While not all researchers follow a deductive approach, as you have seen in the preceding discussion, many do, and there are a number of excellent recent examples of deductive research.
Contemporary hate crimes, law enforcement, and the legacy of racial violence. American Sociological Review, 74 , — The authors developed their hypothesis from their reading of prior research and theories on the topic. Overall, the authors found support for their hypothesis. Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade children.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52 , 4— Based on prior research and theory, Milkie and Warner hypothesized that negative classroom features, such as a lack of basic supplies and even heat, would be associated with emotional and behavioral problems in children.
While inductive and deductive approaches to research seem quite different, they can actually be rather complementary. In some cases, researchers will plan for their research to include multiple components, one inductive and the other deductive. In other cases, a researcher might begin a study with the plan to only conduct either inductive or deductive research, but then he or she discovers along the way that the other approach is needed to help illuminate findings.
Here is an example of each such case. In the case of my collaborative research on sexual harassment, we began the study knowing that we would like to take both a deductive and an inductive approach in our work. We therefore administered a quantitative survey, the responses to which we could analyze in order to test hypotheses, and also conducted qualitative interviews with a number of the survey participants.
The survey data were well suited to a deductive approach; we could analyze those data to test hypotheses that were generated based on theories of harassment. The interview data were well suited to an inductive approach; we looked for patterns across the interviews and then tried to make sense of those patterns by theorizing about them.
Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69 , 64— We then tested our hypotheses by analyzing the survey data. In general, we found support for the theory that posited that the current gender system, in which heteronormative men wield the most power in the workplace, explained workplace sexual harassment—not just of adult women but of younger women and men as well.
Presented at the meetings of the American Sociological Association. Researchers may not always set out to employ both approaches in their work but sometimes find that their use of one approach leads them to the other. Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research. The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49 , — Specifically, Sherman and Berk hypothesized that deterrence theory would provide a better explanation of the effects of arresting accused batterers than labeling theory.
Deterrence theory predicts that arresting an accused spouse batterer will reduce future incidents of violence. Conversely, labeling theory predicts that arresting accused spouse batterers will increase future incidents.
Sherman and Berk found, after conducting an experiment with the help of local police in one city, that arrest did in fact deter future incidents of violence, thus supporting their hypothesis that deterrence theory would better predict the effect of arrest.
The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57 , —; Pate, A. Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade county spouse assault experiment. American Sociological Review, 57 , —; Sherman, L.
Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57 , — Results from these follow-up studies were mixed. In some cases, arrest deterred future incidents of violence. In other cases, it did not. This left the researchers with new data that they needed to explain.
The researchers therefore took an inductive approach in an effort to make sense of their latest empirical observations. The new studies revealed that arrest seemed to have a deterrent effect for those who were married and employed but that it led to increased offenses for those who were unmarried and unemployed.
Researchers thus turned to control theory, which predicts that having some stake in conformity through the social ties provided by marriage and employment, as the better explanation. What the Sherman and Berk research, along with the follow-up studies, shows us is that we might start with a deductive approach to research, but then, if confronted by new data that we must make sense of, we may move to an inductive approach.
Pine Forge Press, p. Do the townspeople take an inductive or deductive approach to determine whether the woman in question is a witch? Deductive research works from the more general to the more specific, and inductive research works from more specific observations to more general theories. Deductive reasoning uses a top-down approach.
It typically begins with selecting a pre-existing theory about a certain topic of interest. The theory is then narrowed down into more specific hypotheses that can be tested. Next, observations are collected to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads to the ability to test the hypotheses with specific data and confirm or deny the original theory. Inductive reasoning works in the other direction, and it relies heavily on a bottom-up approach. Inductive reasoning begins by detecting patterns and regularities within specific observations and measures.
From these patterns, a tentative hypothesis is formulated that can be explored. Finally, some general conclusions or theories are developed from the results found when testing the hypothesis. Inductive reasoning is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow and concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses.
The main difference between inductive and deductive approaches to research is that whilst a deductive approach is aimed and testing theory, an inductive approach is concerned with the generation of new theory emerging from the data.
Home» Foundations» Philosophy of Research» Deduction & Induction. Portugese Translation Ukranian Translation. In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach.
Deductive research aims to test an existing theory while inductive research aims to generate new theories from observed data. Deductive research works from the more general to the more specific, and inductive research works from more specific observations to more general theories. Deductive. Inductive approach, also known in inductive reasoning, starts with the observations and theories are proposed towards the end of the research process as a result of observations. Inductive research “involves the search for pattern from observation and the development of explanations.
Inductive and Deductive Research Approaches 1 Compare and Contrast Inductive and Deductive Research Approaches By L. Karen Soiferman University of Manitoba. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are two different approaches to conducting scientific research. Using deductive reasoning, a researcher tests a theory by collecting and examining empirical evidence to see if the theory is true. Using inductive reasoning, a researcher first gathers and.