We have already seen how we may arrive at hypotheses from two opposing directions:

• Faced with a set of observations, inductive thinking enables us to draw any number of hypothetical conclusions (See topic sheet Working with Facts).
• When analysing a problem, we identify the "issues" governing the problem and proceed to create hypotheses inductively based on our existing knowledge of the issue (See topic sheet Finding the Facts).

Insofar as the inductive process is something we do intuitively, rather than a sophisticated new technique, it is easy to understand how we can easily create a universe of new ideas from a few simple facts.

Complexity and Judgment

Let us turn our attention instead to the less intuitive process of research, in terms of using hypotheses to establish supporting or contradicting facts. Whereas inductive thinking is fundamentally creative, research, in this context, is primarily analytical.

If our project were wholly creative, with no basis whatsoever in fact, it would be a simple matter to invent a set of "fictional facts" in support of each hypothesis. For example, if we were to start with the hypothesis that X's mental illness was the direct result of draconian punishments inflicted in X's early childhood by X's father, we could easily create (inductively!) a set of observations in support of the hypothesis.

This is an excellent method of generating plot ideas that are focused on a predetermined (fictional) outcome. As a research tool, by contrast, it is too creative by far, unless of course the fundamental facts underpinning the hypothesis are already established. If a complex hypothesis such as the above were based purely on guesswork, the chances of its ever being proved correct would be slender.

Note too the judgmental nature of the illustrative hypothesis set out above: the punishments are draconian; the the mental illness is firmly linked to the punishments.

Again in a wholly creative setting, such judgments are extremely useful because they force one's thinking in a potentially fruitful direction: the hypothesis itself contains the basic ingredients of a compelling story and the plot will be influenced accordingly.

If the hypotheses are aimed at eliciting facts, however, the elements of judgment and the linking together of distinct hypotheses are impediments. Initially, we are simply guessing that X was punished in his childhood years. Questions of whether the punishments were draconian or whether they were inflicted by X's father are premature. Even if the writer already knows that X suffered mental illness in later life, it is similarly premature to be so prescriptive about the cause of the mental illness. In fact, by linking the two at such an early stage in the research, one may inadvertently close one's mind to other areas of enquiry as to the cause of the illness.

Keep It Simple

The research process, in short, is best served by simple, non-judgmental hypotheses: X was beaten as a child; X suffered from mental illness in later life, etc. Such hypotheses give the research a clear, unbiased direction. They are expressed in factual language. If the research provides reasonably good data in support of them, they will become facts. Then and only then will inductive leaps to judgment and complexity become appropriate.

Simple, non-judgmental hypotheses are a useful component of any research plan insofar as they make the work of research more creative by providing the basis for inductive leaps of thought. This is particularly true in the case of poorly documented subjects.

If the subject is well documented, the writer runs a considerable risk of developing "new" hypotheses only to find that they have already been thoroughly investigated. The list of "issues" for investigation (See topic sheet Finding the Facts) suggests the broad areas to be researched and provides a handy framework for facts to be neatly "filed" as they emerge in the research. Once the broad pattern of facts is known, the process of hypothesising, in the sense of writing simple sentences about the issue) is much more likely to bear fruit.

If, by contrast, the subject or the issue is poorly documented, hypotheses may inspire fruitful research ideas. For example, the issue of "Childhood" may at first seem inscrutable in the case of a subject whose childhood is undocumented, whereas a simple hypothesis such as X never met his father might open up a fascinating world of unexpected information, in which a seemingly innocent entry in a parish record might point the way to direct descendents and thence to a previously unknown diary.