Qualitative Research Journal - CORE
Qualitative Research JournalDownloaded by CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FREE STATE At 04:52 08 November 2017 (PT)An abductive approach to qualitative built environment research: A viable systemmethodological exposéBankole Awuzie, Peter McDermott,Article information:To cite this document:Bankole Awuzie, Peter McDermott, (2017) "An abductive approach to qualitative built environmentresearch: A viable system methodological exposé", Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 17 Issue: 4,pp.356-372, https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-08-2016-0048Permanent link to this ownloaded on: 08 November 2017, At: 04:52 (PT)References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2017*Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided byToken:Eprints:PED74VHMZ6PE5TYFEPCU:For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FREE STATE At 04:52 08 November 2017 (PT)The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1443-9883.htmQRJ17,4An abductive approachto qualitative builtenvironment research356A viable system methodological exposéReceived 5 August 2016Revised 24 March 2017Accepted 24 August 2017Bankole AwuzieDepartment of Built Environment, Central University of Technology,Bloemfontein, South Africa, andPeter McDermottSchool of Built Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UKAbstractPurpose – Qualitative researchers are often confronted with a dilemma of selecting an appropriate approachwithin which to situate their research. This has led to successive attempts by qualitative researchers in thebuilt environment (BE) to combine two dominant approaches – deductive and inductive; in the conduct oftheir inquiry. Such attempts can be traced to the poor comprehension of the abductive approach. The purposeof this paper is to elucidate the principles of the abductive approach and illustrate its applicability within thecontext of BE qualitative research.Design/methodology/approach – In this study, an illustrative case study is used to depict the usefulnessof the abductive approach in BE research. The case relied upon is a recently completed study of aninfrastructure delivery system and an assessment of the system’s ability to deliver on socio-economicsustainability objectives.Findings – It was established that extant theories, particularly those with a history of provenance, could beused as a basis for the development of testable propositions for assessing certain phenomena, qualitatively.However, the manner in which these propositions are utilised under an abductive approach is pivotal to thegeneration of credible findings.Research limitations/implications – It is expected that the findings of this paper would create awarenessamong researchers on the relevance of an abductive approach to qualitative research.Originality/value – This study makes an authentic contribution towards resolving the challengeconfronting qualitative researchers within the BE discipline as it pertains to selecting between deductive andinductive approaches. In this case, an abductive approach is suggested and its modalities shown through acomprehensive study.Keywords Case study, Qualitative research, Built environment, Infrastructure delivery, Abductive approach,Viable systems modelPaper type Research paperQualitative Research JournalVol. 17 No. 4, 2017pp. 356-372 Emerald Publishing Limited1443-9883DOI 10.1108/QRJ-08-2016-0048IntroductionResearchers are confronted with the dilemma of choosing the appropriate approach to applyin their attempt to establish a link between theory and research (Ali and Birley, 1999).This has resulted from the perceived inadequacies of two most widely used approaches, theinductive and deductive approaches. Bryman (2012) posits that the task of establishing adefinite connection between theory and research remains an onerous one for qualitativeresearchers. This critical position arises due to the fact that theory forms the bedrock of anysocial enquiry and provides a rationale for the research being performed. Also, it provides aframework upon which social phenomena can be understudied and findings interpreted(Bryman, 2012). Saunders et al. (2012) assert that theory may not seem crucial at theinception of a research activity. However, they maintain that its relevance during thepresentation of the research findings and conclusion stages, respectively, makes itimperative that the researcher decides at the inception of his investigation on whether he
Downloaded by CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FREE STATE At 04:52 08 November 2017 (PT)wants to test existing theory or develop a new one. Furthermore, Easterby-Smith et al. (2008)adduce reasons why the choice of research approaches remains essential. They state thatthe structure of a research design is dependent upon the research approach adopted.Blaikie (2009) advises that the choice of a particular research approach at the initial stage ofa research activity should be based on the need to provide answers to the study’s researchquestions, effectively.Increasingly, researchers are being confronted with the dilemma of mixing differentresearch strategies as it concerns theory testing or building within the context of aparticular study. This has led to the inherent polarisation of researchers along deductiveand inductive lines as well as a mixture of both approaches. This imbroglio seems tohave been resolved by the abductive approach (Blaikie, 2009; Bryman, 2012; Dubois andGadde, 2002; Saunders et al., 2012). They agree that this approach enables the researcher’sengagement in a back and forth movement between theory and data in a bid to develop newor modify existing theory.Yet, there appears to be a slow uptake of the abductive approach within the communityof qualitative researchers in the built environment discipline. Adducing reasons for thisperceived apathy happens to be beyond the scope of this particular study, but the authorswill attempt to share their experience on the applicability of the approach in a recentlycompleted study. It is expected that such insight will contribute towards bringing about,more awareness to the abductive approach. Furthermore, this study seeks to stimulate adebate into the suitability of this approach in the conduct of qualitative research in thebuilt environment.To attain these objectives, a concise discourse on abductive approach is conducted.This is followed by a background to the main study which this reportage forms an integralpart. Subsequent parts of the study reflect on the application of the abductive approach inunderstudying the phenomenon mentioned. Besides rendering a step-by-step account of theconsiderations which led to the selection of the abductive approach, the inherent reflectionsprovide a narrative on how the research process was guided by the approach, especially as itpertains to the use of an extant theory, the viable systems model (VSM).Understanding the abductive approachAccording to Reichertz (2004), the evolution of the abductive approach can be traced toattempts at translating the Aristotelian apagoge. He attributes the contemporary knowledge ofabduction to the attempts of C.S. Peirce (1839-1914) in this regard. According to Novak (2001),Pierce’s seeming discontent with the theory of balancing likelihoods (TBL) approach whichwas being utilised by nineteenth century historians in translating Aristotle’s apagoge,motivated him to propose a scientific approach towards achieving the same purpose. Suchdiscontent stems from issues mentioned by Novak (2001), which are portrayed insubsequent paragraphs.Significant among the concerns raised by Pierce is the apparent unsuitable scenario wherean author, seeking to relate to and report historical events, relies on the testimonies renderedby another author. He argues that it would be illegitimate to present all of such testimonies asif they were of equal standing and independent value, a move encouraged by TBL.Second, the absence of a methodology for exploring the credibility of an author when henarrates a particular event is a problem as the author is often “considered as standing in aunique relation to each state of affairs that is narrated, and therefore statistics are of no help inascertaining where what is being reported in a particular case is true or false” (Novak, 2001, p. 4).Finally, the adoption of a demonstrative kind of reasoning in the study and narration ofhistory. To counter these shortcomings, Pierce proceeds to proffer a scientific approach(a mix of the abductive, deductive and inductive approaches), which carefully frames ahypothesis, outlining the consequences of such hypothesis and subsequently testing thoseAbductiveapproach357
Downloaded by CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FREE STATE At 04:52 08 November 2017 (PT)QRJ17,4358consequences through a comparison with facts that were not taken into considerationduring the formation of the hypothesis.Novak (2001) highlights Pierce’s attempt to distinguish between abduction and inductionwhereby he describes the former as proceeding from facts to an explanatory hypothesiswhereas the latter proceeds from a hypothesis towards supportive facts. Having utilised thisscientific methodology in translating Aristotelian Corpus, Pierce is recognised as makingsignificant contributions to the advancement of the abductive approach.Patokorpi and Ahvenainen (2009) maintain that Peirce sought to highlight the fact thatthere existed after all, a logic for scientific discovery. However, this fact has been heavilydisputed by inductivists and deductivists alike (Patokorpi and Ahvenainen, 2009).The abductive approach has been trailed by criticisms (Kapitan, 1992; Reichertz, 2010).Kapitan (1992) mentioned various inconsistencies which surrounded Peirce’s worksespecially as it concerns the difference between his earlier works and his later ones.Furthermore, he insists that these inconsistencies were capable of engenderingapprehension over the use of abduction. Similarly, Reichertz (2010) states that theabductive approach was originally thought of as nothing more than an act of inferring fromguesses and most researchers did not want to be seen as engaging in such. Paavola (2004)also admits to the existence of several criticisms against abduction as the logic of discovery.Probing further into the process of abduction, Svennevig (2001) cites Pierce (1955, p. 151)as reiterating that “the surprising fact, C, is observed; But if A were true, C would be amatter of course. Hence there is reason to suspect that A is true”. This description of theabductive process happens to be analogous to the views espoused by Aliseda (2007) whodescribes abduction as the reasoning that proceeds from an observation to its possibleexplanations or better put its most plausible explanations. As a result of this, the questionconcerning what constitutes the best explanation in an abductive approach sticks out like asore thumb (Lipscomb, 2012). Lipscomb further avers that for findings from abductiveapproach to be considered as valid and credible, it must be supported by deductive andinductively sourced evidence. Similarly, Plutynski (2011) observes that the plethora ofcriticisms surrounding the abductive approach as propounded by Peirce have largely beencentred the formalization indeterminacy problem, the boundary problem, the justificationproblem and the descriptive problem, respectively.Going into these challenges are beyond the scope of this study as the study seeks toreflect on how the authors were able to successfully apply the abductive approach in acontemporary research study.Reflections on the abductive approach’s utility in the main studyThe main study is premised on the quest to provide a theory for describing theimplementation of socio-economic objectives (socio-economic sustainability) duringthe procurement and delivery of oil and gas infrastructure in Nigeria. Globally, advocacyfor the utilisation of public procurement to drive the attainment of socio-economic objectivesfor the local economy has assumed centre stage (Binks, 2006; Macfarlane and Cook, 2002;McCrudden, 2004; Snieska and Simkunaite, 2009; Thai, 2001; Watermeyer, 2003; Wells andHawkins, 2008). This realisation of the impact infrastructure investments had on a country’seconomy attracted the authors’ lenses to the Nigerian situation.But there appears to be a consensus on the inability of significant infrastructureinvestments in the Nigerian oil and gas industry to bring about the desired socio-economicobjectives for the country’s populace. Various studies have carried out investigations into theexistence or otherwise of linkages between the nation’s oil and gas industry andother sectors of the economy such as construction and construction output (Saka andLowe, 2010a, b); small- and medium-scale enterprises (Ihua, 2010); backward linkages with theNigerian economy (Adewuyi and Oyejide, 2012); development of local technological know-how
Downloaded by CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FREE STATE At 04:52 08 November 2017 (PT)by indigenous oilfield servicing firms through innovative capabilities (Ozighbo, 2008);the regulatory impact brought to bear on the industry through content development by theNigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development (NOGICD) Act of 2010 (Atsegbua, 2012);and the issue of struggling local suppliers (Vaaland et al., 2012).However, they appear to have neglected the project delivery systems utilised in theprojects understudied. This neglect was perhaps predicated on the absence of a succincttheoretical background for enabling a better understanding of the processes andrelationships between actors in the delivery system in a systemic manner. Rather, theyprogressed in a manner that depicted reductionism. According to Larson and Gobeli (1989)and Awuzie and McDermott (2015), the manner in which a procurement system is organisedwas capable of either delivering the client’s main objective or vice versa. Neglecting themode of project organising adopted in the delivery of these objectives would be akin toproceeding on a faulty premise.This was the aspect which the authors sought to make a contribution towards. It wasexpected that the creation of a theoretical background, upon which the hitherto black-box(see Figure 1) of the project delivery system could be explained, will encourage subsequentresearchers to better understand the system and proffer appropriate solutions.Often times, the process subsystem of the project implementation system is treatedas a black-box (see Figure 1). Accordingly, the quality of relationships and processeswhich are inherent in that subsystem is judged on the basis of the eventual outcome/output of the system. This has been the practice and most of the scholars mentionedpreviously have relied on the outcomes of the system in assessing the process subsystem.This negates the principle of systems thinking practice as every subsystem shouldbenefit from an assessment, during the evaluation of an entire system. This led to thedecision of the authors to seek a theoretical background to unravel and better explain theinherent relationships experienced within this so-called black-box. Successfulimplementation of the socio-economic objectives of the Nigerian government which areencapsulated in the NOGCID Act was mainly dependent on the manner the relationshipswithin the delivery system were organised and governed. Viewed from an abductiveapproach perspective, it would be succinct to state that this line of thinking evolves froman observation that:Abductiveapproach359The failure of the infrastructure delivery systems to deliver on socio-economic objectives within theNigerian oil and gas industry context is observed; But if there was no disconnect between thestrategic level and the implementation level (the project delivery environment) within suchinfrastructure delivery systems, then their ability to deliver on such objectives would be a matter ofcourse. Hence: there is reason to suspect that such disconnect exists within these infrastructuredelivery systems.Deriving from this observation which according to Aliseda (2007) can be described at best,as hypothetical, the need for an appropriate theoretical background to explain therelationship between the stakeholders and how such relationship influences socio-economicpolicy implementation within the infrastructure delivery system (IDS). This gives rise to theneed for a relevant theory for explaining the observation adequately.Input (Policyguidelines/ProcurementguidelinesSource: Authors’ sketch (2017)?Attainment ofsocio-economicObjectivesFigure 1.A simple inputprocess-output systemdiagram of the projectdelivery process
Downloaded by CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FREE STATE At 04:52 08 November 2017 (PT)QRJ17,4360Pierce’s version of the abductive process does not necessarily stand-alone but ratherseeks to take other approaches into cognisance. Svennevig (2001) maintains thatPierce advocated for the adoption of the three modes of inference with three differentstages, namely: first stage: abduction (adopt a hypothesis/proposition on probation); second stage: deduction (spell out the necessary and probable experimentalconsequences); and third stage: induction (assess the plausibility of the hypothesis on the basis ofobserved results of predictions).This aligns with the opinion of Lipscomb (2012) wherein he observes that abductively ledqualitative research in the nursing discipline must be supported by evidences sought forand obtained through deductively and inductively oriented pathways. Continuing, hemaintains that such evidence should differ significantly from that which was generated bythe initial proposition.Therefore, it is trite to maintain that the statement made about the failure of IDSsto deliver on socio-economic objectives can be viewed from the perspective of thesethree stages:(1) a viable IDS will deliver on client objectives such as socio-economic objectives;(2) due to the extant disconnect between the strategic and implementation levels of theIDS, it has failed in delivering on socio-economic objectives within the Nigerianeconomy; and(3) explaining such disconnect as well as identifying the reasons behind it can only beachieved through the use of an appropriate theoretical context to appraise the IDS.Quest for a relevant theoryAccording to the Peircean abductive approach, the use of theories with immense degrees ofprovenance for explaining the propositions is surrounding a particular phenomenon(Lipscomb, 2012). Continuing, Lipscomb avers that the mere fact that theory x not onlyexists but also appears to support the interpretation y (the proposition) does not guarantee asufficient interpretation. Rather, it has to be established that theory x does in fact support y.To do this effectively, adequate justification has to be rendered for the choice of backgroundthe
Bryman (2012) posits that the task of establishing a definite connection between theory and research remains an onerous one for qualitative researchers. Thiscriticalposition arisesduetothe factthattheoryformsthe bedrock ofany social enquiry and provides a ration
qualitative data. (Note that pure qualitative research will follow all of the paradigm characteristics of qualitative research shown in the right column of Table 2.1.) Mixed research – research that involves the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods or paradigm characteristics. The mixing of
Qualitative Analysis of Anions 1 Experiment 10 Qualitative Analysis of Anions Pre-Lab Assignment Before coming to lab: Read the lab thoroughly. Answer the pre-lab questions that appear at the end of this lab exercise. The questions should be answered on a separate (new) page of File Size: 343KBPage Count: 16Explore further(PDF) Experiment Report: Analysis of Anions and Cations .www.academia.eduExperiment 7 Qualitative Analysis: Anionswww.csus.eduLab Experiment #8: Qualitative Analysis of Common Anions .www.youtube.comQualitative Analysis of Anions - Odinitywww.odinity.comLab 13 Qualitative Analysis of Cations and Anionsdoctortang.comRecommended to you b
Research Practice Guide. 2 Code for America’s Qualitative Research Practice Guide is a statement from our qualitative research team of how we approach qualitative research, why we believe research is critical to the effective delivery of government services, and how you can engage with our research practice.
ter on qualitative research methods (Morrow & Smith, 2000), a comprehensive introduction to qualitative research methods that drew from the larger body of qualitative methodological literature, particularly in education. Given the diversity and comprehensiveness of the qualitative writings in education and the location of many counseling
The relationship between qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research. The importance of the research question in an analysis. The need for methodological rigour in qualitative research. 1.1 Qualitative, Quantitative – A Few Clarifications What do the terms ‘qualitative data’ and ‘quantitative data’ mean? While the
Qualitative Research Design January 2015 Margaret R. Roller such as social media and mobile, as well as the evolving stature of Qualitative Research Design: Selected Articles from Research Design Review . The Sage handbook of qualitative research. T
Qualitative Research from Start to Finish SECOND EDITION Robert K. Yin THE GUILFORD PRESS New York London . Brief Contents PUT 1 Understanding Qualitative Research CHAPTER 1 What Is Qualitative Research— 3 and Why Might You Consider Doing Such Research?
1. Explain what qualitative methods can add to program evaluation and identify situations/reasons when qualitative methods may be appropriate. 2. Identify different types of qualitative evaluation data collection and analysis and list steps involved in doing them. 3. Apply best-practices for qualitative methods in relation to program evaluation.
