How can you craft a research question and hypothesis that captivate?

As a scientific proofreader, I recommend crafting captivating research questions and hypotheses by making them clear, concise, and relevant. Start with a thought-provoking question that addresses a real-world problem. Your hypothesis should be testable, specific, and suggest an answer to the question. Use language that sparks curiosity while maintaining scientific rigor. Ensure that the research gap or significance is evident. Keep them focused and aligned with your research goals, making readers eager to explore your study further.

Characteristics of a Good Research Question: i)Clear: It should be easily understandable. ii)Focused: It should be specific and narrow. iii)Researchable: Investigating using available resources and methods should be possible. iv)Significant: It should contribute to the field of knowledge. Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis: i)Testable: It should be possible to confirm or refute through research. ii)Measurable: It should include variables that can be quantified. iii)Based on Theory: It should be grounded in existing knowledge and logical reasoning.

As a research methods instructor who has read many studies about teacher-made research and advised many students on their research proposals, adding the word "impact" lends power and interest to a question and topic. e.g., "What impact does peer feedback in your learners' first language have on the quality of their essays?" Such a question can generate immediate interest on the part of teachers considering a study on means to improve essay feedback. For the null hypothesis, the key is to connect it as closely to the research question as possible. In this case, "First-language peer feedback has no significant impact on the quality of students' final essay drafts" would be appropriate.

Choosing a narrow and specific topic for research sharpens the focus, allowing for a research question and hypothesis that are both precise and intriguing. This specificity draws attention because it suggests a thorough exploration into a distinct aspect of a broader field. A well-defined topic also facilitates the formulation of a clear, testable hypothesis, which is essential for rigorous scientific inquiry. It indicates a deliberate and methodical approach, which can be particularly engaging for academic audiences who value depth over breadth in research. Moreover, a focused topic can lead to more meaningful and impactful results, potentially contributing to significant advancements in the field

To add on this point, a narrow topic enables precise research questions and hypotheses, making them more compelling. For example, instead of a broad topic like "climate change," focusing on "the impact of urbanization on local bee populations" allows for a specific, testable hypothesis such as "Urbanization reduces bee diversity." This specificity can captivate by promising targeted insights and potentially actionable findings, which can engage both academic and public audiences interested in environmental issues and urban planning.

I am actually just the opposit to Ms. Vos. I very much am a freewriter as I feel a lot less restrained in letting my thoughts flow into my writing. Of course you do still need to keep focused on the topic and not go off on a tangent, but allowing thoughts to run freely can be useful to some writers. I also have a style of writing that does not specifically start with the hypothesis question right at the very beginning of the paragraph. Some of my best papers have had the hypothesis at the end of the first paragraph.

To further explore this point, sub-questions refine the main research question, guiding a focused inquiry and forming a captivating hypothesis. For instance, if studying the effects of diet on health, sub-questions might explore specific dietary components, such as "How does sugar intake affect obesity rates?" This leads to a precise hypothesis like "Increased sugar intake is positively correlated with higher obesity rates." Such targeted sub-questions and hypotheses engage audiences by promising detailed, relevant findings.

The researcher should identify the gaps in the existing processes which help formulate the hypotheses. Concepts and learnings from different fields could be and will be used to improve results in other fields, like how ML and DL has penetrated into CV, NLP etc bringing unprecedented results.

So, when we want to create a good and interesting research hypothesis, the first thing is to really understand our research topic. That means we need to read relevant literature and see what previous research has said. Then, the hypothesis should be clear, not vague, and we should be able to test it with data or experiments. Don't forget, we also need to have predictions about the results of our research. Hypotheses should also follow research ethics, so don't make something that could be an ethical problem. In short, a good hypothesis is a strong foundation for our research, and it can also make readers curious about our research.

Let's make one thing clear: Academic writing isn't about "captivating" in the sense that it's like click baiting or sensationalizing audiences. It's a rigorous intellectual, scientific, and logical discussion. Hypotheses aren't there as headline-grabbing content. That being said, formulating your hypotheses is not an exercise on "captivating your audiences". The purpose is to concretely frame and contextualize the issues being discussed. Developing your hypotheses is not the proper venue to captivate your audiences. Leave that to your developing and communicating your research objectives (to hook audiences in) and your research findings (especially in discussing your your research answers the question, "So what?").

Just filling a gap in scientific knowledge is never sufficient on its own, and is not the only motivation for research. The key is to change the way people think about a given subject. So in formulating your research question, you have to point out what issue you want to address and how you are going to change that. That can be by filling a gap, though this is a little boring. It can also be a change in perspective, an alternative description of something, a new insight in an existing field(relativity vs Newton theory), or a new combination of existing things (Maxwell theory +quantummechanics =QED, Standard model, use of DFT in chemistry). So it is not just about filling gaps, it is about changing the way we think about an issue.

Before you begin, find something that would actually be worthy of research and exploring in detail. Your question and hypothesis should be about something that hasn't been addressed before, while also being appealing to at least one specific group of readers (subject-based). A less common topic that interests you, may not appeal to everyone, but can give you an edge over others and make your writing project unique.

Research question(s) should try to address a real gap in knowledge. Once that is fulfilled, the best way to make it captivating is by keeping it very simple and clear. Many of us researchers, especially in science and technology, work around different technical jargons which, while necessary, sometimes dilute the ultimate goal of the project. In my view, research questions should be kept concise and clear so that everyone accessing the research remains anchored to the problem it is trying to solve.