My understanding is that a hypothesis is not scientific unless there is a way to sufficiently test it.
Is it ever acceptable to present a hypothesis that cannot be sufficiently tested?
I can imagine a situation where one has a hypothesis (A) that can be sufficiently tested via available research methods (e.g. a questionnaire) and another (B) that can only be sufficiently tested via other research methods that you do not have the resources to conduct (e.g. face-to-face interviews).
Would it be acceptable to partially test for hypothesis B and collect some preliminary data for it in this fictitious questionnaire, despite knowing that this would be an imperfect test? But then, if the testing method is imperfect, would this truly be considered a hypothesis or something else?