Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research

Transcription

1 Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research The author is Head of the Marketing Division, Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Keywords Marketing research, Qualitative techniques, Methods Abstract States that there are two general approaches to reasoning which may result in the acquisition of new knowledge: inductive reasoning commences with observation of specific instances, and seeks to establish generalisations; deductive reasoning commences with generalisations, and seeks to see if these generalisations apply to specific instances. Most often, qualitative research follows an inductive process. In most instances, however, theory developed from qualitative investigation is untested theory. Both quantitative and qualitative researchers demonstrate deductive and inductive processes in their research, but fail to recognise these processes. The research paradigm followed in this article is a postpositivist (``realist'') one. This is not incompatible with the use of qualitative research methods. Argues that the adoption of formal deductive procedures can represent an important step for assuring conviction in qualitative research findings. Discusses how, and under what circumstances, qualitative researchers might adopt formal deductive procedures in their research. One approach, theory testing by ``pattern matching'', is illustrated with a sample application. Electronic access The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at Volume 3. Number pp. 82±89 # MCB University Press. ISSN Introduction Many of us have a clear-cut impression of what differentiates qualitative enquiry from quantitative. This traditional view is that quantitative enquiry examines data which are numbers, while qualitative enquiry examines data which are narrative (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). Inherent in this dichotomy is the view that quantitative enquiry generally adopts a deductive process, while qualitative enquiry generally adopts an inductive process. While this distinction is true in general, it will be argued that this does not fully nor accurately describe the processes adopted by quantitative and qualitative researchers in practice. The traditional view is that quantitative researchers subscribe to a ``positivist'' paradigm of science, while qualitative researchers subscribe to a ``relativist'' paradigm. Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.105) argue that the choice of research paradigm, rather than the choice of research method is the overriding concern: Although [this]... implies that the term qualitative is an umbrella term superior to the term paradigm (and, indeed, that usage is not uncommon), it is our position that it is a term that ought to be reserved for a description of types of methods. From our perspective, both qualitative and quantitative methods may be used appropriately with any research paradigm. The paradigm followed in this article is a postpositivist (``realist'') one (Hunt, 1991; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). A realist ontological position is implied throughout this article, and the deductive methodologies described here are consistent with this position. A central theme in this article is that qualitative methodologies can and should be applied within such a postpositivist paradigm. This article describes the distinction between inductive and deductive processes of reasoning, and discusses the approach to reasoning which has dominated marketing science. The roles of qualitative and quantitative enquiry are discussed, and the means by which each of these sets of research methodologies arrives at statements of generalisation are explained. It is argued that the findings of qualitative enquiry remain tentative as long as they are untested. It is argued that both qualitative and quantitative researchers practice deduction and induction in their research, but do not always recognise

2 these processes formally in their research. It is argued that the adoption of formal deductive procedures can represent an important step towards assuring conviction in qualitative research findings. How, and under what circumstances, deductive procedures might be applied in qualitative research are explored. One approach, theory testing by ``pattern matching'', is considered in detail and the application of this method in a recent research project is described. It is concluded that most research endeavours proceed by an iterative alternation of induction and deduction, and that it is important for researchers to recognise and formalise these processes. Inductive and deductive processes There are two general approaches to reasoning which may result in the acquisition of new knowledge, namely inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a theory building process, starting with observations of specific instances, and seeking to establish generalisations about the phenomenon under investigation. Deductive reasoning is a theory testing process which commences with an established theory or generalisation, and seeks to see if the theory applies to specific instances. Research in marketing has historically emphasised deductive processes ± in many cases, applying these processes prematurely, before an adequate understanding of the concepts operating has been developed (Deshpande, 1983; Bonoma, 1985). Deshpande (1983) criticised marketing scholars for being little involved in theory generation; the methods marketing science has historically developed are those suited to confirming theories rather than discovering them. Wells (1993) presents a number of criticisms of the research methodologies traditionally adopted in consumer research. A number of these criticisms stem from researchers' over-reliance on quantitative methods ± a lack of richness in theorising, a lack of theory testing in naturalistic settings, the continued dominance of one-shot investigations, and the use of sophisticated correlational methods to imply causality. 83 The role of qualitative enquiry The classic qualitative study is one in which the findings are ``grounded'' in the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Instead of descending on the field of enquiry armed with a body of theory, and allowing that theory to colour the data, a grounded theory approach would suggest the researcher commences his or her study with a mind open to the possibilities of the data and the perspectives of the subjects (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). A qualitative study seeks to identify underlying concepts and the relationships between them (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996). The data for a qualitative study might include transcripts of in-depth interviews, observations or documents (Patton, 1991). Qualitative enquiry often takes the form of a case study. A case study represents not so much a single qualitative method, as an approach to research. Case study is simply an in-depth study of a particular instance, or a small number of instances, of a phenomenon. According to Yin (1994), case study is the preferred research approach when ``how'' or ``why'' questions are being posed ± in other words, questions of process. Qualitative methods search beyond mere snapshots of events, people or behaviours (Bonoma, 1985). Case study is a logic of design to be preferred under certain circumstances and for certain research problems: [Case study] investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1994, p. 3). Many of us have been guided to believe that the role of qualitative enquiry is that of an advisable first step to be taken before the ``real'' enquiry ± a quantitative enquiry ± is undertaken. This view denigrates the role of qualitative enquiry. Many social scientists would now subscribe to the view that qualitative and quantitative methodologies can both lead to valid research findings in and of their own right. Neither approach need rely on the other as its source of respectability. According to Easterby-Smith et al. (1991), there are many researchers who adopt a pragmatic view of deliberately combining quantitative and qualitative methods. It is not a matter of inflexibly adhering to one methodological approach simply because it is

3 traditionally associated with a chosen paradigm of science. Nor is it a question of which approach to reasoning ± deduction or induction ± is the correct one, for both are correct, and both are required in research endeavours. What is required in any research programme is not a qualitative stage, followed by a quantitative stage, but an inductive stage followed by a deductive one. A key distinction While statements may be made about the philosophy of scientific enquiry generally adopted by quantitative and qualitative researchers, about the types of data these methodologies employ, and about the processes of reasoning generally adopted, a key distinction between these sets of methodologies exists elsewhere. A key distinction between quantitative and qualitative methodologies is as follows. Quantitative methodologies seek, as their modus operandi to describe the general characteristics of a population, and to ignore the details of each particular element studied. A quantitative approach to research might draw a large and representative sample from the population of interest, measure the behaviour and characteristics of that sample, and attempt to construct generalisations regarding the population as a whole. A number of the individual elements of the population might not match the behaviours and character of this aggregated population profile; it may even be the case that no one single element matches the generalised character of the population[1]. Yet the role of quantitative research is to describe the general and to ignore the particular. Qualitative methodologies, however, seek to explain the particular. Rather than seeking to reach a general profile regarding the study population, the qualitative study must provide conclusions which account for the particulars of every case. Qualitative methods allow the researcher to study issues in depth; data collection is not limited to predetermined categories. Qualitative methods produce a wealth of detailed data on a small number of individuals (Patton, 1991). 84 Generalisability Continuing this distinction, we should recognise the different bases on which these approaches to research seek to establish generalisations. The basis for generalisation in quantitative study is statistical generalisation; one takes a sample of elements by a probability selection method, a sample which allows estimation of the properties of the population of interest with a known degree of accuracy (Kinnear and Taylor, 1996). The basis for generalisation in qualitative study is analytical generalisation (Yin, 1994). In qualitative research the researcher's goal is to expand and generalise theories, not to establish the frequency with which a phenomenon is likely to occur in a population. Depth of understanding in qualitative research is based on a detailed knowledge of the particular, and its nuances in each context (Stake, 1994). Even a single case, if studied in sufficient depth and with sufficient insight, may provide the basis for a theoretical explanation of a general phenomenon. ``A field researcher rarely asks, `What percentage of persons in the population would respond this way?' Instead she/he says, `What I have found true of the people in this study is likely to be true of any people placed in this situation''' (Kidder and Judd, 1986). Informal use of deductive procedures in qualitative research Because it is traditionally based on an inductive approach to reasoning, the results of qualitative enquiry most often remain untested. Introducing formal deductive procedures into qualitative research can represent an important step towards assuring conviction in qualitative research findings. Patton (1991, p. 194) argues that the qualitative researcher can adopt both inductive and deductive processes: As evaluation fieldwork begins, the evaluator may be open to whatever emerges from the data, a discovery or inductive approach. Then, as the enquiry reveals patterns and major dimensions of interest, the evaluator will begin to focus on verifying and elucidating what appears to be emerging, a more deductive approach to data collection and analysis.

4 While quantitative researchers generally subscribe to a deductive research process, and qualitative researchers generally subscribe to an inductive process, both fields of researchers employ deductive and inductive processes in the practice of their research. Consider, for example, the quantitative researcher utilising multivariate techniques to establish the underlying factors or dimensions in a data array. While powerful computer algorithms can output simple data structures, it is over to the quantitative researcher to interpret the meaning of these data structures. In so doing, he or she will adopt an inductive process of reasoning. While we may view qualitative research as chiefly an inductive process, qualitative researchers frequently adopt deductive processes on an informal basis. Kirk and Miller (1986, p. 25) view good qualitative technique as a process of alternating inductive and deductive processes: The fieldworker... is continuously engaged in something very like hypothesis testing.... He or she draws tentative conclusions from his or her current understanding of the situation.... Where, for unanticipated reasons, this understanding is invalid, the qualitative researcher will sooner or later... find out about it. Formal use of deductive procedures in qualitative research ``referential adequacy'' advocated by Lincoln and Guba (1986) is a deductive procedure. In this procedure, the researcher earmarks a portion of the data to be archived, and not included in initial data analysis. Later, when tentative findings are reached, these findings are tested against the archived data. (2) Replication case study designs. Replication case study designs involve the use of multiple rather than single cases. Perry (1997) advocates a process of theoretical replication whereby the researcher selects cases on the basis of variance along a continuum of the independent variable under investigation. (3) The qualitative approach termed ``analytical induction'' has been practised for some decades, and is perhaps best illustrated in the work of Cressy (1953). Analytical induction requires that a theoretical explanation of a phenomenon be constructed inductively from the first case or cases examined. The researcher then seeks negative cases to test and expand upon this theoretical explanation: a deductive procedure. By a series of case studies and iterations of the theory, a theoretical explanation is eventually reached which accounts for all cases examined. (4) Theory testing by ``pattern matching''. Although Yin (1994) is among the most cited authors on case study methodology, he stands relatively alone in advocating a deductive, rather than an inductive, approach to case study research. For Yin, case study research should commence with a statement of propositions ± answers to ``how'' and ``why'' questions ± to be tested with the data gathered. Cases which confirm the propositions enhance confidence in the validity of the concepts and their relationships; cases which disconfirm the relationships can provide an opportunity to refine the theory. What is required in qualitative research is to formalise the deductive processes employed. Formal procedures might include: (1) The use of ``hold out'' samples. Strict deductive procedure requires that the dataset used as the source of theory building is not the same dataset as that used to test that theory. The technique of 85 Theory testing by ``pattern matching'' According to Yin (1994), the least welldeveloped procedures in case study research are procedures for linking data to propositions, and criteria for interpreting such findings. One procedure for linking data to propositions is theory testing by ``pattern matching'', as described by Campbell (1975). The theory one is testing is stated before data-gathering commences; in addition, at least one competing theory is put forward for testing. The theory is expressed as a pattern of independent outcomes that are predicted to occur. Likewise, the competing theory/ theories put forward prescribes a competing pattern of outcomes. Case data which are gathered are compared to the predictions of the theory and predictions of the countertheory. Support is demonstrated for the

5 theory if the case data matches the predicted pattern of outcomes of the theory more closely than it matches the predicted pattern of outcomes for the counter-theory. If the results fail to show the entire pattern as predicted, the initial propositions need to be modified. Rarely is one theory supported entirely and a second or third rejected entirely. Yin (1994) points out there is currently no precise way of setting criteria for interpreting such mixed results. Campbell's solution was for the researcher to keep a ``score sheet'' of correct and incorrect predictions of each theory. In their research, Woodside and Wilson (1995) tested the ``hit and miss ratio'' for one competing theory versus another statistically, with a simple sign test. Wilson and Wilson (1988) tested the level of agreement between judges of qualitative case data using a simple chi-square test. In summary, ``pattern matching'' involves a series of steps: (1) theoretical propositions are stated before data-gathering commences; (2) a counter-theory is also stated; (3) a case-by-case comparison of the deductive dataset with the theory and the counter-theory is undertaken by independent judges; (4) a record of hits and misses is recorded (Wilson and Vlosky, 1997; Wilson and Wilson, 1988; Woodside and Wilson, 1995). An application In a recent application of this approach by the author, research was conducted into the nature of independent traveller decisionmaking for vacations. By definition, independent vacation travellers pre-book very little of their vacation itinerary, but a research project was undertaken to examine the extent to which such travellers may conceptualise and pre-plan their itineraries prior to the vacation. The model under test might be termed the ``independent travel as evolving itinerary'' model; the competing model might be termed the ``independent travel as planned itinerary'' model. Research commenced with inductive model-building. Data were collected from 12 sources, including: unstructured interviews with tourism officials who were 86 judged to be experts in the vacation behaviour and decision making of independent travellers, unstructured observations at a visitor information centre and two accommodation hostels, and notes from the author's own independent travels. Common themes were identified from analysis of this database. Based upon these themes and the existing research literature, a model of independent traveller decisionmaking processes was produced. This model was expressed as a set of 14 testable propositions (see Table I). The second phase of the research involved testing of this model. A replication case study design was employed (Yin, 1994). The population from which the study sample was drawn was defined as: (1) independent travel parties, (2) who were first time visitors to New Zealand, (3) travelling alone or as couples, but (4) not visiting friends and relatives. A stratified purposeful sampling method was used (Patton, 1991) in which diversity was sought in three critical variables, namely: (1) nationality of the traveller; (2) travel party size; and (3) mode of transport. An initial interview was conducted with travel parties within 24 hours of arrival in New Zealand. All initial interviews were conducted in the city of Auckland, the major gateway for international tourism. A total of 32 initial interviews were conducted during the months of December 1996 and January A total of 28 interviews were conducted in English, and four were conducted in Japanese; all interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Focused interviews were employed following an interview protocol (Yin, 1994) which probed:. where the traveller planned to go on their vacation, and what they planned to see and do;. how they had first learned about these vacation options;. what travel route they planned to take;. whether they had studied any travel guides or books, and if so, for how many hours;. whether they had sought advice from other people on what to see and do in New Zealand;

6 Table I Results of the pattern-matching test of the model P1: An integral element in independent travel is the enjoyment the independent traveller experiences from not planning the details of their vacation (z = ±3.864; p = 0.000) P2: Vacation planning consists of a cognitive set of elements ``researched before'' the vacation. For some travellers this set will consist of 8-16 elements; for other travellers this set will consist of fewer than four elements (z = ±3.823; p = 0.000) P3: The most influential information sources in the preparation of the researched before set will be travel guides and brochures (z = ±2.595; p = 0.010) P4: The researched before set will be dominated by a list of planned subdestinations. Few attractions and activities will be preplanned (z = ±1.232; p = 0.218) P5: A basic travel route connecting the set of planned subdestinations will be decided on prior to arrival, or at the latest, within 48 hours of arrival at the destination (z = ±0.336; p = 0.737) P6: The decision sequence displayed will be: subdestinations? travel route? attractions and activities (z = ±3.920; p = 0.000) P7: Travellers will make detailed plans for choice of attractions and activities for the immediate 24-hour period only (z = ±2.314; p = 0.021) P8: Only as the traveller approaches a subdestination will they seek detailed information on that subdestination and its attractions (z = ±3.320; p = 0.001) P9: In addition to a researched before set, the traveller will create a set of attractions and activity options ``researched after'' arrival (z = ±3.920; p = 0.000) P10: Information from personal sources encountered en-route will be the most influential in a traveller's researched after set (z = ±0.362; p = 0.717) P11: Choice of attractions and activities will be based on a ``balancing heuristic'' ± a matter of balancing the pleasure expected from experiencing the attraction or activity, versus the constraints of time and expense (z = ±3.920; p = 0.000) P12: Almost all researched before attractions and activities will be actioned (z = 2.636; p = 0.008) P13: The traveller will take advantage of serendipitous opportunities to experience some attractions and activities they had neither planned nor actively researched (z = ±3.920; p = 0.000) P14: The FIT vacation is like experiencing the ``fun of the fairground'', a freewheeling experience of going from place to place, relatively unaware of what each subdestination offers, extracting as much as possible from each place (given constraints of time and expense), taking advantage of serendipitous opportunities (z = ±3.920; p = 0.000). which sources of information had most influenced their vacation plans. Of the 32 travel parties participating in the initial interview, 20 reported back at the end of their vacation for a final interview. A focused interview (Yin, 1994) was conducted following a protocol, which probed:. what subdestinations the traveller had visited on their vacation;. what route they had followed;. what they had seen and done on their vacation;. how they had learned about these vacation options. The research model was tested using a ``pattern matching'' procedure. Each of four independent judges tested the 14 propositions of the model against summaries and excerpts of transcript from each the 20 cases. A total of judgements were put to bear on each 87 case, to see if the case matched the pattern of propositions which composed the model. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests were employed to test the level of agreement among judges. In addition, each judge examined each proposition to see if it was supported by the data, or could indeed be improved upon by revision. A total of judgements were put to bear on each proposition. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests were employed to test the level of agreement among judges. Table I presents the results of the ``pattern matching'' test of the model of independent travel. Of the 20 cases, 18 supported the model. Propositions P4, P5 and P10 failed to be supported. Revision of these propositions (as described in the paragraphs which follow) results in support for all 20 cases.

7 For the travellers studied, the independent vacation was like experiencing the ``fun of the fairground'', a freewheeling experience of going from place to place, relatively unaware of what each subdestination had to offer, extracting as much as possible from each place (given constraints of time and expense), taking advantage of serendipitous opportunities (P14). For these travellers, an integral element in independent travel was the enjoyment experienced from not planning the details of the vacation (P1). The most influential information sources in the preparation of any travel plans were travel guidebooks and brochures (P3). For high search travellers, travel plans were dominated by a list of planned subdestinations (revision of P4). Only high search travellers had a preplanned travel route (revision of P5). Almost all plans to visit subdestinations, attractions and activities were acted on (P12). In addition to any vacation elements planned before arrival, after arrival the travellers identified many more subdestinations, attractions and activities on offer (P9). Only as the traveller approached a subdestination did they seek detailed information on that subdestination and its attractions and activities (P8). The travellers appeared hungry for information from multiple sources while en route (revision of P10). Travellers made detailed plans for choice of attractions and activities for the immediate 24-hour period only (P7). The decision sequence travellers displayed was: subdestinations? travel route? attractions and activities (P6). The travellers also took advantage of serendipitous opportunities to experience subdestinations, attractions and activities they had neither researched nor planned (P13). Concluding remarks In summary, ``pattern matching'' is a deductive procedure which actively employs rival explanations and exposes case evidence and conclusions to independent peer review. In the absence of explicit guidance in the literature, it is appropriate to establish some principles of good procedure for theory 88 testing by ``pattern matching''. Such principles should include: (1) That each counter-proposition represents as near as possible the opposite in intent to its corresponding proposition. (2) That each counter-proposition makes good logical sense; each counterproposition has some likelihood of being supported by the data. (3) That the set of counter-propositions form a strong, integrated whole ± a countertheory in its own right. The traditional approach to qualitative research has been an inductive one. An inductive approach has suited areas of investigation where the concepts under study are not clear. Commonsense would suggest, therefore, that the strict application of a deductive phase to qualitative research would only be appropriate in a very different set of circumstances. That set of circumstances would be: (2) The concepts to be studied are obvious from the outset. (3) Hypothesised relationships between these concepts can be stated before data gathering commences. A balance of induction and deduction is required in all research. Extreme induction could deprive the researcher of useful theoretical perspectives and concepts which can help guide exploration of a phenomenon; extreme deduction could preclude the researcher from developing new theory. Advocating either extreme is undesirable (Parke, 1993). To operate in a deductive mode of enquiry one should seek objectively to falsify one's initial findings, and to look for support for alternative explanations. The deductive process remains intact if new data are available to test initial propositions ± data which were not utilised as the basis for theory building. The research process should proceed by an interplay of inductive and deductive processes. In most instances research should commence with an inductive phase of enquiry before proceeding to theory-tested. Beyond theory-testing the researcher is likely to seek inductive insights and interpretation of his or her results. Both qualitative and quantitative researchers demonstrate inductive and deductive processes in their research

8 practices. It is important for us as researchers to recognise and formalise these processes. Note Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research 1 This problem has been termed the nomothetic/ idiographic disjunction (q.v. Guba and Lincoln, 1984). References Bonoma, T.V. (1985), ``Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, pp Campbell, D.T. (1975), ``Degrees of freedom and the case study'', Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp Cressy, D.R. (1953), Other People's Money: A Study of the Social Psychology of Embezzlement, Free Press, New York, NY. Deshpande, R. (1983), ``Paradigms lost: on theory and method in research in marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, pp Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research: An Introduction, Sage Publications, London. Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1996), Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 5th ed., Arnold, London. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing, Chicago, IL. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln. Y.S. (1994), ``Competing paradigms in qualitative research'', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp Hunt, S.D. (1991), Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science, South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH. Kidder, L. and Judd, C. (1986), Research Methods in Social Relations, 5th ed., Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. Kinnear, T.C. and Taylor, J.R. (1996), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1986), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Parke, A. (1993), ``Messy research, methodological predispositions, and theory development in international joint ventures'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp Patton, M.Q. (1991), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Perry, C. (1997), ``Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing'', Occasional paper, University of Southern Queensland, Queensland. Stake, R.E. (1994), ``Case studies'', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994), ``Grounded theory methodology'', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp Wells, W.D. (1993), ``Discovery-oriented consumer research'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp Wilson, E.J. and Vlosky, R.P. (1997), ``Partnering relationship activities: Building theory from case study research'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp Wilson, E.J. and Wilson, D.T. (1988), ``Degrees of freedom in case research of behavioural theories of group buying'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp Woodside, A.G. and Wilson, E.J. (1995), ``Applying the long interview in direct marketing research'', Journal of Direct Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Method, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 89