And on-topic, a small note regarding hypotheses and research in general:
I was trained in the soft sciences to do qualitative research, so im biased in that sense... but i really think that hypothesis driven research is just stating a preconceived notion or prejudice and then trying to rationalize how this is a true enunciation. Hypothesis can poison the results before you even start doing the experiments.
I dont feel like getting too technical right now, but, i think that good science involves being extremely attuned to what the "field" is trying to tell you despite your preconceived notions or questions you began with, and ill try to create a fictional example to illustrate.
Imagine some scientist from the 19th or 20th century, that KNOWS that "negroes" are inferior, but since hes a superior being and the representative of truth, wants to present it as "scientific" he would ask in his research:
"Are negroes an inferior race?"
Before the work even begins, we can observe that its just a statement, with a "?" added to it at the end, the hypothesis is poisoned by his preconceptions and hes gonna try his darnedest to prove it correct, most likely ignoring all methods or results that say the contrary.
In other words, the "a priori" that guides the research and establishes the hypothesis can be so overbearing that the process is just refined sophistry and rationalizations, completely detached from what the "field" and reality is trying to tell him.