The short answer is, as a scientist, you are required to; It’s part of the scientific process. Science uses a battery of processes to prove or disprove theories, making sure than any new hypothesis has no flaws. Including both a null and an alternate hypothesis is one safeguard to ensure your research isn’t flawed. Not including the null hypothesis in your research is considered very bad practice by the scientific community. If you set out to prove an alternate hypothesis without considering it, you are likely setting yourself up for failure. At a minimum, your experiment will likely not be taken seriously.
Animal models have historically been unable to predict human response to drugs and disease and animal-based research has historically displayed methodological problems that make SRs difficult. One proposed solution that would address both problems is standardization of protocols thus permitting SRs of animal models, which would in turn improve the models thus possibly allowing accurate predictions, high PPV and NPVs, for human response to drugs and disease. We have argued that even if the methodology for animal models could be standardized and subject to SRs, animal models would still fail to be predictive modalities for human response to drugs and disease because of considerations from complexity theory and evolutionary biology. Put succinctly, humans and animals are complex systems with different evolutionary trajectories.
Research Protocols for Industry 12/13/2017 Dr. Franciosa
As we discussed, SRs are only useful if there is scientific validity to the assumptions or axioms underlying the research. There is no reason to conduct SRs of homeopathy nor does complexity theory and evolutionary biology offer any reason to expect SRs of animal models to be productive. Regardless of how the problem is approached, animal and humans will always be differently complex. Personalized medicine puts this in perspective.
Research Hypothesis - SAGE Research Methods
In the contentious world of animal research, one question surfaces time and again: how useful are animal experiments as a way to prepare for trials of medical treatments in humans? The issue is crucial, as public opinion is behind animal research only if it helps develop better drugs. Consequently, scientists defending animal experiments insist they are essential for safe clinical trials, whereas animal-rights activists vehemently maintain that they are useless .
RESEARCH METHODS: PLANNING: Hypothesis & …
The above claims are, however, in direct opposition to those advocating for SRs in order to improve the predictive ability of animal-based research. Before we survey the literature for empirical confirmation and present views of other scientists that strongly disagree with the above, we need to first define the term and refresh the reader's memory of how it is used in science.
In deductive research, a HYPOTHESIS is necessary
Identifying a research topic:
A template for structured observation:
A site devoted to survey design:
A chapter on structured interviewing:
A chapter on qualitative interviewing:
An introduction to ethnographic research:
Materials for focus group interviews:
Hypothesis in Qualitative Research - ResearchGate
BRYMAN, A. (2004). Social Research Method. 2nd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press
CRESWELL, J. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed., London, Sage
SEALE, C.(2006). Researching society and culture. London, Sage
Here are some references for specific methods:
ARKSEY, H and KNIGHT, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: an introductory resource. London, Sage
DALE, A.; ARBER, S.; AND PROCTOR, M.(1998). Doing Secondary Analysis. London, Allen and Unwin
HAMMERSLEY, M. and ATKINSON, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London, Routledge
OPPENHEIM, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London, Pinter