Hypothesis first. Experimental design second. Then data and conclusions.

This is the simplification taught in science class, that perhaps scientists even tell themselves. Really though, most of the work is forming the hypothesis, and the social process of science only manages to protect itself from the dangers of forming hypotheses without that work by having norms of collecting lots of redundant data.

Your questions can take a lifetime to answer

Here's an even clearer phrasing that refutes that. "What is day-to-day life like for a member of this community? How does it differ from what I'm accustomed to?" Really, I'm just trying to resolve the ambiguity that Vladimir_Nesov observed. Merely knowing that a group is rational and utilitarian (or at least, that it claims to be) doesn't narrow down what it is very much.

Also, I would find the statement of hypothesis in the original post much clearer if you said "my hypothesis is that ..." What you've stated instead is that you're trying to prove your hypothesis, which is, I hope, wrong--rather, you're investigating whether your hypothesis is true, without the specific goal of proving or disproving it.