from the plausible evidence
and demonstrable relations consistent generalizations or logical principles can be
formulated. In an empirical theory, facts play a very important role. Facts initiate and
create theory. Sometimes, facts point out new areas of the theory-making process. Only
facts help in clarifying theory invalidating it or discarding it altogether.
Facts and theory are closely related. Goode and Hatt13 observe,
“Theory and fact are in constant interaction. Development in one will lead to
develop in the other. Theory, implicit or explicit, is basic to knowledge and
even perception”.
Theories are always based on empirical facts but they are not identical. All theories
go beyond facts. But facts cannot claim to go beyond theories. All statements even if they
go beyond facts cannot be considered as theories. Theory relates to both observed as well
as unobserved phenomena. Theory comes at the end of the long process of research. But
facts remain at every stage of theory building. Facts are particularistic and specific whereas
theory in general. Facts have an empirical basis whereas the theory is partially empirical. A
theory has a comparatively higher status than facts.
Facts help to initiate theories. So theory refers to the facts or, to the ordering of
them in some meaningful way. Facts also lead to the reformulation of existing theory.
Facts also classify and identify theory. A theory becomes a fact when it is verified time and
again and its authority becomes unshaken.
Theory, inquiry and empirical fact are interwoven in a texture of operation with
theory guiding inquiry, inquiry seeking and insolating facts, and facts affecting theory.

13
Goode and Hatt, METHODS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, 1st ed. 1985 rep., p. 110.

8
 2.3 Theory and Hypothesis:

Theory differs with the hypothesis in the following ways:

THEORY HYPOTHESIS

1. Theory is a generalization arrived at 1. Hypothesis is formulated before the

after verification. facts are verified.

2. It deals with a broader range of facts. 2. It deals with comparatively narrow

range of facts.

3. Theory is an elaborate and tested 3. It is a preliminary assumption adopted

hypothesis. for the explanation of facts which have
been observed only in cursory manner.

4. A theory implies a greater likelihood of 4. It is a tentative ‘if then’ proposition.

truth.

5. Theory is formulated on the results of 5. It is constructed from a casual

successful testing the hypothesis with observation of a real-world.
empirical data.

6. Formation of theory is the end point of 6. Hypothesis is the starting point of

the empirical study empirical study.

7. It is based on verified data. 7. It is based on logical assumptions

Sometimes the hypothesis actually emerges from the theory. It is a generalization

drawn from the theory itself. When it has been tested and found correct it becomes a point
to the theory itself. Thus, theory itself in its early form is only a hypothesis and the two are
interdependent upon each other.

2.4 Theory and Law:

If the theory is again made to find an exact measurement and finally when the

9
theory can be put in form of a precise statement or equation and it is regarded as scientific
law. The law is a theory which is always true under the same set of circumstances.
The assembled facts are translated by the researcher into existing or newly invented
constructs. The constructs are in turn assembled into a provisional theory, which is
subjected to testing and verification to determine its soundness and validity. When the
theory is proved to, be sound and valid it is called as a ‘Scientific theory’ and considered as
a fact. When a series of scientific facts can be reduced to a precise statement that maybe
expressed in mathematical or statement form it is regarded as a law. When these laws are
related to socio-legal issues, they are called socio-legal laws.

2.5 Process of Theory Building:

The process of theory building starts with the observation of persons, groups, their
inter-actions or behavior, events, activities and such other factors. The researcher selects’
the aspects relevant to his problem, hypothesis or conceptual framework.
Formation of concepts is the third stage of theory-building process.
A concept relates to properties or attributes of a group of facts. On the basis of
operationally defined concepts or classification of data, the analysis begins. Classification
is the process of arranging the available data (relevant facts) under the conceptual
categories.
Analysis of data leads a researcher to the stage of drawing out generalizations. A
‘generalization is always conditional, define the specific, and can be falsified or repudiated
after newer facts are gathered. The next Stage in the theory-building is the making of
‘theory’ proper
There are four dimensions or parameters of the theory-building process: (i) validity,
(ii) testability, (iii) generality and (iv) conceptual frame work. Validity is closely related to
empirical reality of the attributes or traits found in factual events, groups and persons.
Conceptual framework helps the researcher to sort out events, activities or relation for his
study. Testability or verifiability requires the use of scientific method and standardized
techniques so that findings of the research may be either checked and tested or if needed,
replicated by adopting the same procedure. A good theory must have consistency and
explanatory power. It should have both theoretical and practical utility.

10
 Research and theory, as co-travelers must proceed towards continuous increments
of knowledge. Each has an important contribution to make the other.

2.6 The Role of Theory for Research:

The existing body of knowledge inspires the researcher to formulate varied theories
and to foretell what new observations would be revealed according to these theories.
Trying down, the abstract logical system (theory) to empirical facts is an on-going process
of legal science leading to consolidation of existing knowledge and addition of newer
dimensions to it.
Theory provides significant guidelines and trails for the conduct of research by
pointing to areas that are most likely to be fruitful that is areas, in which meaningful
relationships among variables are likely to be found.
The contribution of theory for research is in terms of increasing the meaningfulness
of the findings of a particular study by helping us to perceive them as special classes of the
operation of a set of more general or abstract statements of relationships rather than as
isolated bits of empirical information.
The linkage of the specific empirical findings to a more general concept has
another advantage. The theory by providing a rational behind the empirical findings
introduces a ground for prediction which is more secure than more extrapolation from
previously observed trends.

Whereas an empirical finding as a proposition referring to certain concrete

contextual manifestation of a phenomenon does not afford a basis for drawing diverse
inferences about what will follow, its reformulation or revamping in theoretical terms
affords to secured basis for arriving at the inferences about the varied positive
consequences.
In affording broader meanings to empirical findings the theory also confirms at
least, to their truth. A hypothesis is as much confirmed by fitting it into a theory as by
finding it into facts, because it then enjoys the support provided by evidence for all the
other hypotheses of the given theory.
Theory helps us to identify gaps, incur knowledge and seek to bridge them with
intuitive impressionistic or extensional generalizations.

11
 2.7 Contribution of Research to Theory:

The relation between theory and research is not a one-way relationship and since
the two interact, it should be useful to examine the role of empirical research in the
development of socio-legal theory.
1. Major functions: One major function of empirical research is to test or verify
hypotheses deducted from existing theories.
2. Research Initiates theory: Empirical findings emanating from research may
suggest new hypotheses and relationships, as well as point to hither-to-
unknown, thus leading to formulation of new theories.
3. Research helps recasting or theory: Through the repeated observations of
higher to neglected facts that empirical research helps and improves the
theoretical model.
4. Research refocuses theory: Empirical research may refocus theory by shifting
the interest of researchers to new areas. .
5. Research helps in clarifying theory: Empirical research develops and refines
concepts current in the discipline.
Theory and research may, for purposes of analysis, be conceived of as distinct
operations but as necessary complementary components of scientific endeavor, they cannot
but be together. Neither of them is complete without the other.

12
 CHAPTER-III

HYPOTHESIS

3.1 Introduction and Meaning of Hypothesis:

‘Hypo’ means less than or under and ‘thesis’ means idea or general opinion to be
defended by a person and thus ‘hypothesis’ means an idea formed beforehand which has
less value than the generally formed view.
A hypothesis is a statement temporary accepted as true in the light of what is, at the
time, known about a phenomenon, and it is employed as a basis for action in the search of
new truth. A hypothesis is a tentative supposition or provisional guess which seems to
explain the position under observation. Hypotheses primarily arise from a set of ‘hunches’.
A hypothesis is a shrewd and intelligent guess, a supposition, inference, provisional
statement as to the existence of some fact, condition or relationship relative to some
phenomenon which serves to explain already known facts in a given area of research and
to guide the research for new truth on the basis of empirical evidence. As a researcher
person or researcher do not bother about a phenomenon, a situation but he has a hunch to
form the basis of certain assumption or guesses. He tests these by collecting information
and through verifying. The verification process can have three outcomes. Hunch may
prove to be: a) right; b) partially right; or c) wrong.
Hence, a hypothesis is a hunch, assumption, suspicion, idea or assertion about a
phenomenon, relationship or situation, the reality or truth of which is not known. A
researcher calls these assumptions, statements or hunches hypothesis and they become the
basis of enquiry.
The testing of hypothesis is an important characteristic of the scientific method. It
is a prerequisite of any successful research, for it enables to get rid of vague approaches
and meaningless interpretations. It establishes the relationship of concept with theory, and
specifies the test to be applied especially in context of a meaningful value judgment. The
hypothesis, therefore, plays a very pivotal role in the scientific research method.
Lundburg aptly remarks: “The only difference between gathering data without a
hypothesis and gathering them with one is that in the latter case, we deliberately recognize

13
investigation so as to prevent greater concentration of attention on particular aspects which
past experience leads us to believe are insignificant for our purpose.”14
Simply stated, a hypothesis helps us to see and appreciate (1) the kind of data that
must be collected in order to answer the research question and (2) the way in which they
should be organized most efficiently.

3.2 Definitions:
There are many definitions of hypothesis:-
According to Werkmeister15, “The guesses he makes are the hypothesis which
either solve the problems or guide him in further investigation”.
According to Goode and Halt16 “Hypothesis is a proposition which can be put to
test to determine its validity”.
Cohen and Nagel say17, “We cannot take a single step forward in any inquiry
unless we being with a suggested explanation or solution of the difficulty which originated
it. Such tentative explanations are suggested to us by something in the subject-matter and
by our previous knowledge. When they are formulated as propositions, they are called
hypothesis”.
According to George A. Lundburg18, “A hypothesis ia a tentative generalization,
the validity of which remains to be tested. In its most elementary stage the hypothesis may
be any hunch, guess, imaginative idea which becomes the basis for action or
investigation”.
Mc Grigan19 has defined hypothesis as “a testable statement of a potential
relationship between two (or more) variables”.
According to Webster’s New International Dictionary of English Language, 1956,
“hypothesis is a proposition, condition or principle which is assumed, perhaps without
belief, in order to draw out its logical consequences and by its method to test its accord
with facts which are known or may be determined.”
Hypothesis provides direction to research. It directs an investigator to identify the
procedures and methods to be followed in solving the problem. The hypothesis is forward
14
Lundburg, op, cit, p.119.
15
Werkmeister, EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN IN SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 1st ed., 1955, p. 210.
16
Goode and Hatt, METHODS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, 1st ed., 1985 rep., p.116.
17
Morris Rapheal Cohen and Nagel, REASONS AND LAW, 1st ed., 1972, p. 155.
18
Lundburg, op, cit, p.119.
19
Gordon Mc Grigan, A GUIDE TO WRITING ESSAY & RESEARCH PAPERS, 1st ed. 1977, p. 221.

14
looking. It may be a statement of relationship or it may specify the functions. For any
problem framing the hypothesis requires prior knowledge of the phenomena. We can frame
master hypothesis and subsidiary hypothesis.

3.3 Characteristics of a Usable Hypothesis:

The criteria for judging the usability of a hypothesis are none else than those that
help the hypothesis perform their designate functions vis-à-vis research and the growth of
knowledge. A good hypothesis is one which is testable and must be based directly on
existing data. It might even be expected to predict or anticipate previously unknown data.
According to Galtung20, there are ten dimensions of a useful hypothesis:
(1) generality, (ii) complexity, (iii) specificity, (iv) determinacy, (v) falsifiability,
(vi) testability, (vii) communicability, (viii) reproducibility, (ix) predictability, and (x)
tenability.
Goode and Hatt21 suggest the following characteristics of a useful hypothesis:
1) Specific: The hypothesis should not be too vague or engeneral. That is, all the
operations and predictions indicated by it should be spelled out. The possibility of
actually testing the hypothesis can thus be appraised. There is a general tendency to
select hypothesis that are too vast. It is better for the student to avoid such problem
and instead develop his skill up on more tangible notions. A hypothesis should
include a clear statement of indexes which are to be used.
2) Conceptually clear: The hypothesis should be properly expressed. The definition
and terms used in the hypothesis should be those which are commonly accepted
terms and not our own creations. If new terms have to be used their definition and
meaning in terms of already existing concept should be made clear.
3) Related to available technique: The hypothesis should be capable of being
verified. For this purpose we have to take into consideration the technique of study
that is available. Hypothesis should be formulated only after due thought have been
given to methods and techniques that can be used to measure the concepts and
variables incorporated in the hypothesis.
4) Related to body of theory: It is desirable that hypothesis selected must be in
continuation with theory already evolved.
20
Johan Galtung, THEORY AND METHODS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, 1st ed. 1967, pp. 242-245.
21
Goode and Hatt, METHODS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, SINGAPORE, 1st ed. 1985 (rep.), p. 116.

15
 5) Capable of empirical test: The hypothesis should be such as can be put to
empirical test. The concept embodied in the hypothesis must have empirical
correspondence. For example, “Bad parents be get bad children” is hardly a
statement that can qualify as a usable hypothesis. Empirical test is the basis of
objectivity which is so essential for any scientific method.
6) Simple: It should have logical simplicity. P.V. Young says “the more insight the
researcher has into the problem the simple will be his hypothesis about it. The
hypothesis should be simple and to the point.”
7) Closest to the things observable: Cohen and Nagel rightly remark, “hypothesis
must be formulated in such a matter that deduction can be made from it and that
consequently a decision can be made from it and that consequently a decision can
be reached as to whether it does or does not explain the facts considered”22
8) It should be expressed in a quantified form or be susceptible to convenient
quantification.
9) It must be stated in such a way as to allow it to be refuted.
10) It should be non-contradictory one.

3.4 Sources of Hypothesis:

The source of hypothesis is managerial analysis. A hypothesis provides the basis for
investigation, and ensures the proper direction in which the study should proceed. It
facilitates the collection of adequate facts, and helps one to arrive at appropriate
conclusions, suggestions and observations.
Goode and Hatt23 have given the following sources of a Hypothesis:
1) A General Culture: The general pattern of culture helps not only to formulate a
hypothesis. But also to guide its trend.
2) Scientific theory: Theory gives us the basic idea of what has been found to be
correct and the knowledge of theory leads us to form further generalizations, and
these generalizations form the part of hypothesis.
3) Analogies: Sometimes a hypothesis is formed from the analogy. A similarity
between the phenomena is observed and hypothesis is formed to test whether the
two phenomena or similar in any other respect.

22
Cohen and Nagel : p. 207.
23
Goode and Hatt, METHODS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, 1st ed. 1985 (rep.), p. 116.

16
 4) Personal experience: Hypothesis is formulated according the way in which an
individual reacts to culture. Science and analogy. The facts will be true but the
hypothesis may be formulated when a rightful individual sees it in a rightful
perspective.
Wilkinson and Bhandarkar24 give the following major sources of hypothesis:
1) Tile history of science provides an eloquent testimony to the fact that personal
experiences of the scientist contribute a great deal to the type and form of questions
he may ask.
2) Analogies are often a fountain head of valuable hypotheses. Analogy may be very
suggestive but care must be taken not to accept models from other disciplines
without a careful scrutiny of the concept in terms of their applicability to the new
frame of reference in which they are proposed to be used.
3) Hypothesis may rest also on the findings of other studies. The findings of such
studies may be formulated as hypothesis for more structured studies which aim at
testing the hypothesis.
4) A hypothesis may stem from a body of theory which may lead by way of logical
deduction, to the prediction that if certain conditions are present, certain results will
follow. A theory represents what is known; logical deductions from this constitute
the hypothesis which must be true if the theory is true. Dubin aptly remarks,
“Hypothesis is the feature of the theoretical model closest to the ‘things observable’
that the theory is trying to model.”25 and
5) Value-orientation of the culture in which a science develops may furnish of its
basic hypothesis.
The sum and substance of the discussion is aptly reflected in Larrabee’s remark that
the ideal source of fruitful and relevant hypothesis is a fusion of two elements: past
experience and imagination in the disciplined mind of the scientist.26

3.5 Importance of Hypothesis:

Hypothesis has a very important place in research although it occupies a very small
place in the body of the thesis. It is almost impossible for a researcher not to have one or

24
Wilkinson and Bhandarkar, METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, 9 th rev.
ed., 1992, pp. 211-215.
25
Dubun, Robert: THEORY BUILDING, p.211-2.
26
Larrabee: op.cit. p.172.

17
more hypothesis before proceeding with his work. If he is not capable of formulating a
hypothesis about his problem, he may not be ready to undertake the investigation.27 The
aimless collection of data is not likely to lead him anywhere. The importance of hypothesis
can be more specifically stated as under:-
1) It provides direction to research. It defines what is relevant and what is irrelevant.
Thus it prevents the review of irrelevant literature and the collection of useless or
excess data.
2) It is a guide to the thinking process and the process of discovery. It is the
investigator’s eye in seeking answers to tentatively adopted generalization.
3) It focuses research. It serves as a necessary link between theory and the
investigation.
4) It prevents blind research, prevents indiscriminate gathering of data which may
latter prove irrelevant to the problem under study.
5) It sensitizes the individual to facts and conditions that might otherwise be
overlooked.
6) It places clear and specific goals before us. These clear and specific goal provide
the investigator with a basis for selecting samples and research procedures to meet
these goals.
7) It serves the important function of linking together related facts and information
and organizing them to wholes.
8) It serves as a framework for drawing conclusions. It provides the outline for setting
conclusions in a meaningful way.
9) It serves as a source of light in the world of darkness. In the words of Deobold D.
Van Balan, “A hypothesis serves as a powerful that can lights the way for the
researchers”.

3.6 Types of Hypotheses:

The kind of hypothesis can be explained in many ways taking the base on which
they are classified. One type of hypothesis asserts that something is the case in given
instance that the particular object; person or situation has a particular character. Another
type deals with the frequency of occurrences or of association among variables.
There are hypothesis stating relationships. Some specify functions and thirdly null
27
T.H. Huxley, cited Cohen and Nagel : p.197.

18
hypothesis which study the existence of the relationship between the variables.
Hypotheses can be divided into two broad categories:
(a) Experimental and (b) non-experimental. Experimental hypotheses can again be sub-
divided into (i) existential and (ii) statistical hypotheses. Statistical hypotheses may
be further categorized as (i) null hypotheses, and (ii) constructive experimental
hypotheses. The constructive hypotheses can be negative or positive. Non-
experimental hypotheses are of three forms; (i) simple level (ii) complex level and.
(iii) functional level hypotheses.
P.V. Young has divided the hypotheses into three broad categories; they are:
1) Uniform: Uniform hypotheses relate to the existence of empirical uniformities.
They are commonsense propositions and merely show regularities.
2) Complex: The complex types are concerned with complex ideal type. They outline
the existence of logically desired relationships between empirical uniformities.
3) Analytic: The analytic hypotheses deal with the relationship of analytic variables.
They are aimed at finding out the relationship between changes in one property
leading to changes in another.
Goode and Hatt28 have classified the hypothesis into the following three types on the
basis of level of abstraction:-
1) At the lowest level of abstraction are the hypotheses which state the existence of
certain empirical uniformalities.
2) At the relatively higher level of abstraction are hypotheses concerned with complex
‘ideal types’. These hypotheses aim at testing whether logically derived
relationships between empirical uniformities obtain.
3) The higher level of abstraction are hypotheses concerned with the relation
obtaining amongst analytic variables.
Another classification divides hypotheses into:
1) Uni-variable and multi-variable: Uni-variable hypotheses describe only one
variable. Multi-variable hypotheses involve two or more than two variables.
2) Associational and Non-associational: Associational hypotheses show association
or relationship between two variables. Non-associational hypotheses show absence
of relationship or negative relationship between two variables. Non-associational

28
Goode W.G. and Hatt, P.K, op, cit., p.73.

19
 hypotheses are also known as null-hypotheses.
3) Universal and Statistical: Universal hypotheses tell about a phenomena or
relationship between a variable which is true all the time and at all places.
Statistical hypotheses talk of probability.
4) Temporal and Cross-sectional: A temporal hypotheses is true at a point of time.
A cross-sectional hypothesis is spelt out as true at the same point in time. Both of
them do not imply causality. Peth Mann29 explained the following types of
hypotheses:
a) Hypothesis concerning law: These kinds of hypotheses explain as to how an agent
works to produce a particular effect or event.
b) Hypothesis concerning an Agent: When a law of operation is known, the agent
which is working to produce an effect may not be known. In that event a hypothesis
is often framed to find out agent.
c) Hypothesis concerning collocation: Collocation refers to an arrangement of
circumstances. When a hypothesis is made relating to the circumstances necessary
to produce a phenomenon, it is known as hypothesis regarding collocation.

3.7 Different Forms of Hypotheses:

The hypothesis can be stated in number of forms which are:-

1) Null Form: It states that no significant difference exists between the variables
concerned. This form of statement more readily defines the mathematical model to
be utilized in the statistical test of the hypothesis. The null hypothesis asserts that
there is no difference between two populations in respect of some property and that
the difference found between the samples drawn from these populations is only
accidental and unimportant. Null hypothesis is a testable hypothesis. H.M. Garrett
remarks, “The null hypothesis is akin to the legal principle that a man is innocent
until he is proved guilty. It constitutes a challenge and the function of a research is
to give facts a change to refute this challenge”.
Advantages of null hypothesis are:-

• It is exact.
• It is easier to disprove the contrary of an hypothesis that to prove it with complete
29
Peth Mann, METHODS OF SOCIOLOGICAL ENQUIRY, pp. 168-171.

20
 certainty.
• Null hypothesis enables the researcher to ‘eliminate some of the alternative
hypotheses.
• According to Karl Popper, “the real basis of science is the possibility of empirical
disproof.”
• The statistical techniques are better adapted to testing a null hypothesis.
Disadvantages of null hypothesis are:-
• In null hypothesis the researcher has to prove that all the possible identified
alternatives one by one have probable relations.
• It is suitable to certain types of problem only.
• It requires great skill of the researcher.

2) Prediction Form: It is chosen because it allows the research worker to state

principles which he actually expects to emerge from the experiment. This type of
hypothesis is more useful in action research studies.
3) Declarative Form: It generally states a relationship between the variables
concerned.
4) Question Form: The above mentioned hypothesis in question form may read –“is
there a significant difference between civil law and torts? ”

3.8 Problems in Formulating the Hypothesis:

The main difficulties to formulate the hypothesis according to Goode and Hatt are:
1) absence of clear theoretical framework:
2) lack of ability to utilize that theoretical framework logically;
3) Failure to be acquainted with available research techniques so as to be able to
phrase the hypothesis properly.
4) Vagueness of the statement.

3.9 How should the Researcher Ideally Formulate Hypothesis for Research?

21
 R.L. Ackoff30 discussed the problem of formulation of hypothesis in detail. The
researcher problem ultimately be reduced to the question. The answer to this question
would be a particular means out of most efficient alternatives under specific conditions.
Such specific conditions should be formulated for each of the alternative means. The
statements of these acceptance conditions are the hypothesis.
1) A researcher should start with trying to determine all the alternative means
(solutions or explanations of coming to grip with his problem). For this he has to
undertake a resource survey which may bring to light what alternative means,
solutions or explanations may be applied to the problem.
2) He has to attempt to determine which of the alternative course of action or solution
and explanation is most efficient in terms of certain criteria.
3) Among the alternative course of action or solution that the most efficient one which
has economy in the realm of time, money and energy should be marked out.
4) Formulation of alternative hypotheses involves the following steps:
(i) A measure of efficiency applicable to all the alternative course of action is
selected.
(ii) On the basis of the selected measure of efficiency a set of acceptance
conditions for each alternative course of action is assigned.
(iii) The acceptance conditions are reformulated as hypotheses which are
mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.
5) To assume oneselves that the hypotheses are mutually exclusive and jointly
exhaustive of the universe of possibilities is to use the logical technique known as
the “Boolean Expansion”. Suppose we have one common point by agreement (M)
among the alternative hypotheses and three points of disagreement (N, 0 and P),
then the alternative hypotheses according to the requirements of exhaustiveness and
mutual exclusion could be presented.
If there are points of disagreement, alternative hypothesis is an exclusive
classification and only one of them can be true and must be true. Thus the researcher
ideally formulates hypotheses by formulating the points of disagreement and selects the
true one.

30
R. Ackoff, THE DESIGN OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, p. 108.

22
3.10 Testing the Hypothesis:

The proof of the worth of the hypothesis lies in its ability to meet the test of the
validity. After formulating a hypothesis, it is necessary to: (i) deduce its consequences; (ii)
select or develop tools that will determine whether these consequences actually occur, and
(iii) use the tools thereby collecting facts that will either confirm or disconfirm the
hypothesis.
There are two important means of testing hypothesis:-

1) The study of hypothesis for logical consistency; and

2) The study of hypothesis for agreement with fact.
The study of hypothesis for logical consistency is a phase of thinking. It consists of
checking the logical character of the reasoning by which the consequences of hypothesis
are deducted for verification.

In the study of hypothesis for agreement with fact, one argues that if the hypothesis
is true, certain facts, conditions or relationships will be found, and then one looks to see if
these conditions are present.

23
 CHAPTER- IV

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

A hypothesis is never proved, it is merely sustained or rejected. If it fails to meet the

test of its validity, it must be modified or rejected. A hypothesis can be useful even if it is
partially incorrect. The confirmation of a hypothesis is always tentative and relative subject to
later revision and even rejection as further appears or as more adequate hypotheses are
introduced.
A hypothesis is only theory in the making. When a hypothesis is sustained by logical
or empirical tests, it provides the basis for generalizations or conclusions. Sound theories are
reached only after many hypotheses have been tried out and discarded or modified to
harmonize with established facts.
Some scholars have argued that each study needs a hypothesis. Not only exploratory
and explanatory researches but even the descriptive studies can benefit from the formulation
of a hypothesis. But some other scholars have criticized this position. They argue that
hypotheses make no positive contribution to the research process. On the contrary, they may
bias the researchers in their data collection and data analysis. They may restrict their scope
and limit their approach. They may even predetermine the outcome of the research study.
Qualitative researchers argue that although hypotheses are important tools of social
research, they must not precede the research but rather result from an investigation.
Despite these two contradictory arguments, many investigators use hypotheses in their
research implicitly or explicitly. The greatest advantage is that they not only guide in goals of
research but help in concentrating on the important aspects of the research topic by avoiding
less significant issues.

24
 Bibliography

• C. K. Kothari, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: METHOD AND TECHNIQUES, 1st

ed. 1980, New Delhi, Wiley Eastern Limited.
• Goode and Hatt, METHODS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, 1st ed. 1985 rep. 1991,
Singapore, Mc. Graw Hill Book Co.
• Gordon Coggins, A GUIDE TO WRITING ESSAY & RESEARCH PAPERS, 1st ed.
1977, Toronto, Van Nostrant Reinhold Ltd.
• Morris L. Cohen, HOW TO FIND THE LAW, MINNESOTA, 1st ed. 1977, West
Publishing Co.
• Pauline V. Young, SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL SURVEYS AND RESEARCH, 1 st ed.
1984, New Delhi, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.
• Peth Mann, METHODS OF SOCIOLOGICAL ENQUIRY, 1st ed. 1968, Oxford,
Basil Blackwell and Molt Co.
• R Ackoff, THE DESIGN OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, 1st ed. 1953, Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
• S. K. Verma and M Afzal Wani (eds.), LEGAL RESEARCH AND
METHODOLOGY, Vol. 24, Nos. 2 -4, 2nd ed. 2001 1st rep. 2006, Journal of Indian
Law Institute.
• S. R. Myneni, LEGAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 1st ed., New Delhi, Pioneer
Books, 1997.
• Upendra Baxi, SOCIO-LEGAL RESEARCH IN INDIA – A PROGRAM, 1st ed.
1975, Schriff, ICSSR, Occasional Monograph.
• Wilkinson and Bhandarkar, METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES OF SOCIAL
RESEARCH, 9th rev. ed., 1992, Bombay, Himalaya Publishing House.
• Shipra Agrawal, LEGAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 1st ed. 2003 rep. 2007, Sri
Sai Law Publications.

vii