In the social sciences, it is quite common to conduct exploratory or discovery-oriented research for the purpose of generating hypotheses. As you note, an Interpretivist or Constructivist view is often used to justify this kind of research. So, depending on your field, it may not be necessary to start with prior hypotheses.

Note also many social science fields use a rather "loose" version of the word induction, where it is basically any approach that uses observations to create theory.

Dear Shamina,

A characteristic feature of most inductive reasoning approaches is the use of background knowledge. In inductive reasoning with background knowledge, we, with regard to different examples and background knowledge, focus on hypothesis generation. In fact, hypothesis generation is the most central assumption of inductive approaches. Accordingly, a hypothesis is a supposition or explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigations.

The provided description has focused on the most significant characteristic of inductive approaches. You may identify the collection of 'provided examples' and 'background knowledge' by the label 'hypothesis' or anything else. Anyhow, an induction as the backbone of an argument is highly dependent on that.

Best,

Farshad 

In the social sciences, it is quite common to conduct exploratory or discovery-oriented research for the purpose of generating hypotheses. As you note, an Interpretivist or Constructivist view is often used to justify this kind of research. So, depending on your field, it may not be necessary to start with prior hypotheses.

Note also many social science fields use a rather "loose" version of the word induction, where it is basically any approach that uses observations to create theory.

The axioms (or hypotheses) are the initial assumptions of deduction. They have the character of general (common) statements. The posterior theorems (private) are consequence of the assumptions. If assumptions are true then consequences are also true.

It does not depend on the specifics of any branch of science.

It is unable to get the assumptions directly from the theory. They are its foundation. A formal system of any theory is created on the basis of the foundation. It's cause and effect.

You must understand that this primitive scheme is scalable, the process is continuous, therefore real line between cause and effect is not so clear. However, the global direction of movement is always unambiguous.

Newton said in his Opticks:

As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phænomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the[Pg 405] Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phænomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.

He used here the method of induction proposed by Bacon in his New organon which was different from the usual meaning of this term (as generalization). For Bacon it is from observation of the system's properties that it is possible to discover the principles that are explanatory of these properties and not from hypotheses. You will find in the book by Robert Franck: The explanatory power of models (2002)  a clear explanation of a general method to infer from the observation the formal structure which is implied by its properties. This method was applied with success by many scientists, as Galileo, Descartes, Graunt, Einstein, etc.   

No, serendipity can pop up.

Dear Ron,

Yes, induction may often be unconscious, while all the arguments are known by the conscience of the researcher, and so serependity may seem to occur. However the conscious or unconscious way to find the formal structure may always be called induction in the Baconian sense.

I would agree with David that for an Interpretivist, inductive research approach an area of interest or field rather than question or hypothesis seems more appropriate.