Content area
Full text
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.
Keywords
theorization, abduction, community of inquiry
A crucial pathway for conceptual innovation in the social sciences is the construction of theoretical ideas on the basis of empirical data. Trying to make sense of empirical phenomena, sociologists often find themselves "constructing theory"-engaging in creative attempts to generalize mechanisms, particular cases, or links between causal statements (Abend 2008:177-79; Gross 2009a) in ways that provide better traction for understanding observations they work with and possibly anticipate observations in other cases. Theory construction is thus an ongoing pragmatic process of "puzzling out" and problem solving that draws on existing ways of understanding what the phenomenon "is a case of" (Ragin 1992; Tavory and Timmermans 2009; Winship 2006). The common ground in such generalizations is the dialectic between data and generalization as a way to account for empirical findings.1
Asserting that unexpected theoretical formulations and categories emerge in relation to data locates a social practitioner within a meta-theoretical debate about the relation between data and theory. Grounded theory has popularized the emergence of theory from data since the late 1960s.2 Indeed, owing to its promise to provide heuristic guidelines for data-driven theory construction, grounded theory has become a dominant data-analytical approach. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss's (1967) The Discovery of Grounded...