case study research inductive or deductive

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3: Inductive or Deductive? Two Different Approaches

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 12547

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Describe the inductive approach to research, and provide examples of inductive research.
• Describe the deductive approach to research, and provide examples of deductive research.
• Describe the ways that inductive and deductive approaches may be complementary.

Theories structure and inform sociological research. So, too, does research structure and inform theory. The reciprocal relationship between theory and research often becomes evident to students new to these topics when they consider the relationships between theory and research in inductive and deductive approaches to research. In both cases, theory is crucial. But the relationship between theory and research differs for each approach. Inductive and deductive approaches to research are quite different, but they can also be complementary. Let’s start by looking at each one and how they differ from one another. Then we’ll move on to thinking about how they complement one another.

Inductive Approaches and Some Examples

In an inductive approach to research, a researcher begins by collecting data that is relevant to his or her topic of interest. Once a substantial amount of data have been collected, the researcher will then take a breather from data collection, stepping back to get a bird’s eye view of her data. At this stage, the researcher looks for patterns in the data, working to develop a theory that could explain those patterns. Thus when researchers take an inductive approach, they start with a set of observations and then they move from those particular experiences to a more general set of propositions about those experiences. In other words, they move from data to theory, or from the specific to the general. Figure 2.5 outlines the steps involved with an inductive approach to research.

Figure 2.5 Inductive Research

There are many good examples of inductive research, but we’ll look at just a few here. One fascinating recent study in which the researchers took an inductive approach was Katherine Allen, Christine Kaestle, and Abbie Goldberg’s study (2011)Allen, K. R., Kaestle, C. E., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). More than just a punctuation mark: How boys and young men learn about menstruation. Journal of Family Issues, 32 , 129–156. of how boys and young men learn about menstruation. To understand this process, Allen and her colleagues analyzed the written narratives of 23 young men in which the men described how they learned about menstruation, what they thought of it when they first learned about it, and what they think of it now. By looking for patterns across all 23 men’s narratives, the researchers were able to develop a general theory of how boys and young men learn about this aspect of girls’ and women’s biology. They conclude that sisters play an important role in boys’ early understanding of menstruation, that menstruation makes boys feel somewhat separated from girls, and that as they enter young adulthood and form romantic relationships, young men develop more mature attitudes about menstruation.

In another inductive study, Kristin Ferguson and colleagues (Ferguson, Kim, & McCoy, 2011)Ferguson, K. M., Kim, M. A., & McCoy, S. (2011). Enhancing empowerment and leadership among homeless youth in agency and community settings: A grounded theory approach. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28 , 1–22. analyzed empirical data to better understand how best to meet the needs of young people who are homeless. The authors analyzed data from focus groups with 20 young people at a homeless shelter. From these data they developed a set of recommendations for those interested in applied interventions that serve homeless youth. The researchers also developed hypotheses for people who might wish to conduct further investigation of the topic. Though Ferguson and her colleagues did not test the hypotheses that they developed from their analysis, their study ends where most deductive investigations begin: with a set of testable hypotheses.

Deductive Approaches and Some Examples

Researchers taking a deductive approach take the steps described earlier for inductive research and reverse their order. They start with a social theory that they find compelling and then test its implications with data. That is, they move from a more general level to a more specific one. A deductive approach to research is the one that people typically associate with scientific investigation. The researcher studies what others have done, reads existing theories of whatever phenomenon he or she is studying, and then tests hypotheses that emerge from those theories. Figure 2.6 outlines the steps involved with a deductive approach to research.

Figure 2.6 Deductive Research

While not all researchers follow a deductive approach, as you have seen in the preceding discussion, many do, and there are a number of excellent recent examples of deductive research. We’ll take a look at a couple of those next.

In a study of US law enforcement responses to hate crimes, Ryan King and colleagues (King, Messner, & Baller, 2009)King, R. D., Messner, S. F., & Baller, R. D. (2009). Contemporary hate crimes, law enforcement, and the legacy of racial violence. American Sociological Review, 74 , 291–315.hypothesized that law enforcement’s response would be less vigorous in areas of the country that had a stronger history of racial violence. The authors developed their hypothesis from their reading of prior research and theories on the topic. Next, they tested the hypothesis by analyzing data on states’ lynching histories and hate crime responses. Overall, the authors found support for their hypothesis.

In another recent deductive study, Melissa Milkie and Catharine Warner (2011)Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (2011). Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52 , 4–22. studied the effects of different classroom environments on first graders’ mental health. Based on prior research and theory, Milkie and Warner hypothesized that negative classroom features, such as a lack of basic supplies and even heat, would be associated with emotional and behavioral problems in children. The researchers found support for their hypothesis, demonstrating that policymakers should probably be paying more attention to the mental health outcomes of children’s school experiences, just as they track academic outcomes (American Sociological Association, 2011).The American Sociological Association wrote a press release on Milkie and Warner’s findings: American Sociological Association. (2011). Study: Negative classroom environment adversely affects children’s mental health. Retrieved from asanet.org/press/Negative_Cla...tal_Health.cfm

Complementary Approaches?

While inductive and deductive approaches to research seem quite different, they can actually be rather complementary. In some cases, researchers will plan for their research to include multiple components, one inductive and the other deductive. In other cases, a researcher might begin a study with the plan to only conduct either inductive or deductive research, but then he or she discovers along the way that the other approach is needed to help illuminate findings. Here is an example of each such case.

In the case of my collaborative research on sexual harassment, we began the study knowing that we would like to take both a deductive and an inductive approach in our work. We therefore administered a quantitative survey, the responses to which we could analyze in order to test hypotheses, and also conducted qualitative interviews with a number of the survey participants. The survey data were well suited to a deductive approach; we could analyze those data to test hypotheses that were generated based on theories of harassment. The interview data were well suited to an inductive approach; we looked for patterns across the interviews and then tried to make sense of those patterns by theorizing about them.

For one paper (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004),Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69 , 64–92. we began with a prominent feminist theory of the sexual harassment of adult women and developed a set of hypotheses outlining how we expected the theory to apply in the case of younger women’s and men’s harassment experiences. We then tested our hypotheses by analyzing the survey data. In general, we found support for the theory that posited that the current gender system, in which heteronormative men wield the most power in the workplace, explained workplace sexual harassment—not just of adult women but of younger women and men as well. In a more recent paper (Blackstone, Houle, & Uggen, 2006),Blackstone, A., Houle, J., & Uggen, C. “At the time I thought it was great”: Age, experience, and workers’ perceptions of sexual harassment. Presented at the 2006 meetings of the American Sociological Association. Currently under review. we did not hypothesize about what we might find but instead inductively analyzed the interview data, looking for patterns that might tell us something about how or whether workers’ perceptions of harassment change as they age and gain workplace experience. From this analysis, we determined that workers’ perceptions of harassment did indeed shift as they gained experience and that their later definitions of harassment were more stringent than those they held during adolescence. Overall, our desire to understand young workers’ harassment experiences fully—in terms of their objective workplace experiences, their perceptions of those experiences, and their stories of their experiences—led us to adopt both deductive and inductive approaches in the work.

Researchers may not always set out to employ both approaches in their work but sometimes find that their use of one approach leads them to the other. One such example is described eloquently in Russell Schutt’s Investigating the Social World (2006).Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. As Schutt describes, researchers Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk (1984)Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49 , 261–272. conducted an experiment to test two competing theories of the effects of punishment on deterring deviance (in this case, domestic violence). Specifically, Sherman and Berk hypothesized that deterrence theory would provide a better explanation of the effects of arresting accused batterers than labeling theory . Deterrence theory predicts that arresting an accused spouse batterer will reduce future incidents of violence. Conversely, labeling theory predicts that arresting accused spouse batterers will increase future incidents. Figure 2.7 summarizes the two competing theories and the predictions that Sherman and Berk set out to test.

Figure 2.7 Predicting the Effects of Arrest on Future Spouse Battery

Sherman and Berk found, after conducting an experiment with the help of local police in one city, that arrest did in fact deter future incidents of violence, thus supporting their hypothesis that deterrence theory would better predict the effect of arrest. After conducting this research, they and other researchers went on to conduct similar experimentsThe researchers did what’s called replication. We’ll learn more about replication in Chapter 3. in six additional cities (Berk, Campbell, Klap, & Western, 1992; Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Sherman & Smith, 1992).Berk, R., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57 , 698–708; Pate, A., & Hamilton, E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade county spouse assault experiment. American Sociological Review, 57 , 691–697; Sherman, L., & Smith, D. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57 , 680–690. Results from these follow-up studies were mixed. In some cases, arrest deterred future incidents of violence. In other cases, it did not. This left the researchers with new data that they needed to explain. The researchers therefore took an inductive approach in an effort to make sense of their latest empirical observations. The new studies revealed that arrest seemed to have a deterrent effect for those who were married and employed but that it led to increased offenses for those who were unmarried and unemployed. Researchers thus turned to control theory, which predicts that having some stake in conformity through the social ties provided by marriage and employment, as the better explanation.

Figure 2.8 Predicting the Effects of Arrest on Future Spouse Battery: A New Theory

What the Sherman and Berk research, along with the follow-up studies, shows us is that we might start with a deductive approach to research, but then, if confronted by new data that we must make sense of, we may move to an inductive approach. Russell Schutt depicts this process quite nicely in his text, and I’ve adapted his depiction here, in Figure 2.9.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The inductive approach involves beginning with a set of empirical observations, seeking patterns in those observations, and then theorizing about those patterns.
• The deductive approach involves beginning with a theory, developing hypotheses from that theory, and then collecting and analyzing data to test those hypotheses.
• Inductive and deductive approaches to research can be employed together for a more complete understanding of the topic that a researcher is studying.
• Though researchers don’t always set out to use both inductive and deductive strategies in their work, they sometimes find that new questions arise in the course of an investigation that can best be answered by employing both approaches.

Monty Python and Holy Grail :

(click to see video)

Do the townspeople take an inductive or deductive approach to determine whether the woman in question is a witch? What are some of the different sources of knowledge (recall Chapter 1) they rely on?

• Think about how you could approach a study of the relationship between gender and driving over the speed limit. How could you learn about this relationship using an inductive approach? What would a study of the same relationship look like if examined using a deductive approach? Try the same thing with any topic of your choice. How might you study the topic inductively? Deductively?

• Privacy Policy

Home » Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Table of Contents

Inductive and deductive research are two different approaches to conducting a research study. While they are different in their orientation and methods, they can both be used to generate new knowledge and advance scientific understanding.

Inductive Research

Inductive research is a bottom-up approach to research where a researcher starts with specific observations and data and then works to generate general principles or theories. This approach involves collecting data and analyzing it to identify patterns, themes, or categories. From these patterns, the researcher can develop theories or concepts that can explain the observations made in the data. Inductive research is often used in qualitative research, case studies, and grounded theory research.

Deductive Research

Deductive research is a top-down approach to research where a researcher starts with a theory or hypothesis and then tests it through data collection and analysis. This approach involves testing a specific hypothesis or theory and then drawing conclusions based on the results of the analysis. Deductive research is often used in quantitative research, experimental research, and survey research.

Difference between Inductive and Deductive Research

Here are some key differences between inductive and deductive research:

Both inductive and deductive research have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which to use depends on the nature of the research question, the research objectives, and the available resources. Inductive research is useful when a researcher wants to explore a new area of inquiry or when there is limited theory or previous research available, while deductive research is useful when a researcher wants to test a specific theory or hypothesis.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Exploratory Vs Explanatory Research

Basic Vs Applied Research

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Reliability Vs Validity

Longitudinal Vs Cross-Sectional Research

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Inductive vs Deductive Research Approach (with Examples)

Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning | Difference & Examples

Published on 4 May 2022 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on 10 October 2022.

The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory .

Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalisations , and deductive reasoning the other way around.

Both approaches are used in various types of research , and it’s not uncommon to combine them in one large study.

Table of contents

Inductive research approach, deductive research approach, combining inductive and deductive research, frequently asked questions about inductive vs deductive reasoning.

When there is little to no existing literature on a topic, it is common to perform inductive research because there is no theory to test. The inductive approach consists of three stages:

• A low-cost airline flight is delayed
• Dogs A and B have fleas
• Elephants depend on water to exist
• Another 20 flights from low-cost airlines are delayed
• All observed dogs have fleas
• All observed animals depend on water to exist
• Low-cost airlines always have delays
• All dogs have fleas
• All biological life depends on water to exist

Limitations of an inductive approach

A conclusion drawn on the basis of an inductive method can never be proven, but it can be invalidated.

Example You observe 1,000 flights from low-cost airlines. All of them experience a delay, which is in line with your theory. However, you can never prove that flight 1,001 will also be delayed. Still, the larger your dataset, the more reliable the conclusion.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

When conducting deductive research , you always start with a theory (the result of inductive research). Reasoning deductively means testing these theories. If there is no theory yet, you cannot conduct deductive research.

The deductive research approach consists of four stages:

• If passengers fly with a low-cost airline, then they will always experience delays
• All pet dogs in my apartment building have fleas
• All land mammals depend on water to exist
• Collect flight data of low-cost airlines
• Test all dogs in the building for fleas
• Study all land mammal species to see if they depend on water
• 5 out of 100 flights of low-cost airlines are not delayed
• 10 out of 20 dogs didn’t have fleas
• All land mammal species depend on water
• 5 out of 100 flights of low-cost airlines are not delayed = reject hypothesis
• 10 out of 20 dogs didn’t have fleas = reject hypothesis
• All land mammal species depend on water = support hypothesis

Limitations of a deductive approach

The conclusions of deductive reasoning can only be true if all the premises set in the inductive study are true and the terms are clear.

• All dogs have fleas (premise)
• Benno is a dog (premise)
• Benno has fleas (conclusion)

Many scientists conducting a larger research project begin with an inductive study (developing a theory). The inductive study is followed up with deductive research to confirm or invalidate the conclusion.

In the examples above, the conclusion (theory) of the inductive study is also used as a starting point for the deductive study.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Streefkerk, R. (2022, October 10). Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning | Difference & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/inductive-vs-deductive-reasoning/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, inductive reasoning | types, examples, explanation, what is deductive reasoning | explanation & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Inductive vs Deductive Research: Difference of Approaches

The terms “inductive” and “deductive” are often used in logic, reasoning, and science. Scientists use both inductive and deductive research methods as part of the scientific method.

Famous fictional detectives like Sherlock Holmes are often associated with deduction, even though that’s not always what Holmes does (more on that later). Some writing classes include both inductive and deductive essays.

But what’s the difference between inductive vs deductive research? The difference often lies in whether the argument proceeds from the general to the specific or the specific to the general. 

Both methods are used in different types of research, and it’s not unusual to use both in one project. In this article, we’ll describe each in simple yet defined terms.

Content Index: 

What is inductive research, stages of inductive research process, what is deductive research, stages of deductive research process, difference between inductive vs deductive research.

Inductive research is a method in which the researcher collects and analyzes data to develop theories, concepts, or hypotheses based on patterns and observations seen in the data. 

It uses a “bottom-up” method in which the researcher starts with specific observations and then moves on to more general theories or ideas. Inductive research is often used in exploratory studies or when not much research has been done on a topic before.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

The three steps of the inductive research process are:

• Observation: 

The first step of inductive research is to make detailed observations of the studied phenomenon. This can be done in many ways, such as through surveys, interviews, or direct observation.

• Pattern Recognition: 

The next step is to look at the data in detail once the data has been collected. This means looking at the data for patterns, themes, and relationships. The goal is to find insights and trends that can be used to make the first categories and ideas.

• Theory Development: 

At this stage, the researcher will start to create initial categories or concepts based on the patterns and themes from the data analysis. This means putting the data into groups based on their similarities and differences to make a framework for understanding the thing being studied.

LEARN ABOUT: Data Management Framework

These three steps are often repeated in a cycle, so the researcher can improve their analysis and understand the phenomenon over time. Inductive research aims to develop new theories and ideas based on the data rather than testing existing theories, as in deductive research.

Deductive research is a type of research in which the researcher starts with a theory, hypothesis, or generalization and then tests it through observations and data collection.

It uses a top-down method in which the researcher starts with a general idea and then tests it through specific observations. Deductive research is often used to confirm a theory or test a well-known hypothesis.

The five steps in the process of deductive research are:

• Formulation of a hypothesis: 

The first step in deductive research is to develop a hypothesis and guess how the variables are related. Most of the time, the hypothesis is built on theories or research that have already been done.

• Design of a research study: 

The next step is designing a research study to test the hypothesis. This means choosing a research method, figuring out what needs to be measured, and figuring out how to collect and look at the data.

• Collecting data: 

Once the research design is set, different methods, such as surveys, experiments, or observational studies, are used to gather data. Usually, a standard protocol is used to collect the data to ensure it is correct and consistent.

• Analysis of data: 

In this step, the collected data are looked at to see if they support or disprove the hypothesis. The goal is to see if the data supports or refutes the hypothesis. You need to use statistical methods to find patterns and links between the variables to do this.

• Drawing conclusions: 

The last step is drawing conclusions from the analysis of the data. If the hypothesis is supported, it can be used to make generalizations about the population being studied. If the hypothesis is wrong, the researcher may need to develop a new one and start the process again.

The five steps of deductive research are repeated, and researchers may need to return to earlier steps if they find new information or new ways of looking at things. In contrast to inductive research, deductive research aims to test theories or hypotheses that have already been made.

The main differences between inductive and deductive research are how the research is done, the goal, and how the data is analyzed. Inductive research is exploratory, flexible, and based on qualitative observation analysis. Deductive research, on the other hand, is about proving something and is structured and based on quantitative analysis .

Here are the main differences between inductive vs deductive research in more detail:

LEARN ABOUT: Theoretical Research

Inductive research and deductive research are two different types of research with different starting points, goals, methods, and ways of looking at the data.

Inductive research uses specific observations and patterns to come up with new theories. On the other hand, deductive research starts with a theory or hypothesis and tests it through observations.

Both approaches have advantages as well as disadvantages and can be used in different types of research depending on the question and goals.

QuestionPro is a responsive online platform for surveys and research that can be used for both inductive and deductive research. It has many tools and features to help you collect and analyze data, such as customizable survey templates, advanced survey logic, and real-time reporting.

With QuestionPro, researchers can do surveys, send them out, analyze the results, and draw conclusions that help them make decisions and learn more about their fields.

The platform has advanced data analysis and reporting tools that can be used with both qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis.

Whether researchers do inductive or deductive research, QuestionPro can help them design, run, and analyze their projects completely and powerfully. So sign up now for a free trial! 

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

The Best Email Survey Tool to Boost Your Feedback Game

May 7, 2024

Top 10 Employee Engagement Survey Tools

Top 20 Employee Engagement Software Solutions

May 3, 2024

15 Best Customer Experience Software of 2024

May 2, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Inductive and Deductive Theory in Case Studies

David takeuchi’s survey at the university of hawaii.

The case study describes a survey performed by David Takeuchi and his team in 1974 which aimed at explaining the reasons for different treatment of marijuana by the students of the University of Hawaii (Babbie, 2016). Various explanations for this issue were offered. Some said that marijuana smokers had problems with the studies; others considered that the students were looking for original values (Babbie, 2016). However, data analysis performed by Takeuchi showed that both opinions were wrong.

Takeuchi discovered that men were more likely to smoke than women; non-Asians were more likely to smoke than Asians; and students living in apartments were more inclined to smoke than those who stayed at home (Babbie, 2016).

The researchers investigated that each of the variables impacted the probability of the student’s being a marijuana smoker. For instance, eighty percent of non-Asian males staying in apartments smoked; while so did only ten percent of Asian females who stayed at home (Babbie, 2016). In this case, the analysis led to an interesting result. Rather than investigating why some students smoked, the researchers investigated why others did not. Having supposed that every student had an impulse to try marijuana, the scholars assumed that the students had various social restraints. These restrictions averted the students from being influenced by those impulses (Babbie, 2016).

As a result of the social constraint theory, Takeuchi made three reasons. According to the first one, women had more restrictions on smoking than men. According to the second, students staying at home had more restraints than those living in rented apartments. The third reasoning was concerned with the subculture: Asian students had more restrictions than non-Asian ones (Babbie, 2016.

In this case, the researchers managed to find a crucial pattern of drug use earlier than they found an explanation for that pattern. Therefore, instead of analyzing the reasons why some students were smokers, the scholars examined the reasons why others weren’t (Babbie, 2016).

Definition of Inductive Theory

The inductive theory presupposes the analysis from the investigation of knowledge to the general development of theory: “data to theory” (Cargan, 2007, p. 31). For instance, the theoretical principles of some issues are only possible after the compilation of the statistical evidence. The collected data is called “grounded theory” (Cargan, 2007, p. 31). Several common mistakes are possible when applying inductive logic: oversimplification, overgeneralization, and tautological reasoning (Cargan, 2007).

Specific Aspects of the Study that Make It Inductive

The inductiveness of the study indicated that the theory appeared as a result of data analysis. At the beginning of the research, the researchers did not think of such a theory (Babbie, 2016).

Guillermina Jasso’s Theory of Distributive Justice

The case study analyzes Guillermina Jasso’s theory of distributive justice. According to Jasso, the theory presents a mathematical explanation of the process in which people examine themselves in contrast with others based on their values (Babbie, 2016). Thus, the participants are evaluating whether they are being treated justly or unjustly.

To support the mathematical inclination of her theory, Jasso marks her key variable – the justice evaluation – as J. One of the assumptions of Jasso’s theory defines the basic axiom of comparison delineating the theory’s substantive issue of departure (Babbie, 2016). Jasso remarks that the people’s sense of receiving fair treatment results from their comparison of themselves to the others. Jasso suggests that people’s impression of distributive justice is the function of comparison holdings (C) and actual holding (A). Hence, the sense of justice is the comparison of one’s possessions to the possessions of other people. These two components are used as variables in Jasso’s study (Babbie, 2016).

The further stage where Jasso proposes a rule of measurement is necessary as some of the investigated goods are concrete and others are abstract (Babbie, 2016). The concrete goods are analyzed conventionally and the abstract ones – relatively. Therefore, the theory shall present a formula for carrying out that measurement (Babbie, 2016).

Jasso’s theorizing allows her to conclude that a person will likely steal from his/her group member than from a stranger. Here, Jasso points out that A will increase in both cases (stealing from a group member or an outsider), while C will be different.

Definition of Deductive Theory

The deductive theory is based on the “theory to data” approach (Cargan, 2007, p. 31). The theory involves reasoning from collective theoretical explanations established separately to the collected data. As a rule, deductive theories are evolved via literature research. They often begin with the reconsideration of other analyses that have examined the analogous issues. Such an approach allows combining previous achievements in the field with the current study’s outcomes. Thus, the major function of deductive theory is to present a possibility of making predictions based on past observations (Cargan, 2007).

Specific Aspects of the Study that Make It Deductive

Jasso’s derivations prove that the theory is deductive. She has tested the predictions to see whether her reasonable assumptions happen in practice.

Babbie, E. (2016). The basics of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.

Cargan, L. (2007). Doing social research . Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, September 26). Inductive and Deductive Theory in Case Studies. https://studycorgi.com/inductive-and-deductive-theory-in-case-studies/

"Inductive and Deductive Theory in Case Studies." StudyCorgi , 26 Sept. 2020, studycorgi.com/inductive-and-deductive-theory-in-case-studies/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Inductive and Deductive Theory in Case Studies'. 26 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "Inductive and Deductive Theory in Case Studies." September 26, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/inductive-and-deductive-theory-in-case-studies/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Inductive and Deductive Theory in Case Studies." September 26, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/inductive-and-deductive-theory-in-case-studies/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Inductive and Deductive Theory in Case Studies." September 26, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/inductive-and-deductive-theory-in-case-studies/.

This paper, “Inductive and Deductive Theory in Case Studies”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: September 26, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Inductive vs Deductive Research: Two Approaches to Data Analysis

Discover the world of inductive vs deductive research. Find out the difference between these two logic methods and which one is best for you!

Inductive research involves deriving generalizations from specific observations, while deductive research involves testing hypotheses based on existing theories. Inductive vs Deductive Research is a common topic in research methodology, referring to two distinct approaches to data analysis. Both methods have their unique advantages and disadvantages, and choosing the right approach can greatly impact the results of a research study. 

What is Inductive Research?

Inductive research is a research approach that involves gathering and analyzing data to develop a theory or hypothesis. In this approach, researchers begin with specific observations and data and then work toward more general theories and conclusions. This research is often used when little is known about a topic or when there is no existing theory to explain the observations being made. The goal of inductive research is to develop a theory grounded in data and use it to explain patterns or relationships in the data.

Process of Inductive Research

The process of inductive research involves the following steps:

Data collection: The first step in inductive research is to collect data. This can be done through a variety of methods, including interviews, observations, surveys, and document analysis.

Data analysis: Once the data has been collected, the next step is to analyze it. This involves identifying patterns and themes within the data. Inductive research relies heavily on qualitative data analysis methods, such as coding and thematic analysis.

Identification of themes: After analyzing the data, the researcher will begin to identify themes that emerge from the data. These themes represent patterns or commonalities within the data.

Development of theories: Once themes have been identified, the researcher will begin to develop theories or explanations for these patterns. Theories are grounded in the data and are used to explain the phenomena that have been observed.

Reporting of findings: The final step in the inductive research process is to report the findings. This can be done through a variety of formats, including academic papers, presentations, and reports. The reporting of findings should be grounded in the data and should clearly explain the theories that have been developed.

What is Deductive Research?

Deductive research is a form of research that begins with a theory or hypothesis and seeks to test its validity through the collection and analysis of data. The researcher starts with a general theory or idea and then develops specific hypotheses based on that theory. These hypotheses are then tested through the collection of data, which is analyzed to determine whether it supports or refutes the initial theory or hypotheses. Deductive research is often used in quantitative research, where data is collected through structured methods such as surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis.

Process of Deductive Research

The process of deductive research typically involves the following steps:

Formulation of a research question or hypothesis: This step involves the identification of a research question or hypothesis based on existing theory or knowledge.

Development of a research design : Once the research question or hypothesis has been formulated, the next step is to develop a research design that outlines the methods and procedures that will be used to test the hypothesis.

Data collection: This step involves the collection of data using methods that are appropriate for the research design. For example, if the research design involves a survey, then data will be collected through the use of questionnaires.

Data analysis: Once the data has been collected, the next step is to analyze it in order to test the hypothesis. This involves the use of statistical techniques and other methods of analysis to determine whether the data supports or refutes the hypothesis.

Interpretation of results: The final step in the process of deductive research involves the interpretation of the results. This involves drawing conclusions based on the analysis of the data and determining whether the hypothesis has been supported or refuted.

Pros and Cons of Inductive Research

Pros and cons of deductive research, examples of inductive and deductive research.

Examples of inductive research

• A researcher observes patterns in the behavior of a particular group of individuals and uses those patterns to develop a theory about the underlying psychological processes that drive their behavior.
• A researcher conducts a series of interviews with patients who have recovered from a particular disease and uses the information obtained to generate hypotheses about the potential causes of the disease.
• A researcher collects data on consumer behavior in a particular market and uses that data to identify trends and patterns that can inform marketing strategies.

Examples of deductive research

• A researcher formulates a hypothesis about the relationship between two variables and then tests that hypothesis through an experimental study.
• A researcher develops a theory about the impact of a particular policy on social outcomes and then collects data to evaluate whether the theory is supported by the evidence.
• A researcher uses existing theories about the causes of a particular disease to develop a set of predictions about the characteristics of individuals who are most likely to develop the disease and then tests those predictions through a survey or case-control study.

To learn more about inductive vs deductive research by watching this video on YouTube .

Running out of ideas for an infographic?

Mind the Graph is a powerful tool that helps scientists enhance the visual impact of their work and reach a wider audience. Mind the Graph ‘s user-friendly interface and intuitive tools make it easy to create and modify graphics to suit individual needs. By using the platform’s figures and templates, researchers can effectively communicate complex concepts and data to a wider audience. 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

Content tags

• Short report
• Open access
• Published: 15 September 2021

Comparing inductive and deductive analysis techniques to understand health service implementation problems: a case study of childhood vaccination barriers

• Carissa Bonner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-6460 1 ,
• Jane Tuckerman 2 ,
• Jessica Kaufman 2 ,
• Daniel Costa 3 , 4 ,
• David N. Durrheim 5 ,
• Lyndal Trevena 1 ,
• Susan Thomas 5 &
• Margie Danchin 2 , 6 , 7  

Implementation Science Communications volume  2 , Article number:  100 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

22 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Effective implementation requires a comprehensive understanding of individual, organisational and system determinants. This study aimed to compare inductive and deductive analysis techniques to understand a complex implementation issue. We used childhood vaccination as a case study, an issue with wide-ranging barriers contributing to low-vaccine uptake internationally.

The study is based on the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, which was derived from several levels of theory: the 3 components of the COM-B framework (capability, opportunity and motivation) can be mapped to the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which is based on 84 underlying constructs. We first conducted a review of systematic reviews of parent-level barriers to childhood vaccination. Subsequently we (1) inductively coded these barriers into a data-driven framework, using thematic analysis, and (2) deductively mapped the barriers to COM-B and TDF domains and constructs. These processes were undertaken by two authors independently, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Inductive and deductive results were compared.

The inductive process coded 583 descriptions of barriers identified from the literature into a framework of 74 barriers in 7 categories. The initial definitions used to map the barriers to deductive domains/constructs led to 89% agreement at the domain level. Resolving discrepancies required further definitions at the construct level. Of the 14 TDF domains, 10 were clearly identified in the data from the barrier reviews. Some domains were not specific enough to differentiate between types of barriers (e.g. Environmental Context and Resources), while other domains were not represented in the review data (e.g. Behavioural Regulation).

Conclusions

Using both inductive and deductive analysis techniques can help achieve a more comprehensive understanding of barriers to health service implementation. The inductive categories represented the review data in a clearer way than the theoretical domains, with better differentiation; but the missing deductive domains were useful as a way to identify additional issues to investigate further. Both analysis techniques resulted in a comprehensive list of barriers to vaccination that would not have been achieved using either approach alone. We recommend a hybrid approach combining TDF with broader frameworks, for future researchers conducting evidence syntheses.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

Deductive theoretical analysis techniques to understand implementation problems, such as the TDF and COM-B, may raise different issues compared to inductive data-driven analysis techniques

This paper describes a process for comparing inductive and deductive analysis techniques to understand an implementation challenge of global significance

We describe an analysis process using several levels of framework development (84 constructs underlying the 14 TDF domains, which link to the 3 COM-B components) and identify new directions to improve the specificity of theoretical behavioural constructs in future research

The paper illustrates how inductive and deductive analysis techniques synergise to produce a more comprehensive understanding of health service barriers than using either approach alone

Effective implementation of a health service programme, guideline or treatment requires understanding a wide range of system, organisational and individual determinants of uptake [ 1 ]. This may involve reviewing existing literature for well-established problems or conducting original research if the issue is new. Incorporating theoretical frameworks can ensure all possible drivers are considered [ 2 ].

The use of theoretical frameworks enables an understanding of the mechanisms of change from individual to system levels, which can then be targeted in interventions. Multiple theories are used in healthcare, from simple models of individual health behaviour change like the Theory of Planned Behaviour [ 3 ], to broader systems thinking approaches to map the complexity of policy drivers [ 4 ]. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) is one approach that attempts to bring individual and system level factors together [ 5 ], based on the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation—behaviour) framework that synthesises 14 behavioural constructs in the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) [ 6 ] into broader categories.

The TDF summarises the many overlapping constructs in the behaviour change literature and was developed through expert consensus from 128 theoretical constructs in 33 theoretical models of behaviour [ 7 ]. It provides an overview of 14 key theoretical constructs that explain health behaviour and is a descriptive framework rather than a theory of causality. A separate systematic review of 19 frameworks for behaviour change interventions led to the BCW, which aims to guide the development of interventions by connecting the determinants of behaviour with behaviour change techniques [ 5 ]. Developed in conjunction with the BCW, and at its central core, is the COM-B framework which proposes that behaviour is a product of the interaction between capability (psychological or physical), opportunity (social or physical) and motivation (automatic or reflective) [ 5 , 7 ].

The COM-B and TDF have been mapped to each other, but there is some duplication of the current 14 TDF domains across the COM-B components. Table  1 summarises this theoretical relationship.

Primary research is often used to identify barriers to implementation in different health service contexts, and this is the approach generally used with the TDF [ 7 ]. Some issues have been well researched, but this evidence must be synthesised in order to inform comprehensive intervention design [ 8 ]. Previous reviews have applied theoretical frameworks to help with this. For example, the BCW can be used to describe interventions in terms of broader functions [ 9 ], and the COM-B can be used to display barriers and facilitators at multiple levels (patient, provider, system) [ 9 ]. The TDF can be used together with the COM-B to group barriers and facilitators of health outcomes [ 10 ], or as a stand alone framework [ 11 ].

A deductive analysis technique using theory-driven constructs may identify different implementation issues compared to inductive techniques that are data-driven. A deductive application of theory ensures that all psychological constructs relevant to behaviour are considered, even if research has not identified every construct. However, since these theoretical frameworks are based heavily on psychological theory, the internal ‘motivation’ aspect is more clearly defined than the more external ‘opportunity’ aspect. This imbalance does not necessarily align with the prevalence and significance of practical issues in health service implementation, which might be defined as ‘physical opportunity’. A hybrid approach can be used to address this [ 12 , 13 ], but the extra time and expertise required need to be weighed against the potential benefits.

The aim of this paper is to compare inductive and deductive analysis techniques applied to the same implementation issue and illustrate how these processes can complement each other. We use parent uptake of childhood vaccination as an example of an international issue with wide ranging barriers identified in multiple reviews.

Theoretical approach

The study was based on the BCW framework because it incorporates both individual and system level barriers to behaviour and is based on several levels of theory: the 3 components of the COM-B framework can be mapped to the 14 domains of the TDF, which is based on 84 underlying constructs [ 5 ].

Context: The Vaccine Barriers Assessment Tool (VBAT) project

This analysis is based on data gathered for the Vaccine Barriers Assessment Tool (VBAT) project, which aims to design and validate a survey tool to diagnose the causes of under-vaccination in children under 5 years. Developed in Australia and New Zealand, VBAT aims to incorporate both access and acceptance barriers in a comprehensive tool which will include both short and long form versions, for different uses. An overview of systematic reviews of primary studies on barriers to childhood vaccination was conducted, and 583 descriptions of parental barriers to childhood vaccination uptake were extracted and inductively grouped into categories [ 14 ]. Barriers were extracted if they were reported from or relevant to the specific perspective of parents of children under 5 years; barriers from the perspective of health professionals or the health system alone were not included. The findings of the review were thematically organised into a framework of barriers. In a separate deductive process, the 583 barrier descriptions were mapped to the 14 domain version of the TDF, to check whether any theoretical determinants of childhood vaccine uptake were missing in the systematic review data. The purpose of this exercise for the VBAT project was to ensure that a comprehensive pool of potential survey questions could be generated that captured both access and psychological or acceptance barriers. The inductive review and development of the VBAT items will be reported separately (manuscript in preparation [ 15 ]). In the results of this article, we describe the utility of using both inductive inductive and deductive analysis techniques to identifying drivers of vaccination. Specific terms are used as outlined in Table  2 .

Figure  1 illustrates the inductive and deductive processes, supported by regular group meetings with all authors to discuss each step. We used the perspective of parents (not health professionals or health systems), which affected the way the deductive categories were applied. The prevalence of domains was examined to determine missing theoretical constructs in the data.

Inductive and deductive processes

Mapping inductive barriers to deductive domains

The initial definitions used to compare inductive barriers with theoretical domains/constructs led to 89% agreement at the domain level. For example, we specified that all barriers relating to the clinic setting will be under the domain of Environmental Context and Resources. Resolving disagreements for the domains and subsequent constructs required further definitions at the construct level before 100% agreement was reached. Table  3 illustrates this for the domain of Environmental Context and Resources, where we decided that issues relating to how appointment times are managed will be under the construct of Organisational culture/climate, while issues relating to inconvenient access for the parent will be under the construct of Person x Environment Interaction. The full list of definitions in available in Appendix .

Figure  2 shows the number of barriers represented in each theoretical domain. Table  4 shows the relationship between deductive COM-B components and TDF domains, and inductive barriers identified in systematic reviews of primary research. Of the 14 TDF domains, 10 were definitively present in inductive data while 4 domains were not covered in the initial coding: Optimism, Intentions, Goals and Behavioural Regulation (with the exception of two very general barriers for Intentions and Goals with no further explanation). Two domains grouped many different concepts under generic terms (Beliefs within Beliefs about Consequences, Barriers and Facilitators within Environmental Context/Resources). Of the 84 constructs within the 14 TDF domains, many were not identified in the inductive data. This is shown in yellow in Appendix .

Number of barriers in each TDF domain from inductive data-driven process

Overall, we found it useful to synthesise health service implementation barriers using both inductive and deductive analysis techniques to gain a comprehensive understanding of the barriers to childhood vaccination. The inductive data-driven categories represented the primary research data in a clearer way than the deductive theoretical domains, with better differentiation; but the four missing theoretical domains were useful as a way to identify key gaps to be addressed in the item pool for developing a new tool to diagnose the causes of childhood under-vaccination.

Resolving conflicts at the domain level was relatively straighforward, with 100% agreement reached quickly. However, there were some barriers that could have been placed in several domains. For example, previous experience of vaccine side effects could be framed as knowledge, beliefs or salient events. Resolving conflicts at the construct level was more difficult because many constructs within a domain were very similar when applied to the brief barrier descriptions extracted from reviews, for example the influence of family member opinions could fit within group identity, social norm or social pressure. The decisions made at construct level were arguably more subjective than the domain level, but both needed to be considered to make sense of many barriers that could be framed in different ways.

For this study, it was necessary to go into more theoretical detail than the commonly used frameworks: the COM-B and TDF. Importantly, the gaps identified in our inductive review would not have been found if the analysis had only been done at the COM-B level, as all six components were addressed by the 10 inductive barrier categories. In addition, the 14 TDF domains were still not specific enough for two coders to reliably map the barrier data so we were required to go back a step to the 84 theoretical constructs that informed the TDF development. We found it helpful to use a combination of domain and construct level to map the data. A previous review using the TDF identified some issues that could not be mapped to the TDF, including clinician and patient characteristics. However, some of these could be mapped at the construct level depending on the framing, such as under professional identity, skills, environment x person and resources constructs [ 16 ].

Practical implications

This paper provides analysis techniques for anyone seeking to understand an implementation issue that already has a large amount of qualitative and/or quantitative research—complementing an earlier paper that focuses on how to apply the TDF in primary qualitative research [ 7 ]. There are several practical implications for other researchers seeking to comprehensively understand implementation barriers using theoretical frameworks in this way. Firstly, researchers need to decide on very specific framing for a health situation. In our case, we decided we would only consider the parent perspective on vaccinating their child, which determined how we framed barriers relating to the doctors’ knowledge. Conducting this process from the health professional perspective would produce different results in terms of the theoretical constructs identified in the literature. We included both barriers to the intervention and barriers to implementation but other projects may need to distinguish between these. Secondly, the COM-B framework was not specific enough with uneven explanation of different barrier types, so researchers may need to go into more detail at domain and construct level to interpret the data. Thirdly, theory was useful for identifying gaps in an inductive review of literature, but inductive categories made more sense for the specific implementation topic. The value of using deductive theory-driven analysis techniques may depend on available resources, given this process took 2 authors with prior knowledge of behavioural frameworks around 2 weeks for coding and discussion. For our purposes, this review will inform the development of a diagnostic tool to measure the causes of under-vaccination, requiring us to include the widest possible range of behavioural drivers. For other projects, it may be more prudent to focus only on the theoretical drivers that are within an organisation’s control to address or to identify inductive issues from the perspective of key stakeholders to ensure their interest and support. Future questionnaire developers may benefit from reviewing existing validated survey items prior to a literature review, so that barriers can be linked to established items at the same time.

Theoretical implications

More generally, this study has implications for theoretical frameworks commonly used in implementation science. Some constructs are vague and became catch alls, such as barriers and facilitators. Others are too specific and hard to distinguish, particularly group vs social norms, which could be combined into one category. In our experience, the decision was often between constructs in different domains, rather than constructs within a domain, suggesting that there are some issues with the way the TDF domains are differentiated. On the other hand, the construct level was often too subjective and detailed to identify clear gaps in data. This suggests that overarching frameworks like the COM-B and TDF need to be supplemented with more context-specific frameworks for different health areas (e.g. prevention versus treatment of infectious disease), targets of behaviour change (e.g. parents versus doctors), and the context (e.g. higher resource settings where psychological barriers may be more important, versus lower resource settings where practical access issues require greater differentiation). Another option would be to use broad implementation frameworks that include practical issues like cost, such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [ 17 ]. Other researchers have found it helpful to combine the TDF and CFIR for a more comprehensive approach [ 1 ]. A third option would be to add more specific domains to the next version of the TDF to better differentiate between issues relating to ‘Environmental Context and Resources’. In our review, this covered a very wide range of issues: socio-economic issues such as having low income, societal issues like the influence of media, health system issues like vaccine supply and cost, and individual access issues like distance and time. This was found to be a catch all category in many previous reviews of clinicians and patients using the TDF [ 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ], so is not limited to the issue of vaccination barriers. For example, a review of barriers to low back pain guidelines found this domain was common to 4/5 clinician behaviours while many other domains were not covered at all [ 20 ]. Another review on diabetic screening identified 17 barriers in this domain versus 6 for the next most common domain [ 18 ]. Further development of this construct may need to be specific to different health topics.

For the purpose of the VBAT study, we aimed to identify the widest possible range of behavioural barriers documented in the literature, not the relationships between them, so a framework approach was appropriate. We framed all concepts as ‘barriers’ by reversing concepts framed as facilitators where required, for consistency. VBAT will be used to identify the presence of key access and/or acceptance barriers in specific populations. Once identified, the key barriers would require more specific models or theories to guide intervention development, which may frame the same construct as either facilitator or barrier.

Strengths and limitations

This study involved independent coding for both inductive and deductive analysis techniques. Our team included a wide variety of expertise to help contextual framing for theoretical constructs as applied to inductive barriers. The limitations include restricting our review data to parent barriers only, which affected the way that health professionals’ and heatlh system barriers were conceptualised. We also applied only one overarching framework based on behaviour change models and acknowledge that there are many other approaches to this theoretical issue.

In conclusion, using both inductive and deductive analysis techniques can help achieve a more comprehensive understanding of health service implementation problems, but the TDF approach needs to be refined in the context of vaccination. We recommend a hybrid approach combining TDF with frameworks such as CFIR, for future researchers conducting evidence syntheses using a theoretical approach. The process is subjective so requires a wide range of expertise to reduce biased interpretation and to maximise utility of the identified barriers for the specified purpose.

Availability of data and materials

Data available on request from Carissa Bonner ( [email protected] ).

Abbreviations

Behaviour Change Wheel

Theoretical Domains Framework

Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour Model

Vaccine Barriers Assessment Tool

Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Birken SA, Powell BJ, Presseau J, Kirk MA, Lorencatto F, Gould NJ, et al. Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0534-z .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. London: Silverback Publishing; 2014. www.behaviourchangewheel.com .

Sniehotta FF, Presseau J, Araújo-Soares V. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.869710 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McLeroy K. Thinking of systems. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(3):402. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.084459 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 .

Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-37 .

Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9 .

Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T, et al. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):114. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-114 .

McDonagh LK, Saunders JM, Cassell J, et al. Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0821-y .

Article   Google Scholar  

Göstemeyer G, Baker SR, Schwendicke F. Barriers and facilitators for provision of oral health care in dependent older people: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(3):979–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02812-4 .

Craig LE, McInnes E, Taylor N, Grimley R, Cadilhac DA, Considine J, et al. Identifying the barriers and enablers for a triage, treatment, and transfer clinical intervention to manage acute stroke patients in the emergency department: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0524-1 .

Fereday J, Adelaide N, Australia S, Eimear M-CA. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(1):80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107 .

Xu W, Zammit K. Applying thematic analysis to education: a hybrid approach to interpreting data in practitioner research. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920918810 .

Kaufman J, Tuckerman J, Durrheim D, et al. Barriers to uptake of childhood vaccination: protocol for a review of systematic reviews; 2019. https://doi.org/10.26188/5DEF2F21A87CE .

Book   Google Scholar  

Kaufman J, Tuckerman J, Bonner C, Durrheim D, Costa D, Trevena L, et al. Vaccine Barriers Assessment Tool: a global overview of childhood vaccine uptake barriers, Short Oral Presentation, 17th National Immunisation Conference. Perth: Public Health Association of Australia; 2021.

Thompson W, Tonkin-Crine S, Pavitt SH, McEachan RRC, Douglas GVA, Aggarwal VR, et al. Factors associated with antibiotic prescribing for adults with acute conditions: an umbrella review across primary care and a systematic review focusing on primary dental care. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(8):2139–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkz152 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 .

Graham-Rowe E, Lorencatto F, Lawrenson JG, Burr JM, Grimshaw JM, Ivers NM, et al. Barriers to and enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: a systematic review of published and grey literature. Diabet Med. 2018;35(10):1308–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13686 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Atkins L, Sallis A, Chadborn T, Shaw K, Schneider A, Hopkins S, et al. Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators and strategic behavioural analysis of interventions. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01001-2 .

Hall AM, Scurrey SR, Pike AE, et al. Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based recommendations for low back pain in clinical practice: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0884-4 .

Staniford LJ, Schmidtke KA. A systematic review of hand-hygiene and environmental-disinfection interventions in settings with children. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8301-0 .

Spiteri K, Broom D, Bekhet AH, de Caro JX, Laventure B, Grafton K. Barriers and motivators of physical activity participation in middle-aged and older adults—a systematic review. J Aging Phys Act. 2019;27(6):929–44 https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0343 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Fajardo for assistance with searching for the original systematic review, and Carys Batcup for assistance finding other reviews that have used the COM-B and TDF frameworks and managing references.

The project was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council grant from the Australian government (NHMRC Project Grant #1164200).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Carissa Bonner & Lyndal Trevena

Vaccine Uptake Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia

Jane Tuckerman, Jessica Kaufman & Margie Danchin

School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Daniel Costa

Pain Management Research Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia

School of Medicine and Public Heatlh, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

David N. Durrheim & Susan Thomas

Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Margie Danchin

Department of General Medicine, Royal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CB conceived/designed the study, conducted the analysis, and drafted the paper. JT and JK conducted the analysis and were major contributors in writing the manuscript. DC, DD, LT, ST and MD contributed to group discussions to design the analysis approach and interpret the results and revised the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript and are accountable for the work.

Authors’ information

Not applicable

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carissa Bonner .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was not required for this secondary analysis of published reviews.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no comepting interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bonner, C., Tuckerman, J., Kaufman, J. et al. Comparing inductive and deductive analysis techniques to understand health service implementation problems: a case study of childhood vaccination barriers. Implement Sci Commun 2 , 100 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00202-0

Download citation

Received : 14 March 2021

Accepted : 25 August 2021

Published : 15 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00202-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Implementation
• Childhood vaccination

Implementation Science Communications

ISSN: 2662-2211

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Inductive and/or Deductive Research Designs

• First Online: 27 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Md. Shahidul Haque 4  

2885 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter aims to introduce the readers, especially the Bangladeshi undergraduate and postgraduate students to some fundamental considerations of inductive and deductive research designs. The deductive approach refers to testing a theory, where the researcher builds up a theory or hypotheses and plans a research stratagem to examine the formulated theory. On the contrary, the inductive approach intends to construct a theory, where the researcher begins by gathering data to establish a theory. In the beginning, a researcher must clarify which approach he/she will follow in his/her research work. The chapter discusses basic concepts, characteristics, steps and examples of inductive and deductive research designs. Here, also a comparison between inductive and deductive research designs is shown. It concludes with a look at how both inductive and deductive designs are used comprehensively to constitute a clearer image of research work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Beiske, B. (2007). Research methods: Uses and limitations of questionnaires, interviews and case studies . GRIN Verlag.

Google Scholar  

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices (2nd ed.). Global Text Project.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multi method research: A synthesis of styles . Sage Publications Ltd.

Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2003). Understanding nursing research (3rd ed.). Saunders.

Cambridge Dictionary. (2016a). Hypothesis. In Dictionary.cambridge.org . Retrieved October, 15, 2016, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypothesis .

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13 , 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593

Article   Google Scholar  

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications Inc.

Crowther, D., & Lancaster, G. (2009). Research methods: A concise introduction to research in management and business . Butterworth-Heinemann.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction . Sage Publications Ltd.

Engel, R. J., & Schutt, R. K. (2005). The practice of research in social work . Sage Publications Inc.

Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2010). Research Methods for Managers (4th ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.

Goddard, W., & Melville, S. (2004). Research methodology: An introduction (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.

Godfrey, J., Hodgson, A., Tarca, A., Hamilton, J., & Holmes, S. (2010). Accounting theory (7th ed). Wiley. ISBN: 978-0-470-81815-2.

Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing research in the real world . Sage Publications Ltd.

Hackley, C. (2003). Doing research projects in marketing, management and consumer research . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice . John Wiley & Sons.

Merriam-Webster. (2016a). Inductive. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . Retrieved October 12, 2016a, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inductive .

Merriam-Webster. (2016b). Deductive. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . Retrieved October 12, 2016b, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deductive .

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544304533

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Allyn and Bacon.

Oxford Dictionary. (2016a). Inductive. In Oxford online dictionary . Retrieved October 15, 2016a, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/inductive .

Oxford Dictionary. (2016b). Deductive. In Oxford online dictionary . Retrieved October 15, 2016b, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deductive .

Oxford Dictionary. (2016c). Theory. In Oxford online dictionary . Retrieved October 15, 2016c, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theory .

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49 (2), 261–272.

Singh, K. (2006). Fundamental of research methodology and statistics. New Age International (P) Limited.

Snieder, R., & Larner, K. (2009). The art of being a scientist: A guide for graduate students and their mentors . Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Research methods knowledge base. Retrieved on October 12, 2016, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net .

Wilson, J. (2010). Essentials of business research: A guide to doing your research project . Sage Publishers Ltd.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Work, Jagannath University, Dhaka, 1100, Bangladesh

Md. Shahidul Haque

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md. Shahidul Haque .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for Family and Child Studies, Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

M. Rezaul Islam

Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Niaz Ahmed Khan

Department of Social Work, School of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Rajendra Baikady

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Haque, M.S. (2022). Inductive and/or Deductive Research Designs. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_5

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5219-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5441-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Dr Deborah Gabriel

Inductive and deductive approaches to research

The main difference between inductive and deductive approaches to research is that whilst a deductive approach is aimed and testing theory, an inductive approach is concerned with the generation of new theory emerging from the data.

A deductive approach usually begins with a hypothesis, whilst an inductive approach will usually use research questions to narrow the scope of the study.

For deductive approaches the emphasis is generally on causality, whilst for inductive approaches the aim is usually focused on exploring new phenomena or looking at previously researched phenomena from a different perspective.

Inductive approaches are generally associated with qualitative research, whilst deductive approaches are more commonly associated with quantitative research. However, there are no set rules and some qualitative studies may have a deductive orientation.

One specific inductive approach that is frequently referred to in research literature is grounded theory, pioneered by Glaser and Strauss.

This approach necessitates the researcher beginning with a completely open mind without any preconceived ideas of what will be found. The aim is to generate a new theory based on the data.

Once the data analysis has been completed the researcher must examine existing theories in order to position their new theory within the discipline.

Grounded theory is not an approach to be used lightly. It requires extensive and repeated sifting through the data and analysing and re-analysing multiple times in order to identify new theory. It is an approach best suited to research projects where there the phenomena to be investigated has not been previously explored.

The most important point to bear in mind when considering whether to use an inductive or deductive approach is firstly the purpose of your research; and secondly the methods that are best suited to either test a hypothesis, explore a new or emerging area within the discipline, or to answer specific research questions.

Citing This Article

Gabriel, D. (2013). Inductive and deductive approaches to research.  Accessed on ‘date’   from https://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-research/

Gabriel, D., 2013. Inductive and deductive approaches to research.  Accessed on ‘date’  from https://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-research/

You May Also Like

How to write a literature review

Whether you are writing a 2000-word literature review for an undergraduate dissertation or something closer to 10,000-words for a PhD thesis, the process is the same.

Using Conceptual Frameworks in Qualitative Research

I recently delivered this presentation to final year undergraduate students about to embark on their dissertation projects.

Qualitative data analysis

The most important task that you will undertake in your PhD research project is the analysis of data. The integrity and rigour of your research is utterly dependent on getting the analysis right and it will be intensely scrutinised by the external examiners.

200 thoughts on “ Inductive and deductive approaches to research ”

• Pingback: Methods and methodology | Deborah Gabriel
• Pingback: PhD research: qualitative data analysis | Deborah Gabriel

Hi, yes the explanation was helpful because it was simple to read and pretty much, straight to the point. It has given me a brief understanding for what I needs. Thanks — Chantal

It was very supportive for me!! thank you!!

thank you so much for the information. it was simple to read and also brief concise and straight to the point. thank you.

Deborah, thanks for this elaboration. but I am asking is it possible to conduct a deductive inclined research and also generate a theory, or add to the theory. I have been asked by my supervisor whether I am just testing hypothesi or my aim is to contribute/generate a theory. my studies is more of a quantitative nature. Thanks

Deductive research is more aimed towards testing a hypothesis and therefore is an approach more suited to working with quantitative data. The process normally involves reproducing a previous study and seeing if the same results are produced. This does not lend itself to generating new theories since that is not the object of the research. Between inductive and deductive approaches there is also a third approach which I will write a post on shortly – abdductive.

Dear Deborah, it has been very long time since you posted this article. However, I can testify that it is very helpful for a novis reseracher like me. 

Ms. Deborah, thank you for given info, but i was in confusion reg, differences between deductive, inductive, abductive and (new one) Hypothetico-deductive approaches. Can it be possible to email the differences, its applications, tools used and scientific nature, to build a theory using quantitative survey method. My email Id is: [email protected] Iam writing my PhD thesis based on this . it is part of my 3 chapter. Thanking you awaiting for your mail soon.

Hi Madhu. As a PhD student you need to take the time to read the appropriate literature on research approaches and attend workshops/conferences to better understand methodology. You cannot take short cuts by by asking someone (me) to simply provide you with ready answers to your queries – especially when I do not have the time to do so!

Great saying…every student at every level, should be critical analysts and critical thinkers.

Thank u.. but there is a little mistake which is deductive approach deals with qualitative and inductive appoech deals with quantitative

No – you have it the wrong way round – I suggest you read the article again and also engage in wider reading on research methods to gain a deeper understanding.

A clear cut concept with example.

Deborah I appreciate so much in this article…I got what I am looking for… thanks for your contribution.

Thanks so much

It is simple, easy to differentiate and understandable.

Thank u for the information, it really helps me.

Exactly, your work is simple and clear, that there are two research approaches, Inductive and deductive.Qualitative and Quantative approaches You gave clear differences in a balance, simple to understand, I suppose you are a teacher by profession.   This is how we share knowledge,and you become more knowledgable

Thank you Lambawi, I am glad that these posts are proving useful. I will endeavour to add some more in the coming weeks!

This has been helpful. thanks for posting

Thank you very much for sharing knowledge with me. It really much helpful while preparing my college exam. Thank –:)

Thank you ever so much for making it simple and easily understandable. Would love to see more posts.

Best wishes

The explanation is simple and easy to understand it has helped to a lot thank you

very helpful and explained simply. thanks

Explanation is simple…. it was a great help for my exam preparation.

Excellent presentation please!

Very helpful information and a clear, simple explanation. Thank you

Thanks; this has been helpful in preparation for my forthcoming exams

This is fantastic, I have greatly beneffitted from this straight forward illustration

Thanks…i will benifited to read this

Thanks for your help. Keep it like that so that will be our guide towards our destinations.

Thank-you for your academic insights.

Thank you for your clarification. Well understood.

Hi, I had a question would you call process tracing technique an inductive or deductive approach? or maybe both? Hope you can help me with the same.

Hi Achin. Process tracing is a qualitative analytical tool and therefore inductive rather than deductive, since its purpose is to identify new phenomena. You might find this journal article useful:

http://www.ukcds.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/Understanding-Process-Tracing.pdf

Preparing for my Research Methods exams and I'm grateful for your explanations. This is a full lecture made simple. Thank you very much.

I am very thankful for this information, madam you are just good. If you are believer, allow me to say, May God bless you with more knowledge and good health.

Hi Rasol, glad that the post was useful and  – yes – I am a believer so thank you for the blessing!

Dear Deborah 

I am currently doing Btech in forensic with Unisa would you be so kind and help with this question below and may I use your services while Iam doing this degree Please 

Hi I have question that goes like these "If the reseacher wanted to conduct reseach in a specific context to see whether it supports an establisblished theory" the reseacher would be conducting 

1. case study 

2. deductive research 

3. exploratory resarch 

4. inductive methods 

please help me to choose the right one 

Yours Faithfully 

Baba Temba 

Deductive, which is not exploratory but designed to test a hypothesis. So this is unlike to be case study research but a quantitative study.

Hi Deborah, I have been struggling with my research methods proposal, in finding the right methodology for my study.  This is the only explanation out of all the books that I have read which really enables me to truly understand the meaning of Grounded Theory for which you describe as an inductive.  I just would like to say thank you for your explanation as this has helped me in a way, which I thought I would never get.  Thank you Destini 

You are most welcome!

Very useful piece of information. Thank you!  

Very impressing work, may god bless you with more mighty knowledge.

In fact this has been very usefull information for me in my research,. It's very clear and easy to understand looking at the choice of language ,etc God bless you!!

Hi Ms Deborah Gabriel, I am from the backward area of Pakistan, which is known as “North Waziristan”. Unfortunately famous for terrorism, as from that background, you can understand the weakness of my educational background. I am struggling for MBA degree, and I was searching for Deductive and Inductive approaches, and then I found your best explained article here, already praised by many people. I will just add this “Thank you, May GOD Bless You” I will be highly honoured if you would like to contact me on my email. My email is [email protected] Thanking you for your time and efforts.

Is it possible to use deductive approach in research concerning what has happened in an industry?

If you are seeking to test a hypothesis then yes. 

Thank you very much this information has been extremely helpful. I can now progress with my dissertation. 

Thanks for that good work Deborah. It has taken me quite a short time to read and understand. Kindly please help me understand what am required to write in this case where my teacher gave me this question: "Explain the process of deduction and induction research approaches".

Please refer to the recommended reading:  https://deborahgabriel.com/recommended-reading/

Many thanks to you, I really appreciate u on ur information provided basically on theories and approaches to understanding research.

Thank you very much.

Good work Deborah.

Thank you so much!! The distinction between the two approaches is clear and concise. Most other websites tend to go into long discussions without really getting to the point. This was very helpful. 

Thank you , useful explanation

It is a very fruitful post. I would like to ask if the objective of my research is to develop an extended process from the existing processes. And I am going to use qualitative and quantitative research methods, because my research phenomenon requires to study the individual meanings and perceptions and then uses the findings from the qualitative study and also the theoretical study as inputs for the quantitative study. Finally, I will use the findings of the theoretical study and the quantitative study in developing the extended process. So, which approach to follow in this case?

Dear Tamer, Your question is too hypothetical for me to offer a response. But in any event, you are the only one who can decide whether an inductive or deductive approach is appropriate for your research project. This is where methodology comes in – which is about determining what research methods will be most effective in answering your research questions and which are in sync with your approach (e.g. critical, feminist etc). 

my dissertation is in the same situation. and I also feel struggle to choose my research approach. I guess its a combination of inductive and deductive. using the deductive approach to test what was found in the literature, and use an inductive approach to examine the themes that emerged from qualitative data.

Thanks much! 

What do you think about the approach with quantitative analyses that start with data to generate theories? Typically data mining techniques fit into my example. 

This is a question of methodology – research methods must be selected based on the discipline, research questions and approach to the study. For example, If you are seeking to ascertain how many people read the news on their smartphones then a quantitiative method is most appropriate. On the other hand. if you are seeking to delve into why  some people read the news on their smartphones, then clearly a qualitative method is required.

Awesome response, I was looking at the same thing in my postgraduate class.

What if I’m using secondary sources? Which would be more appropriate qualitative or quantitative?

The question of inductive or deductive approaches arise only in relation to ‘primary’ research – that is when you are undertaking your own study. In your own study, secondary sources would appear under a Literature Review. However, if you are doing a dissertation, say for an undergraduate degree where you are not undertaking primary research then inductive or deductive approaches are not applicable. I hope this clarifies.

Your comments are really good and easy to understand. Hope to contact you for my project. keep up the good work. thank you

The last paragraph stated ‘The most important point to bear in mind when considering whether to use an inductive or deductive approach is firstly the purpose of your research; and secondly the methods that are best suited to either test a hypothesis, explore a new or emerging area within the discipline, or to answer specific research questions. However my question is if my research is about answering specific research questions in a qualitative research. Am I to use the inductive or the deductive or the mixture of the two?

Hi Ola, if your research questions are qualitatively focused – that is seeking to find out the whys and the hows as opposed to ‘what’ and ‘how many’ then certainly an inductive approach is most appropriate. This is because inductive aims to find new theories emerging from the data whereas deductive is centred on testing a hypothesis rather than exploring research questions.

Thank u so much.it was difficult for me to understand but with ur help the job is complete

Points of distinction top notch. Absolutely fantastic. Straight to the point. Was really helpful. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the inforation Deborah. It was  useful

Thank you so much, this was something I was never able to grasp so well! I found this site while searching the difference between the two on Google. I am a PHD Scholar, now it seems I will be visiting this site frequently and seeking your help 🙂

Hi Deborah. Thank you for the input.It clearly exemplifies the difference. In your response to one of the questions, you have highlighted a lot of 'what'  will qualify the research as quantitative. I have developed 4 research questions, 3 are on 'what's and 1 'why'. The what is because my sample of analysis is multimodal text. Will my study still fall under qualitative? Thank you in advance, Deborah. I appreciate it very much. 

Hi Zilla, It is hard to provide a definitive answer without knowing what your research questions are (although time does not permit me to provide individual responses). So I will reiterate that the question of whether to adopt an inductive or deductive approach to a research project is relevant for ‘primary’ research – that is, research that you undertake yourself. Factors that influence your decision should rest on whether you are seeking to explore the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of human experience, generating new levels or understanding or simply wish to test a hypothesis or use a large sample in order to generalise results to the wider population. You say that your sample is multimodal text – that is simply text plus media such as videos, pictures etc. My question to you is whether this multimodal text has been generated from primary research – i.e interviews you conducted, photos you took and/or videos that you filmed of research subjects? If that is the case then I would presume that this would be a qualitative research project that would lend itself to an inductive approach,since I cannot imagine that you would be able to work with a very large sample of multimodal text. If the multimodal text is not generated from your own primary resesarch then this is secondary research that might be included in your literature review but would fall outside the scope of your analysis.

Dear Deborah I just want to ask you to help me with generation of theory. Steps that need to be followed

Mongwai Michael

Thanks a lot for showing me the best way to understand the basic difference between two approaches of research.

Dear Aliyu, time does not permit me to provide responses on your individual projects. Therefore, my aim is to equip you with the understanding of different approaches so that you have both the confidence and competence to make appropriate decisions on the most suitable methodological approaches to your research.

Beautiful stuff you are giving us Deborah.

Deborah, thank you so much for your explanation, I'm clear now.

I am gathering quantitative data to develop a model to represent the behavior of a material using an existing model. I subsequently used this model to simulate the material behavior with a computer program. this is a reversal approach to previour reaeasch in these area. usually the computer simulation is used to obtain quantitative data without experiment. Could you please kindly let me know what is my reasearch method Thanks

Please see my response to Aliyu on 8 November.

Dr, your explanation about inductive research and deductive, is meaningful to postgraduate students. What is your suggestion on my research topic: use of handset by primary six pupils for games, rather for home works and readings, what is the research approach that will be suitable?

Very brief and well explained. Thank you Deborah.

Thank you Dr. Gabriel, good informationl; will come back. 

It has actually helped – a similar question was asked last year in my schools,that prompted me to search for it while preparing for my exam. Today the same question appeared and I used your explanation as my response to the question. Thanks.

Hi Deborah, your explanations are comprehensible. I understand this topic thanks to you. May I ask you question? What are  the similarities between inductive and deductive reasoning?

That’s like asking what the similarities are between quantitative and qualitative research! Focus on what your research objectives are and then choose the approach that will be most efefctive in meeting these objectives. 

Thanks so much Have got what I really want here

Enlightening facts. Thank you.

Thanks Deborah for the explanation but, i want to ask if descriptive is inductive or deductive approach? God bless you

it is really good explanation

Can I ask one question? I am going to research how technology is changing the hotel industry particularly at the hotel front desk so is that inductive or deductive approach? I believe deductive approach because the aim of my research is to investigate current used technology at hotel front desk. So what do you think please let me know Thank you very much indeed.

Please refer to my post on conceptual frameworks to take you through the key steps in developing a research project – you will find your answer there:  https://deborahgabriel.com/2015/02/14/using-conceptual-frameworks-in-qualitative-research/ 

The information provide is quite helpful, thanks after all….

I was confused about these approaches but your information has helped me a lot – reasonable and authentic.

I've got the answers,thx.

It is very clear and concise.

Thank you, it was right on point.

Thank you, I used this solution for my assignment.

Thank you so much Deborah. I am currently doing my dissertation and most of my lecturers have recommeded us to use Research Methods for Business Students by Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill. I have found the book very hard to understand especially when I'm wrtiting up the methodology section as I have to talk about deductive and inductive approaches.  You have simplified it and explained it well. Also you have made it so so easy to understand. Everyone should be reading this. Thank you so so, so much.

You’re very welcome. Good luck with your dissertation!

Thank you D now I am aware of these two!

I found it so easy to understand the difference between deductive theory and inductive- it's so helpful. Many Thanks. 

Deborah, your work is precise,well organized and relevant.Thank you very much.

Thanks for the explanation, it has cleared my doubts. 

Thanks Dr. Deb, I am satisfied – it was really useful.

Hi Doc, thank you for making things simpler for me. I will always be incontact with your website. Stay forever blessed. 

Thank you for the information. It really helps me.

Hi Deborah, i just went through the abductive approach which is combination of inductive and deductive Approach. I found it a little confusing when I tried to know by my own from e sources. But after going through the conversation in this page helped me a lot. Thank u very much. If u can share your email I can share my report made for my pre PhD comprehensive viva. My profession is teaching and my area of research is International HRM. Title is Knowledge and Learning Model among effective repatriation . If anybody is doing reserach in the same area, plse feel free to reach me at [email protected]. Thank u all again

Thx for the information.

Hi Deborah Thank you very much for the article. it is informative. My question is what approach am i supposed to take if i am doing a research that is both qualitative and quantitative. I am doing research on the feasibility of establishing renewable energy systems in a developing country. I am using a simulation software to generate a model to analyse the technical and economic data (Quantitative) but i have to use interviews to capture social and polical views from industry experts (Qualitative). So which approach is best in such a scenario? Thank you

In a mixed methods study, the quanitiative dimension of the study usually functions to capture preliminary data, with the qualitative dimension being the primary method that answers the research questions. In any case, in a mixed methods study you must peform both quantitative and qualitative data analysis – separately. In reference to your specifc study you need to refer back to your reearch questions and the aims and objectives of your study. Is your primary objective to develop a model for a renewable energy system or is it to determine whether industry experts see the viability of the model? If it is the latter then the approach should be inductive. I would advise you to consult your supervisor or someone in your discipline, as I am not an engineer.

Very informative.

Your explaination of inductive & deductive approaches to research is clear to understand. 

Your explanation of concepts is succint and easily conceivable. Helpful.

Thank you so much Deborah. I am currently writing my research on resource curse theory and I will like to have your private mail for private discussions. Thank you

No problem – you can use the contact form and your message will go directly to my email address.

Thanks for differentiating the two in easy and pragmetic manner.

Thank you Deborah, that was a simple, clear explanation helpful for sure.

I like the way you simplified everything,was really helpful for my assignment. Please how do I reference this work? Thank you

Reference it as an online source:

Gabriel,D.(2013). Inductive and deductive approaches to research. Avaolable from: https://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-research/  

Thank you Deborah, this is very helpful to me and others.

Great insight, simple and clear; I now get the difference thanks for sharing.

Thanks for the very good explanation and comparison.

A very simple and straightforward guidance to students. 

Hi Debrah , It is really interesting to get valuable points from your statments about deductive reasoning. However it seems short . It will be helpful for us if you write more. Thanks

Dear Almaz, thank you for your feedback. The post was only intended to provide a brief overview of the subject – to better understand inductive and deductive approaches to research I strongly recommend immersing yourself in the available literature. 

Perhaps, you can suggest 1 or 2 widely cited scholars (to read) that argue that deductive approaches can also be used in a qualitative methodology which is interpretive/subjective in nature.

Thank you once again!

You are definitely on point.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much Deborah.

Such inspiring work.

Your literature is helping us a lot here at the Ivory Tower Makerere University Kampala Uganda.

I am glad to hear that. What are you studying?

Hi Deborah. I am Iftikhar from United Arab Emirates (UAE).  I am conducting a research on learning preferences of Generation Z youth, and one of my research questions is "What are the learning preferences of UAE Gen Z youth and how matching of L&D program delivery with these learning preferences affect Gen Z interest in organizational L&D programs?"  Now as for existing literature, a lot has already been written on this but in the West; there is practically no formal research literature available on this topic in UAE.  Therefore, I am taking the Western literature outcomes and applying these in UAE context to see the results. My questions are: a. Will this research be treated as "Deductive' or "Inductive"? b.  Should I choose 'Quantitative" or "Qualitative' approach? Wishing you all the best.  

Thanks Deborah. but I'm confused. You said deductive approach is used in quantitative research and it test a theory and inductive approach is used in qualitative research to generate a theory. So what is grounded theory?

Thanks a lot for such a good explanation, Deborah!

Thank you very much. It was simple to understand.

Lovely….this was very helpful…simple and straightforward. 

Thanks. It is so useful. Best Regards.

This has been troubling me for a while. It is often said that the interpretive paradigm typically goes with inductive approaches and methods involving observation, interviews and research into archives. But then if concepts are to emerge from the data without theoretical preconceptions, how come it is often said that the research design, choice of case studies, and initial coding in thematic analysis can be theory driven? Wouldn’t that make the approach deductive (i.e. about testing theory). Or, how does theory coming before the research design fit with an inductive approach? In my experience so far authors seem to evade this point.

HALLO D! I REALLY LIKE YOUR WORK IT REALLY HELPED ME IN MY RESEARCH.

Thank You so very much Deborah. I really got to uncover what puzzled me on deductive versus inductive approaches.

Thanks Dr.Gabriel. It was very simple and useful. Now I understood the differecne b/w deductive and inductive method.  

Thanx for sharing with us. It is very useful for my dissertation.  Your topic clarifies the difference between inductive and deductive research.

Hi Dr.Gabriel, I am doing a research to apply a theory into service industry which is more commonly practiced in manufacturing industry ( known as Lean approach), my aim is to apply this approach into banking operation, the objective is to find the elements/processes in the bank operation that actually increase the cost or decrease the service quality. If I want to conduct a research to find those elements in a bank operation. should I use Inductive approach? what is your advise?  Thanks 

Hi Deborah, Thank you for a great article! It made it very clear the differenece between deductive and inductive.  I'd like to ask you the following: – Is possible to have inductive study with hypotheses and use semi-structured interviews to answer these hypotheses and research questions?   thank you very much for your reply!   Alina

Hi Alina, I’m glad my post has been useful for you. In answer to your question, I think maybe you are confusing research questions with hypotheses. Research questions guide the overall study and ensure that when designing interview questions – they are structured in the most effective way to elicit responses that address the research questions. Hypotheses are linked to deductive studies where researchers aim to test presumptions/predictions about phenomenon – this is not the same as research questions.

Hi Deborah Thanks for an intersting piece of work presented. Am kindly inquiring how i can get along with literature review and conceptual framemework on the topic 'IDPs and Solid Waste Management' and objectives; exploring everyday practice around solid waste management; finding out how social networks move and merge into new spaces for waste management and establish connections between waste management and social lfestyle. Thanks Hakimu

Hi Deborah thank you for a great article . I have a question for you I am doing my research work and I have some issue about theory construction. Basically I am a beginner in social research – I have no idea about constructing new theory. Please let me know about theory construction and what is a procedure  – how can I construct theory and also about steps of this method? I hope you will understand my words. Thank you.

Dear Amna, Welcome to the world of research – we all have to start somewhere! If you're new to social research I would recommend you join the Social Research Association (SRA) who provide training and a wealth of resources for researchers. With regards to theory – unless you are researching new phenomena that has never been researched before or are developing a completely new approach (unlikely) you will not be creating 'new' theory with your research project. You will be using existing theory in your approach and embed theoretical perspectives into your methodology. You will also likely use relevant theories when analysing your data. However, before you think about theory you need to develop your methodology – see my other post: methods and methodology .

Thanks so much. This post was very helpful and easy to understand!

Hi Deborah, Thank you for the precise and helpful information .. I need your help as I feel a little bit confused. i am doing a case study of airline corporate image. it is the newest crisis scenario in my country related to our regional carrier. I think, i among the pioneers doing the case study research for this airline company. I used the conceptual framework from other previous conducted study. It was conducted in quantitative manner. If i used the conceptual framework as my guidance for my literature review and interview question construction, is that okay if i do not use inductive for the case study because i do not build a new theory. If i just compare and argue with the previous finding and the model used, is it consider as deductive approach in case study? Based on my reading, i found some researchers used deductive approach in their case study. they tested the hypotheses..but i just compare my finding with the model used from the previous research. For your information, i did documentation, direct observation and interview (trigulation) with ex-passengers and aviation expert. What do you think? .Please help me..i am stuck. Thank you

Thank you Doctor, it’s straightforward valuable piece of knowledge. It may require a little bit of referencing. Furthermore, adding citation line below will be useful for academic use.

Thank you very much!

Thank you for a crisp and nice post. It helped me.

I am very beginner in research, and its really very helpful.

Thanks writer,

Thank you very much…

wow wow wow great work Deborah. I now have a clear insight of the differences,,,, kudos!

Thank you …it’s helpful for me.

Good job.It helped me to find the question’s answer in my mid-term. Thenk you.

My study is ethnographic research specifically it studies about culture, tradition and lifestyle of an ethnic groups. I think my research is inductive, is it right?

Thank you, I feel same as most the above commentators. Very well written – written in a way that I (who for the first time heard of these two types of researcher methods,) felt like I got a gist of what they are and how they are different.

Thanks Deborah G! Your articles have helped me a lot.

your article is simple to understand and please keep it up thanks.

Hi, It is really helpful me to get sorted these concepts in research field in simple manner.Thanks for that and really appreciate it.

Very clear explanation about inductive and deductive appraoches in research. I like it.

I appreciate your clear and precise explanations, thank you.

Thanks for this, it’s clear, concise and easy to understand – very helpful.

That was just perfect. I have been reading about these methods from my course book offered by university for 3 days but I couldn’t understand their differences. Now it is completely clear. Thanks a lot.

Is that possible to have both in our research? I mean, what if we choose an inductive approach and then when we go forward make some assumptions to answer research questions?

If you are undertaking inductive research then you don’t make any assumptions as you are looking for micro theories to emerge from your analysis of the data. You cannot start with inductive and then switch to deductive – it must be one or the other. You don’t make assumptions to answer research questions – you analyse the findings to do that.

It is precise and clear. Thanks

Great work and explanation and also the researcher herself is very energetic and motivated to help others… world is because of people like you. thanks

Dear madam, I’m a undergraduate studying engineering and I want to know famous researches done solely based on inductive and deductive separately….if you can give me some examples it will be very helpful to me….

You can look this up yourself, through your library and learning resources at your institution…

Dear Deborah, Thank you for the precise explanation of inductive and deductive approaches.

When analysing data in a qualitative study, could you use both inductive and deductive methods as a triangulation technique?

Hi Irene, a mixed methods study might involve both a quantitative method – e.g. survey and qualitative – e.g. interviews. But the overall approach would still be inductive as the quantitative element normally shapes the qualitative and the overall aim would still be to gain in-depth understandings rather than generalise findings. Mixed methods does as you say, create academic rigour through triangulation.

Dear Deborah Thank you in advance for using your precious time to reply to my question. God bless you. l am doing my master degree dissertation on Green Supply Chain Management practices in the United Kingdom automotive industry. The research philosophy that I adopt is this: interpretivist epistemological and constructivism ontological. The methodology is as follows: Interpretivism – inductive – mono-method qualitative -survey. My question is this: Can online survey questionnaire be used with the inductive approach? Most books that l am reading are linking online survey with quantitative data.

Quite educative. Thank you Dr Deborah, it’s so useful to my study.

Thank you Dr Gabriel. It was really useful abstract. Kindly help me to enlighten with more details on grounded theory, dependent and independent variables.

Thank you Dr Gabriel for sharing your knowledge with all of us. Highly appreciated. I have just started my Ph.D. program, and I’m still struggled to deciding which paradigm I have to use! I have one question: My research idea talks about the readiness of an organization toward IoT (factors that affect the organization readiness towards IoT). note*: The IoT technology is still not implemented in the organization context that I want to study that is why I’m going to study the readiness. so what is your suggestion for me regarding which paradigm I have to use?

Hi Mutasem, Congratulations on embarking on your PhD program! Your research paradigm should reflect your positionality, your values and in essence, how you view the world. You need to think critically and reflectively about this. For example, you say you plan to study the readiness of an organization to implement IT. One approach to this study could be examining what factors might shape that readiness – i.e power structures that confer equality/inequality, and there is also the question of how the adoption of IT could help to create more inclusivity and diversity (which contribute to greater productivity & profitability). This of course is a different proposition from merely focusing on technical issues as opposed to social/political ones that also shape technology use.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR KIND RESPONSE

Dear Dr Gabriel

I am currently busy with my Masters in Interior design. My research aim is to determine (possibly explore as Its not currently making sense) the discrepancy that exists between the designer and a specific user group of a Healthcare environment. I have used provisional coding as a first cycle method (which identified a set of themes by which to analyze a Healthcare environment). These themes (conceptual framework) informed my interviews etc. From there the findings were analysed to see to what extent the designer aims correspond with the way in which the user group experiences the space (through the various themes). I initially thought that it was a deductive study but as it is a qualitative study I was abit worried. From what I understood from previous comments, the inductive/deductive is only applicable in the primary research, would that then mean that my study takes the form of a inductive approach? (although my questions are ‘what’ and ‘how’).

Kind regards Anienke

Hi Deborah, your posts are quite simple and useful. Great! Thanks for posts!

Thanks for posting this, I would say that this article is one of the most useful explanation I have found so far. But I also have a question, hopefully you will be able to help me out. If my research question is about understanding “How important are loyalty programmes for customers in welness field. I use quantitative method (Online survey) to collect data from respondents, what is my approach for research inductive and deductive?

Dr Deborah Gabriel, Honestly, I have gone through your explanation on inductive and deductive approaches to research work and I’m very pleased with the write up. I want to sincerely thank you for your contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Regards, Clemduze.

Thank you Dr Gabriel for explaining the differences between inductive and deductive approaches in research. Your explanation helped me understand these two concepts as I am working on the early portions of my dissertation in General Psychology.

Thank you so much. This has been very useful. I now know I can use both Inductive and deductive if i am carrying out a mixed method research. Both can be used depending on my research questions.

It was helpful.

How can I be at this time replying to this worthy and simple explanation? It’s well placed and and explained. Thank you D.

Thanks for your article. How do I reference you in my work?

APA Gabriel, D. (2013). Inductive and deductive approaches to research. Accessed on ‘date’ from https://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-research/

Harvard Gabriel, D., 2013. Inductive and deductive approaches to research. Accessed on ‘date’ from https://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-research/

Can social research be purely deductive?

‘Social’ research – i.e research within the social sciences, can be qualitative or quantitative, and therefore can be inductive or deductive. It depends on what the research objectives are as to which approach is taken – and as my article states, these questions are explored through research methodology.

Very important points are discussed in your article in simplified terms.

Thanks very much!

Appreciated the discussion – it is well simplified and easy to understand.

Comments are closed.

2.3 Inductive or Deductive? Two Different Approaches

Learning objectives.

• Describe the inductive approach to research, and provide examples of inductive research.
• Describe the deductive approach to research, and provide examples of deductive research.
• Describe the ways that inductive and deductive approaches may be complementary.

Theories structure and inform sociological research. So, too, does research structure and inform theory. The reciprocal relationship between theory and research often becomes evident to students new to these topics when they consider the relationships between theory and research in inductive and deductive approaches to research. In both cases, theory is crucial. But the relationship between theory and research differs for each approach. Inductive and deductive approaches to research are quite different, but they can also be complementary. Let’s start by looking at each one and how they differ from one another. Then we’ll move on to thinking about how they complement one another.

Inductive Approaches and Some Examples

In an inductive approach Collect data, analyze patterns in the data, and then theorize from the data. to research, a researcher begins by collecting data that is relevant to his or her topic of interest. Once a substantial amount of data have been collected, the researcher will then take a breather from data collection, stepping back to get a bird’s eye view of her data. At this stage, the researcher looks for patterns in the data, working to develop a theory that could explain those patterns. Thus when researchers take an inductive approach, they start with a set of observations and then they move from those particular experiences to a more general set of propositions about those experiences. In other words, they move from data to theory, or from the specific to the general. Figure 2.5 "Inductive Research" outlines the steps involved with an inductive approach to research.

Figure 2.5 Inductive Research

There are many good examples of inductive research, but we’ll look at just a few here. One fascinating recent study in which the researchers took an inductive approach was Katherine Allen, Christine Kaestle, and Abbie Goldberg’s study (2011) Allen, K. R., Kaestle, C. E., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). More than just a punctuation mark: How boys and young men learn about menstruation. Journal of Family Issues, 32 , 129–156. of how boys and young men learn about menstruation. To understand this process, Allen and her colleagues analyzed the written narratives of 23 young men in which the men described how they learned about menstruation, what they thought of it when they first learned about it, and what they think of it now. By looking for patterns across all 23 men’s narratives, the researchers were able to develop a general theory of how boys and young men learn about this aspect of girls’ and women’s biology. They conclude that sisters play an important role in boys’ early understanding of menstruation, that menstruation makes boys feel somewhat separated from girls, and that as they enter young adulthood and form romantic relationships, young men develop more mature attitudes about menstruation.

In another inductive study, Kristin Ferguson and colleagues (Ferguson, Kim, & McCoy, 2011) Ferguson, K. M., Kim, M. A., & McCoy, S. (2011). Enhancing empowerment and leadership among homeless youth in agency and community settings: A grounded theory approach. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28 , 1–22. analyzed empirical data to better understand how best to meet the needs of young people who are homeless. The authors analyzed data from focus groups with 20 young people at a homeless shelter. From these data they developed a set of recommendations for those interested in applied interventions that serve homeless youth. The researchers also developed hypotheses for people who might wish to conduct further investigation of the topic. Though Ferguson and her colleagues did not test the hypotheses that they developed from their analysis, their study ends where most deductive investigations begin: with a set of testable hypotheses.

Deductive Approaches and Some Examples

Researchers taking a deductive approach Develop hypotheses based on some theory or theories, collect data that can be used to test the hypotheses, and assess whether the data collected support the hypotheses. take the steps described earlier for inductive research and reverse their order. They start with a social theory that they find compelling and then test its implications with data. That is, they move from a more general level to a more specific one. A deductive approach to research is the one that people typically associate with scientific investigation. The researcher studies what others have done, reads existing theories of whatever phenomenon he or she is studying, and then tests hypotheses that emerge from those theories. Figure 2.6 "Deductive Research" outlines the steps involved with a deductive approach to research.

Figure 2.6 Deductive Research

While not all researchers follow a deductive approach, as you have seen in the preceding discussion, many do, and there are a number of excellent recent examples of deductive research. We’ll take a look at a couple of those next.

In a study of US law enforcement responses to hate crimes, Ryan King and colleagues (King, Messner, & Baller, 2009) King, R. D., Messner, S. F., & Baller, R. D. (2009). Contemporary hate crimes, law enforcement, and the legacy of racial violence. American Sociological Review, 74 , 291–315. hypothesized that law enforcement’s response would be less vigorous in areas of the country that had a stronger history of racial violence. The authors developed their hypothesis from their reading of prior research and theories on the topic. Next, they tested the hypothesis by analyzing data on states’ lynching histories and hate crime responses. Overall, the authors found support for their hypothesis.

In another recent deductive study, Melissa Milkie and Catharine Warner (2011) Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (2011). Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52 , 4–22. studied the effects of different classroom environments on first graders’ mental health. Based on prior research and theory, Milkie and Warner hypothesized that negative classroom features, such as a lack of basic supplies and even heat, would be associated with emotional and behavioral problems in children. The researchers found support for their hypothesis, demonstrating that policymakers should probably be paying more attention to the mental health outcomes of children’s school experiences, just as they track academic outcomes (American Sociological Association, 2011). The American Sociological Association wrote a press release on Milkie and Warner’s findings: American Sociological Association. (2011). Study: Negative classroom environment adversely affects children’s mental health. Retrieved from http://asanet.org/press/Negative_Classroom_Environment_Adversely_Affects_Childs_Mental_Health.cfm

Complementary Approaches?

While inductive and deductive approaches to research seem quite different, they can actually be rather complementary. In some cases, researchers will plan for their research to include multiple components, one inductive and the other deductive. In other cases, a researcher might begin a study with the plan to only conduct either inductive or deductive research, but then he or she discovers along the way that the other approach is needed to help illuminate findings. Here is an example of each such case.

In the case of my collaborative research on sexual harassment, we began the study knowing that we would like to take both a deductive and an inductive approach in our work. We therefore administered a quantitative survey, the responses to which we could analyze in order to test hypotheses, and also conducted qualitative interviews with a number of the survey participants. The survey data were well suited to a deductive approach; we could analyze those data to test hypotheses that were generated based on theories of harassment. The interview data were well suited to an inductive approach; we looked for patterns across the interviews and then tried to make sense of those patterns by theorizing about them.

For one paper (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004), Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69 , 64–92. we began with a prominent feminist theory of the sexual harassment of adult women and developed a set of hypotheses outlining how we expected the theory to apply in the case of younger women’s and men’s harassment experiences. We then tested our hypotheses by analyzing the survey data. In general, we found support for the theory that posited that the current gender system, in which heteronormative men wield the most power in the workplace, explained workplace sexual harassment—not just of adult women but of younger women and men as well. In a more recent paper (Blackstone, Houle, & Uggen, 2006), Blackstone, A., Houle, J., & Uggen, C. “At the time I thought it was great”: Age, experience, and workers’ perceptions of sexual harassment. Presented at the 2006 meetings of the American Sociological Association. Currently under review. we did not hypothesize about what we might find but instead inductively analyzed the interview data, looking for patterns that might tell us something about how or whether workers’ perceptions of harassment change as they age and gain workplace experience. From this analysis, we determined that workers’ perceptions of harassment did indeed shift as they gained experience and that their later definitions of harassment were more stringent than those they held during adolescence. Overall, our desire to understand young workers’ harassment experiences fully—in terms of their objective workplace experiences, their perceptions of those experiences, and their stories of their experiences—led us to adopt both deductive and inductive approaches in the work.

Researchers may not always set out to employ both approaches in their work but sometimes find that their use of one approach leads them to the other. One such example is described eloquently in Russell Schutt’s Investigating the Social World (2006). Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. As Schutt describes, researchers Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk (1984) Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49 , 261–272. conducted an experiment to test two competing theories of the effects of punishment on deterring deviance (in this case, domestic violence). Specifically, Sherman and Berk hypothesized that deterrence theory would provide a better explanation of the effects of arresting accused batterers than labeling theory . Deterrence theory predicts that arresting an accused spouse batterer will reduce future incidents of violence. Conversely, labeling theory predicts that arresting accused spouse batterers will increase future incidents. Figure 2.7 "Predicting the Effects of Arrest on Future Spouse Battery" summarizes the two competing theories and the predictions that Sherman and Berk set out to test.

Figure 2.7 Predicting the Effects of Arrest on Future Spouse Battery

Sherman and Berk found, after conducting an experiment with the help of local police in one city, that arrest did in fact deter future incidents of violence, thus supporting their hypothesis that deterrence theory would better predict the effect of arrest. After conducting this research, they and other researchers went on to conduct similar experiments The researchers did what’s called replication. We’ll learn more about replication in Chapter 3 "Research Ethics" . in six additional cities (Berk, Campbell, Klap, & Western, 1992; Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Sherman & Smith, 1992). Berk, R., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57 , 698–708; Pate, A., & Hamilton, E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade county spouse assault experiment. American Sociological Review, 57 , 691–697; Sherman, L., & Smith, D. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57 , 680–690. Results from these follow-up studies were mixed. In some cases, arrest deterred future incidents of violence. In other cases, it did not. This left the researchers with new data that they needed to explain. The researchers therefore took an inductive approach in an effort to make sense of their latest empirical observations. The new studies revealed that arrest seemed to have a deterrent effect for those who were married and employed but that it led to increased offenses for those who were unmarried and unemployed. Researchers thus turned to control theory, which predicts that having some stake in conformity through the social ties provided by marriage and employment, as the better explanation.

Figure 2.8 Predicting the Effects of Arrest on Future Spouse Battery: A New Theory

What the Sherman and Berk research, along with the follow-up studies, shows us is that we might start with a deductive approach to research, but then, if confronted by new data that we must make sense of, we may move to an inductive approach. Russell Schutt depicts this process quite nicely in his text, and I’ve adapted his depiction here, in Figure 2.9 "The Research Process: Moving From Deductive to Inductive in a Study of Domestic Violence Recidivism" .

Key Takeaways

• The inductive approach involves beginning with a set of empirical observations, seeking patterns in those observations, and then theorizing about those patterns.
• The deductive approach involves beginning with a theory, developing hypotheses from that theory, and then collecting and analyzing data to test those hypotheses.
• Inductive and deductive approaches to research can be employed together for a more complete understanding of the topic that a researcher is studying.
• Though researchers don’t always set out to use both inductive and deductive strategies in their work, they sometimes find that new questions arise in the course of an investigation that can best be answered by employing both approaches.

For a hilarious example of logic gone awry, check out the following clip from

Monty Python and Holy Grail :

Do the townspeople take an inductive or deductive approach to determine whether the woman in question is a witch? What are some of the different sources of knowledge (recall Chapter 1 "Introduction" ) they rely on?

• Think about how you could approach a study of the relationship between gender and driving over the speed limit. How could you learn about this relationship using an inductive approach? What would a study of the same relationship look like if examined using a deductive approach? Try the same thing with any topic of your choice. How might you study the topic inductively? Deductively?

• Open access
• Published: 02 May 2024

Use of the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework to inform clinical reasoning in postgraduate level physiotherapy students: a qualitative study using think aloud methodology

• Katie L. Kowalski 1 ,
• Heather Gillis 1 ,
• Katherine Henning 1 ,
• Paul Parikh 1 ,
• Jackie Sadi 1 &
• Alison Rushton 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  486 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

240 Accesses

Metrics details

Vascular pathologies of the head and neck are rare but can present as musculoskeletal problems. The International Federation of Orthopedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) Cervical Framework (Framework) aims to assist evidence-based clinical reasoning for safe assessment and management of the cervical spine considering potential for vascular pathology. Clinical reasoning is critical to physiotherapy, and developing high-level clinical reasoning is a priority for postgraduate (post-licensure) educational programs.

To explore the influence of the Framework on clinical reasoning processes in postgraduate physiotherapy students.

Qualitative case study design using think aloud methodology and interpretive description, informed by COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research. Participants were postgraduate musculoskeletal physiotherapy students who learned about the Framework through standardized delivery. Two cervical spine cases explored clinical reasoning processes. Coding and analysis of transcripts were guided by Elstein’s diagnostic reasoning components and the Postgraduate Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Practice model. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis (inductive and deductive) for individuals and then across participants, enabling analysis of key steps in clinical reasoning processes and use of the Framework. Trustworthiness was enhanced with multiple strategies (e.g., second researcher challenged codes).

For all participants ( n  = 8), the Framework supported clinical reasoning using primarily hypothetico-deductive processes. It informed vascular hypothesis generation in the patient history and testing the vascular hypothesis through patient history questions and selection of physical examination tests, to inform clarity and support for diagnosis and management. Most participant’s clinical reasoning processes were characterized by high-level features (e.g., prioritization), however there was a continuum of proficiency. Clinical reasoning processes were informed by deep knowledge of the Framework integrated with a breadth of wider knowledge and supported by a range of personal characteristics (e.g., reflection).

Conclusions

Findings support use of the Framework as an educational resource in postgraduate physiotherapy programs to inform clinical reasoning processes for safe and effective assessment and management of cervical spine presentations considering potential for vascular pathology. Individualized approaches may be required to support students, owing to a continuum of clinical reasoning proficiency. Future research is required to explore use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning processes in learners at different levels.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Musculoskeletal neck pain and headache are highly prevalent and among the most disabling conditions globally that require effective rehabilitation [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. A range of rehabilitation professionals, including physiotherapists, assess and manage musculoskeletal neck pain and headache. Assessment of the cervical spine can be a complex process. Patients can present to physiotherapy with vascular pathology masquerading as musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction, as neck pain and/or headache as a common first symptom [ 5 ]. While vascular pathologies of the head and neck are rare [ 6 ], they are important considerations within a cervical spine assessment to facilitate the best possible patient outcomes [ 7 ]. The International IFOMPT (International Federation of Orthopedic Manipulative Physical Therapists) Cervical Framework (Framework) provides guidance in the assessment and management of the cervical spine region, considering the potential for vascular pathologies of the neck and head [ 8 ]. Two separate, but related, risks are considered: risk of misdiagnosis of an existing vascular pathology and risk of serious adverse event following musculoskeletal interventions [ 8 ].

The Framework is a consensus document iteratively developed through rigorous methods and the best contemporary evidence [ 8 ], and is also published as a Position Statement [ 7 ]. Central to the Framework are clinical reasoning and evidence-based practice, providing guidance in the assessment of the cervical spine region, considering the potential for vascular pathologies in advance of planned interventions [ 7 , 8 ]. The Framework was developed and published to be a resource for practicing musculoskeletal clinicians and educators. It has been implemented widely within IFOMPT postgraduate (post-licensure) educational programs, influencing curricula by enabling a comprehensive and systemic approach when considering the potential for vascular pathology [ 9 ]. Frequently reported curricula changes include an emphasis on the patient history and incorporating Framework recommended physical examination tests to evaluate a vascular hypothesis [ 9 ]. The Framework aims to assist musculoskeletal clinicians in their clinical reasoning processes, however no study has investigated students’ use of the Framework to inform their clinical reasoning.

Clinical reasoning is a critical component to physiotherapy practice as it is fundamental to assessment and diagnosis, enabling physiotherapists to provide safe and effective patient-centered care [ 10 ]. This is particularly important for postgraduate physiotherapy educational programs, where developing a high level of clinical reasoning is a priority for educational curricula [ 11 ] and critical for achieving advanced practice physiotherapy competency [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. At this level of physiotherapy, diagnostic reasoning is emphasized as an important component of a high level of clinical reasoning, informed by advanced use of domain-specific knowledge (e.g., propositional, experiential) and supported by a range of personal characteristics (e.g., adaptability, reflective) [ 12 ]. Facilitating the development of clinical reasoning improves physiotherapist’s performance and patient outcomes [ 16 ], underscoring the importance of clinical reasoning to physiotherapy practice. Understanding students’ use of the Framework to inform their clinical reasoning can support optimal implementation of the Framework within educational programs to facilitate safe and effective assessment and management of the cervical spine for patients.

To explore the influence of the Framework on the clinical reasoning processes in postgraduate level physiotherapy students.

Using a qualitative case study design, think aloud case analyses enabled exploration of clinical reasoning processes in postgraduate physiotherapy students. Case study design allows evaluation of experiences in practice, providing knowledge and accounts of practical actions in a specific context [ 17 ]. Case studies offer opportunity to generate situationally dependent understandings of accounts of clinical practice, highlighting the action and interaction that underscore the complexity of clinical decision-making in practice [ 17 ]. This study was informed by an interpretive description methodological approach with thematic analysis [ 18 , 19 ]. Interpretive description is coherent with mixed methods research and pragmatic orientations [ 20 , 21 ], and enables generation of evidence-based disciplinary knowledge and clinical understanding to inform practice [ 18 , 19 , 22 ]. Interpretive description has evolved for use in educational research to generate knowledge of educational experiences and the complexities of health care education to support achievement of educational objectives and professional practice standards [ 23 ]. The COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) informed the design and reporting of this study [ 24 ].

Research team

All research team members hold physiotherapy qualifications, and most hold advanced qualifications specializing in musculoskeletal physiotherapy. The research team is based in Canada and has varying levels of academic credentials (ranging from Clinical Masters to PhD or equivalent) and occupations (ranging from PhD student to Director of Physical Therapy). The final author (AR) is also an author of the Framework, which represents international and multiprofessional consensus. Authors HG and JS are lecturers on one of the postgraduate programs which students were recruited from. The primary researcher and first author (KK) is a US-trained Physical Therapist and Postdoctoral Research Associate investigating spinal pain and clinical reasoning in the School of Physical Therapy at Western University. Authors KK, KH and PP had no prior relationship with the postgraduate educational programs, students, or the Framework.

Study setting

Western University in London, Ontario, Canada offers a one-year Advanced Health Care Practice (AHCP) postgraduate IFOMPT-approved Comprehensive Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy program (CMP) and a postgraduate Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) program. Think aloud case analyses interviews were conducted using Zoom, a viable option for qualitative data collection and audio-video recording of interviews that enables participation for students who live in geographically dispersed areas across Canada [ 25 ]. Interviews with individual participants were conducted by one researcher (KK or KH) in a calm and quiet environment to minimize disruption to the process of thinking aloud [ 26 ].

Participants

AHCP postgraduate musculoskeletal physiotherapy students ≥ 18 years of age in the CMP and SEM programs were recruited via email and an introduction to the research study during class by KK, using purposive sampling to ensure theoretical representation. The purposive sample ensured key characteristics of participants were included, specifically gender, ethnicity, and physiotherapy experience (years, type). AHCP students must have attended standardized teaching about the Framework to be eligible to participate. Exclusion criteria included inability to communicate fluently in English. As think-aloud methodology seeks rich, in-depth data from a small sample [ 27 ], this study sought to recruit 8–10 AHCP students. This range was informed by prior think aloud literature and anticipated to balance diversity of participant characteristics, similarities in musculoskeletal physiotherapy domain knowledge and rich data supporting individual clinical reasoning processes [ 27 , 28 ].

Learning about the IFOMPT Cervical Framework

CMP and SEM programs included standardized teaching of the Framework to inform AHCP students’ clinical reasoning in practice. Delivery included a presentation explaining the Framework, access to the full Framework document [ 8 ], and discussion of its role to inform practice, including a case analysis of a cervical spine clinical presentation, by research team members AR and JS. The full Framework document that is publicly available through IFOMPT [ 8 ] was provided to AHCP students as the Framework Position Statement [ 7 ] was not yet published. Discussion and case analysis was led by AHCP program leads in November 2021 (CMP, including research team member JS) and January 2022 (SEM).

Think aloud case analyses data collection

Using think aloud methodology, the analytical processes of how participants use the Framework to inform clinical reasoning were explored in an interview with one research team member not involved in AHCP educational programs (KK or KH). The think aloud method enables description and explanation of complex information paralleling the clinical reasoning process and has been used previously in musculoskeletal physiotherapy [ 29 , 30 ]. It facilitates the generation of rich verbal [ 27 ]as participants verbalize their clinical reasoning protocols [ 27 , 31 ]. Participants were aware of the aim of the research study and the research team’s clinical and research backgrounds, supporting an open environment for depth of data collection [ 32 ]. There was no prior relationship between participants and research team members conducting interviews.

Participants were instructed to think aloud their analysis of two clinical cases, presented in random order (Supplementary  1 ). Case information was provided in stages to reflect the chronology of assessment of patients in practice (patient history, planning the physical examination, physical examination, treatment). Use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning was discussed at each stage. The cases enabled participants to identify and discuss features of possible vascular pathology, treatment indications and contraindications/precautions, etc. Two research study team members (HG, PP) developed cases designed to facilitate and elicit clinical reasoning processes in neck and head pain presentations. Cases were tested against the research team to ensure face validity. Cases and think aloud prompts were piloted prior to use with three physiotherapists at varying levels of practice to ensure they were fit for purpose.

Data collection took place from March 30-August 15, 2022, during the final terms of the AHCP programs and an average of 5 months after standardized teaching about the Framework. During case analysis interviews, participants were instructed to constantly think aloud, and if a pause in verbalizations was sustained, they were reminded to “keep thinking aloud” [ 27 ]. As needed, prompts were given to elicit verbalization of participants’ reasoning processes, including use of the Framework to inform their clinical reasoning at each stage of case analysis (Supplementary  2 ). Aside from this, all interactions between participants and researchers minimized to not interfere with the participant’s thought processes [ 27 , 31 ]. When analysis of the first case was complete, the researcher provided the second case, each lasting 35–45 min. A break between cases was offered. During and after interviews, field notes were recorded about initial impressions of the data collection session and potential patterns appearing to emerge [ 33 ].

Data analysis

Data from think aloud interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis [ 30 , 34 ], facilitating identification and analysis of patterns in data and key steps in the clinical reasoning process, including use of the Framework to enable its characterization (Fig.  1 ). As established models of clinical reasoning exist, a hybrid approach to thematic analysis was employed, incorporating inductive and deductive processes [ 35 ], which proceeded according to 5 iterative steps: [ 34 ]

Data analysis steps

Familiarize with data: Audio-visual recordings were transcribed verbatim by a physiotherapist external to the research team. All transcripts were read and re-read several times by one researcher (KK), checking for accuracy by reviewing recordings as required. Field notes supported depth of familiarization with data.

Generate initial codes: Line-by-line coding of transcripts by one researcher (KK) supported generation of initial codes that represented components, patterns and meaning in clinical reasoning processes and use of the Framework. Established preliminary coding models were used as a guide. Elstein’s diagnostic reasoning model [ 36 ] guided generating initial codes of key steps in clinical reasoning processes (Table  1 a) [ 29 , 36 ]. Leveraging richness of data, further codes were generated guided by the Postgraduate Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Practice model, which describes masters level clinical practice (Table  1 b) [ 12 ]. Codes were refined as data analysis proceeded. All codes were collated within participants along with supporting data.

Generate initial themes within participants: Coded data was inductively grouped into initial themes within each participant, reflecting individual clinical reasoning processes and use of the Framework. This inductive stage enabled a systematic, flexible approach to describe each participant’s unique thinking path, offering insight into the complexities of their clinical reasoning processes. It also provided a comprehensive understanding of the Framework informing clinical reasoning and a rich characterization of its components, aiding the development of robust, nuanced insights [ 35 , 37 , 38 ]. Initial themes were repeatedly revised to ensure they were grounded in and reflected raw data.

Develop, review and refine themes across participants: Initial themes were synthesized across participants to develop themes that represented all participants. Themes were reviewed and refined, returning to initial themes and codes at the individual participant level as needed.

Organize themes into established models: Themes were deductively organized into established clinical reasoning models; first into Elstein’s diagnostic reasoning model, second into the Postgraduate Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Practice model to characterize themes within each diagnostic reasoning component [ 12 , 36 ].

Trustworthiness of findings

The research study was conducted according to an a priori protocol and additional steps were taken to establish trustworthiness of findings [ 39 ]. Field notes supported deep familiarization with data and served as a means of data source triangulation during analysis [ 40 ]. One researcher coded transcripts and a second researcher challenged codes, with codes and themes rigorously and iteratively reviewed and refined. Frequent debriefing sessions with the research team, reflexive discussions with other researchers and peer scrutiny of initial findings enabled wider perspectives and experiences to shape analysis and interpretation of findings. Several strategies were implemented to minimize the influence of prior relationships between participants and researchers, including author KK recruiting participants, KK and KH collecting/analyzing data, and AR, JS, HG and PP providing input on de-identified data at the stage of synthesis and interpretation.

Nine AHCP postgraduate level students were recruited and participated in data collection. One participant was withdrawn because of unfamiliarity with the standardized teaching session about use of the Framework (no recall of session), despite confirmation of attendance. Data from eight participants were used for analysis (CMP: n  = 6; SEM: n  = 2; Table  2 ), which achieved sample size requirements for think aloud methodology of rich and in-depth data [ 27 , 28 ].

Diagnostic reasoning components

Informed by the Framework, all components of Elstein’s diagnostic reasoning processes [ 36 ] were used by participants, including use of treatment with physiotherapy interventions to aid diagnostic reasoning. An illustrative example is presented in Supplement  3 . Clinical reasoning used primarily hypothetico-deductive processes reflecting a continuum of proficiency, was informed by deep Framework knowledge and breadth of prior knowledge (e.g., experiential), and supported by a range of personal characteristics (e.g., justification for decisions).

Cue acquisition

All participants sought to acquire additional cues early in the patient history, and for some this persisted into the medical history and physical examination. Cue acquisition enabled depth and breadth of understanding patient history information to generate hypotheses and factors contributing to the patient’s pain experience (Table  3 ). All participants asked further questions to understand details of the patients’ pain and their presentation, while some also explored the impact of pain on patient functioning and treatments received to date. There was a high degree of specificity to questions for most participants. Ongoing clinical reasoning processes through a thorough and complete assessment, even if the patient had previously received treatment for similar symptoms, was important for some participants. Cue acquisition was supported by personal characteristics including a patient-centered approach (e.g., understanding the patient’s beliefs about pain) and one participant reflected on their approach to acquiring patient history cues.

Hypothesis generation

Participants generated an average of 4.5 hypotheses per case (range: 2–8) and most hypotheses (77%) were generated rapidly early in the patient history. Knowledge from the Framework about patient history features of vascular pathology informed vascular hypothesis generation in the patient history for all participants in both cases (Table  4 ). Vascular hypotheses were also generated during the past medical history, where risk factors for vascular pathology were identified and interpreted by some participants who had high levels of suspicion for cervical articular involvement. Non-vascular hypotheses were generated during the physical examination by some participants to explain individual physical examination or patient history cues. Deep knowledge of the patient history section in the Framework supported high level of cue identification and interpretation for generating vascular hypotheses. Initial hypotheses were prioritized by some participants, however the level of specificity of hypotheses varied.

Cue evaluation

All participants evaluated cues throughout the patient history and physical examination in relationship to hypotheses generated, indicating use of hypothetico-deductive reasoning processes (Table  5 ). Framework knowledge of patient history features of vascular pathology was used to test vascular hypotheses and aid differential diagnosis. The patient history section supported high level of cue identification and interpretation of patient history features for all but one participant, and generation of further patient history questions for all participants. The level of specificity of these questions was high for all but one participant. Framework knowledge of recommended physical examination tests, including removal of positional testing, supported planning a focused and prioritized physical examination to further test vascular hypotheses for all participants. No participant indicated intention to use positional testing as part of their physical examination. Treatment with physiotherapy interventions served as a form of cue evaluation, and cues were evaluated to inform prognosis for some participants. At times during the physical examination, some participants demonstrated occasional errors or difficulty with cue evaluation by omitting key physical exam tests (e.g., no cranial nerve assessment despite concerns for trigeminal nerve involvement), selecting physical exam tests in advance of hypothesis generation (e.g., cervical spine instability testing), difficulty interpreting cues, or late selection of a physical examination test. Cue acquisition was supported by a range of personal characteristics. Most participants justified selection of physical examination tests, and some self-reflected on their ability to collect useful physical examination information to inform selection of tests. Precaution to the physical examination was identified by all participants but one, which contributed to an adaptable approach, prioritizing patient safety and comfort. Critical analysis of physical examination information aided interpretation within the context of the patient for most participants.

Hypothesis evaluation

All participants used the Framework to evaluate their hypotheses throughout the patient history and physical examination, continuously shifting their level of support for hypotheses (Table  6 , Supplement  4 ). This informed clarity in the overall level of suspicion for vascular pathology or musculoskeletal diagnoses, which were specific for most participants. Response to treatment with physiotherapy interventions served as a form of hypothesis evaluation for most participants who had low level suspicion for vascular pathology, highlighting ongoing reasoning processes. Hypotheses evaluated were prioritized by ranking according to level of suspicion by some participants. Difficulties weighing patient history and physical examination cues to inform judgement on overall level of suspicion for vascular pathology was demonstrated by some participants who reported that incomplete physical examination data and not being able to see the patient contributed to difficulties. Hypothesis evaluation was supported by the personal characteristic of reflection, where some students reflected on the Framework’s emphasis on the patient history to evaluate a vascular hypothesis.

The Framework supported all participants in clinical reasoning related to treatment (Table  7 ). Treatment decisions were always linked to the participant’s overall level of suspicion for vascular pathology or musculoskeletal diagnosis. Framework knowledge supported participants with high level of suspicion for vascular pathology to refer for further investigations. Participants with a musculoskeletal diagnosis kept the patient for physiotherapy interventions. The Framework patient history section supported patient education about symptoms of vascular pathology and safety netting for some participants. Framework knowledge influenced informed consent processes and risk-benefit analysis to support the selection of musculoskeletal physiotherapy interventions, which were specific and prioritized for some participants. Less Framework knowledge related to treatment was demonstrated by some students, generating unclear recommendations regarding the urgency of referral and use of the Framework to inform musculoskeletal physiotherapy interventions. Treatment was supported by a range of personal characteristics. An adaptable approach that prioritized patient safety and was supported by justification was demonstrated in all participants except one. Shared decision-making enabled the selection of physiotherapy interventions, which were patient-centered (individualized, considered whole person, identified future risk for vascular pathology). Communication with the patient’s family doctor facilitated collaborative patient-centered care for most participants.

This is the first study to explore the influence of the Framework on clinical reasoning processes in postgraduate physiotherapy students. The Framework supported clinical reasoning that used primarily hypothetico-deductive processes. The Framework informed vascular hypothesis generation in the patient history and testing the vascular hypothesis through patient history questions and selection of physical examination tests to inform clarity and support for diagnosis and management. Most postgraduate students’ clinical reasoning processes were characterized by high-level features (e.g. specificity, prioritization). However, some demonstrated occasional difficulties or errors, reflecting a continuum of clinical reasoning proficiency. Clinical reasoning processes were informed by deep knowledge of the Framework integrated with a breadth of wider knowledge and supported by a range of personal characteristics (e.g., justification for decisions, reflection).

Use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning processes

The Framework provided a structured and comprehensive approach to support postgraduate students’ clinical reasoning processes in assessment and management of the cervical spine region, considering the potential for vascular pathology. Patient history and physical examination information was evaluated to inform clarity and support the decision to refer for further vascular investigations or proceed with musculoskeletal physiotherapy diagnosis/interventions. The Framework is not intended to lead to a vascular pathology diagnosis [ 7 , 8 ], and following the Framework does not guarantee vascular pathologies will be identified [ 41 ]. Rather, it aims to support a process of clinical reasoning to elicit and interpret appropriate patient history and physical examination information to estimate the probability of vascular pathology and inform judgement about the need to refer for further investigations [ 7 , 8 , 42 ]. Results of this study suggest the Framework has achieved this aim for postgraduate physiotherapy students.

The Framework supported postgraduate students in using primarily hypothetico-deductive diagnostic reasoning processes. This is expected given the diversity of vascular pathology clinical presentations precluding a definite clinical pattern and inherent complexity as a potential masquerader of a musculoskeletal problem [ 7 ]. It is also consistent with prior research investigating clinical reasoning processes in musculoskeletal physiotherapy postgraduate students [ 12 ] and clinical experts [ 29 ] where hypothetico-deductive and pattern recognition diagnostic reasoning are employed according to the demands of the clinical situation [ 10 ]. Diagnostic reasoning of most postgraduate students in this study demonstrated features suggestive of high-level clinical reasoning in musculoskeletal physiotherapy [ 12 ], including ongoing reasoning with high-level cue identification and interpretation, specificity and prioritization during assessment and treatment, use of physiotherapy interventions to aid diagnostic reasoning, and prognosis determination [ 12 , 29 , 43 ]. Expert physiotherapy practice has been further described as using a dialectical model of clinical reasoning with seamless transitions between clinical reasoning strategies [ 44 ]. While diagnostic reasoning was a focus in this study, postgraduate students considered a breadth of information as important to their reasoning (e.g., patient’s perspectives of the reason for their pain). This suggests wider reasoning strategies (e.g., narrative, collaborative) were employed to enable shared decision-making within the context of patient-centered care.

Study findings also highlighted a continuum of proficiency in use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning processes. Not all students demonstrated all characteristics of high-level clinical reasoning and there are suggestions of incomplete reasoning processes, for example occasional errors in evaluating cues. Some students offered explanations such as incomplete case information as factors contributing to difficulties with clinical reasoning processes. However, the ability to critically evaluate incomplete and potentially conflicting clinical information is consistently identified as an advanced clinical practice competency [ 14 , 43 ]. A continuum of proficiency in clinical reasoning in musculoskeletal physiotherapy is supported by wider healthcare professions describing acquisition and application of clinical knowledge and skills as a developmental continuum of clinical competence progressing from novice to expert [ 45 , 46 ]. The range of years of clinical practice experience in this cohort of students (3–14 years) or prior completed postgraduate education may have contributed to the continuum of proficiency, as high-quality and diverse experiential learning is essential for the development of high-level clinical reasoning [ 14 , 47 ].

Deep knowledge of the Framework informs clinical reasoning processes

Postgraduate students demonstrated deep Framework knowledge to inform clinical reasoning processes. All students demonstrated knowledge of patient history features of vascular pathology, recommended physical examination tests to test a vascular hypothesis, and the need to refer if there is a high level of suspicion for vascular pathology. A key development in the recent Framework update is the removal of the recommendation to perform positional testing [ 8 ]. All students demonstrated knowledge of this development, and none wanted to test a vascular hypothesis with positional testing. Most also demonstrated Framework knowledge about considerations for planning treatment with physiotherapy interventions (e.g., risk-benefit analysis, informed consent), though not all, which underscores the continuum of proficiency in postgraduate students. Rich organization of multidimensional knowledge is a required component for high level clinical reasoning and is characteristic of expert physiotherapy practice [ 10 , 48 , 49 ]. Most postgraduate physiotherapy students displayed this expert practice characteristic through integration of deep Framework knowledge with a breadth of prior knowledge (e.g., experiential, propositional) to inform clinical reasoning processes. This highlights the utility of the Framework in postgraduate physiotherapy education to develop advanced level evidence-based knowledge informing clinical reasoning processes for safe assessment and management of the cervical spine, considering the potential for vascular pathology [ 9 , 8 , 50 , 51 , 52 ].

Framework supports personal characteristics to facilitate integration of knowledge and clinical reasoning

The Framework supported personal characteristics of postgraduate students, which are key drivers for the complex integration of advanced knowledge and high-level clinical reasoning [ 10 , 12 , 48 ]. For all students, the Framework supported justification for decisions and patient-centered care, emphasizing a whole-person approach and shared decision-making. Further demonstrating a continuum of proficiency, the Framework supported a wider breadth of personal characteristics for some students, including critical analysis, reflection, self-analysis, and adaptability. These personal characteristics illustrate the interwoven cognitive and metacognitive skills that influence and support a high level of clinical reasoning [ 10 , 12 ] and the development of clinical expertise [ 48 , 53 ]. For example [ 54 ], reflection is critical to developing high-level clinical reasoning and advanced level practice [ 12 , 55 ]. Postgraduate students reflected on prior knowledge, experiences, and action within the context of current Framework knowledge, emphasizing active engagement in cognitive processes to inform clinical reasoning processes. Reflection-in-action is highlighted by self-analysis and adaptability. These characteristics require continuous cognitive processing to consider personal strengths and limitations in the context of the patient and evidence-based practice, adapting the clinical encounter as required [ 53 , 55 ]. These findings highlight use of the Framework in postgraduate education to support development of personal characteristics that are indicative of an advanced level of clinical practice [ 12 ].

Synthesis of findings

Derived from synthesis of research study findings and informed by the Postgraduate Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Practice model [ 12 ], use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning processes in postgraduate students is illustrated in Fig.  2 . Overlapping clinical reasoning, knowledge and personal characteristic components emphasize the complex interaction of factors contributing to clinical reasoning processes. Personal characteristics of postgraduate students underpin clinical reasoning and knowledge, highlighting their role in facilitating the integration of these two components. Bolded subcomponents indicate convergence of results reflecting all postgraduate students and underscores the variability among postgraduate students contributing to a continuum of clinical reasoning proficiency. The relative weighting of the components is approximately equal to balance the breadth and convergence of subcomponents. Synthesis of findings align with the Postgraduate Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Practice model [ 12 ], though some differences exist. Limited personal characteristics were identified in this study with little convergence across students, which may be due to the objective of this study and the case analysis approach.

Use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning in postgraduate level musculoskeletal physiotherapy students. Adapted from the Postgraduate Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Practice model [ 12 ].

Strengths and limitations

Think aloud case analyses enabled situationally dependent understanding of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning processes in postgraduate level students [ 17 ], considering the rare potential for vascular pathology. A limitation of this approach was the standardized nature of case information provided to students, which may have influenced clinical reasoning processes. Future research studies may consider patient case simulation to address this limitation [ 30 ]. Interviews were conducted during the second half of the postgraduate educational program, and this timing could have influenced clinical reasoning processes compared to if interviews were conducted at the end of the program. Future research can explore use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning processes in established advanced practice physiotherapists. The sample size of this study aligns with recommendations for think aloud methodology [ 27 , 28 ], achieved rich data, and purposive sampling enabled wide representation of key characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnicity, country of training, physiotherapy experiences), which enhances transferability of findings. Students were aware of the study objective in advance of interviews which may have contributed to a heightened level of awareness of vascular pathology. The prior relationship between students and researchers may have also influenced results, however several strategies were implemented to minimize this influence.

Implications

The Framework is widely implemented within IFOMPT postgraduate educational programs and has led to important shifts in educational curricula [ 9 ]. Findings of this study support use of the Framework as an educational resource in postgraduate physiotherapy programs to inform clinical reasoning processes for safe and effective assessment and management of cervical spine presentations considering the potential for vascular pathology. Individualized approaches may be required to support each student, owing to a continuum of clinical reasoning proficiency. As the Framework was written for practicing musculoskeletal clinicians, future research is required to explore use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning in learners at different levels, for example entry-level physiotherapy students.

The Framework supported clinical reasoning that used primarily hypothetico-deductive processes in postgraduate physiotherapy students. It informed vascular hypothesis generation in the patient history and testing the vascular hypothesis through patient history questions and selection of physical examination tests, to inform clarity and support for diagnosis and management. Most postgraduate students clinical reasoning processes were characterized as high-level, informed by deep Framework knowledge integrated with a breadth of wider knowledge, and supported by a range of personal characteristics to facilitate the integration of advanced knowledge and high-level clinical reasoning. Future research is required to explore use of the Framework to inform clinical reasoning in learners at different levels.

Data availability

The dataset used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Hoy D, Buchbinder R, Mansournia MA, Bettampadi D et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neck pain in the general population, 1990–2017: systematic analysis of the global burden of Disease Study 2017. BMJ. 2020;368.

Stovner LJ, Nichols E, Steiner TJ, Abd-Allah F, Abdelalim A, Al-Raddadi RM, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of migraine and tension-type headache, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:954–76.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396:2006–17.

Côté P, Yu H, Shearer HM, Randhawa K, Wong JJ, Mior S et al. Non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration. European Journal of Pain (United Kingdom). 2019;23.

Diamanti S, Longoni M, Agostoni EC. Leading symptoms in cerebrovascular diseases: what about headache? Neurological Sciences. 2019.

Debette S, Compter A, Labeyrie MA, Uyttenboogaart M, Metso TM, Majersik JJ, et al. Epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of intracranial artery dissection. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14:640–54.

Rushton A, Carlesso LC, Flynn T, Hing WA, Rubinstein SM, Vogel S, et al. International Framework for examination of the Cervical Region for potential of vascular pathologies of the Neck Prior to Musculoskeletal intervention: International IFOMPT Cervical Framework. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2023;53:7–22.

Rushton A, Carlesso LC, Flynn T, Hing WA, Kerry R, Rubinstein SM, et al. International framework for examination of the cervical region for potential of vascular pathologies of the neck prior to orthopaedic manual therapy (OMT) intervention: International IFOMPT Cervical Framework. International IFOMPT Cervical Framework; 2020.

Hutting N, Kranenburg R, Taylor A, Wilbrink W, Kerry R, Mourad F. Implementation of the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework: a survey among educational programmes. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2022;62:102619.

Jones MA, Jensen G, Edwards I. Clinical reasoning in physiotherapy. In: Campbell S, Watkins V, editors. Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Third. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2008. pp. 245–56.

Google Scholar  

Fennelly O, Desmeules F, O’Sullivan C, Heneghan NR, Cunningham C. Advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice: informing education curricula. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;48:102174.

Rushton A, Lindsay G. Defining the construct of masters level clinical practice in manipulative physiotherapy. Man Ther. 2010;15.

Rushton A, Lindsay G. Defining the construct of masters level clinical practice in healthcare based on the UK experience. Med Teach. 2008;30:e100–7.

Noblet T, Heneghan NR, Hindle J, Rushton A. Accreditation of advanced clinical practice of musculoskeletal physiotherapy in England: a qualitative two-phase study to inform implementation. Physiotherapy (United Kingdom). 2021;113.

Tawiah AK, Stokes E, Wieler M, Desmeules F, Finucane L, Lewis J, et al. Developing an international competency and capability framework for advanced practice physiotherapy: a scoping review with narrative synthesis. Physiotherapy. 2023;122:3–16.

Williams A, Rushton A, Lewis JJ, Phillips C. Evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of a work-based mentoring programme to develop clinical reasoning on patient outcome: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2019;14.

Miles R. Complexity, representation and practice: case study as method and methodology. Issues Educational Res. 2015;25.

Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20.

Thorne S, Kirkham SR, O’Flynn-Magee K. The Analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qual Methods. 2004;3.

Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage; 2003.

Dolan S, Nowell L, Moules NJ. Interpretive description in applied mixed methods research: exploring issues of fit, purpose, process, context, and design. Nurs Inq. 2023;30.

Thorne S. Interpretive description. In: Routledge International Handbook of Qualitative Nursing Research. 2013. pp. 295–306.

Thompson Burdine J, Thorne S, Sandhu G. Interpretive description: a flexible qualitative methodology for medical education research. Med Educ. 2021;55.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus group. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.

Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data Collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18.

Van Someren M, Barnard YF, Sandberg J. The think aloud method: a practical approach to modelling cognitive. Volume 11. London: Academic; 1994.

Fonteyn ME, Kuipers B, Grobe SJ. A description of think aloud Method and Protocol Analysis. Qual Health Res. 1993;3:430–41.

Lundgrén-Laine H, Salanterä S. Think-Aloud technique and protocol analysis in clinical decision-making research. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:565–75.

Doody C, McAteer M. Clinical reasoning of expert and novice physiotherapists in an outpatient orthopaedic setting. Physiotherapy. 2002;88.

Gilliland S. Physical therapist students’ development of diagnostic reasoning: a longitudinal study. J Phys Therapy Educ. 2017;31.

Ericsson KA, Simon HA. How to study thinking in Everyday Life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind Cult Act. 1998;5:178–86.

Dwyer SC, Buckle JL. The space between: on being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8.

Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inform. 2004;22:63–75.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating Rigor using thematic analysis: a Hybrid Approach of Inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5.

Elstein ASLSS. Medical problem solving: an analysis of clinical reasoning. Harvard University Press; 1978.

Proudfoot K. Inductive/Deductive Hybrid Thematic Analysis in mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res. 2023;17.

Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Educ J. 2003;12.

Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness Criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16:1–13.

Thurmond VA. The point of triangulation. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001;33.

Hutting N, Wilbrink W, Taylor A, Kerry R. Identifying vascular pathologies or flow limitations: important aspects in the clinical reasoning process. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021;53:102343.

de Best RF, Coppieters MW, van Trijffel E, Compter A, Uyttenboogaart M, Bot JC, et al. Risk assessment of vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise for the cervical region: diagnostic accuracy of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative physical therapists framework (the Go4Safe project). J Physiother. 2023;69:260–6.

Petty NJ. Becoming an expert: a masterclass in developing clinical expertise. Int J Osteopath Med. 2015;18:207–18.

Edwards I, Jones M, Carr J, Braunack-Mayer A, Jensen GM. Clinical reasoning strategies in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2004;84.

Carraccio CL, Benson BJ, Nixon LJ, Derstine PL. Clinical teaching from the Educational Bench to the clinical Bedside: Translating the Dreyfus Developmental Model to the Learning of Clinical Skills.

Benner P. Using the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition to describe and interpret Skill Acquisition and Clinical Judgment in nursing practice and education. Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2004;24:188–99.

Benner P. From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall;: Commemorative Ed; 2001.

Jensen GM, Gwyer J, Shepard KF, Hack LM. Expert practice in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2000;80.

Huhn K, Gilliland SJ, Black LL, Wainwright SF, Christensen N. Clinical reasoning in physical therapy: a Concept Analysis. Phys Ther. 2019;99.

Hutting N, Kranenburg HA, Rik KR. Yes, we should abandon pre-treatment positional testing of the cervical spine. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;49:102181.

Kranenburg HA, Tyer R, Schmitt M, Luijckx GJ, Schans C, Van Der, Hutting N, et al. Effects of head and neck positions on blood flow in the vertebral, internal carotid, and intracranial arteries: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49:688–97.

Hutting N, Kerry R, Coppieters MW, Scholten-Peeters GGM. Considerations to improve the safety of cervical spine manual therapy. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;33.

Wainwright SF, Shepard KF, Harman LB, Stephens J. Novice and experienced physical therapist clinicians: a comparison of how reflection is used to inform the clinical decision-making process. Phys Ther. 2010;90:75–88.

Dy SM, Purnell TS. Key concepts relevant to quality of complex and shared decision-making in health care: a literature review. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74:582–7.

Christensen N, Jones MA, Higgs J, Edwards I. Dimensions of clinical reasoning capability. In: Campbell S, Watkins V, editors. Clinical reasoning in the health professions. 3rd edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2008. pp. 101–10.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge study participants and the transcriptionist for their time in completing and transcribing think aloud interviews.

No funding was received to conduct this research study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

Katie L. Kowalski, Heather Gillis, Katherine Henning, Paul Parikh, Jackie Sadi & Alison Rushton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Katie Kowalski: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing– original draft, visualization, project administration. Heather Gillis: Validation, resources, writing– review & editing. Katherine Henning: Investigation, formal analysis, writing– review & editing. Paul Parikh: Validation, resources, writing– review & editing. Jackie Sadi: Validation, resources, writing– review & editing. Alison Rushton: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing– review & editing, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie L. Kowalski .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Western University Health Science Research Ethics Board granted ethical approval (Project ID: 119934). Participants provided written informed consent prior to participating in think aloud interviews.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Author AR is an author of the IFOMPT Cervical Framework. Authors JS and HG are lecturers on the AHCP CMP program. AR and JS led standardized teaching of the Framework. Measures to reduce the influence of potential competing interests on the conduct and results of this study included: the Framework representing international and multiprofessional consensus, recruitment of participants by author KK, data collection and analysis completed by KK with input from AR, JS and HG at the stage of data synthesis and interpretation, and wider peer scrutiny of initial findings. KK, KH and PP have no potential competing interests.

Authors’ information

The lead author of this study (AR) is the first author of the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kowalski, K.L., Gillis, H., Henning, K. et al. Use of the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework to inform clinical reasoning in postgraduate level physiotherapy students: a qualitative study using think aloud methodology. BMC Med Educ 24 , 486 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05399-x

Download citation

Received : 11 February 2024

Accepted : 08 April 2024

Published : 02 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05399-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• International IFOMPT Cervical Framework
• Clinical reasoning
• Postgraduate students
• Physiotherapy
• Educational research
• Qualitative research
• Think aloud methodology

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

'it's more than just a conversation about the heart': exploring barriers, enablers, and opportunities for improving the delivery and uptake of cardiac neurodevelopmental follow-up care provisionally accepted.

• 1 Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
• 2 Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
• 3 Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland, Australia
• 4 Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Australia
• 5 Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, United States
• 6 Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, United States
• 7 Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Surveillance, screening, and evaluation for neurodevelopmental delays is a pivotal component of post-surgical care for children with congenital heart disease (CHD). However, challenges exist in implementing such neurodevelopmental follow-up care in international practice. This study aimed to characterise key barriers, enablers, and opportunities for implementing and delivering outpatient cardiac neurodevelopmental follow-up care in Australia. Materials and methods: an exploratory descriptive qualitative study was conducted with healthcare professionals across Australia who had lived experience of designing, implementing, or delivering neurodevelopmental care for children with CHD. Online semi-structured interviews were conducted using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to explore contextual influences. Interview transcripts were analysed using a rapid qualitative approach including templated summaries and hybrid deductive-inductive matrix analysis. Results: fifty-two participants were interviewed. Perceived barriers and enablers were organised into six higher-order themes: factors in the broader environmental, economic, and political context; healthcare system factors; organisational-level factors; provider factors; patient and family factors; and care model factors. The largest number of barriers occurred at the healthcare system level (service accessibility, fragmentation, funding, workforce), while service providers demonstrated the most enabling factors (interprofessional relationships, skilled teams, personal characteristics). Strategies to improve practice included building partnerships; generating evidence; increasing funding; adapting for family-centred care; and integrating systems and data. Summary: Australia shares many similar barriers and enablers to cardiac neurodevelopmental care with other international contexts. However, due to unique geographical and health-system factors, care models and implementation strategies will require adaption to the local context to improve service provision.

Keywords: congenital heart disease, Neurodevelopmental follow-up, implementation, Health Services Research, Barriers and enablers

Received: 02 Jan 2024; Accepted: 08 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Abell, Rodwell, Eagleson, Parsonage, Auld, Bora, Kasparian, Justo and McPhail. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Bridget Abell, Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

People also looked at