Leanne

Yes, approach to research can be inductive or deductive. Qualitative researchers, generally, follow inductive approach. In this approach, instead of proving or disproving any hythesis, one builds a proposition/hypothesis/theory which can be tested later.

Earlier, scholars called for starting qualitative research with a clean slate but over a perid, this view has changed and I subscribe to this changed view of doing a thorough literature review before you get on to the reserch problem. True, You can't know before hand what will come out of your research.

Leanne

Yes, approach to research can be inductive or deductive. Qualitative researchers, generally, follow inductive approach. In this approach, instead of proving or disproving any hythesis, one builds a proposition/hypothesis/theory which can be tested later.

Earlier, scholars called for starting qualitative research with a clean slate but over a perid, this view has changed and I subscribe to this changed view of doing a thorough literature review before you get on to the reserch problem. True, You can't know before hand what will come out of your research.

Arunaditya Sahay is correct that there was once a view that argued against doing literature reviews before inductive, exploratory research, but that has indeed changed in favor of now recommending a prior literature review. Such a review should be focused on the research question, to summarize what is known or has been speculated about your topic, but the goal is not to formulate hypotheses -- instead is to put your own research efforts "in context." In particular, make clear why there is a need for further, exploratory research. Then, when you write the Discussion section, you can comment on the relationship between what you learned through your own research and what was previously known about the topic.

Also, exploratory qualitative research offers the possibility that your research question will evolve as you collect and analyze your data, which can make it tricky to write the introduction to the paper. I advise my students to address this issue according to the type of journal they are considering. If the journal routinely publishes qualitative work, then it is reasonable to be explicit about the development of the research question over time. Alternatively, if the reviewers for the journal are not likely to be familiar with that process, then I suggest frame the introduction in terms of the final question that actually guided the conclusions you drew.

I entirely agree with David that exploratory qualitative research, generally, leads to a situation where research questions evolve as you collect and analyze your data. This enriches your data collection and their interpretation. Publication, in such situation, is more difficult but at the same time more rewarding as quality journals are looking more for theory building research in comparison to theory testing research.

Though I have not, as yet, dealt with this kind of research and consequently I am not in position to give an expert advise, personally I would not imagine doing any research without, at least, doing a relevant literature search. In terms of how much I would use in my literature review that is a different thing but anyway I do not think that I would avoid that altogether. Anyway, generating new theory, which is what inductive research is supposed to do does not exist in a vacuum (I think).

Iacovos

Think of the days of primitive society when no scholarly articles were available. Initial theories came into being through observations rather than worked on existing literature. Every day new areas of knowledge are emerging where no literature is available. Even today propositions may emerge out of observations though I recommend my Ph.D students to do a thorough literature review.

I love working in emerging or unknown fields of knowledge; that is really exciting. Theoty testing (based on hypothesis) appears to me mundane.

I had your same question when I started my dissertation. The answer lies within the methodological approach you selected for your study. For example, I adopted a constructivist grounded theory (GT) approach. GT is generally an inductive approach and for the literature review I followed the methodological recommendations suggested by Charmaz in her book "Constructing Grounded Theory". She provides a good overview of the literature review debate, addressing also the role of preconceived ideas and concepts in the data analysis. I don't know if you are adopting this particular methodology, but I strongly recommend reading this text!

https://books.google.ca/books?id=y0ooAwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_similarbooks

You are right Francesca. I would recommend every GT scholar to go through this book. The literature review debate is really worth reading.

An article for a scientific journal and an academic qualification thesis have to differentiate their own work and that what was already done; but for beginners, I would recommend to do the exploration first (with the main results of the read literature and always the relevant questions in mind) and to write the literature review later - after the exploration, you'll see more clearly which idea of other scientists seems to be inspiring or critizising your own path.