Download - HSRC Press

higher than the mean scores on method B ( µ A > µ B)- The usual format of thistype of hypothesis is:H 1 : µ A > µ B.Assume that the findings indicate that the mean for method A is 68, and thatfor method B is 61. One would be inclined to regard this as a confirmation ofthe statistical hypothesis. This assumption may, however, be quite erroneous asthe possibility that the differences may be attributable to chance factors whichhad not been eliminated. The appropriate strategy is to include this element ofchance in the design of the research by formulating what may virtually bereferred to as a chance hypothesis or, more conventionally, a null hypothesis.According to the expectations associated with chance factors, µ A. ought to beequal to µ B.This null hypothesis is then represented as:H0 : µ A = µ B.Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.zaThe refutation of HQ now becomes the aim of the study. Stated differently: theresearcher attempts to refute the statement that the difference between themeans of the two methods are the result of chance factors. If the data were toindicate that the null hypothesis is in error and that the obtained differences aresignificant (a term that is statistically defined), the researcher would assumethat the statistical hypothesis has been confirmed.In summary, it is clear that the single most important characteristic associatedwith a good hypothesis is its testability. As far as research hypotheses areconcerned, the requirement is that they should be empirically testable: oneshould be able either to confirm or refute them. As far as theoreticalhypotheses are concerned, it would also apply that it ought to be possible toidentify it either as a tenable or an untenable hypothesis by means of logicaland conceptual argumentation. A prerequisite for any form of testing is clearand unambiguous concepts. Particularly in the case of research hypotheses, it isessential that the concepts that are used must possess single references ordenotations to identifiable phenomena in reality.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKSConcepts are structured in certain types of statements (definitions, hypotheses,or observation statements) according to specific syntactic rules. Although wehave, on a number of occasions in the preceding sections, emphasized thatscientific knowledge consists of scientific statements, and that researchers aimat generating valid scientific statements, it is evident that statements are notentirely independent. When statements are arranged according to regulativeinterests or orientations and are integrated into conceptual frameworks, we findthe familiar structures of science: typologies, theories, and models. The natureof the conceptual framework is determined by the regulative function that theframework has to fulfil.136