Using Abductive Research Logic to Construct a Rigorous Explanation of Amorphous Evaluation Findings
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Two kinds of research logic prevail in scientific research: deductive research logic and inductive research logic. However, both fail in the field of evaluation, especially evaluation conducted in unfamiliar environments.
Purpose: In this article I wish to suggest the application of a research logic—abduction—the logic of discovery—which is powerful and very effective in constructing and validating explanations of new phenomena (evaluation findings, in particular).
Setting: The primary focus of the article is theoretic with a case example illustrating the practice of using the logic of discovery.
Intervention: Not applicable.
Research Design: Not applicable.
Data Collection and Analysis: Not applicable.
Findings: Not applicable.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Braithwaite, R. B. (1934). Critical notices. In C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (pp. 487–511). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving between cultures. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross- cultural psychology (pp. 232–253). Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325392.n11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325392.n11
Burks, A. W. (1943). Peirce’s conception of logic as a normative science. The Philosophical Review, 52, 187–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/2180584 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2180584
Copi, I. M. (1961). Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan.
Davis, W. H. (1972). Peirce’s epistemology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2802-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2802-8
Doyle, A. C. (1986). The hound of the Baskervilles. In Sherlock Holmes: The complete novels and stories. Vol. II. New York: Bantam Books.
Fann, K. T. (1970). Peirce’s theory of abduction. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3163-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3163-9
Fox, R. (1998). Layered abduction and abductive inference. Edinburg, TX, USA: Computer Science, University of Texas. Retrieved November 2003: http://www.cs.panam.edu/fox/RESEA RCH/abd.html. [This link is no longer active]
Hanson, N. R. (1958). The logic of discovery. Journal of Philosophy, 55, 1073–1089. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022541 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2022541
Hanson, N. R. (1960). More on the logic of discovery. Journal of Philosophy, 57, 182–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022388 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2022388
House, E. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hawthorne, J. (2008). Inductive logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrived, August, 2009 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logi c-inductive/#Bib
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2000). Abduction: a logical criterion for program evaluation. Evaluation, the International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 6(4), 411– 428. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890022209406 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890022209406
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2003). The differences between evaluation and research. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 18(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.18.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.18.001
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2004a). Revisited: A tracer study ten years later. Detective process. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X04046737 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X04046737
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2004b). Searching for the unknowable: A process of detection—Abductive research generated by projective techniques. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300201
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2006). Using projective techniques in the evaluation of groups for children of rehabilitating drug addicts. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 27(5), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840600600008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840600600008
Levin-Rozalis, M., & Meinrat, S. (2007). Women-friends: Representing a group as a pre-condition to identity change. In E. Orr & S. Ben-Asher (Eds.), The familiar and the unfamiliar: Social representations of Israeli societies. Beer-Sheva, Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. (Hebrew)
Meinrat, S. (2002). Social representations between Caucasia and Israel. Master’s thesis. Beer-Sheva, Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. (Hebrew)
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Three abductive solutions to the Meno Paradox—with instinct, inference, and distributed cognition. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 24(3–4), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-005-3846-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-005-3846-z
Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). Collected papers, edited by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1955a). The criterion of validity in reasoning. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writing of Peirce (pp.120–128). New York: Dover.
Peirce, C. S. (1955b). Abduction and induction. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writing of Peirce (pp. 150–156). New York: Dover.
Rescher, N. (1978). Peirce’s philosophy of science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Rosental, S. B. (1993). Peirce’s ultimate logical interpretant and dynamical object: A pragmatic perspective. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 29, 195–210.
Skyrms, B. (2000). Choice and chance. Australia & Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
Takeda, H., & Nishida, T. (1994). Integration of aspects in design processes. Retrieved on 19 January 2008: http://www-kasm.nii.ac.jp/papers/takeda/94/aid94.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0928-4_18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0928-4_18
Turner, J. H. (1986). The structure of sociological theory (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.
Wallace, L. W. (1969). Sociological theory. London: Heinmann Educational Books Ltd.
Yu, C. H. (1994). Abduction? Deduction? Induction? Is there a logic of exploratory data analysis? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. Retrieved on 19 January 2009: http://www.creative-wisdom.com/pub/Peirce/Logic_of_EDA.html.