↓ Skip to main content

The Myth of Induction

Overview of attention for article published in Nursing Philosophy, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Myth of Induction
Published in
Nursing Philosophy, November 2014
DOI 10.1111/nup.12073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth Bergdahl, Carina M. Berterö

Abstract

In nursing today, it remains unclear what constitutes a good foundation for qualitative scientific inquiry. There is a tendency to define qualitative research as a form of inductive inquiry; deductive practice is seldom discussed, and when it is, this usually occurs in the context of data analysis. We will look at how the terms 'induction' and 'deduction' are used in qualitative nursing science and by qualitative research theorists, and relate these uses to the traditional definitions of these terms by Popper and other philosophers of science. We will also question the assertion that qualitative research is or should be inductive. The position we defend here is that qualitative research should use deductive methods. We also see a need to understand the difference between the creative process needed to create theory and the justification of a theory. Our position is that misunderstandings regarding the philosophy of science and the role of inductive and deductive logic and science are still harming the development of nursing theory and science. The purpose of this article is to discuss and reflect upon inductive and deductive views of science as well as inductive and deductive analyses in qualitative research. We start by describing inductive and deductive methods and logic from a philosophy of science perspective, and we examine how the concepts of induction and deduction are often described and used in qualitative methods and nursing research. Finally, we attempt to provide a theoretical perspective that reconciles the misunderstandings regarding induction and deduction. Our conclusion is that openness towards deductive thinking and testing hypotheses is needed in qualitative nursing research. We must also realize that strict induction will not create theory; to generate theory, a creative leap is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 88 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 29%
Social Sciences 14 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,485,559
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Nursing Philosophy
#153
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,960
of 372,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nursing Philosophy
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.