Discuss (a) null hypothesis

The research's beginning is not a method but a discomfort — the felt gap: the doctrine's puzzle (the two precedent-lines that don't reconcile), the practice's itch (the docket's clog), the reform's question (the statute's failure in the field), the seminar's unanswered question. The sources of topics: the caseload's patterns (the lawyer's own files), the literature's margins (the articles' "further research needed"), the policy debates (the amendment bills' questions), the field observations (the courtroom's realities), and the supervisor's guidance. The topic's journey (the sequence to reproduce): the broad interest (criminal justice) → the focused area (bail's working) → the researchable topic (bail decisions in one district's courts: the factors the judges weigh) — each step narrowing and sharpening. The screening questions before commitment: what exactly is unknown? is the data accessible? is it within time-and-resources? is it original (the literature's check) or usefully replicable? does it sustain the researcher's interest (the thesis- marriage's length)?