Q: Should the hypothesis be consistent in the Introduction and the Results?
When writing a paper, I usually finish the Results and Methods sections first and then work on the Introduction. But this time, the result was exactly opposite from the hypothesis, although the hypothesis was a/the trigger of the research. I am wondering whether I should write the original hypothesis honestly (as is) or write it according to the obtained result.
Most researchers follow the writing sequence that you have mentioned, i.e., starting with the Methods and Results and writing the Introduction towards the end. However, when starting off on your experiment(s), you must have begun with a certain hypothesis. From your question, we assume that you formulated a hypothesis with a certain expectation, but the findings ended up negating the hypothesis. However, if you mean that the premise or basis of your study approach or design was flawed (say, it was based on a retracted study or based on incorrect data, which you realized later), you might need to address this accordingly (perhaps by reworking the hypothesis and modifying the methods).
Assuming you mean the former, do note that if your data do not support your hypothesis, there is nothing wrong. This stating of a hypothesis, followed by an experiment to falsify or corroborate that hypothesis is routine in the scientific process. A negative finding is not a bad thing in science; it is an important part of the scientific process. If a negative finding goes unreported, then money, material, and time might end up being wasted by someone else trying to repeat the same research. Practices such as “p‐hacking” or “HARKing” (hypothesizing after the results are known) run counter to rigorous hypothesis testing and harm the progress of science. Unfortunately, studies with positive results are known to have higher chances of being published than those with negative results. This is a result of “confirmation bias,” the tendency of researchers to value confirmations more than refutations. Therefore, one may feel tempted to make up a hypothesis and/or model that perfectly fits the data obtained, but this is considered unethical.
Therefore, we would recommend that you state the original hypothesis honestly and discuss how and why the findings do not match what was originally proposed. You would then be led to look for a new interpretation and possibly formulate a new hypothesis for a different study!
At the end, we would like to quote Enrico Fermi: “If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you’ve made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you’ve made a discovery.”
Happy discovering!
You may also find the following related resources interesting:
This content belongs to the Conducting Research Stage