Research Theories

Research Theories: Comparing and Contrasting
The main differences between the four specific types of research theories above revolve around their perspective of research and the accumulation of knowledge. This in particular to how this research can be gathered to solve problems and provide illumination to issues. For example, deductive theories offer a more specific and focused treatment of research. The research usually revolves around a specific theory within a specific branch of academia that is use for testing and investigation. According to Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," (Bradford, 2017). Essentially, a deductive theory is founded within reasoning, beginning with a more general assertion and then scrutinizes all potentialities in order to reach a reasonable conclusion (Bradford, 2017). Deductive theories, once one has chosen a specific theory for testing, the researcher has the burden of creating a hypothesis to use as the structure for the overall research direction. This hypothesis is instrumental in the creation of all the things that will go into the research process—the research design, data gathering and analysis. One of the ways that a deductive theory is so useful is that it empowers professionals to construct experimental studies to determine how applicable the theory is to the singularity being examined (Bradford, 2017).
“For deductive approaches, the emphasis is generally on causality, whilst for inductive approaches the aim is usually focused on exploring new phenomena or looking at previously researched phenomena from a different perspective” (Gabriel, 2013). Quite simply, a deductive approach revolves around testing a specific theory, always starting with a hypothesis. A deductive theory is almost always associated with quantitative research. However, none of these rules are written in stone. For example, it is possible to have a qualitative study with a more deductive orientation (Gabriel, 2013).
On the other hand, rather than being so focused on testing a theory, an inductive approach is one that revolves around the creation of new theories, developing from the data collected. One way that an inductive theory or approach differs from a deductive one, is that an inductive approach will generally harness research questions to refocus the study’s overall latitude (Gabriel, 2013). One of the more famous and frequently cited inductive theories is grounded theory, created by Glaser and Strauss (Gabriel, 2013). “This approach necessitates the research start with a totally open mind without any preconceived ideas of what will be found. The aim is to generate a new theory based on the data. Once the data analysis has been completed, the researcher must examine existing theories in order to position their new theory within the discipline” (Gabriel, 2013). Grounded theory is such a significant example of inductive theory as it seeks to push the researcher to engage in the pursuit if knowledge with an open and clear mind in order to create new theory. This requires a certain amount of mental discipline, so that the researcher might really come up with something that is innovative and that makes a meaningful contribution to the world.
Determining whether to move forward with inductive or deductive theory means that the researcher needs to look inward and examine the overall intent of the research. Then one really needs to determine if the bulk of the work is going to revolve around testing an idea (such as a hypothesis) or if it is a less specific exploration of emerging thoughts within the data or if the overall desire is to provide an answer to a specific research question. The key thing to bear in mind with inductive theories is that there’s a general minimization of rigidity. Some researchers prefer them because they offer more leeway of thought and exploration, given their open-endedness. So just as a researcher engaged in deductive reasoning might move forward in testing a hypothesis, often with a deductive theory, the researcher will engage in observing an occurrence in the world or specifically in science.
Grounded theory, which was already alluded to, refers to a method that operates on the primacy of data collection and intensive ways of engaging in analysis. Grounded theory is not for the faint of heart; however one of its major benefits is that it can be harnessed for wither qualitative or quantitative data (Scott, 2009). One of the other major benefits of grounded theory is that it can be used for literally any type of data—from pictures, words, film clips or even observations (Scott, 2009). So it offers a type of flexibility that is even more open and resilient than deductive theory. This can be very appealing to researchers who want to take a more avante garde approach with more traditional subjects or who want to branch out and focus on an arena of research that is generally less standard. In a word, grounded theory represents a method of research that empowers one to “…seek out and conceptualise the latent social patterns and structures of your area of interest through the process of constant comparison. Initially you will use an inductive approach to generate substantive codes from your data, later your developing theory will suggest to you where to go next to collect data and which, more-focused, questions to ask. This is the deductive phase of the grounded theory process” (Scott, 2009). This quote demonstrates that grounded theory can encapsulate both aspects of deductive and inductive methods and philosophies. This largely has to the fact that grounded theory is so wide and flexible, it takes on aspects of both. Grounded theory enjoys much popularity as it gathers research, hence creating a theory that is grounded in data. This means that its findings are harder to argue with and more meaningful.
Conversely, a theory that is drastically different than grounded theory or even inductive theory would be axiomatic theory. Some define an axiomatic theory as one that can be concretely proven true or false. However, even that viewpoint doesn’t quite capture the nuances of axiomatic theory. The crux of axiomatic theory is that many educated people believe it to be accurate with out notable controversy (Bandodklar, 2015). Examples, of axiomatic theories would be things like Eculid’s axioms, which decree that it is possible to draw a straight line from one point to any other point or to extend a line segment into an elongated straight line (Bandodklar, 2015). No reasonable person would actually disagree with any of these things as they represent a core bedrock upon which so many other mathematical principles are founded (Bandodklar, 2015).
“Axioms can be defined as a set of undemonstrated propositions accepted by convention, sometimes intuitively, or established by practice as the basic building blocks of
some conceptual or theoretical structure or system. The axiomatic method is a way of arriving at a scientific theory in which axioms are postulated as the basis of the theory, while the remaining propositions of the theory are obtained as logical consequences of these axioms” (Bandodklar, 2015). This excerpt highlights the extreme importance of axiomatic theory: because they are so uncontroversial, the things they imply or that they conclude are also reasonable outgrowths. Axiomatic theory can be exceedingly useful in conjunction with other theories or as a tool for developing new theory or methods. For example, if one is developing an extremely avant-garde or more “out there” type theory, grounding it in axiomatic theory or finding some way of otherwise incorporating an axiomatic theory might be a way to get the more alternative theory exposure or tentative acceptance.
Thus, while one can’t claim that any of these theories are more important than the others, one can argue that some have more usage. Given its flexibility, inductive theory and grounded theory tend to get more mileage. The width of their “umbrella” is simply more flexible, creating a higher level of inclusivity in research—giving them more overall use. However, there is a place for all these theories in science. Certain experiments or endeavors require the help of something as concrete and black and white as an axiomatic theory, whereas other pursuits need something that’s more flexible and open to innovation and creative thought. The key difference between a theory and hypothesis is that a hypothesis is an outgrowth of a theory, and is more specific to a situation or experiment at hand. A hypothesis often posits what might happen in regards to a particular experiment or set of variables, in accordance with a theory. A variable refer to an element within an experiment that is being examined and/or manipulated. One is often independent and the other one dependent. The influence of the variables and how they react to circumstances often indicates to us what will happen, making them a crucial aspect of theoretical schemes. Becoming acquainted with the different theories along with their distinctions and overlaps is crucial to the work of the student.


References
Bandodkar, N. R. (2015). Valuable or Stagnating? An Essay on Axiomatic Theories in IS Research. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=amcis2015
Bradford, A. (2107, July 24). Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
Gabriel, D. (2013, March 17). Inductive and deductive approaches to research | | Dr Deborah Gabriel. Retrieved from http://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-research/
Scott, H. (2009, November 1). What is Grounded Theory? | Grounded Theory Online. Retrieved from http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/what-is-grounded-theory/