Question answered! Thanks to all experts who replied!
Dear experts,
I am currently writing my final thesis, a feasibility study in the agricultural industry. I must choose to either use an inductive or deductive approach during this project, however, I am in doubt which approach to choose, as, in my opinion, I use aspects of both.
In my literature review, I use general theories (Abell; Laddering; ...) mainly to set up an interview guide. My primary research mainly consists of semi-structured interviews with farmers, using the interview guide. I will code these data to come to my conclusions and recommendations. The way I see it, this research is as qualitative as a feasibility study can get.
As said, I am in doubt about the approach I should use / am using. I recognize a number of deductive elements in the literature review (using an abstract theory to set up specific interview questions), but the field research is an inductive process. Your view on this would be highly appreciated!
Yours faithfully,
Aito G. Atzema
We humans make use of both types of reasoning, and this seems to function rather in the cognitive unconscious. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific, usually starting from a theory, which is then narrowed down to more specific hypotheses to test. Inductive reasoning works the other way, usually beginning with specific observations, detecting patterns and regularities, formulating some tentative hypotheses to test, and ending up developing some conclusions or theory.
As you see, if your concern is with developing a theory, you will find yourself using more inductive reasoning. If, however, you are concerned with a topic, as I suspect you are at the doctoral level, you are more likely to start from a theory, develop your hypotheses, and test them. In this case, you are more likely to use deductive reasoning. However, there is no quantification of either. If you try to bring all this to consciousness, you will realize that you are doing both, but with more leaning to the deductive one. Unless this distinction is crucial in your area of investigation, I suggest that you should not worry about that since the direction of your argument will guide you where you should be.
We humans make use of both types of reasoning, and this seems to function rather in the cognitive unconscious. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific, usually starting from a theory, which is then narrowed down to more specific hypotheses to test. Inductive reasoning works the other way, usually beginning with specific observations, detecting patterns and regularities, formulating some tentative hypotheses to test, and ending up developing some conclusions or theory.
As you see, if your concern is with developing a theory, you will find yourself using more inductive reasoning. If, however, you are concerned with a topic, as I suspect you are at the doctoral level, you are more likely to start from a theory, develop your hypotheses, and test them. In this case, you are more likely to use deductive reasoning. However, there is no quantification of either. If you try to bring all this to consciousness, you will realize that you are doing both, but with more leaning to the deductive one. Unless this distinction is crucial in your area of investigation, I suggest that you should not worry about that since the direction of your argument will guide you where you should be.
There are always pitfalls in using inductive reasoning, i.e. generalizing from limited evidence. This is why statistical sampling is used, to attempt to obtain a representative sample.
If you are using qualitative methodology, you must take care to a) have sufficient sources of data that you reach "saturation" of the data, and b) do not reach conclusions that are more broad than your source of data justifies.
It all depends on the type of research you have conducted. If Your research has been replicatory-that is, vlidatig an already existing hypothesis, then using a deductive approach is most appropriate. However, if the research is explanatory, en an inductive approach is the best. Apart from these, you can write your paragraphs either deductively or inductively or both. Choosing either of these approaches is simply the writer's own choice.
Thank you very much for your replies and thoughts! The product I am researching the feasibility of has never been commercially developed and sold so far, so I am not testing an existing hypothesis. The goal of my own interviews/observations is to conclude whether the product is feasible.
In my document, I will not talk about an exact choice between inductive and deductive approaches, as I realize I am using parts of both.
Mr Cruciani, thanks for your addition. I have considered abduction, but the link to the original abduction theory would be too thin to be mentioned.
It will depend on what your assumptions are about your topic, along with your question. You can use both types of reasoning at varying stages of your study. It seems to be some type of research question vs. a quality improvement project?
Ms Roussel, I indeed recognize both inductive and deductive elements in my research. My research is about the potential production of a new (at this point non-existing) harvesting machine. Therefore I do not have existing hypotheses to test, have to come up with my own. These will come from semistructured interviews with farmers / experts, inductive in my eyes. Interview 'guide' is based on existing theories, deductive.
In my opinion, a combination of both approaches is best.
Thank you for your input!
Abduction combines elements of induction and deduction, because we always reason from existing beliefs (deduction), and then make inferences that assess those beliefs (induction), based on the results of our deductive reasoning.
But if you just want to decide whether to call your project inductive versus deductive, your exploratory approach along with the lack of pre-determined hypotheses would traditionally be characterized as inductive.
The more recent emphasis on abduction in qualitative research is basically a reaction against this "traditional" approach of labelling research as inductive simply because there is no formal hypothesis testing. Instead, this newer line of thinking is based on pragmatism, which emphasizes abduction through a cycle where all action is based on prior beliefs, and all beliefs are based on the outcomes of prior action (where prior action can also include purely cognitive processes).
I think we have induction and deduction in every scientific research and that we do not have to choose between them.
As I wrote here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whats_the_point_of_splitting_the_social_research_methodology_in_quantitative_and_qualitative
I think we have induction and deduction in every step of the social research; we inductively and deductively discover research questions, hypotheses, theories; we have induction in quantitative research too for example when we inductively generalize results from the sample to the entire population; then we have deduction even in the process of inductive generation of theories (in grounded theory studies).
If you feel that you need to use, and can justify, both the inductive and deductive reasoning in your research then you probably don't need to make it into either inductive or deductive. Please study pragmatism which imply both inductive and deductive reasoning i.e., abductive reasoning. After that you may study different Mixed-methods designs and chose the one that suits your study.
It is feasibility study. So you are applying theory to decide for particular case project. Theories are generalised and their application is under study. So you are using deductive approach. So your objective is not understood that is why I suggest you to match requirements of objective
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing