Bottoms Up!

I find it helpful to remember that qualitative research is exploratory and uses a bottom-up process (Creswell, 2008). Qualitative research creates new theories from collected data. On the other hand, quantitative research is confirmatory and works from the top-down (Creswell, 2008). In quantitative research, theories are tested with collected data (Lichtman, 2006). Further, deductive reasoning (top-down) begins with the theory, however, in inductive reasoning (bottom-up), we end with the theory (Fox, 2008; Shank, 2008).

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fox, N. (2008). Induction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 430-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n212

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shank, G. (2008). Deduction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 208-209). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n105

Deduction vs. Induction

Deductive research is the process of taking general statements and making them more specific. The researcher must rely on a general statement or theory to deduct any further information (Shank, 2008). In deductive research, the researcher trusts that the general statement or theory is reasonably accurate. I may do research based on the idea or theory that humans experience support through fellowship with others, and determine that cancer support groups are supportive for cancer patients.

Inductive research is somewhat the reverse of deductive research in that it takes a specific observation and moves toward a more abstract generalizations (Blaikie, 2008). For example, I may look at support groups for cancer patients to determine why they are supportive.

I believe it helps to look at the root words. Deduce means to come to a conclusion based on known information, whereas induce means to establish or bring something about based on observations (Blaikie, 2004; Shank, 2008). To apply these words to research, deductive research comes to a conclusion based on known information or a theory, whereas inductive research induces a new idea based on observations.

The ocean is at the end of my street. Using deduction, if I do not stop at the end of my street, I will drive into the ocean. Alternatively, after watching several cars drive into the ocean, I learn through inductive research or observation, that when cars drive into the ocean, they fill up with water.

The basic difference between deduction and induction is how and where theory is used in the equation. In deductive reasoning, we start (at the top) with the theory, from which we determine a hypothesis, then make observations (Shank, 2008). We would end with a confirmation of the original theory or additional information that contests or disproves the theory.

Inductive reasoning begins from the bottom with an observation, from which we observe patterns and generalities (Fox, 2008). Then we generate a hypothesis and finish with a theory. The theory is central in both, and the concepts of top-down and bottom-up are based on where the theory functions in the process (Trochim, 2000).

Further, I think of inductive as open-minded and deductive as narrow-minded. Like many diffuse processes in life, it is improbable to think that research should be one or the other. As we have learned, most research processes include both types of reasoning (Creswell, 2008).

Blaikie, N. (2004). Induction. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social science research methods. (pp. 487-488). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412950589.n422

Fox, N. (2008). Induction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 430-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n212

Shank, G. (2008). Deduction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 208-209). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n105

Trochim, W. (2000). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Atomic Dog Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

 

Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) explains reciprocal determinism, or how individuals interact with their environments and the influence each exerts on the other (Glanz, Rimer, & Viswanath, 2008). The main concepts of SCT that influence interactions are psychological determinants, observational learning, environmental determinants, self-regulation, and moral disengagement (Glanz et al., 2008).

Psychological and Environmental Determinants

Applying the concept of psychological determinants, Emily's environment perceived her as an aggressor, which caused her to be labeled as a bully. Cognitive constructions and social learning by teachers and other students upheld the mistaken belief that Emily was a bully (Miller, 2008). Because everyone in her school environment perceived her in an aggressive role, no matter what she did, the environment placed her in a position she seemed unable to change. A basic premise of social cognitive theory is that people's values and expectations are subjective and people do not behave according to reality, but their subjective perception of it. In effect, people respond to what they think, not to what is necessarily so.

Observational Learning

Emily was unable to change her perceived behavior because of the influence of social perception(Orbell et al., 2009). The concept of social learning plays a role in this situation because some of the students treated her as a bully and through observational learning, other students as well as the teachers learned to see Emily as a bully. The environment continued to inflict her role upon her and she continued to find herself in situations that reinforced her role as a bully, and the perception of her as a bully became pervasive in her environment. Utilizing social cognitive theory, the goal would be to help others change their perception of Emily. Glanz et al., (2008) explained that outcome expectations contribute to ongoing behavior.

According to Orbell et al. (2009), expectations are antecedent to behavior, and changing expectations will ultimately change behavior. In this case, changing the environmental (student body and teachers) expectations of Emily would change the perception of her behavior. As social cognition changes, entire environments change as well, and modifying beliefs about an environment can provoke change in the environment (Orbell et al., 2009).

According to the concept of collective efficacy and observational learning, if the teacher's begin to perceive and treat Emily fairly and expect her to behave differently, others will begin to perceive her differently (Glanz et al., 2008). In this case, changing one aspect of the reciprocal relationship will discontinue the cycle of reciprocity. Glanz et al., (2008) refers to this concept as changing environmental determinants of behavior.

Moral Disengagement and Self-Regulation

To correct moral disengagement, the school environment would benefit from a campaign that created awareness of the harmful effects of bullying and the deep personal pain associated with being ostracized. If the students understand the personal toll of bullying, they may change their behavior.

The student's behavior may also change as they learn (or are taught) how to conduct themselves, such as refraining from behaviors that will knowingly provoke negative outcomes.

Finally, it may be important to note dramatic pubertal changes in the brain (Burnett & Blakemore, 2009; Roaten & Roaten, 2012; Steinberg, 2011). Social intelligence lacks development compared to adults' norms and expectations for socialization. Likely there are proven methods of contending with social problems in adolescent groups. Perhaps the bigger challenge is changing the perceptions of the teachers and other involved adults.

References

Burnett, S., & Blakemore, S. J. (2009). The development of adolescent social cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 51–56.
Retrieved from the Walden Library using the Academic Search Complete database.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (Eds.). (2008). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2011). Changing health behavior: Theory and practice, Baltimore, MD: Author.

Miller, T. W. (Ed.). (2008). School violence and primary prevention (5th ed.). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-77119-9

Orbell, S., Lidierth, P., Henderson, C. J., Geeraert, N., Uller, C., Uskul, A. K., & Kyriakaki, M. (2009). Social-cognitive beliefs, alcohol, and tobacco use: A prospective community study of change following a ban on smoking in public places. Health Psychology, 28(6), 753–761.

Roaten, G. K., & Roaten, D. J. (2012). Adolescent Brain Development: Current Research and the Impact on Secondary School Counseling Programs. Journal Of School Counseling, 10(18).

Steinberg, L. (2011). Demystifying the adolescent brain. Educational Leadership, 68(7), 42-46.

Explaining Theory

The Hot Spot Theory of the Hawaiian islands seems like a good way to understand theory. No one has found a better explanation for the creation of this island chain, so the hot spot theory remains the generally accepted explanation for this particular natural process. The theory cannot be empirically proven at this time, although it is a reasonable and agreed upon explanation; it works to explain other associated phenomena and it is in agreement with other theories in earth science (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2008). When scientists explore associated phenomena, they choose an approach that utilizes the theory as a central premise in their inquiry. Additionally, the theory can function as a lens through which other phenomena are explored and understood. It may inform the questions scientists ask as well as how they collect their information (Creswell, 2009a).

In scientific research, a theory is a system that explains phenomena that are not empirically proven, but provide a parameter by which to understand how and why phenomena take place (Foy et al., 2011). A theory can be foundational in research design when used as a paradigm or a series of sequential (if-then) statements (Creswell, 2009b). It may function as a scientific world view, of sorts, a binding force that provides a basis for understanding, or it may facilitate or provoke the emergence of new knowledge (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). Foundational theories may be used as a basis for a hypotheses, in the revision of an established theory, to provide additional support for a theory or to generate new theory. When creating a hypothesis for research, theory may be used as a fundamental starting point (Creswell, 2009a; Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).

To facilitate the broad range of research goals, theory is used in a variety of ways, depending on the scope of research (Creswell, 2009b). For example, in a quantitative study, theory may be the basis of a prediction or an explanation about interactions or associations (Creswell, 2009a). Theory can be expanded upon or disproven, depending on the focus of the research. Utilizing deduction or deductive theory, researchers might explain established associations or whether a theory works in a variety of circumstances (Shank, 2008). Using established assessment techniques or instruments, deductive theory will determine whether one plus one still equals two in a setting different from the original one Creswell, 2009a).

In qualitative research, theory can inform the basis of study. For example, if I were to study the psychological effects of online support groups for battered women, I might use Eysenbach's (2004) idea that the effects of online support groups were not of significant value. I may use that information as a starting point for my research and either support those findings or replace it with more accurate information based on my observations, in effect, generating new meaning or new theory. Inductive theory is used when researchers make observations (about human nature), then generate a theory based on universalities discovered in their observations (Creswell, 2009a, 2009b; Fox, 2008). On the contrary, a researcher may not use a theoretical lens or any theoretical device in a qualitative study (Creswell, 2009a).

In mixed methods, theory can be used deductively or inductively, depending on the goal and focus of the study. Mixed methods can test theories, discover new theories, or use theories as a central theme in a study (Creswell, 2009b). Creswell (2009a) notes that contemporary studies use a theoretical standpoint to better explain diverse contexts in both qualitative and quantitative designs. Mixed methods integrates both approaches in scientific inquiry, proving that either method can inform the other and together they may function as integral in a study design (Creswell, 2009b).

Theory is a central and "inescapable component" (para. 2) of research (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2008). It functions in a variety of roles, but is always a binding force that connects the components of a study. Further, it is the basis for selecting the most appropriate research approach

References

Creswell, J. (2009a). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2009b). Chapter three: The use of theory [PPT]. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fox, N. (2008). Induction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 430-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n212

Foy, R., Ovretveit, J., Shekelle, P. G., Pronovost, P. J., Taylor, S. L., Dy, S., ... Wachter, R. M. (2011). The role of theory in research to develop and evaluate the implementation of patient safety practices. 2011 May;20(5):453-9, 20(5), 453-459. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.047993

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Theory. Baltimore: Author.

Maxwell, J., & Mittapalli, K. (2008). Theory. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 877-881). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n457

Shank, G. (2008). Deduction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 208-209). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n105