Theory Construction in Qualitative Research

Abstract

A critical pathway for conceptual innovation in the social is the construction of theoretical ideas based on empirical data. Grounded theory has become a leading approach promising the construction of novel theories. Yet grounded theory-based theoretical innovation has been scarce in part because of its commitment to let theories emerge inductively rather than imposing analytic frameworks a priori. We note, along with a long philosophical tradition, that induction does not logically lead to novel theoretical insights. Drawing from the theory of inference, meaning, and action of pragmatist philosopher Charles S. Peirce, we argue that abduction, rather than induction, should be the guiding principle of empirically based theory construction. Abduction refers to a creative inferential process aimed at producing new hypotheses and theories based on surprising research evidence. We propose that abductive analysis arises from actors' social and intellectual positions but can be further aided by careful methodological data analysis. We outline how formal methodological steps enrich abductive analysis through the processes of revisiting, defamiliarization, and alternative casing.

Theorizing emotional capital

“…Using emotional capital as a Bsensitizing concept^ (Blumer 1969, p. 147) and knowledge of the literature as my guide (Ong 2012), I honed in on men's descriptions of emotion as a possible resource. The analysis moved between the data and prior literature in an abductive fashion (Timmermans and Tavory 2012), attending to how male nurses distinguish between capacities versus practice, and if and how they developed emotional capacities and skills as a result of their training and time spent in the profession. Using men in nursing as a theoretically illustrative case, I address the three critiques noted in the above literature review.…”

The Role of Analytical Frameworks for Systemic Research Design, Explained in the Analysis of Drivers and Dynamics of Historic Land-Use Changes

“…Abduction assumes extensive familiarity with existing theories from the very beginning and throughout all stages of research, rather than engaging with scientific literature at the end of the research, as suggested by pure inductive approaches [37] (p. 173). They assume that, in practice, we have only partial access to the field and to shaping the way in which our interlocutors interact.…”

“…They assume that, in practice, we have only partial access to the field and to shaping the way in which our interlocutors interact. However, this does not mean that we should assign a dominant role to fixed, generic identity categories, but to switch from induction to abduction in a way that theoretical references are foregrounded to set up "empirical puzzles" [37] (p. 173). In this sense, unanticipated and surprising observations, so named by Timmermans and Tavory, are strategic.…”

“…In this sense, unanticipated and surprising observations, so named by Timmermans and Tavory, are strategic. They depend on a theoretically sensitized observer who recognizes their relevance and is able to stimulate the emergence of innovative and original theoretical contributions [37] (p. 173). Researchers follow the methodological guidance of grounded theory because it can lead to a novel theory that emerges following careful methodological steps, such as those proposed by Strauss and Corbin (2015) [37] (p. 177).…”

“…They depend on a theoretically sensitized observer who recognizes their relevance and is able to stimulate the emergence of innovative and original theoretical contributions [37] (p. 173). Researchers follow the methodological guidance of grounded theory because it can lead to a novel theory that emerges following careful methodological steps, such as those proposed by Strauss and Corbin (2015) [37] (p. 177). According to Timmermans and Tavory, the question of whether grounded theory (in the variant of Strauss and Corbin) contains an abductive research logic can therefore be answered affirmatively.…”