Abductive Reasoning Tendencies of Graduate Students in the Context of Qualitative Research: A Q Methodology Study

Abstract

The aim of this research is to reveal the tendencies of graduate students towards abductive reasoning in the context of qualitative research. To this end, the study is designed within the Q methodology pattern, which is one of the mixed research methods. Q methodology is a research method aimed at systematically analyzing the views of participants on the research question. The study group of the research consists of 11 graduate students determined by criterion sampling. As a data collection tool, 14 sentences related to three themes measuring abductive reasoning tendency were used. The data collection process was carried out using a structured Q sorting. As a result of the research, it has been observed that the tendencies of graduate students towards abductive reasoning in the context of qualitative research are grouped under four factors. These four factors consist of the harmonious creative group, which has a high tendency towards creative abductive reasoning and excessively coded abductive reasoning; the selector group, which has a high tendency towards under coded abductive reasoning; the descriptive group, which has a high tendency towards excessively coded abductive reasoning; and the exploratory creative group, which has a high tendency towards under coded abductive reasoning and creative abductive reasoning.

Keywords

• abductive reasoning
• qualitative data analysis
• graduate student

References

1. Aksakal, N., & Kırkaya, İ. (2013). Gömülü teori: Spor bilimlerinde kullanılabilirliği. [Grounded theory utility in sport sciences] CBÜ Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 1-10.
2. Aydoğan, M., Middleton, T. J., & Britton, P. (2022). Barriers to broaching culture in counseling supervision: A Q methodology study. Eğitim ve Bilim, 47(212), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.11302
3. Bertilsson, T. M. (2004). The elementary forms of pragmatism: On different types of abduction. European Journal of Social Theory, 7(3), 371-389.
4. Blank G (2004) Teaching qualitative data analysis to graduate students. Social Science Computer Review 22(2): 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303262
5. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91-138.
6. Chen, Z. (2020). Milestones: Cognitive. J. B. Benson, (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development (pp. 330-338). Elsevier Inc.
7. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data complementary research strategies. Sage.
8. Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schröter, D. C. (2011). A Systematic Review of Theory-Driven Evaluation Practice From 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 199-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010389321

9. Çakmak, Z., Akgün, İ. H., & Kaçar, T. (2022). Social studies teachers' views on the 7th grade social studies teacher guidebook and its removal: A q method analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim, 47(210), 217-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.10897
10. Çepni, S., Ormancı, Ü., & Özen Uyar, R. (2018). Doktora öğrencilerinin nitel araştırma yapmaya yönelik kaygıları. [Postgraduate Students’ Anxieties About Conducting Qualitative Studies] Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(3), 875-886.
11. Eco, U. (1983). The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce Advances in semiotics. Indiana University Press.
12. Ertugay, F. (2019). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma/esnek desen araştırması: Alana ı̇lişkin zorluklar, sorunlar ve ı̇mkânlar. [Qualitative research/flexible design research in social sciences: Field challenges, problems and opportunities] Nitel Sosyal Bilimler, 1(1), 48-68.
13. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis, practice and innovation. Routledge.
14. Gustavsen, B. (1996). Is theory useful?, Concepts and Transformation, 1(1), 63–77.
15. Halpin, M., & Richard, N. (2021). An invitation to analytic abduction. Methods in Psychology, 5, 2590-2601.
16. Hidayah, I. N., Sa’dijah, C., Subanji, S., & Sudirman, S. (2020). Characteristics of students’ abductive reasoning in solving algebra problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11869.347-362
17. Kapitan, T. (1990). In what way is abductive inference creative?. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 26(4), 499-512.
18. Kennedy, B., & Thornberg, R. (2018). Deduction, induction, and abduction. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 49-64). SAGE Publications.
19. Kim, K. H., & Pierce, R. A. (2020). Adaptive creativity and innovative creativity. In E. G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 35-40). Springer International Publishing.
20. Kuhn, T. S. (2021). Bilimsel devrimlerin yapısı (Çev. Nilüfer Kuyaş). [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions] Kırmızı Yayınları.
21. Kuczynski, L., & Daly, K. (2003). Qualitative methods as inductive (theory-generating) research: Psychological and sociological approaches. In L Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 373-392). Sage.
22. Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: An observational study of doctoral work. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1442-1452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307306924
23. Lipscomb, M. (2012). Abductive reasoning and qualitative research. Nursing Philosophy, 13(4), 244-256.
24. Magnani, L. (2009). Abductive cognition: The epistemological and eco-cognitive dimensions of hypothetical reasoning (Vol. 3). Springer.
25. Marecek, J., & Magnusson, E. (2020, July 30). Qualitative inquiry. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-485
26. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (1988). Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage.
27. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology. Sage.
28. Merkens, H. (2004). Selection procedures, sampling case construction. In U. Flick, E.von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 165-171). Sage.
29. Meyer, S. B., & Lunnay, B. (2013). The application of abductive and retroductive inference for the design and analysis of theory-driven sociological research. Sociological Research Online, 18(1), 86-96.
30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
31. Mingers, J. (2012). Abduction: the missing link between deduction and induction. A comment on Ormerod's ‘rational inference: Deductive, inductive and probabilistic thinking’. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63, 860-861.
32. Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Nursing research: The application of qualitative approaches. Nelson Thornes.
33. Moscoso, J. N. (2019). Abductive reasoning: A contribution to knowledge creation in education. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 49(171), 308–329. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053145255
34. Patokorpi, E. (2006). Abductive reasoning and ICT enhanced reasoning: Towards the epistemology of digital nomads. In C. Zielinski, P. Duquenoy, & K. Kimppa (Eds.), The information society: Emerging landscapes (pp. 101-117). Springer.
35. Plutynski, A. (2011). Four problems of abduction: A brief history. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 227-248.
36. Raholm, M. B. (2010). Abductive reasoning and the formation of scientific knowledge within nursing research. Nursing Philosophy, 11(4), 260-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00457.x
37. Ramlo, S. (2015). Theoretical significance in Q methodology: A qualitative approach to a mixed method. Research in the Schools, 22(1), 73-87.
38. Rinehart, K. E. (2021). Abductive analysis in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(2), 303-311.
39. Shank, G. (2008). Abduction. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 1-2). Sage.
40. Sölpük Turhan, N., & Karadağ, E. (2019). An exploratory study on the PhD dissertation: PhD students’ opinions on their research development process. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 6(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.543437
41. Stephenson, W. (1936). The foundations of psychometry: Four factor systems. Psychometrika 1(3): 195- 209.
42. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.
43. Thagard, P. (2007). Abductive inference: From philosophical analysis to neural mechanisms. A. Feeney & E. Heit (Eds.), Inductive reasoning: Experimental, developmental, and computational approaches (pp. 226-247), Cambridge University Press.
44. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
45. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2022). Data analysis in qualitative research: Theorizing with abductive analysis. University of Chicago Press.
46. Vila-Henninger, L., Dupuy, C., Van Ingelgom, V., Caprioli, M., Teuber, F., Pennetreau, D., Bussi, M., & Le Gall, C. (2022). Abductive Coding: Theory building and qualitative (Re)Analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211067508
47. Walton, D. (2014). Abductive reasoning. University of Alabama Press.
48. Wang, F. (2013). Challenges of learning to write qualitative research: Students' voices. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 638-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200134
49. Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute.
50. Wertz, F. J. (2011). The qualitative revolution and psychology: Science, politics, and ethics. The Humanistic Psychologist, 39(2), 77-104.
51. Wertz, F. J. (2014). Qualitative inquiry in the history of psychology. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 4-16.
52. Yıldırım, İ. (2017). Students’ perceptions about gamification of education: A q-method analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(191), 235-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6970
53. Yu, C. H. (1994, April). Abduction? Deduction? Induction? Is there a logic of EDA?. (ED376173). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED376173.pdf