The document provides an overview of traditional positivist research approaches aligned with deductive logic and the scientific method, as well as interpretive sensemaking approaches aligned with inductive logic. It contrasts deductive research approaches that aim to test hypotheses through experiments and empirical generalizations with inductive approaches that employ grounded theory, ethnography, and other qualitative methods to generate theories from observations and case studies in a reflexive process. The document also outlines different considerations for interpretive researchers regarding their theoretical inspirations, methods of analysis, goals of inquiry, and more.
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Research Logics: A pictorial overview of two perspectives
1. Research
Logics 1
The Wheel of Science
Interpretive Sensemaking
Research
Logics 2
2. Research
Logics 1
The Wheel of Science
(A glossed pictorial overview of a
common/traditional research paradigm
aligned with a functionalist or positivist
approach and based on the scientific
method)
3. Wallace’s Wheel of Science
Logical Deduction
Creative Leaps
Statistical or Verbal Measurement
Summarization
Observations
Empirical Generalizations
Theories
Hypothesis
Slides compliments of Lori Kendall, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Originally adapted from Adler and Clark, How It’s
Done, Wadsworth 2003, adapted from Walter Wallace The Logic of Science in Sociology, Aldine 1971.
4. INDUCTIVE LOGIC DEDUCTIVE LOGIC
Logical Deduction
Creative Leaps
Empirical Generalizations
Statistical or Verbal Measurement
Summarization
Theories
Hypothesis
Wallace’s Wheel of Science
Observations
Slides compliments of Lori Kendall, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Originally adapted from Adler and Clark, How It’s
Done, Wadsworth 2003, adapted from Walter Wallace The Logic of Science in Sociology, Aldine 1971.
5. Deductive Research: Hypothesis Testing
Logical Deduction
Creative Leaps
Empirical Generalizations
Statistical or Verbal Measurement
Summarization
Theories
Hypothesis
Observations
Slides compliments of Lori Kendall, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Originally adapted from Adler and Clark, How It’s
Done, Wadsworth 2003, adapted from Walter Wallace The Logic of Science in Sociology, Aldine 1971.
6. Inductive Research: Simplified View
Logical Deduction
Creative Leaps
Empirical Generalizations
Statistical or Verbal Measurement
Summarization
Theories
Hypothesis
Observations
Slides compliments of Lori Kendall, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Originally adapted from Adler and Clark, How It’s
Done, Wadsworth 2003, adapted from Walter Wallace The Logic of Science in Sociology, Aldine 1971.
7. Inductive Research: Retroduction and Reflexivity
Logical Deduction
Creative Leaps
Empirical Generalizations
Statistical or Verbal Measurement
Summarization
Theories
Hypothesis
Sensitizing
Concepts
Observations
Slides compliments of Lori Kendall, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Originally adapted from Adler and Clark, How It’s
Done, Wadsworth 2003, adapted from Walter Wallace The Logic of Science in Sociology, Aldine 1971.
8. Inductive Research: Theoretical Sampling
Sta1s1cal or Verbal
Summariza1on
Theories
Crea1ve Leaps
Observa1ons
Empirical Generaliza1ons
Sensitizing
Concepts
Sampling
Slides compliments of Lori Kendall, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Originally adapted from Adler and Clark, How It’s
Done, Wadsworth 2003, adapted from Walter Wallace The Logic of Science in Sociology, Aldine 1971.
9. Logical Deduction
Creative Leaps
Statistical or Verbal Measurement
Summarization
Observations
Empirical Generaliza1ons
Theories
Hypothesis
Wallace’s Wheel of Science
Sensitizing
Concepts
Slides compliments of Lori Kendall, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Originally adapted from Adler and Clark, How It’s
Done, Wadsworth 2003, adapted from Walter Wallace The Logic of Science in Sociology, Aldine 1971.
10. Research
Logics 2 (A glossed pictorial overview of an
Interpretive Sensemaking
interpretive research logic, which
demonstrates an inductive, emergent, and
generative attitude toward inquiry)
11. What are my
fundamental premises?
Reality is out there
already, to be
discovered
The world is best
known through
scientific
methods
Reality is a social
construction
We can only
understand the
world through
experience
There are things in the
world that are wrong
and need to be fixed
Meanings are
rhizomatic
The world tends toward
social order
Slides from Annette Markham, University of Aarhus. Developed as part of a presentation on Symbolic Interaction at the Association of
Internet Researchers annual conference. Feel free to use/adapt for your own use, with a general nod in my direction, if possible.
12. Semiotics
Symbolic
interactionism
Social
Constructionism
Performance Theory
sensemaking
Communication as
Ritual
Femimism
Actor Network Theory
Structuration
What are my theoretical
inspirations?
Object of inquiry
How do I tend to think
about or study the world
around me?
Post-humanism Etc., etc.
Slides from Annette Markham, University of Aarhus. Developed as part of a presentation on Symbolic Interaction at the Association of
Internet Researchers annual conference. Feel free to use/adapt for your own use, with a general nod in my direction, if possible.
13. Grounded Theory
Case Study
Ethnography
What sort of
methodological
Object of
inquiry
approach do I tend to
use?
Phenomenology
Slides from Annette Markham, University of Aarhus. Developed as part of a presentation on Symbolic Interaction at the Association of
Internet Researchers annual conference. Feel free to use/adapt for your own use, with a general nod in my direction, if possible.
14. What are we choosing as
the point of analysis?
Why do it? What is
our goal?
How are we cutting
into the topic?
Where are we? What is our
standpoint? Where are we
starting from? To go where?
When are we doing
research?
Who are the relevant
actors/participants,
beyond the obvious
(human and non human)?
How am I
Object of
inquiry
Analysis?
‘cutting into’ the
phenomenon?
Slides from Annette Markham, University of Aarhus. Developed as part of a presentation on Symbolic Interaction at the Association of
Internet Researchers annual conference. Feel free to use/adapt for your own use, with a general nod in my direction, if possible.
15. Test hypotheses
through experiments Design interventions
Object of
inquiry
Analysis?
Situate into the culture
Participate and
observe
Document rituals,
rites, relations
Follow the Plot,
Story, or Allegory
Follow the
metaphor
Follow the
Thing
Follow the
meme
What are some
of my tools or
attitudes for
‘collecting’
information?
Follow the
movements
Follow the
intersections
Follow the
…etc., etc.
Find and follow
patterns
and test results
Slides from Annette Markham, University of Aarhus. Developed as part of a presentation on Symbolic Interaction at the Association of
Internet Researchers annual conference. Feel free to use/adapt for your own use, with a general nod in my direction, if possible.
16. Contrived Discourse
(interviews, focus groups)
What stuff am
Object of
inquiry
Analysis?
I actually
analyzing?
Naturally occurring
discourse
Actions or
evidence of
actions. Behaviors.
Absence. Silence.
Deletions.
Traces of
presence or
movement.
Cultural/Social
Outcomes
Structures,
Meaning, Norms,
Institutions
Objects, Things
Technologies
Sensemaking or
evidence of
sensemaking
Slides from Annette Markham, University of Aarhus. Developed as part of a presentation on Symbolic Interaction at the Association of
Internet Researchers annual conference. Feel free to use/adapt for your own use, with a general nod in my direction, if possible.
17. Object of
inquiry
Analysis?
Discourse analysis
Conversation
Analysis
Linguistic
Analysis
Metaphor Analysis
Narrative Analysis
Visual
Analysis
With what
analytical
tools?
…and other forms of coding,
categorizing or otherwise
making sense of materials
Slides from Annette Markham, University of Aarhus. Developed as part of a presentation on Symbolic Interaction at the Association of
Internet Researchers annual conference. Feel free to use/adapt for your own use, with a general nod in my direction, if possible.
18. To Describe
To Understand
To Explain
To Predict
To Control
To Critique
To Publish
To Prove Yourself
To get a grade
To get noticed
To tell the story
To give account
To build theory
To fix some
problem in
society
Object of
Why?
Analysis?
inquiry
Slides from Annette Markham, University of Aarhus. Developed as part of a presentation on Symbolic Interaction at the Association of
Internet Researchers annual conference. Feel free to use/adapt for your own use, with a general nod in my direction, if possible.
Notas del editor
Studying lived experience of media in a mobile, fragmented, and global epoch: Emergent Methods
What big premises and assumptions am I making and using to make sense of what I’m studying? Where are we coming from? (the big picture)
What theoretical premises am I using to make sense of what I’m studying? Where are we coming from?
What theoretical premises am I using to make sense of what I’m studying? Where are we coming from? In a naturalistic inquiry sense, these would be the primary methodologies….
For me, these are basic questions I ask over and over, not just at the outset of the research project: How am I cutting into the phenomenon to identify an object of analysis?
You can’t ask what is the object without asking these other questions, which really help you realize, reflexively, what you’re up to.
Where are we going? With what attitude? How do we proceed to make sense of the phenomenon?
What exactly are we focusing on as ‘data’ which will be used to measure, assess, describe, contain, and further delimit the object of analysis?
How are we attending to and making sense of the stuff we collect from fieldwork, interviews, observations, and so forth? These are all types of CODING and CATEGORIZING the data
And finally, why are we doing research in general? This influences HOW we write about what we have found. And also determines WHERE we write it.
