Jules Lib

Deductive reasoning, often known as a deduction, is the process of drawing conclusions based on universally accepted facts or premises. Inductive reasoning, often known as induction, is the process of forming a conclusion based on observation, most typically of a sample.

The primary distinction between inductive and deductive thinking is that inductive reasoning seeks to build a hypothesis, whereas deductive reasoning seeks to test an existing theory. Inductive thinking proceeds from individual facts to broad generalizations, whereas deductive reasoning proceeds in the other direction.

Grounded theory analysis is an inductive process that tries to build an hypothesis or theory from the observed data. So for consistency stick to the inductive process.

Thanks Fatemeh Khozaei for this - it's broadly true to say that theory (as product) or theorizing (as process) are the endpoint of Induction but the starting point of deduction. But how this is expressed is ctitical, as there are typical misunderstandings that researchers often operationalise in trying to work with difficult distinctions - the result being oversimplification if these terms are deployed without reference to their epistemological and ontological character.

Both induction and deduction produce knowledge - but different types of knowledge, aimed at generating different insights. Induction does not move from the specific to broad brush generalisation per se - that would be irresponsible. It attempts to represent the characteristics of the field accurately and intimately with respect to meaning, and identify patterns, contradictions, categories, logics, metaphors etc that might be identifiable across other contexts by other researchers. They build plausible and translatable narrative knowledge - one type of narrative being theory. This is not broad brush generalization - it needs to be focused and disciplined even when interpretative. It need have no connection to strict hypothesis building but there are differing views within inductivist orientations on that. Deductive approaches (the term being condensed from hypothetico-deductive) build not from theory as a whole, or from "universally" accepted assumptions or constructions/detections of "facts" (they only need to be jutifiably and provisionally accepted as so far unfalsified from an identified and defensible perspective, based on some sort of evidence). They operate from hypotheses, which need to be sufficiently specific and rigorous to be testable according to a priori principles and specified conditions. For example, even water does not boil at 100° C universally - it depends on height above sea level and purity of the sample. Theories are not tested - hypotheses are tested and these may become the building blocks of theory, on the one hand. On the other, if a theory is to be tested it needs to be broken down into hypotheses so that appropriate counterfactuals can be identified. Induction tends to produce knowledge that delivers high levels of confidence about one setting, across different dimensions; deduction delivers high levels of confidence across settings but on single, or limited, dimensions. Aphoristically, induction says a lot about a little; deduction says a little about a lot. Returning to the OP, these are different types of knowledge obtained in different ways - one should be very cautious in combining them or using them for purposes for which they were not designed., Avoid loose translation of inductive insights into deductive propositions which are then regarded as bring proven. Induction may illuminate, but it doesn't prove. Similarly deduction may identify a relationship or connection, but it can't explain it or interpret it without further work. The worst that can happen is that conclusions are drawn that cannot be drawn from the type of knowledge provided by the methods used - which could be uncorrectable, depending on the question and research objectives, and the field dynamics, for example. Most research in my field that styles itself inductive tends to be abductive.

Most of what qualitative researchers have been taught to call induction is actually abduction. More specifically, generating hypotheses from observations requires a speculative "leap" that is the defining feature of abduction. Classical inductive reasoning attempts to generate predictions about what can be observed from what has been observed, without any intervening assumptions (the classic example is "every swan I have ever observed is white, hence all swans are white").

The answers told you all, in brief. If I may add, please use all the ind, abd & ded way of thinking plus your emotions and consciousness in your life and research. It is curiosity that drives research and thus progress.

A GT is actually based on inductive-deductive interplay that is a center of this methodological approach. Please see this paper it might be useful: https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4185/1/Atkinson4185.pdf

Good luck

Piotr

The movement back and forth between generating ideas from observations and assessing those ideas through further observations is exactly what is involved in abduction. I have discussed this in some detail in the attached article.

Spot on 👍

Md. Al-Mamun You are confusing induction with abduction, but this is all too common in the social sciences.

التحليل الاستقرائي هو التحليل الكمي الاحصائي ينطلق من فرضية بمعنى انه يسعى لتفسير نظرية فهو ينطلق من الخاص الى العام بينما التحليل الاستنتاجي هو التحليل الكيفي يهدف الى تطوير نظرية فهو ينطلق من العام الى الخاص