Does this count as science?: The unconventional roles of hypotheses in materials-related research

Hypotheses are widely regarded as a fundamental component of the scientific method, particularly within the Hypothetico-Deductive (HD) model, which involves formulating tentative explanations that are subsequently tested. This model is often viewed as the "gold standard" for scientific inquiry, with studies that adhere to it being more likely to receive grant funding and considered more rigorous. However, discrepancies between the HD model and actual practices have been observed across various disciplines, including ecology, epidemiology, psychology, and data-driven fields. In this study, we analyze emergent trends from qualitative interviews with 16 postdocs conducting materials-related research. Materials science is a highly interdisciplinary field with ties to chemistry and physics; as such, its knowledge-generation strategies may differ from those in traditional disciplines. Guided by the theoretical frameworks of cultural master narratives and the Nature of Science (NOS), we address two key research questions: (1) In what ways do these postdocs employ or diverge from the HD model of scientific inquiry? (2) What prompts this divergence when it occurs? Through thematic analysis, we explore how these researchers describe their use (and non-use) of hypotheses and a range of epistemic practices that do not align with the HD model. Our findings contribute to the existing scholarship by highlighting how the HD model may not be sufficient for scientific pursuits in complex, interdisciplinary contexts.