qualitative research is inductive or deductive

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach | Steps & Examples

Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach | Steps & Examples

Published on April 18, 2019 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on June 22, 2023.

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 .

In other words, inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalizations . Deductive reasoning works the other way around.

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

Table of contents

Inductive research approach, deductive research approach, combining inductive and deductive research, other interesting articles, 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 fully proven. However, it can be invalidated.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

When conducting deductive research , you always start with a theory. This is usually the result of inductive research. Reasoning deductively means testing these theories. Remember that 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. This helps them develop a relevant research topic and construct a strong working theory. The inductive study is followed up with deductive research to confirm or invalidate the conclusion. This can help you formulate a more structured project, and better mitigate the risk of research bias creeping into your work.

Remember that both inductive and deductive approaches are at risk for research biases, particularly confirmation bias and cognitive bias , so it’s important to be aware while you conduct your research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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.

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.

Exploratory research is often used when the issue you’re studying is new or when the data collection process is challenging for some reason.

You can use exploratory research if you have a general idea or a specific question that you want to study but there is no preexisting knowledge or paradigm with which to study it.

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

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 Citation Generator.

Streefkerk, R. (2023, June 22). Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/inductive-deductive-reasoning/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, explanatory research | definition, guide, & examples, exploratory research | definition, guide, & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• 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

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

Buy Me a Coffee

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

• 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

Government Customer Experience: Impact on Government Service

Apr 11, 2024

Employee Engagement App: Top 11 For Workforce Improvement 

Apr 10, 2024

Top 15 Employee Evaluation Software to Enhance Performance

Event Feedback Software: Top 11 Best in 2024

Apr 9, 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

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, recognising deductive processes in qualitative research.

Qualitative Market Research

ISSN : 1352-2752

Article publication date: 1 June 2000

States that there are two general approaches to reasoning which may result in the acquisition of new knowledge: inductive reasoning commences with observation of specific instances, and seeks to establish generalisations; deductive reasoning commences with generalisations, and seeks to see if these generalisations apply to specific instances. Most often, qualitative research follows an inductive process. In most instances, however, theory developed from qualitative investigation is untested theory. Both quantitative and qualitative researchers demonstrate deductive and inductive processes in their research, but fail to recognise these processes. The research paradigm followed in this article is a post‐positivist (“realist”) one. This is not incompatible with the use of qualitative research methods. Argues that the adoption of formal deductive procedures can represent an important step for assuring conviction in qualitative research findings. Discusses how, and under what circumstances, qualitative researchers might adopt formal deductive procedures in their research. One approach, theory testing by “pattern matching”, is illustrated with a sample application.

• Marketing research
• Qualitative techniques

Hyde, K.F. (2000), "Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research", Qualitative Market Research , Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750010322089

Copyright © 2000, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research

• Open access
• Published: 08 December 2020
• Volume 55 , pages 1703–1725, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Mattia Casula   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7081-8153 1 ,
• Nandhini Rangarajan 2 &
• Patricia Shields   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0960-4869 2  

59k Accesses

78 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

While hypotheses frame explanatory studies and provide guidance for measurement and statistical tests, deductive, exploratory research does not have a framing device like the hypothesis. To this purpose, this article examines the landscape of deductive, exploratory research and offers the working hypothesis as a flexible, useful framework that can guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. The working hypothesis conceptual framework is introduced, placed in a philosophical context, defined, and applied to public administration and comparative public policy. Doing so, this article explains: the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research; how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive, explorative research; the nature of micro-conceptual frameworks for deductive exploratory research; and, how the working hypothesis informs data analysis when exploratory research is deductive.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik Aspers & Ugo Corte

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Drishti Yadav

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Sascha Kraus, Matthias Breier, … João J. Ferreira

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Exploratory research is generally considered to be inductive and qualitative (Stebbins 2001 ). Exploratory qualitative studies adopting an inductive approach do not lend themselves to a priori theorizing and building upon prior bodies of knowledge (Reiter 2013 ; Bryman 2004 as cited in Pearse 2019 ). Juxtaposed against quantitative studies that employ deductive confirmatory approaches, exploratory qualitative research is often criticized for lack of methodological rigor and tentativeness in results (Thomas and Magilvy 2011 ). This paper focuses on the neglected topic of deductive, exploratory research and proposes working hypotheses as a useful framework for these studies.

To emphasize that certain types of applied research lend themselves more easily to deductive approaches, to address the downsides of exploratory qualitative research, and to ensure qualitative rigor in exploratory research, a significant body of work on deductive qualitative approaches has emerged (see for example, Gilgun 2005 , 2015 ; Hyde 2000 ; Pearse 2019 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 3) the use of conceptual frameworks derived from comprehensive reviews of literature and a priori theorizing were common practices in qualitative research prior to the publication of Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) The Discovery of Grounded Theory . Gilgun ( 2015 ) coined the terms Deductive Qualitative Analysis (DQA) to arrive at some sort of “middle-ground” such that the benefits of a priori theorizing (structure) and allowing room for new theory to emerge (flexibility) are reaped simultaneously. According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 14) “in DQA, the initial conceptual framework and hypotheses are preliminary. The purpose of DQA is to come up with a better theory than researchers had constructed at the outset (Gilgun 2005 , 2009 ). Indeed, the production of new, more useful hypotheses is the goal of DQA”.

DQA provides greater level of structure for both the experienced and novice qualitative researcher (see for example Pearse 2019 ; Gilgun 2005 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 4) “conceptual frameworks are the sources of hypotheses and sensitizing concepts”. Sensitizing concepts frame the exploratory research process and guide the researcher’s data collection and reporting efforts. Pearse ( 2019 ) discusses the usefulness for deductive thematic analysis and pattern matching to help guide DQA in business research. Gilgun ( 2005 ) discusses the usefulness of DQA for family research.

Given these rationales for DQA in exploratory research, the overarching purpose of this paper is to contribute to that growing corpus of work on deductive qualitative research. This paper is specifically aimed at guiding novice researchers and student scholars to the working hypothesis as a useful a priori framing tool. The applicability of the working hypothesis as a tool that provides more structure during the design and implementation phases of exploratory research is discussed in detail. Examples of research projects in public administration that use the working hypothesis as a framing tool for deductive exploratory research are provided.

In the next section, we introduce the three types of research purposes. Second, we examine the nature of the exploratory research purpose. Third, we provide a definition of working hypothesis. Fourth, we explore the philosophical roots of methodology to see where exploratory research fits. Fifth, we connect the discussion to the dominant research approaches (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) to see where deductive exploratory research fits. Sixth, we examine the nature of theory and the role of the hypothesis in theory. We contrast formal hypotheses and working hypotheses. Seven, we provide examples of student and scholarly work that illustrates how working hypotheses are developed and operationalized. Lastly, this paper synthesizes previous discussion with concluding remarks.

2 Three types of research purposes

The literature identifies three basic types of research purposes—explanation, description and exploration (Babbie 2007 ; Adler and Clark 2008 ; Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Whetsell 2017 ). Research purposes are similar to research questions; however, they focus on project goals or aims instead of questions.

Explanatory research answers the “why” question (Babbie 2007 , pp. 89–90), by explaining “why things are the way they are”, and by looking “for causes and reasons” (Adler and Clark 2008 , p. 14). Explanatory research is closely tied to hypothesis testing. Theory is tested using deductive reasoning, which goes from the general to the specific (Hyde 2000 , p. 83). Hypotheses provide a frame for explanatory research connecting the research purpose to other parts of the research process (variable construction, choice of data, statistical tests). They help provide alignment or coherence across stages in the research process and provide ways to critique the strengths and weakness of the study. For example, were the hypotheses grounded in the appropriate arguments and evidence in the literature? Are the concepts imbedded in the hypotheses appropriately measured? Was the best statistical test used? When the analysis is complete (hypothesis is tested), the results generally answer the research question (the evidence supported or failed to support the hypothesis) (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ).

Descriptive research addresses the “What” question and is not primarily concerned with causes (Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Tajalli 2006 ). It lies at the “midpoint of the knowledge continuum” (Grinnell 2001 , p. 248) between exploration and explanation. Descriptive research is used in both quantitative and qualitative research. A field researcher might want to “have a more highly developed idea of social phenomena” (Strydom 2013 , p. 154) and develop thick descriptions using inductive logic. In science, categorization and classification systems such as the periodic table of chemistry or the taxonomies of biology inform descriptive research. These baseline classification systems are a type of theorizing and allow researchers to answer questions like “what kind” of plants and animals inhabit a forest. The answer to this question would usually be displayed in graphs and frequency distributions. This is also the data presentation system used in the social sciences (Ritchie and Lewis 2003 ; Strydom 2013 ). For example, if a scholar asked, what are the needs of homeless people? A quantitative approach would include a survey that incorporated a “needs” classification system (preferably based on a literature review). The data would be displayed as frequency distributions or as charts. Description can also be guided by inductive reasoning, which draws “inferences from specific observable phenomena to general rules or knowledge expansion” (Worster 2013 , p. 448). Theory and hypotheses are generated using inductive reasoning, which begins with data and the intention of making sense of it by theorizing. Inductive descriptive approaches would use a qualitative, naturalistic design (open ended interview questions with the homeless population). The data could provide a thick description of the homeless context. For deductive descriptive research, categories, serve a purpose similar to hypotheses for explanatory research. If developed with thought and a connection to the literature, categories can serve as a framework that inform measurement, link to data collection mechanisms and to data analysis. Like hypotheses they can provide horizontal coherence across the steps in the research process.

Table  1 demonstrated these connections for deductive, descriptive and explanatory research. The arrow at the top emphasizes the horizontal or across the research process view we emphasize. This article makes the case that the working hypothesis can serve the same purpose as the hypothesis for deductive, explanatory research and categories for deductive descriptive research. The cells for exploratory research are filled in with question marks.

The remainder of this paper focuses on exploratory research and the answers to questions found in the table:

What is the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research?

What is the Micro-conceptual framework for deductive exploratory research? [ As is clear from the article title we introduce the working hypothesis as the answer .]

How does the working hypothesis inform the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research?

How does the working hypothesis inform data analysis of deductive exploratory research?

3 The nature of exploratory research purpose

Explorers enter the unknown to discover something new. The process can be fraught with struggle and surprises. Effective explorers creatively resolve unexpected problems. While we typically think of explorers as pioneers or mountain climbers, exploration is very much linked to the experience and intention of the explorer. Babies explore as they take their first steps. The exploratory purpose resonates with these insights. Exploratory research, like reconnaissance, is a type of inquiry that is in the preliminary or early stages (Babbie 2007 ). It is associated with discovery, creativity and serendipity (Stebbins 2001 ). But the person doing the discovery, also defines the activity or claims the act of exploration. It “typically occurs when a researcher examines a new interest or when the subject of study itself is relatively new” (Babbie 2007 , p. 88). Hence, exploration has an open character that emphasizes “flexibility, pragmatism, and the particular, biographically specific interests of an investigator” (Maanen et al. 2001 , p. v). These three purposes form a type of hierarchy. An area of inquiry is initially explored . This early work lays the ground for, description which in turn becomes the basis for explanation . Quantitative, explanatory studies dominate contemporary high impact journals (Twining et al. 2017 ).

Stebbins ( 2001 ) makes the point that exploration is often seen as something like a poor stepsister to confirmatory or hypothesis testing research. He has a problem with this because we live in a changing world and what is settled today will very likely be unsettled in the near future and in need of exploration. Further, exploratory research “generates initial insights into the nature of an issue and develops questions to be investigated by more extensive studies” (Marlow 2005 , p. 334). Exploration is widely applicable because all research topics were once “new.” Further, all research topics have the possibility of “innovation” or ongoing “newness”. Exploratory research may be appropriate to establish whether a phenomenon exists (Strydom 2013 ). The point here, of course, is that the exploratory purpose is far from trivial.

Stebbins’ Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences ( 2001 ), is the only book devoted to the nature of exploratory research as a form of social science inquiry. He views it as a “broad-ranging, purposive, systematic prearranged undertaking designed to maximize the discovery of generalizations leading to description and understanding of an area of social or psychological life” (p. 3). It is science conducted in a way distinct from confirmation. According to Stebbins ( 2001 , p. 6) the goal is discovery of potential generalizations, which can become future hypotheses and eventually theories that emerge from the data. He focuses on inductive logic (which stimulates creativity) and qualitative methods. He does not want exploratory research limited to the restrictive formulas and models he finds in confirmatory research. He links exploratory research to Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) flexible, immersive, Grounded Theory. Strydom’s ( 2013 ) analysis of contemporary social work research methods books echoes Stebbins’ ( 2001 ) position. Stebbins’s book is an important contribution, but it limits the potential scope of this flexible and versatile research purpose. If we accepted his conclusion, we would delete the “Exploratory” row from Table  1 .

Note that explanatory research can yield new questions, which lead to exploration. Inquiry is a process where inductive and deductive activities can occur simultaneously or in a back and forth manner, particularly as the literature is reviewed and the research design emerges. Footnote 1 Strict typologies such as explanation, description and exploration or inductive/deductive can obscures these larger connections and processes. We draw insight from Dewey’s ( 1896 ) vision of inquiry as depicted in his seminal “Reflex Arc” article. He notes that “stimulus” and “response” like other dualities (inductive/deductive) exist within a larger unifying system. Yet the terms have value. “We need not abandon terms like stimulus and response, so long as we remember that they are attached to events based upon their function in a wider dynamic context, one that includes interests and aims” (Hildebrand 2008 , p. 16). So too, in methodology typologies such as deductive/inductive capture useful distinctions with practical value and are widely used in the methodology literature.

We argue that there is a role for exploratory, deductive, and confirmatory research. We maintain all types of research logics and methods should be in the toolbox of exploratory research. First, as stated above, it makes no sense on its face to identify an extremely flexible purpose that is idiosyncratic to the researcher and then basically restrict its use to qualitative, inductive, non-confirmatory methods. Second, Stebbins’s ( 2001 ) work focused on social science ignoring the policy sciences. Exploratory research can be ideal for immediate practical problems faced by policy makers, who could find a framework of some kind useful. Third, deductive, exploratory research is more intentionally connected to previous research. Some kind of initial framing device is located or designed using the literature. This may be very important for new scholars who are developing research skills and exploring their field and profession. Stebbins’s insights are most pertinent for experienced scholars. Fourth, frameworks and deductive logic are useful for comparative work because some degree of consistency across cases is built into the design.

As we have seen, the hypotheses of explanatory and categories of descriptive research are the dominate frames of social science and policy science. We certainly concur that neither of these frames makes a lot of sense for exploratory research. They would tend to tie it down. We see the problem as a missing framework or missing way to frame deductive, exploratory research in the methodology literature. Inductive exploratory research would not work for many case studies that are trying to use evidence to make an argument. What exploratory deductive case studies need is a framework that incorporates flexibility. This is even more true for comparative case studies. A framework of this sort could be usefully applied to policy research (Casula 2020a ), particularly evaluative policy research, and applied research generally. We propose the Working Hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and as a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It can be used as an evaluative criterion particularly for process evaluation and is useful for student research because students can develop theorizing skills using the literature.

Table  1 included a column specifying the philosophical basis for each research purpose. Shifting gears to the philosophical underpinning of methodology provides useful additional context for examination of deductive, exploratory research.

4 What is a working hypothesis

The working hypothesis is first and foremost a hypothesis or a statement of expectation that is tested in action. The term “working” suggest that these hypotheses are subject to change, are provisional and the possibility of finding contradictory evidence is real. In addition, a “working” hypothesis is active, it is a tool in an ongoing process of inquiry. If one begins with a research question, the working hypothesis could be viewed as a statement or group of statements that answer the question. It “works” to move purposeful inquiry forward. “Working” also implies some sort of community, mostly we work together in relationship to achieve some goal.

Working Hypothesis is a term found in earlier literature. Indeed, both pioneering pragmatists, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead use the term working hypothesis in important nineteenth century works. For both Dewey and Mead, the notion of a working hypothesis has a self-evident quality and it is applied in a big picture context. Footnote 2

Most notably, Dewey ( 1896 ), in one of his most pivotal early works (“Reflex Arc”), used “working hypothesis” to describe a key concept in psychology. “The idea of the reflex arc has upon the whole come nearer to meeting this demand for a general working hypothesis than any other single concept (Italics added)” (p. 357). The notion of a working hypothesis was developed more fully 42 years later, in Logic the Theory of Inquiry , where Dewey developed the notion of a working hypothesis that operated on a smaller scale. He defines working hypotheses as a “provisional, working means of advancing investigation” (Dewey 1938 , pp. 142). Dewey’s definition suggests that working hypotheses would be useful toward the beginning of a research project (e.g., exploratory research).

Mead ( 1899 ) used working hypothesis in a title of an American Journal of Sociology article “The Working Hypothesis and Social Reform” (italics added). He notes that a scientist’s foresight goes beyond testing a hypothesis.

Given its success, he may restate his world from this standpoint and get the basis for further investigation that again always takes the form of a problem. The solution of this problem is found over again in the possibility of fitting his hypothetical proposition into the whole within which it arises. And he must recognize that this statement is only a working hypothesis at the best, i.e., he knows that further investigation will show that the former statement of his world is only provisionally true, and must be false from the standpoint of a larger knowledge, as every partial truth is necessarily false over against the fuller knowledge which he will gain later (Mead 1899 , p. 370).

Cronbach ( 1975 ) developed a notion of working hypothesis consistent with inductive reasoning, but for him, the working hypothesis is a product or result of naturalistic inquiry. He makes the case that naturalistic inquiry is highly context dependent and therefore results or seeming generalizations that may come from a study and should be viewed as “working hypotheses”, which “are tentative both for the situation in which they first uncovered and for other situations” (as cited in Gobo 2008 , p. 196).

A quick Google scholar search using the term “working hypothesis” show that it is widely used in twentieth and twenty-first century science, particularly in titles. In these articles, the working hypothesis is treated as a conceptual tool that furthers investigation in its early or transitioning phases. We could find no explicit links to exploratory research. The exploratory nature of the problem is expressed implicitly. Terms such as “speculative” (Habib 2000 , p. 2391) or “rapidly evolving field” (Prater et al. 2007 , p. 1141) capture the exploratory nature of the study. The authors might describe how a topic is “new” or reference “change”. “As a working hypothesis, the picture is only new, however, in its interpretation” (Milnes 1974 , p. 1731). In a study of soil genesis, Arnold ( 1965 , p. 718) notes “Sequential models, formulated as working hypotheses, are subject to further investigation and change”. Any 2020 article dealing with COVID-19 and respiratory distress would be preliminary almost by definition (Ciceri et al. 2020 ).

5 Philosophical roots of methodology

According to Kaplan ( 1964 , p. 23) “the aim of methodology is to help us understand, in the broadest sense not the products of scientific inquiry but the process itself”. Methods contain philosophical principles that distinguish them from other “human enterprises and interests” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 23). Contemporary research methodology is generally classified as quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Leading scholars of methodology have associated each with a philosophical underpinning—positivism (or post-positivism), interpretivism or constructivist and pragmatism, respectively (Guba 1987 ; Guba and Lincoln 1981 ; Schrag 1992 ; Stebbins 2001 ; Mackenzi and Knipe 2006 ; Atieno 2009 ; Levers 2013 ; Morgan 2007 ; O’Connor et al. 2008 ; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). This section summarizes how the literature often describes these philosophies and informs contemporary methodology and its literature.

Positivism and its more contemporary version, post-positivism, maintains an objectivist ontology or assumes an objective reality, which can be uncovered (Levers 2013 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). Footnote 3 Time and context free generalizations are possible and “real causes of social scientific outcomes can be determined reliably and validly (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 14). Further, “explanation of the social world is possible through a logical reduction of social phenomena to physical terms”. It uses an empiricist epistemology which “implies testability against observation, experimentation, or comparison” (Whetsell and Shields 2015 , pp. 420–421). Correspondence theory, a tenet of positivism, asserts that “to each concept there corresponds a set of operations involved in its scientific use” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 40).

The interpretivist, constructivists or post-modernist approach is a reaction to positivism. It uses a relativist ontology and a subjectivist epistemology (Levers 2013 ). In this world of multiple realities, context free generalities are impossible as is the separation of facts and values. Causality, explanation, prediction, experimentation depend on assumptions about the correspondence between concepts and reality, which in the absence of an objective reality is impossible. Empirical research can yield “contextualized emergent understanding rather than the creation of testable theoretical structures” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). The distinctively different world views of positivist/post positivist and interpretivist philosophy is at the core of many controversies in methodology, social and policy science literature (Casula 2020b ).

With its focus on dissolving dualisms, pragmatism steps outside the objective/subjective debate. Instead, it asks, “what difference would it make to us if the statement were true” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 42). Its epistemology is connected to purposeful inquiry. Pragmatism has a “transformative, experimental notion of inquiry” anchored in pluralism and a focus on constructing conceptual and practical tools to resolve “problematic situations” (Shields 1998 ; Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ). Exploration and working hypotheses are most comfortably situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective.

6 Research approaches

Empirical investigation relies on three types of methodology—quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.

6.1 Quantitative methods

Quantitative methods uses deductive logic and formal hypotheses or models to explain, predict, and eventually establish causation (Hyde 2000 ; Kaplan 1964 ; Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 ; Morgan 2007 ). Footnote 4 The correspondence between the conceptual and empirical world make measures possible. Measurement assigns numbers to objects, events or situations and allows for standardization and subtle discrimination. It also allows researchers to draw on the power of mathematics and statistics (Kaplan 1964 , pp. 172–174). Using the power of inferential statistics, quantitative research employs research designs, which eliminate competing hypotheses. It is high in external validity or the ability to generalize to the whole. The research results are relatively independent of the researcher (Johnson & Onwuegbunzie 2004 ).

Quantitative methods depend on the quality of measurement and a priori conceptualization, and adherence to the underlying assumptions of inferential statistics. Critics charge that hypotheses and frameworks needlessly constrain inquiry (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 19). Hypothesis testing quantitative methods support the explanatory purpose.

6.2 Qualitative methods

Qualitative researchers who embrace the post-modern, interpretivist view, Footnote 5 question everything about the nature of quantitative methods (Willis et al. 2007 ). Rejecting the possibility of objectivity, correspondence between ideas and measures, and the constraints of a priori theorizing they focus on “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize the findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). Characteristics of traditional qualitative research include “induction, discovery, exploration, theory/hypothesis generation and the researcher as the primary ‘instrument’ of data collection” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 18). It also concerns itself with forming “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). The data of qualitative methods are generated via interviews, direct observation, focus groups and analysis of written records or artifacts.

Qualitative methods provide for understanding and “description of people’s personal experiences of phenomena”. They enable descriptions of detailed “phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts.” Researchers use naturalistic settings to “study dynamic processes” and explore how participants interpret experiences. Qualitative methods have an inherent flexibility, allowing researchers to respond to changes in the research setting. They are particularly good at narrowing to the particular and on the flipside have limited external validity (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 20). Instead of specifying a suitable sample size to draw conclusions, qualitative research uses the notion of saturation (Morse 1995 ).

Saturation is used in grounded theory—a widely used and respected form of qualitative research, and a well-known interpretivist qualitative research method. Introduced by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ), this “grounded on observation” (Patten and Newhart 2000 , p. 27) methodology, focuses on “the creation of emergent understanding” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). It uses the Constant Comparative method, whereby researchers develop theory from data as they code and analyze at the same time. Data collection, coding and analysis along with theoretical sampling are systematically combined to generate theory (Kolb 2012 , p. 83). The qualitative methods discussed here support exploratory research.

A close look at the two philosophies and assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research suggests two contradictory world views. The literature has labeled these contradictory views the Incompatibility Theory, which sets up a quantitative versus qualitative tension similar to the seeming separation of art and science or fact and values (Smith 1983a , b ; Guba 1987 ; Smith and Heshusius 1986 ; Howe 1988 ). The incompatibility theory does not make sense in practice. Yin ( 1981 , 1992 , 2011 , 2017 ), a prominent case study scholar, showcases a deductive research methodology that crosses boundaries using both quantaitive and qualitative evidence when appropriate.

6.3 Mixed methods

Turning the “Incompatibility Theory” on its head, Mixed Methods research “combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches … for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al. 2007 , p. 123). It does this by partnering with philosophical pragmatism. Footnote 6 Pragmatism is productive because “it offers an immediate and useful middle position philosophically and methodologically; it offers a practical and outcome-oriented method of inquiry that is based on action and leads, iteratively, to further action and the elimination of doubt; it offers a method for selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better answer many of their research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 17). What is theory for the pragmatist “any theoretical model is for the pragmatist, nothing more than a framework through which problems are perceived and subsequently organized ” (Hothersall 2019 , p. 5).

Brendel ( 2009 ) constructed a simple framework to capture the core elements of pragmatism. Brendel’s four “p”’s—practical, pluralism, participatory and provisional help to show the relevance of pragmatism to mixed methods. Pragmatism is purposeful and concerned with the practical consequences. The pluralism of pragmatism overcomes quantitative/qualitative dualism. Instead, it allows for multiple perspectives (including positivism and interpretivism) and, thus, gets around the incompatibility problem. Inquiry should be participatory or inclusive of the many views of participants, hence, it is consistent with multiple realities and is also tied to the common concern of a problematic situation. Finally, all inquiry is provisional . This is compatible with experimental methods, hypothesis testing and consistent with the back and forth of inductive and deductive reasoning. Mixed methods support exploratory research.

Advocates of mixed methods research note that it overcomes the weaknesses and employs the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods provide precision. The pictures and narrative of qualitative techniques add meaning to the numbers. Quantitative analysis can provide a big picture, establish relationships and its results have great generalizability. On the other hand, the “why” behind the explanation is often missing and can be filled in through in-depth interviews. A deeper and more satisfying explanation is possible. Mixed-methods brings the benefits of triangulation or multiple sources of evidence that converge to support a conclusion. It can entertain a “broader and more complete range of research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 21) and can move between inductive and deductive methods. Case studies use multiple forms of evidence and are a natural context for mixed methods.

One thing that seems to be missing from mixed method literature and explicit design is a place for conceptual frameworks. For example, Heyvaert et al. ( 2013 ) examined nine mixed methods studies and found an explicit framework in only two studies (transformative and pragmatic) (p. 663).

7 Theory and hypotheses: where is and what is theory?

Theory is key to deductive research. In essence, empirical deductive methods test theory. Hence, we shift our attention to theory and the role and functions of the hypotheses in theory. Oppenheim and Putnam ( 1958 ) note that “by a ‘theory’ (in the widest sense) we mean any hypothesis, generalization or law (whether deterministic or statistical) or any conjunction of these” (p. 25). Van Evera ( 1997 ) uses a similar and more complex definition “theories are general statements that describe and explain the causes of effects of classes of phenomena. They are composed of causal laws or hypotheses, explanations, and antecedent conditions” (p. 8). Sutton and Staw ( 1995 , p. 376) in a highly cited article “What Theory is Not” assert the that hypotheses should contain logical arguments for “why” the hypothesis is expected. Hypotheses need an underlying causal argument before they can be considered theory. The point of this discussion is not to define theory but to establish the importance of hypotheses in theory.

Explanatory research is implicitly relational (A explains B). The hypotheses of explanatory research lay bare these relationships. Popular definitions of hypotheses capture this relational component. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines a hypothesis a “an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven”. Vocabulary.Com’s definition emphasizes explanation, a hypothesis is “an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation”. According to Wikipedia a hypothesis is “a proposed explanation for a phenomenon”. Other definitions remove the relational or explanatory reference. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a hypothesis as a “supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts.” Science Buddies defines a hypothesis as a “tentative, testable answer to a scientific question”. According to the Longman Dictionary the hypothesis is “an idea that can be tested to see if it is true or not”. The Urban Dictionary states a hypothesis is “a prediction or educated-guess based on current evidence that is yet be tested”. We argue that the hypotheses of exploratory research— working hypothesis — are not bound by relational expectations. It is this flexibility that distinguishes the working hypothesis.

Sutton and Staw (1995) maintain that hypotheses “serve as crucial bridges between theory and data, making explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical argument will be operationalized” (p. 376, italics added). The highly rated journal, Computers and Education , Twining et al. ( 2017 ) created guidelines for qualitative research as a way to improve soundness and rigor. They identified the lack of alignment between theoretical stance and methodology as a common problem in qualitative research. In addition, they identified a lack of alignment between methodology, design, instruments of data collection and analysis. The authors created a guidance summary, which emphasized the need to enhance coherence throughout elements of research design (Twining et al. 2017 p. 12). Perhaps the bridging function of the hypothesis mentioned by Sutton and Staw (1995) is obscured and often missing in qualitative methods. Working hypotheses can be a tool to overcome this problem.

For reasons, similar to those used by mixed methods scholars, we look to classical pragmatism and the ideas of John Dewey to inform our discussion of theory and working hypotheses. Dewey ( 1938 ) treats theory as a tool of empirical inquiry and uses a map metaphor (p. 136). Theory is like a map that helps a traveler navigate the terrain—and should be judged by its usefulness. “There is no expectation that a map is a true representation of reality. Rather, it is a representation that allows a traveler to reach a destination (achieve a purpose). Hence, theories should be judged by how well they help resolve the problem or achieve a purpose ” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 , p. 23). Note that we explicitly link theory to the research purpose. Theory is never treated as an unimpeachable Truth, rather it is a helpful tool that organizes inquiry connecting data and problem. Dewey’s approach also expands the definition of theory to include abstractions (categories) outside of causation and explanation. The micro-conceptual frameworks Footnote 7 introduced in Table  1 are a type of theory. We define conceptual frameworks as the “way the ideas are organized to achieve the project’s purpose” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 p. 24). Micro-conceptual frameworks do this at the very close to the data level of analysis. Micro-conceptual frameworks can direct operationalization and ways to assess measurement or evidence at the individual research study level. Again, the research purpose plays a pivotal role in the functioning of theory (Shields and Tajalli 2006 ).

8 Working hypothesis: methods and data analysis

We move on to answer the remaining questions in the Table  1 . We have established that exploratory research is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic. Given this, we will proceed with a few examples and draw out lessons for developing an exploratory purpose, building a framework and from there identifying data collection techniques and the logics of hypotheses testing and analysis. Early on we noted the value of the Working Hypothesis framework for student empirical research and applied research. The next section uses a masters level student’s work to illustrate the usefulness of working hypotheses as a way to incorporate the literature and structure inquiry. This graduate student was also a mature professional with a research question that emerged from his job and is thus an example of applied research.

Master of Public Administration student, Swift ( 2010 ) worked for a public agency and was responsible for that agency’s sexual harassment training. The agency needed to evaluate its training but had never done so before. He also had never attempted a significant empirical research project. Both of these conditions suggest exploration as a possible approach. He was interested in evaluating the training program and hence the project had a normative sense. Given his job, he already knew a lot about the problem of sexual harassment and sexual harassment training. What he did not know much about was doing empirical research, reviewing the literature or building a framework to evaluate the training (working hypotheses). He wanted a framework that was flexible and comprehensive. In his research, he discovered Lundvall’s ( 2006 ) knowledge taxonomy summarized with four simple ways of knowing ( Know - what, Know - how, Know - why, Know - who ). He asked whether his agency’s training provided the participants with these kinds of knowledge? Lundvall’s categories of knowing became the basis of his working hypotheses. Lundvall’s knowledge taxonomy is well suited for working hypotheses because it is so simple and is easy to understand intuitively. It can also be tailored to the unique problematic situation of the researcher. Swift ( 2010 , pp. 38–39) developed four basic working hypotheses:

WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual harassment training

WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual harassment training

WH3: Capital Metro provides adequate know - why knowledge in its sexual harassment training

WH4: Capital Metro provides adequate know - who knowledge in its sexual harassment training

From here he needed to determine what would determine the different kinds of knowledge. For example, what constitutes “know what” knowledge for sexual harassment training. This is where his knowledge and experience working in the field as well as the literature come into play. According to Lundvall et al. ( 1988 , p. 12) “know what” knowledge is about facts and raw information. Swift ( 2010 ) learned through the literature that laws and rules were the basis for the mandated sexual harassment training. He read about specific anti-discrimination laws and the subsequent rules and regulations derived from the laws. These laws and rules used specific definitions and were enacted within a historical context. Laws, rules, definitions and history became the “facts” of Know-What knowledge for his working hypothesis. To make this clear, he created sub-hypotheses that explicitly took these into account. See how Swift ( 2010 , p. 38) constructed the sub-hypotheses below. Each sub-hypothesis was defended using material from the literature (Swift 2010 , pp. 22–26). The sub-hypotheses can also be easily tied to evidence. For example, he could document that the training covered anti-discrimination laws.

WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual Harassment training

WH1a: The sexual harassment training includes information on anti-discrimination laws (Title VII).

WH1b: The sexual harassment training includes information on key definitions.

WH1c: The sexual harassment training includes information on Capital Metro’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment policy.

WH1d: Capital Metro provides training on sexual harassment history.

Know-How knowledge refers to the ability to do something and involves skills (Lundvall and Johnson 1994 , p. 12). It is a kind of expertise in action. The literature and his experience allowed James Smith to identify skills such as how to file a claim or how to document incidents of sexual harassment as important “know-how” knowledge that should be included in sexual harassment training. Again, these were depicted as sub-hypotheses.

WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual Harassment training

WH2a: Training is provided on how to file and report a claim of harassment

WH2b: Training is provided on how to document sexual harassment situations.

WH2c: Training is provided on how to investigate sexual harassment complaints.

WH2d: Training is provided on how to follow additional harassment policy procedures protocol

Note that the working hypotheses do not specify a relationship but rather are simple declarative sentences. If “know-how” knowledge was found in the sexual harassment training, he would be able to find evidence that participants learned about how to file a claim (WH2a). The working hypothesis provides the bridge between theory and data that Sutton and Staw (1995) found missing in exploratory work. The sub-hypotheses are designed to be refined enough that the researchers would know what to look for and tailor their hunt for evidence. Figure  1 captures the generic sub-hypothesis design.

A Common structure used in the development of working hypotheses

When expected evidence is linked to the sub-hypotheses, data, framework and research purpose are aligned. This can be laid out in a planning document that operationalizes the data collection in something akin to an architect’s blueprint. This is where the scholar explicitly develops the alignment between purpose, framework and method (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019b ).

Table  2 operationalizes Swift’s working hypotheses (and sub-hypotheses). The table provide clues as to what kind of evidence is needed to determine whether the hypotheses are supported. In this case, Smith used interviews with participants and trainers as well as a review of program documents. Column one repeats the sub-hypothesis, column two specifies the data collection method (here interviews with participants/managers and review of program documents) and column three specifies the unique questions that focus the investigation. For example, the interview questions are provided. In the less precise world of qualitative data, evidence supporting a hypothesis could have varying degrees of strength. This too can be specified.

For Swift’s example, neither the statistics of explanatory research nor the open-ended questions of interpretivist, inductive exploratory research is used. The deductive logic of inquiry here is somewhat intuitive and similar to a detective (Ulriksen and Dadalauri 2016 ). It is also a logic used in international law (Worster 2013 ). It should be noted that the working hypothesis and the corresponding data collection protocol does not stop inquiry and fieldwork outside the framework. The interviews could reveal an unexpected problem with Smith’s training program. The framework provides a very loose and perhaps useful ways to identify and make sense of the data that does not fit the expectations. Researchers using working hypotheses should be sensitive to interesting findings that fall outside their framework. These could be used in future studies, to refine theory or even in this case provide suggestions to improve sexual harassment training. The sensitizing concepts mentioned by Gilgun ( 2015 ) are free to emerge and should be encouraged.

Something akin to working hypotheses are hidden in plain sight in the professional literature. Take for example Kerry Crawford’s ( 2017 ) book Wartime Sexual Violence. Here she explores how basic changes in the way “advocates and decision makers think about and discuss conflict-related sexual violence” (p. 2). She focused on a subsequent shift from silence to action. The shift occurred as wartime sexual violence was reframed as a “weapon of war”. The new frame captured the attention of powerful members of the security community who demanded, initiated, and paid for institutional and policy change. Crawford ( 2017 ) examines the legacy of this key reframing. She develops a six-stage model of potential international responses to incidents of wartime violence. This model is fairly easily converted to working hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. Table  3 shows her model as a set of (non-relational) working hypotheses. She applied this model as a way to gather evidence among cases (e.g., the US response to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) to show the official level of response to sexual violence. Each case study chapter examined evidence to establish whether the case fit the pattern formalized in the working hypotheses. The framework was very useful in her comparative context. The framework allowed for consistent comparative analysis across cases. Her analysis of the three cases went well beyond the material covered in the framework. She freely incorporated useful inductively informed data in her analysis and discussion. The framework, however, allowed for alignment within and across cases.

9 Conclusion

In this article we argued that the exploratory research is also well suited for deductive approaches. By examining the landscape of deductive, exploratory research, we proposed the working hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It has the potential to guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. After presenting the nature of exploratory research purpose and how it differs from two types of research purposes identified in the literature—explanation, and description. We focused on answering four different questions in order to show the link between micro-conceptual frameworks and research purposes in a deductive setting. The answers to the four questions are summarized in Table  4 .

Firstly, we argued that working hypothesis and exploration are situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective. Pragmatism allows for pluralism in theory and data collection techniques, which is compatible with the flexible exploratory purpose. Secondly, after introducing and discussing the four core elements of pragmatism (practical, pluralism, participatory, and provisional), we explained how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research through a presentation of the benefits of triangulation provided by mixed methods research. Thirdly, as is clear from the article title, we introduced the working hypothesis as the micro-conceptual framework for deductive explorative research. We argued that the hypotheses of explorative research, which we call working hypotheses are distinguished from those of the explanatory research, since they do not require a relational component and are not bound by relational expectations. A working hypothesis is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic, and it could be viewed as a statement or group of statements of expectations tested in action depending on the research question. Using examples, we concluded by explaining how working hypotheses inform data collection and analysis for deductive exploratory research.

Crawford’s ( 2017 ) example showed how the structure of working hypotheses provide a framework for comparative case studies. Her criteria for analysis were specified ahead of time and used to frame each case. Thus, her comparisons were systemized across cases. Further, the framework ensured a connection between the data analysis and the literature review. Yet the flexible, working nature of the hypotheses allowed for unexpected findings to be discovered.

The evidence required to test working hypotheses is directed by the research purpose and potentially includes both quantitative and qualitative sources. Thus, all types of evidence, including quantitative methods should be part of the toolbox of deductive, explorative research. We show how the working hypotheses, as a flexible exploratory framework, resolves many seeming dualisms pervasive in the research methods literature.

To conclude, this article has provided an in-depth examination of working hypotheses taking into account philosophical questions and the larger formal research methods literature. By discussing working hypotheses as applied, theoretical tools, we demonstrated that working hypotheses fill a unique niche in the methods literature, since they provide a way to enhance alignment in deductive, explorative studies.

In practice, quantitative scholars often run multivariate analysis on data bases to find out if there are correlations. Hypotheses are tested because the statistical software does the math, not because the scholar has an a priori, relational expectation (hypothesis) well-grounded in the literature and supported by cogent arguments. Hunches are just fine. This is clearly an inductive approach to research and part of the large process of inquiry.

In 1958 , Philosophers of Science, Oppenheim and Putnam use the notion of Working Hypothesis in their title “Unity of Science as Working Hypothesis.” They too, use it as a big picture concept, “unity of science in this sense, can be fully realized constitutes an over-arching meta-scientific hypothesis, which enables one to see a unity in scientific activities that might otherwise appear disconnected or unrelated” (p. 4).

It should be noted that the positivism described in the research methods literature does not resemble philosophical positivism as developed by philosophers like Comte (Whetsell and Shields 2015 ). In the research methods literature “positivism means different things to different people….The term has long been emptied of any precise denotation …and is sometimes affixed to positions actually opposed to those espoused by the philosophers from whom the name derives” (Schrag 1992 , p. 5). For purposes of this paper, we are capturing a few essential ways positivism is presented in the research methods literature. This helps us to position the “working hypothesis” and “exploratory” research within the larger context in contemporary research methods. We are not arguing that the positivism presented here is anything more. The incompatibility theory discussed later, is an outgrowth of this research methods literature…

It should be noted that quantitative researchers often use inductive reasoning. They do this with existing data sets when they run correlations or regression analysis as a way to find relationships. They ask, what does the data tell us?

Qualitative researchers are also associated with phenomenology, hermeneutics, naturalistic inquiry and constructivism.

See Feilzer ( 2010 ), Howe ( 1988 ), Johnson and Onwuegbunzie ( 2004 ), Morgan ( 2007 ), Onwuegbuzie and Leech ( 2005 ), Biddle and Schafft ( 2015 ).

The term conceptual framework is applicable in a broad context (see Ravitch and Riggan 2012 ). The micro-conceptual framework narrows to the specific study and informs data collection (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019a ) .

Adler, E., Clark, R.: How It’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research, 3rd edn. Thompson-Wadsworth, Belmont (2008)

Google Scholar  

Arnold, R.W.: Multiple working hypothesis in soil genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 29 (6), 717–724 (1965)

Article   Google Scholar  

Atieno, O.: An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 13 , 13–18 (2009)

Babbie, E.: The Practice of Social Research, 11th edn. Thompson-Wadsworth, Belmont (2007)

Biddle, C., Schafft, K.A.: Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 9 (4), 320–334 (2015)

Brendel, D.H.: Healing Psychiatry: Bridging the Science/Humanism Divide. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)

Bryman, A.: Qualitative research on leadership: a critical but appreciative review. Leadersh. Q. 15 (6), 729–769 (2004)

Casula, M.: Under which conditions is cohesion policy effective: proposing an Hirschmanian approach to EU structural funds, Regional & Federal Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2020.1713110 (2020a)

Casula, M.: Economic gowth and cohesion policy implementation in Italy and Spain, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (2020b)

Ciceri, F., et al.: Microvascular COVID-19 lung vessels obstructive thromboinflammatory syndrome (MicroCLOTS): an atypical acute respiratory distress syndrome working hypothesis. Crit. Care Resusc. 15 , 1–3 (2020)

Crawford, K.F.: Wartime sexual violence: From silence to condemnation of a weapon of war. Georgetown University Press (2017)

Cronbach, L.: Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology American Psychologist. 30 116–127 (1975)

Dewey, J.: The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychol. Rev. 3 (4), 357 (1896)

Dewey, J.: Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt & Co, New York (1938)

Feilzer, Y.: Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 4 (1), 6–16 (2010)

Gilgun, J.F.: Qualitative research and family psychology. J. Fam. Psychol. 19 (1), 40–50 (2005)

Gilgun, J.F.: Methods for enhancing theory and knowledge about problems, policies, and practice. In: Katherine Briar, Joan Orme., Roy Ruckdeschel., Ian Shaw. (eds.) The Sage handbook of social work research pp. 281–297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2009)

Gilgun, J.F.: Deductive Qualitative Analysis as Middle Ground: Theory-Guided Qualitative Research. Amazon Digital Services LLC, Seattle (2015)

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago (1967)

Gobo, G.: Re-Conceptualizing Generalization: Old Issues in a New Frame. In: Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L., Brannen, J. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods, pp. 193–213. Sage, Los Angeles (2008)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Grinnell, R.M.: Social work research and evaluation: quantitative and qualitative approaches. New York: F.E. Peacock Publishers (2001)

Guba, E.G.: What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Eval. Pract. 8 (1), 23–43 (1987)

Guba, E., Lincoln, Y.: Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1981)

Habib, M.: The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia: an overview and working hypothesis. Brain 123 (12), 2373–2399 (2000)

Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., Onghena, P.: Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual. Quant. 47 (2), 659–676 (2013)

Hildebrand, D.: Dewey: A Beginners Guide. Oneworld Oxford, Oxford (2008)

Howe, K.R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Edu. Res. 17 (8), 10–16 (1988)

Hothersall, S.J.: Epistemology and social work: enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism. Eur. J. Social Work 22 (5), 860–870 (2019)

Hyde, K.F.: Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qual. Market Res. Int. J. 3 (2), 82–90 (2000)

Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33 (7), 14–26 (2004)

Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (2), 112–133 (2007)

Kaplan, A.: The Conduct of Inquiry. Chandler, Scranton (1964)

Kolb, S.M.: Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: valid research strategies for educators. J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 3 (1), 83–86 (2012)

Levers, M.J.D.: Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open 3 (4), 2158244013517243 (2013)

Lundvall, B.A.: Knowledge management in the learning economy. In: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics Working Paper Working Paper, vol. 6, pp. 3–5 (2006)

Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B.: Knowledge management in the learning economy. J. Ind. Stud. 1 (2), 23–42 (1994)

Lundvall, B.-Å., Jenson, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E.: Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation—From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In: Dosi, G., et al. (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London (1988)

Maanen, J., Manning, P., Miller, M.: Series editors’ introduction. In: Stebbins, R. (ed.) Exploratory research in the social sciences. pp. v–vi. Thousands Oak, CA: SAGE (2001)

Mackenzie, N., Knipe, S.: Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues Educ. Res. 16 (2), 193–205 (2006)

Marlow, C.R.: Research Methods for Generalist Social Work. Thomson Brooks/Cole, New York (2005)

Mead, G.H.: The working hypothesis in social reform. Am. J. Sociol. 5 (3), 367–371 (1899)

Milnes, A.G.: Structure of the Pennine Zone (Central Alps): a new working hypothesis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 85 (11), 1727–1732 (1974)

Morgan, D.L.: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (1), 48–76 (2007)

Morse, J.: The significance of saturation. Qual. Health Res. 5 (2), 147–149 (1995)

O’Connor, M.K., Netting, F.E., Thomas, M.L.: Grounded theory: managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qual. Inq. 14 (1), 28–45 (2008)

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (5), 375–387 (2005)

Oppenheim, P., Putnam, H.: Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II, pp. 3–36 (1958)

Patten, M.L., Newhart, M.: Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York (2000)

Pearse, N.: An illustration of deductive analysis in qualitative research. In: European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, pp. 264–VII. Academic Conferences International Limited (2019)

Prater, D.N., Case, J., Ingram, D.A., Yoder, M.C.: Working hypothesis to redefine endothelial progenitor cells. Leukemia 21 (6), 1141–1149 (2007)

Ravitch, B., Riggan, M.: Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Sage, Beverley Hills (2012)

Reiter, B.: The epistemology and methodology of exploratory social science research: Crossing Popper with Marcuse. In: Government and International Affairs Faculty Publications. Paper 99. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gia_facpub/99 (2013)

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J.: Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage, London (2003)

Schrag, F.: In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educ. Res. 21 (5), 5–8 (1992)

Shields, P.M.: Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A tool for public administration. Res. Pub. Admin. 41995-225 (1998)

Shields, P.M., Rangarajan, N.: A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management. New Forums Press (2013)

Shields, P.M., Tajalli, H.: Intermediate theory: the missing link in successful student scholarship. J. Public Aff. Educ. 12 (3), 313–334 (2006)

Shields, P., & Whetsell, T.: Public administration methodology: A pragmatic perspective. In: Raadshelders, J., Stillman, R., (eds). Foundations of Public Administration, pp. 75–92. New York: Melvin and Leigh (2017)

Shields, P., Rangarajan, N., Casula, M.: It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part I). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 10 , 39–47 (2019a)

Shields, P., Rangarajan, N., Casula, M.: It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part 2). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 11 , 40–51 (2019b)

Smith, J.K.: Quantitative versus qualitative research: an attempt to clarify the issue. Educ. Res. 12 (3), 6–13 (1983a)

Smith, J.K.: Quantitative versus interpretive: the problem of conducting social inquiry. In: House, E. (ed.) Philosophy of Evaluation, pp. 27–52. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1983b)

Smith, J.K., Heshusius, L.: Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educ. Res. 15 (1), 4–12 (1986)

Stebbins, R.A.: Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2001)

Book   Google Scholar  

Strydom, H.: An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Soc. Work/Maatskaplike Werk 49 (2), 149–164 (2013)

Sutton, R. I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Administrative science quarterly. 371–384 (1995)

Swift, III, J.: Exploring Capital Metro’s Sexual Harassment Training using Dr. Bengt-Ake Lundvall’s taxonomy of knowledge principles. Applied Research Project, Texas State University https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3671 (2010)

Thomas, E., Magilvy, J.K.: Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. J. Spec. Pediatric Nurs. 16 (2), 151–155 (2011)

Twining, P., Heller, R.S., Nussbaum, M., Tsai, C.C.: Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Comput. Educ. 107 , A1–A9 (2017)

Ulriksen, M., Dadalauri, N.: Single case studies and theory-testing: the knots and dots of the process-tracing method. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 19 (2), 223–239 (2016)

Van Evera, S.: Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1997)

Whetsell, T.A., Shields, P.M.: The dynamics of positivism in the study of public administration: a brief intellectual history and reappraisal. Adm. Soc. 47 (4), 416–446 (2015)

Willis, J.W., Jost, M., Nilakanta, R.: Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Sage, Beverley Hills (2007)

Worster, W.T.: The inductive and deductive methods in customary international law analysis: traditional and modern approaches. Georget. J. Int. Law 45 , 445 (2013)

Yin, R.K.: The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge 3 (1), 97–114 (1981)

Yin, R.K.: The case study method as a tool for doing evaluation. Curr. Sociol. 40 (1), 121–137 (1992)

Yin, R.K.: Applications of Case Study Research. Sage, Beverley Hills (2011)

Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills (2017)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors contributed equally to this work. The authors would like to thank Quality & Quantity’ s editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable advice and comments on previous versions of this paper.

Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. There are no funders to report for this submission.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Strada Maggiore 45, 40125, Bologna, Italy

Mattia Casula

Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA

Nandhini Rangarajan & Patricia Shields

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattia Casula .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Casula, M., Rangarajan, N. & Shields, P. The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research. Qual Quant 55 , 1703–1725 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9

Download citation

Accepted : 05 November 2020

Published : 08 December 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9

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

• Exploratory research
• Working hypothesis
• Deductive qualitative research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• 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.

Mastering Deductive Reasoning in Qualitative Research

Introduction.

Deductive reasoning is a fundamental aspect of qualitative research that serves as a guiding light in the quest to understand complex phenomena. It’s a structured approach that involves starting with a theory or hypothesis and then systematically collecting and analyzing data to test or confirm that theory. In the realm of qualitative research, this method enables researchers to explore existing knowledge and apply it to specific cases, helping to derive valuable insights. To truly master the art of deductive reasoning in qualitative research, one must understand its principles, techniques, and applications. In this article, we’ll delve into the world of deductive reasoning and explore its significance in qualitative research.

The Basics of Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning operates on the premise that if a theory is true and relevant to a specific context, then certain observations or data points should support it. In qualitative research, this begins with the formulation of a clear and testable hypothesis. Researchers then gather data that is relevant to the hypothesis and analyze it systematically to draw conclusions. The process generally follows these steps:

• Develop a Clear Hypothesis: Deductive reasoning starts with a well-defined hypothesis or theory. This hypothesis serves as the foundation for the research and sets the direction for data collection and analysis.
• Collect Relevant Data : Researchers collect data through various methods, such as interviews, surveys, observations, or document analysis. The data collected should directly relate to the hypothesis or theory under investigation.
• Analyze the Data: The collected data is analyzed using appropriate qualitative research methods, such as thematic analysis, content analysis, or grounded theory. Researchers look for patterns, themes, or relationships that either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Draw Conclusions: Based on the analysis, researchers draw conclusions about the hypothesis. If the data supports the hypothesis, it is considered confirmed. If not, researchers may need to modify the hypothesis or explore alternative explanations.
• Refine and Iterate: Deductive reasoning often involves an iterative process. Researchers refine their hypothesis and repeat the data collection and analysis until they achieve a satisfactory level of confirmation or understanding.

Applications in Qualitative Research

Deductive reasoning finds numerous applications in qualitative research across various disciplines, including sociology, psychology, anthropology, and education. Here are some key applications:

• Theory Testing: Qualitative researchers often use deductive reasoning to test existing theories or concepts in real-world contexts. By applying established theories to specific cases, researchers can assess their validity and relevance.
• Hypothesis Confirmation: Deductive reasoning allows researchers to confirm or reject hypotheses based on empirical evidence. This helps in advancing knowledge and theory development.
• Comparative Analysis: Researchers can use deductive reasoning to compare and contrast findings across different cases or contexts. This approach enables a deeper understanding of the factors influencing a phenomenon.
• Policy Evaluation: In fields like public policy and social sciences, deductive reasoning can be applied to evaluate the effectiveness of policies or interventions by comparing them to established theories or expectations.
• Conceptual Frameworks: Deductive reasoning aids in the development of conceptual frameworks that guide qualitative research projects. These frameworks help structure the research process and ensure that data collection and analysis align with the research goals.

Resources for Further Learning

To truly master deductive reasoning in qualitative research, it’s essential to delve deeper into the methodology and practice. If you’re looking for comprehensive guidance and practical tips, consider visiting the dedicated resource on deductive reasoning in qualitative research at https://atlasti.com/guides/qualitative-research-guide-part-2/deductive-reasoning .

Deductive reasoning is a powerful tool in the qualitative researcher’s arsenal. It allows researchers to apply existing theories and concepts to real-world situations, facilitating a deeper understanding of complex phenomena. By following a structured process of hypothesis formulation, data collection, analysis, and conclusion drawing, qualitative researchers can harness the full potential of deductive reasoning. Whether you are a seasoned researcher or just starting your journey in qualitative research, mastering deductive reasoning will undoubtedly enhance the depth and quality of your research endeavors.

• Open access
• Published: 02 April 2022

A qualitative study of rural healthcare providers’ views of social, cultural, and programmatic barriers to healthcare access

• Nicholas C. Coombs 1 ,
• Duncan G. Campbell 2 &
• James Caringi 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  22 , Article number:  438 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

19 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Ensuring access to healthcare is a complex, multi-dimensional health challenge. Since the inception of the coronavirus pandemic, this challenge is more pressing. Some dimensions of access are difficult to quantify, namely characteristics that influence healthcare services to be both acceptable and appropriate. These link to a patient’s acceptance of services that they are to receive and ensuring appropriate fit between services and a patient’s specific healthcare needs. These dimensions of access are particularly evident in rural health systems where additional structural barriers make accessing healthcare more difficult. Thus, it is important to examine healthcare access barriers in rural-specific areas to understand their origin and implications for resolution.

We used qualitative methods and a convenience sample of healthcare providers who currently practice in the rural US state of Montana. Our sample included 12 healthcare providers from diverse training backgrounds and specialties. All were decision-makers in the development or revision of patients’ treatment plans. Semi-structured interviews and content analysis were used to explore barriers–appropriateness and acceptability–to healthcare access in their patient populations. Our analysis was both deductive and inductive and focused on three analytic domains: cultural considerations, patient-provider communication, and provider-provider communication. Member checks ensured credibility and trustworthiness of our findings.

Five key themes emerged from analysis: 1) a friction exists between aspects of patients’ rural identities and healthcare systems; 2) facilitating access to healthcare requires application of and respect for cultural differences; 3) communication between healthcare providers is systematically fragmented; 4) time and resource constraints disproportionately harm rural health systems; and 5) profits are prioritized over addressing barriers to healthcare access in the US.

Conclusions

Inadequate access to healthcare is an issue in the US, particularly in rural areas. Rural healthcare consumers compose a hard-to-reach patient population. Too few providers exist to meet population health needs, and fragmented communication impairs rural health systems’ ability to function. These issues exacerbate the difficulty of ensuring acceptable and appropriate delivery of healthcare services, which compound all other barriers to healthcare access for rural residents. Each dimension of access must be monitored to improve patient experiences and outcomes for rural Americans.

Peer Review reports

Unequal access to healthcare services is an important element of health disparities in the United States [ 1 ], and there remains much about access that is not fully understood. The lack of understanding is attributable, in part, to the lack of uniformity in how access is defined and evaluated, and the extent to which access is often oversimplified in research [ 2 ]. Subsequently, attempts to address population-level barriers to healthcare access are insufficient, and access remains an unresolved, complex health challenge [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. This paper presents a study that aims to explore some of the less well studied barriers to healthcare access, particularly those that influence healthcare acceptability and appropriateness.

In truth, healthcare access entails a complicated calculus that combines characteristics of individuals, their households, and their social and physical environments with characteristics of healthcare delivery systems, organizations, and healthcare providers. For one to fully ‘access’ healthcare, they must have the means to identify their healthcare needs and have available to them care providers and the facilities where they work. Further, patients must then reach, obtain, and use the healthcare services in order to have their healthcare needs fulfilled. Levesque and colleagues critically examined access conceptualizations in 2013 and synthesized all ways in which access to healthcare was previously characterized; Levesque et al. proposed five dimensions of access: approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability and appropriateness [ 2 ]. These refer to the ability to perceive, seek, reach, pay for, and engage in services, respectively.

According to Levesque et al.’s framework, the five dimensions combine to facilitate access to care or serve as barriers. Approachability indicates that people facing health needs understand that healthcare services exist and might be helpful. Acceptability represents whether patients see healthcare services as consistent or inconsistent with their own social and cultural values and worldviews. Availability indicates that healthcare services are reached both physically and in a timely manner. Affordability simplifies one’s capacity to pay for healthcare services without compromising basic necessities, and finally, appropriateness represents the fit between healthcare services and a patient’s specific healthcare needs [ 2 ]. This study focused on the acceptability and appropriateness dimensions of access.

Before the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19) pandemic, approximately 13.3% of adults in the US did not have a usual source of healthcare [ 6 ]. Millions more did not utilize services regularly, and close to two-thirds reported that they would be debilitated by an unexpected medical bill [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Findings like these emphasized a fragility in the financial security of the American population [ 10 ]. These concerns were exacerbated by the pandemic when a sudden surge in unemployment increased un- and under-insurance rates [ 11 ]. Indeed, employer-sponsored insurance covers close to half of Americans’ total cost of illness [ 12 ]. Unemployment linked to COVID-19 cut off the lone outlet to healthcare access for many. Health-related financial concerns expanded beyond individuals, as healthcare organizations were unequipped to manage a simultaneous increase in demand for specialized healthcare services and a steep drop off for routine revenue-generating healthcare services [ 13 ]. These consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic all put additional, unexpected pressure on an already fragmented US healthcare system.

Other structural barriers to healthcare access exist in relation to the rural–urban divide. Less than 10% of US healthcare resources are located in rural areas where approximately 20% of the American population resides [ 14 ]. In a country with substantially fewer providers per capita compared to many other developed countries, persons in rural areas experience uniquely pressing healthcare provider shortages [ 15 , 16 ]. Rural inhabitants also tend to have lower household income, higher rates of un- or under-insurance, and more difficulty with travel to healthcare clinics than urban dwellers [ 17 ]. Subsequently, persons in rural communities use healthcare services at lower rates, and potentially preventable hospitalizations are more prevalent [ 18 ]. This disparity often leads rural residents to use services primarily for more urgent needs and less so for routine care [ 19 , 20 , 21 ].

The differences in how rural and urban healthcare systems function warranted a federal initiative to focus exclusively on rural health priorities and serve as counterpart to Healthy People objectives [ 22 ]. The rural determinants of health, a more specific expression of general social determinants, add issues of geography and topography to the well-documented social, economic and political factors that influence all Americans’ access to healthcare [ 23 ]. As a result, access is consistently regarded as a top priority in rural areas, and many research efforts have explored the intersection between access and rurality, namely within its less understood dimensions (acceptability and appropriateness) [ 22 ].

Acceptability-related barriers to care

Acceptability represents the dimension of healthcare access that affects a patient’s ability to seek healthcare, particularly linked to one’s professional values, norms and culture [ 2 ]. Access to health information is an influential factor for acceptable healthcare and is essential to promote and maintain a healthy population [ 24 ]. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health literacy or a high ‘health IQ’ is the degree to which individuals have the ability to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others, which impacts healthcare use and system navigation [ 25 ]. The literature indicates that lower levels of health literacy contribute to health disparities among rural populations [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Evidence points to a need for effective health communication between healthcare organizations and patients to improve health literacy [ 24 ]. However, little research has been done in this area, particularly as it relates to technologically-based interventions to disseminate health information [ 29 ].

Stigma, an undesirable position of perceived diminished status in an individual’s social position, is another challenge that influences healthcare acceptability [ 30 ]. Those who may experience stigma fear negative social consequences in relation to care seeking. They are more likely to delay seeking care, especially among ethnic minority populations [ 31 , 32 ]. Social media presents opportunities for the dissemination of misleading medical information; this runs further risk for stigma [ 33 ]. Stigma is difficult to undo, but research has shown that developing a positive relationship with a healthcare provider or organization can work to reduce stigma among patients, thus promoting healthcare acceptability [ 34 ].

A provider’s attempts to engage patients and empower them to be active decision-makers regarding their treatment has also been shown to improve healthcare acceptability. One study found that patients with heart disease who completed a daily diary of weight and self-assessment of symptoms, per correspondence with their provider, had better care outcomes than those who did not [ 35 ]. Engaging with household family members and involved community healers also mitigates barriers to care, emphasizing the importance of a team-based approach that extends beyond those who typically provide healthcare services [ 36 , 37 ]. One study, for instance, explored how individuals closest to a pregnant woman affect the woman’s decision to seek maternity care; partners, female relatives, and community health-workers were among the most influential in promoting negative views, all of which reduced a woman’s likelihood to access care [ 38 ].

Appropriateness-related barriers to care

Appropriateness marks the dimension of healthcare access that affects a patient’s ability to engage, and according to Levesque et al., is of relevance once all other dimensions (the ability to perceive, seek, reach and pay for) are achieved [ 2 ]. The ability to engage in healthcare is influenced by a patient’s level of empowerment, adherence to information, and support received by their healthcare provider. Thus, barriers to healthcare access that relate to appropriateness are often those that indicate a breakdown in communication between a patient with their healthcare provider. Such breakdown can involve a patient experiencing miscommunication, confrontation, and/or a discrepancy between their provider’s goals and their own goals for healthcare. Appropriateness represents a dimension of healthcare access that is widely acknowledged as an area in need of improvement, which indicates a need to rethink how healthcare providers and organizations can adapt to serve the healthcare needs of their communities [ 39 ]. This is especially true for rural, ethnic minority populations, which disproportionately experience an abundance of other barriers to healthcare access. Culturally appropriate care is especially important for members of minority populations [ 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Ultimately, patients value a patient-provider relationship characterized by a welcoming, non-judgmental atmosphere [ 43 , 44 ]. In rural settings especially, level of trust and familiarity are common factors that affect service utilization [ 45 ]. Evidence suggests that kind treatment by a healthcare provider who promotes patient-centered care can have a greater overall effect on a patient’s experience than a provider’s degree of medical knowledge or use of modern equipment [ 46 ]. Of course, investing the time needed to nurture close and caring interpersonal connections is particularly difficult in under-resourced, time-pressured rural health systems [ 47 , 48 ].

The most effective way to evaluate access to healthcare largely depends on which dimensions are explored. For instance, a population-based survey can be used to measure the barrier of healthcare affordability. Survey questions can inquire directly about health insurance coverage, care-related financial burden, concern about healthcare costs, and the feared financial impacts of illness and/or disability. Many national organizations have employed such surveys to measure affordability-related barriers to healthcare. For example, a question may ask explicitly about financial concerns: ‘If you get sick or have an accident, how worried are you that you will not be able to pay your medical bills?’ [ 49 ]. Approachability and availability dimensions of access are also studied using quantitative analysis of survey questions, such as ‘Is there a place that you usually go to when you are sick or need advice about your health?’ or ‘Have you ever delayed getting medical care because you couldn’t get through on the telephone?’ In contrast, the remaining two dimensions–acceptability and appropriateness–require a qualitative approach, as the social and cultural factors that determine a patient’s likelihood of accepting aspects of the services that are to be received (acceptability) and the fit between those services and the patient’s specific healthcare needs (appropriateness) can be more abstract [ 50 , 51 ]. In social science, qualitative methods are appropriate to generate knowledge of what social events mean to individuals and how those individuals interact within them; these methods allow for an exploration of depth rather than breadth [ 52 , 53 ]. Qualitative methods, therefore, are appropriate tools for understanding the depth of healthcare providers’ experiences in the inherently social context of seeking and engaging in healthcare.

In sum, acceptability- and appropriateness-related barriers to healthcare access are multi-layered, complex and abundant. Ensuring access becomes even more challenging if structural barriers to access are factored in. In this study, we aimed to explore barriers to healthcare access among persons in Montana, a historically underserved, under-resourced, rural region of the US. Montana is the fourth largest and third least densely populated state in the country; more than 80% of Montana counties are classified as non-core (the lowest level of urban/rural classification), and over 90% are designated as health professional shortage areas [ 54 , 55 ]. Qualitative methods supported our inquiry to explore barriers to healthcare access related to acceptability and appropriateness.

Participants

Qualitative methods were utilized for this interpretive, exploratory study because knowledge regarding barriers to healthcare access within Montana’s rural health systems is limited. We chose Montana healthcare providers, rather than patients, as the population of interest so we may explore barriers to healthcare access from the perspective of those who serve many persons in rural settings. Inclusion criteria required study participants to provide direct healthcare to patients at least one-half of their time. We defined ‘provider’ as a healthcare organization employee with clinical decision-making power and the qualifications to develop or revise patients’ treatment plans. In an attempt to capture a group of providers with diverse experience, we included providers across several types and specialties. These included advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), physicians (MDs and DOs), and physician assistants (PAs) who worked in critical care medicine, emergency medicine, family medicine, hospital medicine, internal medicine, pain medicine, palliative medicine, pediatrics, psychiatry, and urgent care medicine. We also included licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs) and clinical psychologists who specialize in behavioral healthcare provision.

Recruitment and Data Collection

We recruited participants via email using a snowball sampling approach [ 56 ]. We opted for this approach because of its effectiveness in time-pressured contexts, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which has made healthcare provider populations hard to reach [ 57 ]. Considering additional constraints with the pandemic and the rural nature of Montana, interviews were administered virtually via Zoom video or telephone conferencing with Zoom’s audio recording function enabled. All interviews were conducted by the first author between January and September 2021. The average length of interviews was 50 min, ranging from 35 to 70 min. There were occasional challenges experienced during interviews (poor cell phone reception from participants, dropped calls), in which case the interviewer remained on the line until adequate communication was resumed. All interviews were included for analysis and transcribed verbatim into NVivo Version 12 software. All qualitative data were saved and stored on a password-protected University of Montana server. Hard-copy field notes were securely stored in a locked office on the university’s main campus.

Data analysis included a deductive followed by an inductive approach. This dual analysis adheres to Levesque’s framework for qualitative methods, which is discussed in the Definition of Analytic Domains sub-section below. Original synthesis of the literature informed the development of our initial deductive codebook. The deductive approach was derived from a theory-driven hypothesis, which consisted of synthesizing previous research findings regarding acceptability- and appropriateness-related barriers to care. Although the locations, patient populations and specific type of healthcare services varied by study in the existing literature, several recurring barriers to healthcare access were identified. We then operationalized three analytic domains based on these findings: cultural considerations, patient-provider communication, and provider-provider communication. These domains were chosen for two reasons: 1) the terms ‘culture’ and ‘communication’ were the most frequently documented characteristics across the studies examined, and 2) they each align closely with the acceptability and appropriateness dimensions of access to healthcare, respectively. In addition, ‘culture’ is included in the definition of acceptability and ‘communication’ is a quintessential aspect of appropriateness. These domains guided the deductive portion of our analysis, which facilitated the development of an interview guide used for this study.

Interviews were semi-structured to allow broad interpretations from participants and expand the open-ended characterization of study findings. Data were analyzed through a flexible coding approach proposed by Deterding and Waters [ 58 ]. Qualitative content analysis was used, a method particularly beneficial for analyzing large amounts of qualitative data collected through interviews that offers possibility of quantifying categories to identify emerging themes [ 52 , 59 ]. After fifty percent of data were analyzed, we used an inductive approach as a formative check and repeated until data saturation, or the point at which no new information was gathered in interviews [ 60 ]. At each point of inductive analysis, interview questions were added, removed, or revised in consideration of findings gathered [ 61 ]. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) was used for reporting all qualitative data for this study [ 62 ]. The first and third authors served as primary and secondary analysts of the qualitative data and collaborated to triangulate these findings. An audit approach was employed, which consisted of coding completed by the first author and then reviewed by the third author. After analyses were complete, member checks ensured credibility and trustworthiness of findings [ 63 ]. Member checks consisted of contacting each study participant to explain the study’s findings; one-third of participants responded and confirmed all findings. All study procedures were reviewed and approved by the Human Subjects Committee of the authors’ institution’s Institutional Review Board.

Definitions of Analytic Domains

Cultural considerations.

Western health systems often fail to consider aspects of patients’ cultural perspectives and histories. This can manifest in the form of a providers’ lack of cultural humility. Cultural humility is a process of preventing imposition of one’s worldview and cultural beliefs on others and recognizing that everyone’s conception of the world is valid. Humility cultivates sensitive approaches in treating patients [ 64 ]. A lack of cultural humility impedes the delivery of acceptable and appropriate healthcare [ 65 ], which can involve low empathy or respect for patients, or dismissal of culture and traditions as superstitions that interfere with standard treatments [ 66 , 67 ]. Ensuring cultural humility among all healthcare employees is a step toward optimal healthcare delivery. Cultural humility is often accomplished through training that can be tailored to particular cultural- or gender-specific populations [ 68 , 69 ]. Since cultural identities and humility have been marked as factors that can heavily influence patients’ access to care, cultural considerations composed our first analytic domain. To assess this domain, we asked participants how they address the unique needs of their patients, how they react when they observe a cultural behavior or attitude from a patient that may not directly align with their treatment plan, and if they have received any multicultural training or training on cultural considerations in their current role.

Patient-provider communication

Other barriers to healthcare access can be linked to ineffective patient-provider communication. Patients who do not feel involved in healthcare decisions are less likely to adhere to treatment recommendations [ 70 ]. Patients who experience communication difficulties with providers may feel coerced, which generates disempowerment and leads patients to employ more covert ways of engagement [ 71 , 72 ]. Language barriers can further compromise communication and hinder outcomes or patient progress [ 73 , 74 ]. Any miscommunication between a patient and provider can affect one’s access to healthcare, namely affecting appropriateness-related barriers. For these reasons, patient-provider communication composed our second analytic domain. We asked participants to highlight the challenges they experience when communicating with their patients, how those complications are addressed, and how communication strategies inform confidentiality in their practice. Confidentiality is a core ethical principle in healthcare, especially in rural areas that have smaller, interconnected patient populations [ 75 ].

Provider-Provider Communication

A patient’s journey through the healthcare system necessitates sufficient correspondence between patients, primary, and secondary providers after discharge and care encounters [ 76 ]. Inter-provider and patient-provider communication are areas of healthcare that are acknowledged to have some gaps. Inconsistent mechanisms for follow up communication with patients in primary care have been documented and emphasized as a concern among those with chronic illness who require close monitoring [ 68 , 77 ]. Similar inconsistencies exist between providers, which can lead to unclear care goals, extended hospital stays, and increased medical costs [ 78 ]. For these reasons, provider-provider communication composed our third analytic domain. We asked participants to describe the approaches they take to streamline communication after a patient’s hospital visit, the methods they use to ensure collaborative communication between primary or secondary providers, and where communication challenges exist.

Healthcare provider characteristics

Our sample included 12 providers: four in family medicine (1 MD, 1 DO, 1 PA & 1 APRN), three in pediatrics (2 MD with specialty in hospital medicine & 1 DO), three in palliative medicine (2 MDs & 1 APRN with specialty in wound care), one in critical care medicine (DO with specialty in pediatric pulmonology) and one in behavioral health (1 LCSW with specialty in trauma). Our participants averaged 9 years (range 2–15) as a healthcare provider; most reported more than 5 years in their current professional role. The diversity of participants extended to their patient populations as well, with each participant reporting a unique distribution of age, race and level of medical complexity among their patients. Most participants reported that a portion of their patients travel up to five hours, sometimes across county- or state-lines, to receive care.

Theme 1: A friction exists between aspects of patients’ rural identities and healthcare systems

Our participants comprised a collection of medical professions and reported variability among health-related reasons their patients seek care. However, most participants acknowledged similar characteristics that influence their patients’ challenges to healthcare access. These identified factors formed categories from which the first theme emerged. There exists a great deal of ‘rugged individualism’ among Montanans, which reflects a self-sufficient and self-reliant way of life. Stoicism marked a primary factor to characterize this quality. One participant explained:

True Montanans are difficult to treat medically because they tend to be a tough group. They don’t see doctors. They don’t want to go, and they don’t want to be sick. That’s an aspect of Montana that makes health culture a little bit difficult.

Another participant echoed this finding by stating:

The backwoods Montana range guy who has an identity of being strong and independent probably doesn’t seek out a lot of medical care or take a lot of medications. Their sense of vitality, independence and identity really come from being able to take care and rely on themselves. When that is threatened, that’s going to create a unique experience of illness.

Similar responses were shared by all twelve participants; stoicism seemed to be heavily embedded in many patient populations in Montana and serves as a key determinant of healthcare acceptability. There are additional factors, however, that may interact with stoicism but are multiply determined. Stigma is an example of this, presented in this context as one’s concern about judgement by the healthcare system. Respondents were openly critical of this perception of the healthcare system as it was widely discussed in interviews. One participant stated:

There is a real perception of a punitive nature in the medical community, particularly if I observe a health issue other than the primary reason for one’s hospital visit, whether that may be predicated on medical neglect, delay of care, or something that may warrant a report to social services. For many of the patients and families I see, it’s not a positive experience and one that is sometimes an uphill barrier that I work hard to circumnavigate.

Analysis of these factors suggest that low use of healthcare services may link to several characteristics, including access problems. Separately, a patient’s perceived stigma from healthcare providers may also impact a patient’s willingness to receive services. One participant put it best by stating

Sometimes, families assume that I didn’t want to see them because they will come in for follow up to meet with me but end up meeting with another provider, which is frustrating because I want to maintain patients on my panel but available time and resource occasionally limits me from doing so. It could be really hard adapting to those needs on the fly, but it’s an honest miss.

When a patient arrives for a healthcare visit and experiences this frustration, it may elicit a patient’s perceptions of neglect or disorganization. This ‘honest miss’ may, in turn, exacerbate other acceptable-related barriers to care.

Theme 2: Facilitating access to healthcare requires application of and respect for cultural differences

The biomedical model is the standard of care utilized in Western medicine [ 79 , 80 ]. However, the US comprises people with diverse social and cultural identities that may not directly align with Western conceptions of health and wellness. Approximately 11.5% of the Montana population falls within an ethnic minority group. 6.4% are of American Indian or Alaska Native origin, 0.5% are of Black or African American origin, 0.8% are of Asian origin and 3.8% are of multiple or other origins. [ 81 ]. Cultural insensitivity is acknowledged in health services research as an active deterrent for appropriate healthcare delivery [ 65 ]. Participants for this study were asked how they react when a patient brings up a cultural attitude or behavior that may impact the proposed treatment plan. Eight participants noted a necessity for humility when this occurs. One participant conceptualized this by stating:

When this happens, I learn about individuals and a way of life that is different to the way I grew up. There is a lot of beauty and health in a non-patriarchal, non-dominating, non-sexist framework, and when we can engage in such, it is really expansive for my own learning process.

The participants who expressed humility emphasized that it is best to work in tandem with their patient, congruently. Especially for those with contrasting worldviews, a provider and a patient working as a team poses an opportunity to develop trust. Without it, a patient can easily fall out of the system, further hindering their ability to access healthcare services in the future. One participant stated:

The approach that ends up being successful for a lot of patients is when we understand their modalities, and they have a sense we understand those things. We have to show understanding and they have to trust. From there, we can make recommendations to help get them there, not decisions for them to obey, rather views based on our experiences and understanding of medicine.

Curiosity was another reaction noted by a handful of participants. One participant said:

I believe patients and their caregivers can be engaged and loving in different ways that don’t always follow the prescribed approach in the ways I’ve been trained, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are detrimental. I love what I do, and I love learning new things or new approaches, but I also love being surprised. My style of medicine is not to predict peoples’ lives, rather to empower and support what makes life meaningful for them.

Participants mentioned several other characteristics that they use in practice to prevent cultural insensitivity and support a collaborative approach to healthcare. Table 1 lists these facilitating characteristics and quotes to explain the substance of their benefit.

Consensus among participants indicated that the use of these protective factors to promote cultural sensitivity and apply them in practice is not standardized. When asked, all but two participants said they had not received any culturally-based training since beginning their practice. Instead, they referred to developing skills through “on the job training” or “off the cuff learning.” The general way of medicine, one participant remarked, was to “throw you to the fire.” This suggested that use of standardized cultural humility training modules for healthcare providers was not common practice. Many attributed this to time constraints.

Individual efforts to gain culturally appropriate skills or enhance cultural humility were mentioned, however. For example, three participants reported that they attended medical conferences to discuss cultural challenges within medicine, one participant sought out cultural education within their organization, and another was invited by Native American community members to engage in traditional peace ceremonies. Participants described these additional efforts as uncommon and outside the parameters of a provider’s job responsibilities, as they require time commitments without compensation.

Additionally, eight participants said they share their personal contact information with patients so they may call them directly for medical needs. The conditions and frequency with which this is done was variable and more common among providers in specialized areas of medicine or those who described having a manageable patient panel. All who reported that they shared their personal contact information described it as an aspect of rural health service delivery that is atypical in other, non-rural healthcare systems.

Theme 3: Communication between healthcare providers is systematically fragmented

Healthcare is complex and multi-disciplinary, and patients’ treatment is rarely overseen by a single provider [ 82 ]. The array of provider types and specialties is vast, as is the range of responsibilities ascribed to providers. Thus, open communication among providers both within and between healthcare systems is vital for the success of collaborative healthcare [ 83 ]. Without effective communication achieved between healthcare providers, the appropriate delivery of healthcare services may be become compromised. Our participants noted that they face multiple challenges that complicate communication with other providers. Miscommunication between departments, often implicating the Emergency Department (ED), was a recurring point noted among participants. One participant who is a primary care physician said:

If one of my patients goes to the ER, I don’t always get the notes. They’re supposed to send them to the patient’s primary care doc. The same thing happens with general admissions, but again, I often find out from somebody else that my patient was admitted to the hospital.

This failure to communicate can negatively impact the patient, particularly if time sensitivity or medical complexity is essential to treatment. A patient’s primary care physician is the most accurate source of their medical history; without an effective way to obtain and synthesize a patient’s health information, there may be increased risk of medical error. One participant in a specialty field stated:

One of the biggest barriers I see is obtaining a concise description of a patient’s history and needs. You can imagine if you’re a mom and you’ve got a complicated kid. You head to the ER. The ER doc looks at you with really wide eyes, not knowing how to get information about your child that’s really important.

This concern was highlighted with a specific example from a different participant:

I have been unable to troubleshoot instances when I send people to the ER with a pretty clear indication for admission, and then they’re sent home. For instance, I had an older fellow with pretty severe chronic kidney disease. He presented to another practitioner in my office with shortness of breath and swelling and appeared to have newly onset decompensated heart failure. When I figured this out, I sent him to the ER, called and gave my report. The patient later came back for follow up to find out not only that they had not been admitted but they lost no weight with outpatient dialysis . I feel like a real opportunity was missed to try to optimize the care of the patient simply because there was poor communication between myself and the ER. This poor guy… He ended up going to the ER four times before he got admitted for COVID-19.

In some cases, communication breakdown was reported as the sole cause of a poor outcome. When communication is effective, each essential member of the healthcare team is engaged and collaborating with the same information. Some participants called this process ‘rounds’ when a regularly scheduled meeting is staged between a group of providers to ensure access to accurate patient information. Accurate communication may also help build trust and improve a patient’s experience. In contrast, ineffective communication can result in poor clarity regarding providers’ responsibilities or lost information. Appropriate delivery of healthcare considers the fit between providers and a patient’s specific healthcare needs; the factors noted here suggest that provider-provider miscommunication can adversely affect this dimension of healthcare access.

Another important mechanism of communication is the sharing of electronic medical records (EMRs), a process that continues to shift with technological advances. Innovation is still recent enough, however, for several of our study participants to be able to recall a time when paper charts were standard. Widespread adoption and embrace of the improvements inherent in electronic medical records expanded in the late 2000’s [ 84 ]. EMRs vastly improved the ability to retain, organize, safeguard, and transfer health information. Every participant highlighted EMRs at one point or another and often did so with an underlying sense of anger or frustration. Systematic issues and problems with EMRs were discussed. One participant provided historical context to such records:

Years back, the government aimed to buy an electronic medical record system, whichever was the best, and a number of companies created their own. Each were a reasonable system, so they all got their checks and now we have four completely separate operating systems that do not talk to each other. The idea was to make a router or some type of relay that can share information back and forth. There was no money in that though, so of course, no one did anything about it. Depending on what hospital, clinic or agency you work for, you will most likely work within one of these systems. It was a great idea; it just didn’t get finished.

Seven participants confirmed these points and their impacts on making coordination more difficult, relying on outdated communication strategies more often than not. Many noted this even occurs between facilities within the same city and in separate small metropolitan areas across the state. One participant said:

If my hospital decides to contract with one EMR and the hospital across town contracts with another, correspondence between these hospitals goes back to traditional faxing. As a provider, you’re just taking a ‘fingered crossed’ approach hoping that the fax worked, is picked up, was put in the appropriate inbox and was actually looked at. Information acquisition and making sure it’s timely are unforeseen between EMRs.

Participants reported an “astronomic” number of daily faxes and telephone calls to complete the communication EMRs were initially designed to handle. These challenges are even more burdensome if a patient moves from out of town or out of state; obtaining their medical records was repeatedly referred to as a “chore” so onerous that it often remains undone. Another recurring concern brought up by participants regarded accuracy within EMRs to lend a false sense of security. They are not frequently updated, not designed to be family-centered and not set up to do anything automatically. One participant highlighted these limitations by stating:

I was very proud of a change I made in our EMR system [EPIC], even though it was one I never should have had to make. I was getting very upset because I would find out from my nursing assistant who read the obituary that one of my patients had died. There was a real problem with the way the EMR was notifying PCP’s, so I got an EPIC-level automated notification built into our EMR so that any time a patient died, their status would be changed to deceased and a notification would be sent to their PCP. It’s just really awful to find out a week later that your patient died, especially when you know these people and their families really well. It’s not good care to have blind follow up.

Whether it be a physical or electronic miscommunication between healthcare providers, the appropriate delivery of healthcare can be called to question

Theme 4: Time and resource constraints disproportionately harm rural health systems

Several measures of system capacity suggest the healthcare system in the US is under-resourced. There are fewer physicians and hospital beds per capita compared to most comparable countries, and the growth of healthcare provider populations has stagnated over time [ 15 ]. Rural areas, in particular, are subject to resource limitations [ 16 ]. All participants discussed provider shortages in detail. They described how shortages impact time allocation in their day-to-day operations. Tasks like patient intakes, critical assessments, and recovering information from EMRs take time, of which most participants claimed to not have enough of. There was also a consensus in having inadequate time to spend on medically complex cases. Time pressures were reported to subsequently influence quality of care. One participant stated:

With the constant pace of medicine, time is not on your side. A provider cannot always participate in an enriching dialogue with their patients, so rather than listen and learn, we are often coerced into the mindset of ‘getting through’ this patient so we can move on. This echoes for patient education during discharge, making the whole process more arduous than it otherwise could be if time and resources were not as sparse.

Depending on provider type, specialty, and the size of patient panels, four participants said they have the luxury of extending patient visits to 40 + minutes. Any flexibility with patient visits was regarded as just that: a luxury. Very few providers described the ability to coordinate their schedules as such. This led some study participants to limit the number of patients they serve. One participant said:

We simply don’t have enough clinicians, which is a shame because these people are really skilled, exceptional, brilliant providers but are performing way below their capacity. Because of this, I have a smaller case load so I can engage in a level of care that I feel is in the best interest of my patients. Everything is a tradeoff. Time has to be sacrificed at one point or another. This compromise sets our system up to do ‘ok’ work, not great work.

Of course, managing an overly large number of patients with high complexity is challenging. Especially while enduring the burden of a persisting global pandemic, participants reflected that the general outlook of administering healthcare in the US is to “do more with less.” This often forces providers to delegate responsibilities, which participants noted has potential downsides. One participant described how delegating patient care can cause problems.

Very often will a patient schedule a follow up that needs to happen within a certain time frame, but I am unable to see them myself. So, they are then placed with one of my mid-level providers. However, if additional health issues are introduced, which often happens, there is a high-risk of bounce-back or need to return once again to the hospital. It’s an inefficient vetting process that falls to people who may not have specific training in the labs and imaging that are often included in follow up visits. Unfortunately, it’s a forlorn hope to have a primary care physician be able to attend all levels of a patient’s care.

Several participants described how time constraints stretch all healthcare staff thin and complicate patient care. This was particularly important among participants who reported having a patient panel exceeding 1000. There were some participants, however, who praised the relationships they have with their nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants and mark transparency as the most effective way to coordinate care. Collectively, these clinical relationships were built over long standing periods of time, a disadvantage to providers at the start of their medical career. All but one participant with over a decade of clinical experience mentioned the usefulness of these relationships. The factors discussed in Theme 4 are directly linked to the Availability dimension of access to healthcare. A patient’s ability to reach care is subject to the capacity of their healthcare provider(s). Additionally, further analysis suggests these factors also link to the Appropriateness dimension because the quality of patient-provider relationships may be negatively impacted if a provider’s time is compromised.

Theme 5: Profits are prioritized over addressing barriers to healthcare access in the US.

The US healthcare system functions partially for-profit in the public and private sectors. The federal government provides funding for national programs such as Medicare, but a majority of Americans access healthcare through private employer plans [ 85 ]. As a result, uninsurance rates influence healthcare access. Though the rate of the uninsured has dropped over the last decade through expansion of the Affordable Care Act, it remains above 8 percent [ 86 ]. Historically, there has been ethical criticism in the literature of a for-profit system as it is said to exacerbate healthcare disparities and constitute unfair competition against nonprofit institutions. Specifically, the US healthcare system treats healthcare as a commodity instead of a right, enables organizational controls that adversely affect patient-provider relationships, undermines medical education, and constitutes a medical-industrial complex that threatens influence on healthcare-related public policy [ 87 ]. Though unprompted by the interviewer, participants raised many of these concerns. One participant shared their views on how priorities stand in their practice:

A lot of the higher-ups in the healthcare system where I work see each patient visit as a number. It’s not that they don’t have the capacity to think beyond that, but that’s what their role is, making sure we’re profitable. That’s part of why our healthcare system in the US is as broken as it is. It’s accentuated focus on financially and capitalistically driven factors versus understanding all these other barriers to care.

Eight participants echoed a similar concept, that addressing barriers to healthcare access in their organizations is largely complicated because so much attention is directed on matters that have nothing to do with patients. A few other participants supported this by alluding to a “cherry-picking” process by which those at the top of the hierarchy devote their attention to the easiest tasks. One participant shared an experience where contrasting work demands between administrators and front-line clinical providers produces adverse effects:

We had a new administrator in our hospital. I had been really frustrated with the lack of cultural awareness and curiosity from our other leaders in the past, so I offered to meet and take them on a tour of the reservation. This was meant to introduce them to kids, families and Tribal leaders who live in the area and their interface with healthcare. They declined, which I thought was disappointing and eye-opening.

Analysis of these factors suggest that those who work directly with patients understand patient needs better than those who serve in management roles. This same participant went on to suggest an ulterior motive for a push towards telemedicine, as administrators primarily highlight the benefit of billing for virtual visits instead of the nature of the visits themselves.

This study explored barriers and facilitators to healthcare access from the perspective of rural healthcare providers in Montana. Our qualitative analysis uncovered five key themes: 1) a friction exists between aspects of patients’ rural identities and healthcare systems; 2) facilitating access to healthcare requires application of and respect for cultural differences; 3) communication between healthcare providers is systematically fragmented; 4) time and resource constraints disproportionately harm rural health systems; and 5) profits are prioritized over addressing barriers to healthcare access in the US. Themes 2 and 3 were directly supported by earlier qualitative studies that applied Levesque’s framework, specifically regarding healthcare providers’ poor interpersonal quality and lack of collaboration with other providers that are suspected to result from a lack of provider training [ 67 , 70 ]. This ties back to the importance of cultural humility, which many previous culture-based trainings have referred to as cultural competence. Cultural competence is achieved through a plethora of trainings designed to expose providers to different cultures’ beliefs and values but induces risk of stereotyping and stigmatizing a patient’s views. Therefore, cultural humility is the preferred idea, by which providers reflect and gain open-ended appreciation for a patient’s culture [ 88 ].

Implications for Practice

Perhaps the most substantial takeaway is how embedded rugged individualism is within rural patient populations and how difficult that makes the delivery of care in rural health systems. We heard from participants that stoicism and perceptions of stigma within the system contribute to this, but other resulting factors may be influential at the provider- and organizational-levels. Stoicism and perceived stigma both appear to arise, in part, from an understandable knowledge gap regarding the care system. For instance, healthcare providers understand the relations between primary and secondary care, but many patients may perceive both concepts as elements of a single healthcare system [ 89 ]. Any issue experienced by a patient when tasked to see both a primary and secondary provider may result in a patient becoming confused [ 90 ]. This may also overlap with our third theme, as a disjointed means of communication between healthcare providers can exacerbate patients’ negative experiences. One consideration to improve this is to incorporate telehealth programs into an existing referral framework to reduce unnecessary interfacility transfers; telehealth programs have proven effective in rural and remote settings [ 91 ].

In fact, telehealth has been rolled out in a variety of virtual platforms throughout its evolution, its innovation matched with continued technological advancement. Simply put, telehealth allows health service delivery from a distance; it allows knowledge and practice of clinical care to be in a different space than a patient. Because of this, a primary benefit of telehealth is its impact on improving patient-centered outcomes among those living in rural areas. For instance, text messaging technology improves early infant diagnosis, adherence to recommended diagnostic testing, and participant engagement in lifestyle change interventions [ 92 , 93 , 94 ]. More sophisticated interventions have found their way into smartphone-based technology, some of which are accessible even without an internet connection [ 95 , 96 ]. Internet accessibility is important because a number of study participants noted internet connectivity as a barrier for patients who live in low resource communities. Videoconferencing is another function of telehealth that has delivered a variety of health services, including those which are mental health-specific [ 97 ], and mobile health clinics have been used in rural, hard-to-reach settings to show the delivery of quality healthcare is both feasible and acceptable [ 98 , 99 , 100 ]. While telehealth has potential to reduce a number of healthcare access barriers, it may not always address the most pressing healthcare needs [ 101 ]. However, telehealth does serve as a viable, cost-effective alternative for rural populations with limited physical access to specialized services [ 102 ]. With time and resource limitations acknowledged as a key theme in our study, an emphasis on expanding telehealth services is encouraged as it will likely have significant involvement on advancing healthcare in the future, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic persists [ 103 ].

Implications for Policy

One could argue that most of the areas of fragmentation in the US healthcare system can be linked to the very philosophy on which it is based: an emphasis on profits as highest priority. Americans are, therefore, forced to navigate a health service system that does not work solely in their best interests. It is not surprising to observe lower rates of healthcare usage in rural areas, which may be a result from rural persons’ negative views of the US healthcare system or a perception that the system does not exist to support wellness. These perceptions may interact with ‘rugged individualism’ to squelch rural residents’ engagement in healthcare. Many of the providers we interviewed for this study appeared to understand this and strived to improve their patients’ experiences and outcomes. Though these efforts are admirable, they may not characterize all providers who serve in rural areas of the US. From a policy standpoint, it is important to recognize these expansive efforts from providers. If incentives were offered to encourage maximum efforts be made, it may lessen burden due to physician burnout and fatigue. Of course, there is no easy fix to the persisting limit of time and resources for providers, problems that require workforce expansion. Ultimately, though, the current structure of the US healthcare system is failing rural America and doing little to help the practice of rural healthcare providers.

Implications for Future Research

It is important for future health systems research efforts to consider issues that arise from both individual- and system-level access barriers and where the two intersect. Oftentimes, challenges that appear linked to a patient or provider may actually stem from an overarching system failure. If failures are critically and properly addressed, we may refine our understanding of what we can do in our professional spaces to improve care as practitioners, workforce developers, researchers and advocates. This qualitative study was exploratory in nature. It represents a step forward in knowledge generation regarding challenges in access to healthcare for rural Americans. Although mental health did not come up by design in this study, future efforts exploring barriers to healthcare access in rural systems should focus on access to mental healthcare. In many rural areas, Montana included, rates of suicide, substance use and other mental health disorders are highly prevalent. These characteristics should be part of the overall discussion of access to healthcare in rural areas. Optimally, barriers to healthcare access should continue to be explored through qualitative and mixed study designs to honor its multi-dimensional stature.

Strengths and Limitations

It is important to note first that this study interviewed healthcare providers instead of patients, which served as both a strength and limitation. Healthcare providers were able to draw on numerous patient-provider experiences, enabling an account of the aggregate which would have been impossible for a patient population. However, accounts of healthcare providers’ perceptions of barriers to healthcare access for their patients may differ from patients’ specific views. Future research should examine acceptability- and appropriateness-related barriers to healthcare access in patient populations. Second, study participants were recruited through convenience sampling methods, so results may be biased towards healthcare providers who are more invested in addressing barriers to healthcare access. Particularly, the providers interviewed for this study represented a subset who go beyond expectations of their job descriptions by engaging with their communities and spending additional uncompensated time with their patients. It is likely that a provider who exhibits these behavioral traits is more likely to participate in research aimed at addressing barriers to healthcare access. Third, the inability to conduct face-to-face interviews for our qualitative study may have posed an additional limitation. It is possible, for example, that in-person interviews might have resulted in increased rapport with study participants. Notwithstanding this possibility, the remote interview format was necessary to accommodate health risks to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, given our qualitative approach, results from our study cannot be generalizable to all rural providers’ views or other rural health systems. In addition, no causality can be inferred regarding the influence of aspects of rurality on access. The purpose of this exploratory qualitative study was to probe research questions for future efforts. We also acknowledge the authors’ roles in the research, also known as reflexivity. The first author was the only author who administered interviews and had no prior relationships with all but one study participant. Assumptions and pre-dispositions to interview content by the first author were regularly addressed throughout data analysis to maintain study integrity. This was achieved by conducting analysis by unique interview question, rather than by unique participant, and recoding the numerical order of participants for each question. Our commitment to rigorous qualitative methods was a strength for the study for multiple reasons. Conducting member checks with participants ensured trustworthiness of findings. Continuing data collection to data saturation ensured dependability of findings, which was achieved after 10 interviews and confirmed after 2 additional interviews. We further recognize the heterogeneity in our sample of participants, which helped generate variability in responses. To remain consistent with appropriate means of presenting results in qualitative research however, we shared minimal demographic information about our study participants to ensure confidentiality.

The divide between urban and rural health stretches beyond a disproportionate allocation of resources. Rural health systems serve a more complicated and hard-to-reach patient population. They lack sufficient numbers of providers to meet population health needs. These disparities impact collaboration between patients and providers as well as the delivery of acceptable and appropriate healthcare. The marker of rurality complicates the already cumbersome challenge of administering acceptable and appropriate healthcare and impediments stemming from rurality require continued monitoring to improve patient experiences and outcomes. Our qualitative study explored rural healthcare providers’ views on some of the social, cultural, and programmatic factors that influence access to healthcare among their patient populations. We identified five key themes: 1) a friction exists between aspects of patients’ rural identities and healthcare systems; 2) facilitating access to healthcare requires application of and respect for cultural differences; 3) communication between healthcare providers is systematically fragmented; 4) time and resource constraints disproportionately harm rural health systems; and 5) profits are prioritized over addressing barriers to healthcare access in the US. This study provides implications that may shift the landscape of a healthcare provider’s approach to delivering healthcare. Further exploration is required to understand the effects these characteristics have on measurable patient-centered outcomes in rural areas.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to individual privacy could be compromised but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All study procedures and methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations from the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval was given by exempt review from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Montana (IRB Protocol No.: 186–20). Participants received oral and written information about the study prior to interview, which allowed them to provide informed consent for the interviews to be recorded and used for qualitative research purposes. No ethical concerns were experienced in this study pertaining to human subjects.

Consent for publication.

The participants consented to the publication of de-identified material from the interviews.

Riley WJ. Health Disparities: Gaps in Access, Quality and Affordability of Medical Care. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2012;123:167–74.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Levesque J, Harris MF, Russell G. Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-12-18 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Serban N. A Multidimensional Framework for Measuring Access. In: Serban N. Healthcare System Access: Measurement, Inference, and Intervention. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2019. p. 13–59.

Google Scholar  

Roncarolo F, Boivin A, Denis JL, et al. What do we know about the needs and challenges of health systems? A scoping review of the international literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:636. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2585-5 .

Cabrera-Barona P, Blaschke T. Kienberger S. Explaining Accessibility and Satisfaction Related to Healthcare: A Mixed-Methods Approach. Soc Indic Res. 2017;133,719–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1371-9 .

Coombs NC, Meriwether WE, Caringi J, Newcomer SR. Barriers to healthcare access among U.S. adults with mental health challenges: A population-based study. SSM Popul Health. 2021;15:100847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100847 .

Farietta TP, Lu B, Tumin R. Ohio’s Medicaid Expansion and Unmet Health Needs Among Low-Income Women of Reproductive Age. Matern Child Health. 2018;22(12):1771–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2575-1 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Sommers BD, Blendon RJ, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Changes in Utilization and Health Among Low-Income Adults After Medicaid Expansion or Expanded Private Insurance. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;1;176(10):1501–1509. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4419 .

National Alliance on Mental Illness: The Doctor is Out. Continuing Disparities in Access to Mental and Physical Health Care. 2017. https://www.nami.org/Support-Education/Publications-Reports/Public-Policy-Reports/The-Doctor-is-Out . Accessed 29 Aug 2021.

Pollitz K, Lopes L, Kearney A, Rae M, Cox C, Fehr F, Rousseau D, Kaiser Family Foundation. US Statistics on Surprise Medical Billing. JAMA. 2020;323(6):498. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0065 .

Kahraman C, Orobello C, Cirella GT. hanging Dynamics with COVID-19: Future Outlook. In: XX Cirella GT, editor. Human Settlements: Urbanization, Smart Sector Development, and Future Outlook. Singapore: Springer; 2022. p. 235–52.

Book   Google Scholar  

Blumenthal D, Fowler EJ, Abrams M, Collins SR. Covid-19 — Implications for the Health Care System. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1483–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2021088 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Defêche J, Azarzar S, Mesdagh A, Dellot P, Tytgat A, Bureau F, Gillet L, Belhadj Y, Bontems S, Hayette M-P, Schils R, Rahmouni S, Ernst M, Moutschen M, Darcis G. In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2. Pathogens. 2021;10(11):1362. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10111362 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rosenblatt RA, Hart LG. Physicians and rural America. West J Med. 2000;173(5):348–51. https://doi.org/10.1136/ewjm.173.5.348 .

Kaiser Family Foundation Analysis of OECD Data. 2020. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-physicians-density-per-1000-population-2000-2018 . Accessed 31 Oct 2021.

Government Accounting Office. Physician Workforce: Locations and Types of Graduate Training Were Largely Unchanged, and Federal Efforts May Not Be Sufficient to Meet Needs. 2017. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-411.pdf . Accessed 31 Oct 2021.

The Kaiser Family Foundation: The Uninsured in Rural America. 2003. https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/the-uninsured-in-rural-america-update-pdf.pdf . Accessed 15 Sept 2021.

Wright B, Potter AJ, Trivedi AN, Mueller KJ. The Relationship Between Rural Health Clinic Use and Potentially Preventable Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries. J Rural Health. 2018;34(4):423–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12253 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Weichelt B, Bendixsen C, Patrick T. A Model for Assessing Necessary Conditions for Rural Health Care’s Mobile Health Readiness: Qualitative Assessment of Clinician-Perceived Barriers. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(11): e11915. https://doi.org/10.2196/11915 .

Mangundu M, Roets L, Janse van Rensberg E. Accessibility of healthcare in rural Zimbabwe: The perspective of nurses and healthcare users. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2020;12(1):e1-e7. https://doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v12i1.2245 .

Rahayu YYS, Araki T, Rosleine D. Factors affecting the use of herbal medicines in the universal health coverage system in Indonesia. J Ethnopharmacol. 2020;260: 112974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.112974 .

Bolin JN, Bellamy GR, Ferdinand AO, et al. Rural Healthy People 2020: New Decade, Same Challenges. Journal of Rural Health. 2015;31(3):326–33.

Reid S. The rural determinants of health: using critical realism as a theoretical framework. Rural Remote Health. 2019;19(3):5184. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH5184 .

Wynia MK, Osborn CY. Health literacy and communication quality in health care organizations. J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):102–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499981 .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What is Health Literacy? 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/learn/index.html . Accessed 25 Feb 2022.

Davis TC, Arnold CL, Rademaker A, et al. Differences in barriers to mammography between rural and urban women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012;21(7):748–55. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2011.3397 .

Halverson J, Martinez-Donate A, Trentham-Dietz A, et al. Health literacy and urbanicity among cancer patients. J Rural Health. 2013;29(4):392–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12018 .

Zahnd WE, Scaife SL, Francis ML. Health literacy skills in rural and urban populations. Am J Health Behav. 2009;33(5):550–7. https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.33.5.8 .

Dogba MJ, Dossa AR, Breton E, Gandonou-Migan R. Using information and communication technologies to involve patients and the public in health education in rural and remote areas: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3906-7 .

Committee on the Science of Changing Behavioral Health Social Norms, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In: Ending Discrimination Against People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders: The Evidence for Stigma Change. Washington: National Academics Press; 2016. p. 33–52.

Wu Y, Zhou H, Wang Q, Cao M, Medina A, Rozelle S. Use of maternal health services among women in the ethnic rural areas of western China. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):179. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3996-2 .

Meyer E, Hennink M, Rochat R, et al. Working Towards Safe Motherhood: Delays and Barriers to Prenatal Care for Women in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas of Georgia. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(7):1358–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-1997-x .

Heinrich S. Medical science faces the post-truth era: a plea for the grassroot values of science. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2020;33(2):198–202. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000833 .

Esquivel MM, Chen JC, Woo RK, et al. Why do patients receive care from a short-term medical mission? Survey study from rural Guatemala. J Surg Res. 2017;215:160–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.03.056 .

Park LG, Dracup K, Whooley MA, et al. Symptom Diary Use and Improved Survival for Patients With Heart Failure [published correction appears in Circ Heart Fail. 2017 Dec;10(12):]. Circ Heart Fail. 2017;10(11):e003874. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.117.003874 .

Taleb F, Perkins J, Ali NA, et al. Transforming maternal and newborn health social norms and practices to increase utilization of health services in rural Bangladesh: a qualitative review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0501-8 .

Billah SM, Hoque DE, Rahman M, et al. Feasibility of engaging “Village Doctors” in the Community-based Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (C-IMCI): experience from rural Bangladesh. J Glob Health. 2018;8(2): 020413. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.020413 .

Kaiser JL, Fong RM, Hamer DH, et al. How a woman’s interpersonal relationships can delay care-seeking and access during the maternity period in rural Zambia: An intersection of the Social Ecological Model with the Three Delays Framework. Soc Sci Med. 2019;220:312–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.011 .

Rao KD, Sheffel A. Quality of clinical care and bypassing of primary health centers in India. Soc Sci Med. 2018;207:80–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.040 .

Lee YT, Lee YH, Kaplan WA. Is Taiwan’s National Health Insurance a perfect system? Problems related to health care utilization of the aboriginal population in rural townships. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019;34(1):e6–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2653 .

Lyford M, Haigh MM, Baxi S, Cheetham S, Shahid S, Thompson SC. An Exploration of Underrepresentation of Aboriginal Cancer Patients Attending a Regional Radiotherapy Service in Western Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(2):337. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020337 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rohr JM, Spears KL, Geske J, Khandalavala B, Lacey MJ. Utilization of Health Care Resources by the Amish of a Rural County in Nebraska. J Community Health. 2019;44(6):1090–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-019-00696-9 .

Johnston K, Harvey C, Matich P, et al. Increasing access to sexual health care for rural and regional young people: Similarities and differences in the views of young people and service providers. Aust J Rural Health. 2015;23(5):257–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12186 .

Legido-Quigley H, Naheed A, de Silva HA, et al. Patients’ experiences on accessing health care services for management of hypertension in rural Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka: A qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(1): e0211100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211100 .

Shaw B, Amouzou A, Miller NP, Bryce J, Surkan PJ. A qualitative exploration of care-seeking pathways for sick children in the rural Oromia region of Ethiopia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2123-5 .

Larson E, Vail D, Mbaruku GM, Kimweri A, Freedman LP, Kruk ME. Moving Toward Patient-Centered Care in Africa: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Preferences for Delivery Care among 3,003 Tanzanian Women. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(8): e0135621. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135621 .

Spleen AM, Lengerich EJ, Camacho FT, Vanderpool RC. Health care avoidance among rural populations: results from a nationally representative survey. J Rural Health. 2014;30(1):79–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12032 .

Weisgrau S. Issues in rural health: access, hospitals, and reform. Health Care Financ Rev. 1995;17(1):1–14.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

National Center for Health Statistics. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/surveys.htm . Accessed 29 Aug 2021.

Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8 .

Dyer TA, Owens J, Robinson PG. The acceptability of healthcare: from satisfaction to trust. Community Dent Health. 2016;33(4):242–51. https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_3902Dyer10 .

Padgett DK. Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.; 2012.

Tolley EE, Ulin PR, Mack N, Robinson ET, Succop SM. Qualitative Methods in Public Health: A Field Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2016.

Ingram DD, Franco SJ. 2013 NCHS urban-rural classification scheme for counties. In: National Center for Health Statistics: Vital Health Statistics. 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_166.pdf . Accessed 31 Oct 2021.

Health Resources & Services Administration. Health Professional Shortage Area Find. 2021. https://data.hrsa.gov/tools/shortage-area/hpsa-find . Accessed 31 Oct 2021.

Shaghaghi A, Bhopal RS, Sheikh A. Approaches to Recruiting “Hard-To-Reach” Populations into Re-search: A Review of the Literature. Health Promot Perspect. 2011;1(2):86–94. https://doi.org/10.5681/hpp.2011.009 .

Sadler GR, Lee HC, Lim RS, Fullerton J. Recruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nurs Health Sci. 2010;12(3):369–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00541.x .

Deterding NM, Waters MC. Flexible Coding of In-depth Interviews: A Twenty-first-century Approach. Sociological Methods & Research. 2021;50(2):708–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377 .

Schreier M, Stamann C, Janssen M, Dahl T, Whittal A. Qualitative Content Analysis: Conceptualizations and Challenges in Research Practice-Introduction to the FQS Special Issue" Qualitative Content Analysis I". InForum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2019;20:26 DEU.

Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5): e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 .

Mayring P. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2000;1(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089 .

O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 9 / Sept 2014. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 .

Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, Blythe J, Neville AJ. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014;41(5):545–7. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547 .

Miller S. Cultural humility is the first step to becoming global care providers. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2009;38(1):92–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2008.00311.x .

Prasad SJ, Nair P, Gadhvi K, Barai I, Danish HS, Philip AB. Cultural humility: treating the patient, not the illness. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:30908. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.30908 .

George MS, Davey R, Mohanty I, Upton P. “Everything is provided free, but they are still hesitant to access healthcare services”: why does the indigenous community in Attapadi, Kerala continue to experience poor access to healthcare? Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01216-1 .

Romanelli M, Hudson KD. Individual and systemic barriers to health care: Perspectives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2017;87(6):714–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000306 .

Bailie J, Schierhout G, Laycock A, et al. Determinants of access to chronic illness care: a mixed-methods evaluation of a national multifaceted chronic disease package for Indigenous Australians. BMJ Open. 2015;5(11): e008103. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008103 .

Reeve C, Humphreys J, Wakerman J, Carter M, Carroll V, Reeve D. Strengthening primary health care: achieving health gains in a remote region of Australia. Med J Aust. 2015;202(9):483–7. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja14.00894 .

Swan LET, Auerbach SL, Ely GE, Agbemenu K, Mencia J, Araf NR. Family Planning Practices in Appalachia: Focus Group Perspectives on Service Needs in the Context of Regional Substance Abuse. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(4):1198. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041198 .

Kabia E, Mbau R, Oyando R, et al. “We are called the et cetera”: experiences of the poor with health financing reforms that target them in Kenya. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1006-2 .

Ho JW, Kuluski K, Im J. “It’s a fight to get anything you need” - Accessing care in the community from the perspectives of people with multimorbidity. Health Expect. 2017;20(6):1311–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12571 .

Latif A, Mandane B, Ali A, Ghumra S, Gulzar N. A Qualitative Exploration to Understand Access to Pharmacy Medication Reviews: Views from Marginalized Patient Groups. Pharmacy (Basel). 2020;8(2):73. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8020073 .

Tschirhart N, Diaz E, Ottersen T. Accessing public healthcare in Oslo, Norway: the experiences of Thai immigrant masseuses. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):722. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4560-9 .

Ireland S, Belton S, Doran F. “I didn’t feel judged”: exploring women’s access to telemedicine abortion in rural Australia. J Prim Health Care. 2020;12(1):49–56. https://doi.org/10.1071/HC19050 .

Stokes T, Tumilty E, Latu ATF, et al. Improving access to health care for people with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Southern New Zealand: qualitative study of the views of health professional stakeholders and patients. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11): e033524. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033524 .

Jafar TH, Ramakrishnan C, John O, et al. Access to CKD Care in Rural Communities of India: a qualitative study exploring the barriers and potential facilitators. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-020-1702-6 .

Doetsch J, Pilot E, Santana P, Krafft T. Potential barriers in healthcare access of the elderly population influenced by the economic crisis and the troika agreement: a qualitative case study in Lisbon, Portugal. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0679-7 .

Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–36. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460 .

Risberg G, Hamberg K, Johansson E.E. Gender perspective in medicine: a vital part of medical scientific rationality. A useful model for comprehending structures and hierarchies within medical science. BMC Med. 2006;4(1):1.

Montana Census & Economic Information Center. 2021. https://ceic.mt.gov/ . Accessed 18 Sept 2021.

Smith M, Saunders R, Stuckhardt L, McGinnis JM, Committee on the Learning Health Care System in America, Institute of Medicine. Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America. Washington: National Academies Press; 2013.

O’Daniel M, Rosenstein AH, Professional Communication and Team Collaboration. In: Hughes RG, editor. Chapter 33: Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville; 2008.

Evans RS. Electronic Health Records: Then, Now, and in the Future. Yearb Med Inform. 2016;Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S48-S61. https://doi.org/10.15265/IYS-2016-s006 .

Tikkanen R, Osborn R, Mossialos E, Djordjevic A, Wharton GA. International Health Care System Profiles: United States. The Commonwealth Fund. 2020. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/united-states . Accessed 19 Sept 2021.

Berchick ER, Barnett JC, Upton RD. Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. Washington: United States Census Bureau; 2018.

Brock DW, Buchanan A. Ethical Issues in For-Profit Health Care. In: Gray BH, editor. For-Profit Enterprise in Health Care. Washington: National Academics Press; 1986.

Lekas HM, Pahl K, Fuller Lewis C. Rethinking Cultural Competence: Shifting to Cultural Humility. Health Serv Insights. 2020;13:1178632920970580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178632920970580 .

Beaulieu MD. Primary and secondary care: Breaking down barriers for our patients with chronic diseases. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(2):221.

Crafford L, Jenkins LS. Why seek a second consultation at an emergency centre? A qualitative study. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2017;9(1):e1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v9i1.1397 .

Sorensen MJ, von Recklinghausen FM, Fulton G, et al. Secondary overtriage: The burden of unnecessary interfacility transfers in a rural trauma system. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:763–8.

Sutcliffe CG, Thuma PE, van Dijk JH, et al. Use of mobile phones and text messaging to decrease the turnaround time for early infant HIV diagnosis and notification in rural Zambia: an observational study. BMC Pediatr. 2017;17(1):66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-017-0822-z .

Baldwin LM, Morrison C, Griffin J, et al. Bidirectional Text Messaging to Improve Adherence to Recommended Lipid Testing. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(5):608–14. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2017.05.170088 .

Albright K, Krantz MJ, Backlund Jarquín P, DeAlleaume L, Coronel-Mockler S, Estacio RO. Health Promotion Text Messaging Preferences and Acceptability Among the Medically Underserved. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(4):523–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839914566850 .

Cramer ME, Mollard EK, Ford AL, Kupzyk KA, Wilson FA. The feasibility and promise of mobile technology with community health worker reinforcement to reduce rural preterm birth. Public Health Nurs. 2018;35(6):508–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12543 .

Gbadamosi SO, Eze C, Olawepo JO, et al. A Patient-Held Smartcard With a Unique Identifier and an mHealth Platform to Improve the Availability of Prenatal Test Results in Rural Nigeria: Demonstration Study. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(1): e18. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8716 .

Trondsen MV, Tjora A, Broom A, Scambler G. The symbolic affordances of a video-mediated gaze in emergency psychiatry. Soc Sci Med. 2018;197:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.056 .

Schwitters A, Lederer P, Zilversmit L, et al. Barriers to health care in rural Mozambique: a rapid ethnographic assessment of planned mobile health clinics for ART. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015;3(1):109–16. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00145 .

Kojima N, Krupp K, Ravi K, et al. Implementing and sustaining a mobile medical clinic for prenatal care and sexually transmitted infection prevention in rural Mysore, India. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-017-2282-3 .

Gorman SE, Martinez JM, Olson J. An assessment of HIV treatment outcomes among utilizers of semi-mobile clinics in rural Kenya. AIDS Care. 2015;27(5):665–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2014.986053 .

Lee S, Black D, Held ML. Factors Associated with Telehealth Service Utilization among Rural Populations. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2019;30(4):1259–72. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2019.0104 .

Agha Z, Schapira RM, Maker AH. Cost effectiveness of telemedicine for the delivery of outpatient pulmonary care to a rural population. Telemed J E Health. 2002;8(3):281–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/15305620260353171 .

Doraiswamy S, Abraham A, Mamtani R, Cheema S. Use of Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12): e24087. https://doi.org/10.2196/24087 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Center for Biomedical Research Excellence award (P20GM130418) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institute of Health. The first author was also supported by the University of Montana Burnham Population Health Fellowship. We would like to thank Dr. Christopher Dietrich, Dr. Jennifer Robohm and Dr. Eric Arzubi for their contributions on determining inclusion criteria for the healthcare provider population used for this study.

 This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, and not-for-profit sectors. 

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public & Community Health Sciences, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr, Missoula, MT, 59812, USA

Nicholas C. Coombs & James Caringi

Department of Psychology, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr, Missoula, MT, 59812, USA

Duncan G. Campbell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: NC and JC; data collection: NC; analysis and interpretation of results: NC and JC; draft manuscript preparation: NC, DC and JC; and manuscript editing: NC, DC and JC. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas C. Coombs .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing 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.

Coombs, N.C., Campbell, D.G. & Caringi, J. A qualitative study of rural healthcare providers’ views of social, cultural, and programmatic barriers to healthcare access. BMC Health Serv Res 22 , 438 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07829-2

Download citation

Received : 11 January 2022

Accepted : 21 March 2022

Published : 02 April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07829-2

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

• Access to healthcare
• Rural health
• Qualitative methods

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 09 April 2024

Nurses’ perspectives on professional self-concept and its influencing factors: A qualitative study

• Chuyuan Miao 1 ,
• Chunqin Liu 1 ,
• Ying Zhou 1 ,
• Xiaofang Zou 2 ,
• Liqin Song 1 ,
• Joanne W.Y. Chung 1 , 3 ,
• Wenying Tan 1 ,
• Xiaohua Li 1 &
• Dong Li 4  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  237 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

99 Accesses

Metrics details

Nurses with a strong professional self-concept tend to exhibit a positive mindset and strong work engagement, delivering high-quality patient care. Although numerous quantitative studies have examined the factors impacting professional self-concept, there remains a limited exploration of these factors from the perspective of nurses themselves.

This qualitative descriptive study uses the PERMA theory and Social Cognitive Theory as the theoretical framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 nurses from six public hospitals in China. The data were analyzed thematically using a combination of inductive and deductive approaches.

Nurses’ understanding of professional self-concept could be divided into four categories: professional identity, competence, care, and knowledge. Factors influencing nurses’ professional self-concept were categorized into eight subthemes in three domains: (1) personal factors, including psychological qualities and attitude towards the nursing profession; (2) occupational-related behavioral factors, including role-oriented behavior and knowledge-oriented behavior; and (3) work environment and external factors, including external evaluation and perceptions of nurses, time allocation, nursing work tasks, work atmosphere, school education, and perceived supports.

Conclusions

This study found that, although nurses had different personal experiences, their perceptions of professional self-concept were similar. Nurses’ professional self-concept is a multidimensional concept and involves various factors, such as personality, work-related characteristics, environment, and family. To thrive in a nursing career, nurses must discern the factors that can enhance or hinder their professional self-concept. By identifying and adjusting these factors, personalized support and positive interventions can be tailored to meet nurses’ specific needs, which ultimately nurtures their professional development.

Trial registration

This study was registered on December 14, 2022, in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200066699) as part of our ongoing study.

Peer Review reports

Nurses’ professional self-concept reflects their attitudes, perceptions, emotions, ethics, behaviors, and values in the nursing profession [ 1 , 2 ]. Nurses are indispensable members of the healthcare team and assume the important responsibilities of caring for patients, providing medical services, and ensuring patient safety. Nurses’ professional development is a lifeline for the quality of hospital nursing services, which is related to the stability of the nursing team. Professional self-concept is the core of self-understanding of the profession and personal career development [ 2 ]; thus, it has long been receiving attention [ 3 , 4 ].

Studies have shown that nurses’ professional self-concept is closely related to their mental health and that nurses with higher self-concept tend to maintain good job flexibility and strive to overcome difficulties encountered at work; therefore, they experience higher job satisfaction, motivation and retention intention [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Goliroshan et al. found that professional self-concept could significantly predict burnout among clinical nurses [ 8 ]. This implies that enhancing professional self-concept may mitigate burnout. People whose career matches their self-concept perceive their careers as meaningful and rewarding activities. Nurses in this position have a more favorable professional image and provide superior patient care. Conversely, nurses with a negative self-concept often feel disappointed with their abilities, lack motivation in their work, and perceive nursing as an unsatisfying and sad profession. As such, developing a professional self-concept is of great importance to nurses, particularly in terms of their career satisfaction and willingness to stay in the profession.

Furthermore, owing to the enormous contribution of nurses worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, more attention has been paid to them. During this public crisis, nurses explored their self-roles and remained in their professional roles while they defended their own health and avoided the risk of infection, leading them to have a deeper understanding of their roles and professional missions [ 9 , 10 ]. Hence, exploring nurses’ understanding of their professional self-concept, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, can provide a comprehensive understanding of how nurses perceive their competencies and values and identify suggestions to help them develop in their careers [ 11 ].

Existing research on nurses’ professional self-concept is primarily quantitative [ 4 , 12 ]. It is reported that a high level of professional self-concept among new or junior nurses affects their willingness to stay and their career plans [ 6 , 13 ]. Conversely, a high level of professional self-concept among senior nurses, such as nurse managers, affects their level of positive decision-making, as they take on more leadership responsibilities and are central to the development of the nursing team [ 14 ]. However, further qualitative research with a unique perspective is required to gain a deeper understanding of this content and to explore its influencing factors. In addition, previous research on the influencing factors and opinions related to the professional self-concept of nurses has suggested that professional self-concept may be differently influenced by public images, work environments, and cultural backgrounds [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Needless to say, a deeper exploration to investigate the factors that may influence nurses’ professional self-concept from their own perspective is essential. To sum up, this study explored nurses’ perceptions of their professional self-concept and its influencing factors using a qualitative research approach. This study aimed to promote nurses’ professional development, create high-quality nursing services, and help to formulate related training and intervention strategies in the future.

Theoretical background

This study adopted the PERMA theory and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) to explore nurses’ perspectives on professional self-concept and its influencing factors. This study sought to enable future nursing managers to provide targeted interventions from a psychological perspective.

Positive psychology advocates a positive perspective on individual well-being and focuses on human emotions, qualities, happiness, meaning, and fulfillment to pursue a good and happy life [ 18 ]. Professional self-concept is closely related to an individual’s career development and well-being [ 18 , 19 ], and nurses’ professional self-concept can be considered an important reflection of their pursuit of a meaningful and happy life. Seligman et al. [ 18 ] proposed the PERMA theory on positive psychology, in which well-being refers to a flourishing life and consists of five main elements: Positive Emotion (P), such as pleasantness, joy, and other subjective feelings; Engagement (E) which refers to complete concentration and immersion in something; Relationships (R), which refers to the emotional (e.g., co-operation or exclusion) and behavioral (e.g., proximity or estrangement) aspects that arise in the course of an individual’s getting along with other people; Meaning (M), which refers to an individual’s pursuit of a certain sense of value and happiness in their life; and Accomplishment (A), which refers to an individual’s feeling of pleasure or success after accomplishing something. Similarly, social psychology stresses the pursuit of a meaningful life. According to Bandura, an individual’s perceived well-being comes from a level that matches their life goals; thus, the SCT pursues well-being from the perspective of individual values [ 20 ]. From this perspective, the SCT can also be combined with the PERMA theory. For instance, positive emotion may develop in interactions with others [ 21 , 22 ]; For the engagement element, individuals may be influenced by others to develop a great interest, enthusiasm, and motivation for learning, enhancing the sense of engagement in themselves. Individuals may maintain interpersonal relationships by establishing good social behaviors with others; in other words, individuals are influenced by social roles to find meaning in life and work [ 23 ]; Regarding the accomplishment element, individuals may be influenced by others to set their own goals and self-development [ 22 ]. Therefore, this study combined the PERMA theory and SCT using the above five elements to design an interview outline and analyze nurses’ perceptions of their professional self-concept.

Furthermore, the interpretation of professional self-concept requires individual perception, which may be influenced by the individual’s own understanding, work, and life experiences, as well as other factors such as society, culture, race, religion, organization, and profession [ 24 , 25 ]. In other words, the formation of professional self-concept results from the interactions between humans and environmental factors. Therefore, the influence of social factors should also be considered. According to Bandura, human activity is determined by the interaction between three factors: personal factors (i.e., individual cognition), behavioral factors, and the external environment [ 18 , 26 ]. As a part of social psychology theory, the SCT stresses the significance of motivation and meaningful life, focusing on the self [ 18 , 27 ], which further guides us in categorizing the factors that affect professional self-concept.

The theoretical framework of this study is illustrated in Fig.  1 . The middle circle introduces Martin Seligman’s PERMA model, which includes the five elements of positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment and was used to analyze the perspective of nurses’ professional self-concept. The inner circle introduces Bandura’s SCT, which was used to guide the construction of themes for the factors influencing nurses’ professional self-concept.

The theoretical framework of nurses’ professional self-concept and its influencing factors

Study design

This study employed a qualitative descriptive design to examine nurses’ perceptions of their professional self-concept and its influencing factors. This study adhered to the consolidated criteria for reporting in a qualitative research (COREQ) checklist [ 28 ] (Table S1 ).

Study participants and sampling

This study was conducted in Guangdong Province, China, from January 23 to April 23, 2023. A total of 15 nurses, including three men and 12 women, were invited from six general tertiary-level hospitals in two cities (Shenzhen and Guangzhou) of Guangdong Province. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age ≥ 18 years; (2) holding a nurse certificate; and (3) being a clinical nurse. The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) being an intern or trainee nurse; (2) being a student or being on leave for one month or more; and (3) nurses who could not be contacted. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to invite participants to this study. Predetermined criteria were included according to the diversity of social demographic factors, such as working years, professional titles, and work departments, to obtain as rich data as far as possible. Participant selection was conducted by trained research team members. Invitations were distributed through WeChat, face-to-face, or by telephone to nurses. Snowball sampling was used to recruit more participants. The researchers explained the study’s purpose, precautions, and confidentiality principles to potential participants through WeChat or face-to-face conversations. Participation in the study was voluntary, and all participants provided written informed consent before participation.

Guest et al. [ 29 ] suggested that sample sizes for qualitative research are not predetermined; instead, sampling is considered to be saturated when no new data emerges, that is, when there are multiple repetitions of the data collected. They argued that for most research that aims to understand common perceptions and experiences, data saturation occurs after 12 interviews. As data saturation is a subjective judgment, we recruited additional interviewees after completing interviews with the initial 12 participants to ensure that our study achieved genuine data saturation, aiming for the highest level of comprehensiveness and quality. Thus, 17 participants were initially invited; however, two nurses declined to participate. Finally, 15 participants completed the interviews.

Determining the interview outline

Based on the research purpose and a review of relevant literature, an initial interview outline was drafted. Two nurses were selected for the pre-interviews, and a final interview outline was developed after a group discussion. Two researchers (CYM and LQS) conducted a pilot test with two nurses separately, and neither of the nurses was invited to participate in the formal study. After the two pre-interviews, the formal interview outline was adjusted, improved, and finalized (The Interview Guide was developed for this study, see Table S2 ).

Data collection

We conducted one-on-one, in-person, semi-structured interviews to gain insight into nurses’ perspectives and experiences. This approach fostered a comfortable environment for interviewees, encouraging them to share their personal opinions. Before the interviews, the researchers contacted the participants and clearly explained the research objectives, then arranged interview times and locations at the participant’s convenience. Locations free of distractions, such as conference rooms in the participants’ clinical department, their homes, or a quiet environment were selected.

During the interviews, the participants were informed of the necessity of recording the interview process. The purpose, process, and confidentiality principles of this study were explained again. Written informed consent was obtained. Each interview lasted 35–60 min. When necessary, the interviewer employed questioning, rhetorical questioning, and repetition techniques to confirm the participants’ responses and ensure clarity.

In the formal interview process, CYM conducted each interview while observing, listening to, and recording the interviewees’ expressions, voices, and intonation as well as clarifying and verifying uncertain information to improve the accuracy of the data. The interview guide consisted of open-ended questions that allowed participants to fully elucidate their viewpoints, perceptions, and experiences. At the beginning of each interview, the participants were asked to introduce themselves, including their department, working years, working position, and working experience, and then to explain their perceptions of “professional self-concept” and the “related influencing factors”. The researcher remained linguistically and nonjudgmental neutral in the interviews to observe and record. To express our gratitude, we also gave a gift card worth ¥100 to each participant who completed the interview.

Data analysis

This study used qualitative thematic analysis to examine the nurses’ perceptions of the professional self-concept and its influencing factors. A thematic analysis method [ 30 ] was used to extract the factors affecting the professional self-concept among nurses, which consisted of the following six steps: (i) familiarization with the data, (ii) generating initial coding, (iii) searching for themes, (iv) reviewing the themes, (v) defining and naming, and (vi) generating reports. After obtaining consent, the recording was conducted using IFLYTEK recording equipment. Within 48 h after the interview, the researcher transcribed the recorded data into Microsoft Word by repeatedly listening to the recording content. The transcribed text was sorted, classified, coded, and analyzed using Nvivo 12.0 software.

Details process of data handling and analysis

In the first step, CYM listened to the recorded data several times, read the transcribed text repeatedly, and noted any transcribed errors for timely correction. This process involved extracting relevant content from the transcript and adding the interviewer’s expressions in brackets based on the participants’ verbatim statements. Afterward, meaningful units were extracted from the transcribed text by condensing and summarizing recurring “words” or “sentences” as appropriate using the inductive analysis. XHL and CQL revised their interpretations of the findings if disagreements occurred during analysis. Once the open coding data were complete, CYM generated a list of categories and initial subthemes. Next, CYM, CQL, WYT and XHL reviewed all codes, categories, and initial subthemes that emerged from the transcripts. CYM and CQL then merged the items according to the categories developed from SCT theory using deductive analysis into relevant themes and subthemes. The combination of inductive and deductive approaches has been mentioned in previous studies [ 31 ]. As the team members held different views, the process was repeated until a consensus was reached. Finally, we used a table to report the entire thematic analysis findings process (Table S3 ), with quotes translated into English by CYM and XHL.

Ethical approval

Before recruitment, we informed our study’s participants about the purpose, method, and content of the study. All participants were asked to sign a written consent form before the interview. In addition, the researchers used case numbers to anonymize the interview data and protect the interviewees’ privacy. All data used in the interviews were processed anonymously. Apart from de-identified records, no other relevant personal information was revealed. The study conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Guangzhou Medical University (No. 202210003). This work is part of our overall research. Participation was entirely voluntary. Participants had full autonomy regarding whether to take part in this anonymous study.

Trustworthiness and credibility

To improve the reliability of this study, we recruited participants with different characteristics, such as age, and nursing department, until we reached data saturation. After transcribing and collating the data, the researcher promptly checked and confirmed with the interviewees in cases of uncertainty in the information to ensure the authenticity and completeness of the data. The researcher kept detailed records of all the raw data and analyses and recalled and understood the interviews by listening to the recorded content several times and reviewing the translated text, thereby ensuring the credibility of the data. The detailed descriptions of each category enriched the interpretation of the data and enhanced transferability. In addition, themes and subthemes from the analyses were independently analyzed by two researchers to test the reliability of the results. We later contacted some participants, asked them to re-verify the content again, and asked them whether any corrections were needed. Moreover, if the participants asked us for the interview records, we provided them with the relevant details and content. However, owing to time constraints, we did not repeat the interviews.

No new topics were found after interviewing the 15 participants. The study sample was from six hospitals in two cities (Shenzhen and Guangzhou) of Guangdong Province, China. The participant’s characteristics are presented in Table  1 . The interviews lasted 35–64 min and averaged 51 min long. The participants included 12 women and three men; Of them, 14 (93.34%) participants had a bachelor’s degree, and one had a postgraduate degree. The working hospitals included three hospitals each in Shenzhen and Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. Based on the SCT, we identified the following themes and subthemes by coding the interview transcripts: personal factors, occupational-related behavioral factors, work environment and external factors (Fig.  2 ). Data analysis generated 82 codes through the meaningful text, forming 18 initial subthemes in eight categories.

The summarizes of factors affecting nurses’ professional self-concept

Nurses’ perceptions of professional self-concept

Codes were classified into four descriptive themes: professional identity, competence, care, and knowledge (See Table S4 ). A total of 15 nurses were interviewed, and the majority (11/15) stated that this was the first time they had heard the term “self-concept”; however, few differences existed in their perceptions of professional self-concept. Most nurses felt that their self-concept reflected their role as health promoters, with a sense of identification with their role or profession. They stated that self-concept involves professional nursing skills, professional knowledge, humanistic care, and the influence of their thoughts and attitudes on their work behaviors. For instance, Participant A8 (nurse, woman, 23 years old) said, “Being engaged in the nursing profession involves several aspects. First, it requires an understanding of one’s behavior in a professional context. Nurses need to be self-aware, knowing who they are in this role. They must decide how to act and regulate their behavior effectively. This process involves an ideological aspect as well, which is developing a self-perception and attitude that are appropriate for their professional responsibilities”. In addition, some participants emphasized the importance of cultivating mental health literacy when mentioning this concept. “First, we should develop a concept of self and focus on ourselves. Then, we should stay positive, and let that positivity influence our work. That’s also how you bring a positive influence to the patients” (A10, nurse in charge, woman, 33 years old) .

Factors influencing nurses’ professional self-concept

Theme one: personal factors, subtheme one: psychological qualities.

In this study, several nurses considered psychological quality to be an important personal factor affecting their professional self-concept, particularly mindset, resilience, self-regulation, compassion, responsibility, and leadership.

Given the challenging and stressful nature of nurses’ work environment, nurses with a positive mindset tend to be motivated and driven in their work; therefore, they are motivated in their professional development. One participant stated, “Maintaining a positive and optimistic mindset is crucial for nurses to handle challenging things, such as emotional fluctuations when patients’ family members do not understand. Without it, nurses may risk facing increasing distress and potentially experiencing a sense of despair in their profession” (A14, Nurse practitioner, woman, 32 years old).

Resilience, which encompasses the ability to effectively control one’s emotions and maintain composure under perceived stress, adapt flexibly to the environment, and understand others, is key to an individual’s professional development. One participant stated, “To smooth your career path in nursing, it’s vital to learn how to read situations and understand others’ perspectives. Avoid losing your temper whenever possible and maintain control over your emotions. I believe mastering this skill is crucial and will significantly benefit your professional life. These insights are based on my personal experiences and advice” (A12, woman, nurse-in-charge, 29 years old).

Self-regulation

Effective self-regulation is necessary because individuals may experience setbacks at work. For example, one participant said, “When dealing with psychiatric patients who express constant negativity, often due to resentment from necessary restraints upon admission, it’s vital to learn self-regulation to cope with their adverse emotions and behaviors” (A11, nurse practitioner, woman, 35 years old).

Compassion refers to putting oneself in the patient’s position. One participant reported, “It is essential to remember that compassion and empathy are crucial, especially when interacting with patients. We should see them as more than just patients–they are pregnant women and babies. Being warm and caring towards people is a fundamental quality, regardless of your profession” (A15, nurse practitioner, woman, 45 years old).

Responsibility

Responsibility is considered a fundamental component of prudence and mental well-being and constitutes an essential quality that nurses should possess. “In our profession, where we handle life, being cautious and responsible is fundamental. In nursing, exercising discretion and possessing a strong sense of responsibility are basic requirements. If you’re accountable to your patients and dedicated to your profession, you’ll naturally be more meticulous, which ultimately benefits the patients” (A12).

Nurse leadership is fundamental to realizing a nurse’s values, and its development is essential for the successful practice of the nurse professionals. Although some nurses felt that leadership was more often found among senior nurses, one participant stated, “While much of what I have mentioned may not seem directly related to authority or majesty, as you accumulate years of experience in your profession, it inherently represents a form of leadership”(A11). This was equally important for younger nurses. Leadership can be a collection of personal qualities, intelligence, and character, as well as a drive and self-leadership to become a better and better version of oneself. One participant said, “Been on the job for six months now, and I’m pretty much-handling things on my own. Got the hang of the basics, no need to bother them (either leaders or colleagues) for every little thing” (A8).

Subtheme two: attitude towards the nursing profession

Commitment to the nursing role.

Nurses’ commitment to their roles was reflected in their engagement. For instance, some respondents said that they were devoted to daily work, such as checking a patient’s information and asking for their name before giving an injection to ensure that the correct person is being treated. “It has become a muscle memory; it cannot be erased, and I feel so involved that I forget that feeling of self (laughs)” (A3, nurse, man, 28 years old). Some respondents even reported that they were always in an engaged state at work. “From the beginning to the end of my work day, I am in a state of total mental tension. I would say that this is commitment” (A2, nurse, woman, 24 years old).

Self-identity in nursing

Most nurses appreciated their profession and were willing to work in these roles. One participant said: “Nurses are a profession that I feel has a sense of value and presence as well. I mean, I am proud to be doing this for a living”(A2). “People may think that nurses are only assistants to doctors, but in fact, doctors need to rely on us nurses instead…Nurses know better what patients need and the problems they need to solve” (A1, nurse, man, 24 years old).

Effective communication styles

Effective communication styles could reflect nurses’ positive attitudes toward nursing care. One participant said, “Effective communication is also important. Even if you excel in your professional skills and have a caring attitude, it will not work without good communication. Being outgoing and having a genuine connection with patients are equally necessary. Developing strong communication skills is a must”(A9, nurse in charge, woman, 33 years old).

Theme two: occupational-related behavioral factors

Subtheme one: role-oriented behavior, sense of role-achievement.

The source of nurses’ sense of achievement is reflected in the fact that their nursing work helps patients, producing not only a sense of individual value but also social value. “I remember a particular incident with an overweight male patient who had difficult-to-locate veins. Other colleagues had tried and failed to draw his blood without causing him pain and bruising, leading to his dissatisfaction. However, during my night shift, I successfully drew his blood. He was amazed at how painless it was and expressed his surprise, saying,   ‘Is it done already? It didn’t hurt at all!’ (pop-eyed with excitement). He then praised me in front of my colleagues and leaders and during the clinical rounds. This incident boosted my confidence and pride in my skills, making me feel more assured in demonstrating my capabilities! (big smile and with a gleam in his eye)” (A3).

Nurses’ behavior on time allocation conflicts

The time conflict involved in nursing tasks primarily includes nurses’ task allocation and learning and working time allocation. For instance, one participant said, “When I’m eating and a new patient arrives, I face a dilemma: continue my meal with only half an hour left, or attend to the patient? It’s a conflict of interests. At such moments, it’s crucial to consider our role. As a nurse, during my 8-hour shift, I need to prioritize my professional responsibilities over personal needs. Wearing the nurse’s uniform means not always doing what I want; it’s about balancing conflicting interests while staying true to our nursing role” (A11).

Subtheme two: knowledge-oriented behavior

Knowledge reserves are essential for nurses’ perceptions, clinical judgments, and decision-making, particularly for new nurses and nurses with little experience (e.g., less than ten years). For instance, one participant said: “In clinical work, you often encounter things not taught in school or books. It can be really tough when patients ask about these areas, because you don’t always know the answers and you can’t just guess” (A8).

In this study, several participants were fully aware of the importance of knowledge and referred to self-directed learning behaviors. “I am not very familiar with some specialties of my department, such as Central Venous Catheter (CVC) and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) . Then, I might check the   relevant operating guides   to understand   how it works” (A5, nurse, woman, 25 years old).

Theme three: work environment and external factors

Subtheme one: external evaluation and perceptions of nurses.

Social stereotypes can significantly impact all aspects of life, particularly individuals’ confidence and motivation. For instance, when discussing the status of nurses, one participant said, “When you say that you are a bachelor’s degree nurse, people are amazed. There are some (patients), of course, most (patients) nowadays probably do not have that point of view anymore, but there will still be a lot of (patients), some even who call you ‘waiter’ all the time…” (A10) .

In addition, gender stereotypes exist about the role of nurses, in addition to stereotypes in terms of social hierarchy, as demonstrated by the fact that most people think of nurses as women. One participant said, “While I am comfortable with my role as a male nurse within the hospital, I am aware that outside the hospital, the perceptions and comments of others can affect my confidence” (A3) .

The value placed on nurses by outsiders (e.g., peers and the general public) motivates and encourages individuals to remain committed to this path. “Since the epidemic, I feel the status of nursing staff has elevated. There’s a greater sense of respect for the nursing profession now compared to before” (A12) .

Subtheme two: work atmosphere

Individuals are affected by an excellent work environment. “The work environment where I am situated is relatively tidy, and the atmosphere among my colleagues is quite positive and energetic. It is an enthusiastic and forward-thinking team. Most people are eager to pursue their goals rather than thinking of nothing. I find this atmosphere to be quite favorable” (A12).

Subtheme three: school education

Schooling plays a critical role in shaping nurses’ perceptions of professional self-concept. “The school’s emphasis on humanistic qualities, theories, and education significantly shapes one’s growth. It is essential to clearly explain the duties and roles of nurses and how they contribute to society…” (A10).

Subtheme four: perceived supports

First, the platform support impacts nurses’ professional development. One participant said, “Whether a professional nurse or a consultant nurse, both need a suitable platform to grow and excel. Acknowledging that some platforms might not be as good may limit the diversity of a nurse’s insights into clinical conditions and problem-solving” (A13, Nurse in charge, woman, 45 years old).

Second, the support of leaders is vital for nurses. One participant said, “When I first joined, I was the only new one, without peers to confide in. My leader provided me with her own methods of psychological guidance, which helped me quickly adapt to the environment” (A14).

Peer support can influence nurses’ motivation, thereby playing an integral role in their professional development. “During the day shift, there’s always someone available to assist; you’re never left to handle everything on your own” (A2).

Third, patient support is a source of motivation for nurses and a recognition of their professionalism. “When I get that kind of patient affirmation, I actually feel that this career is very good ” (A8).

Furthermore, nursing is a unique profession, and the attitude and care of family members also significantly affects the concentration and energy of individuals engaged in nursing work. “My family members may say that they will take care of the child instead of going for a walk today” (A15).

This study explored nurses’ perceptions of their professional self-concept and its influencing factors using the PERMA theory and SCT. Nurses regarded professional self-concept in four aspects: Identity, competence, care, and knowledge. Factors influencing professional self-concept were categorized into three themes: personal, occupational-related behavioral, work environment and external factors (Fig.  2 ). This study enriches the understanding of Chinese nurses’ perceptions of professional self-concept and its influencing factors. These findings can guide future interventions to develop and improve the nursing team and provide a foundation to further assist nursing managers in developing interventions and training to support and motivate nurses.

According to the participants, professional self-concept is multi-dimensional. The development of nurses’ professional self-concept was considered an important component of personal career development, as reflected in nurses’ goals in terms of professional competence and professional identity. This was in line with Ni et al.’s [ 32 ] conceptual understanding of career development. This further emphasizes the crucial role of nurses’ professional self-concept in their career development. In addition, participants highlighted the vital impact of mental health literacy (i.e., humanistic qualities and care) when discussing professional competencies. This concept has recently gained attention [ 33 ], particularly considering the stress of modern life. Mental health literacy is regarded as individuals’ knowledge and beliefs about recognizing, managing and preventing mental health problems [ 34 , 35 ]. For nurses, improving mental health literacy not only means developing positive attitudes and practices, but it is also an important expansion of their professional self-concept. By developing mental health literacy, nurses can be helped to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity and importance of their own professional roles, thereby facilitating their professional growth and personal development [ 34 ]. Furthermore, the nurses participating in this study emphasized the prominent roles of caregiving and professional knowledge in their professional self-concept. This is linked to the pivotal role of nurses as healthcare providers in the medical and health fields, where they undertake responsibilities as caregivers and health educators. This alignment with prior research is consistent with delineating the dimensions of nurses’ professional self-concept [ 6 ], suggesting that nurses still have substantial room for growth in professional care and knowledge.

Nurses’ mindsets, psychological qualities, and attitudes as an internal driver for the development of their professional self-concept

Regarding personal factors, we found that nurses’ mindsets and psychological qualities are a more significant part of the process of their professional self-concept development and career promotion. This was consistent with the findings of previous research [ 5 , 7 , 32 ]. According to Madrid et al., individuals’ positive or negative emotions at work may affect their self-perceptions and job satisfaction [ 36 ]. Nurses with a positive mindset have also been found to be able to work creatively. This may be because people with high levels of happiness accumulate more positive emotions, are satisfied with their lives, and can positively influence their organizational performance, which in turn positively affects the quality of care delivery [ 37 ]. Moreover, nurses with positive psychological qualities, such as resilience, and empathy, tend to maintain consistent positive expectations about future outcomes, which then leads to more positive outcomes that enhance their mental health, job satisfaction, professional self-concept [ 38 , 39 , 40 ], and career decision-making [ 41 ]. However, individual attributes take longer to develop and may be influenced by the environment, education, and experience [ 36 ]. Therefore, the joint efforts of nurses, families, and society, such as using a positive psychological intervention [ 42 ], are required to help nurses develop positive psychological and qualities to better promote the development of professional self-concept. For example, schools emphasize theoretical and humanistic qualities at the organizational level, including education and hospital management, whereas hospitals concentrate on operational and individual competencies. Teachers are key to shaping students’ qualities, values, and professional growth. Therefore, new teachers must possess a depth of knowledge and humanistic qualities to enrich students’ practical experiences and cultivate solid interpersonal abilities for effective, positive clinical adaptation [ 43 ].

Furthermore, nurses are the mainstay of clinical care, and their attitudes are key factors in shaping the overall quality of care. A positive, optimistic, and confident attitude toward life can lead to quality nursing care and inspire nurses to commit to their work [ 44 ]. Although the majority of the participants in this study indicated that they maintained a focused and devoted attitude towards their nursing work, some participants mentioned potentially negative attitudes owing to work pressure or for other reasons. A survey of 357 nurses in five hospitals in Ethiopia found that only 46.3% of nurses were optimistic about their careers [ 45 ]. This finding suggests that nurses should enhance their professional role clarity. In addition, a survey of 1,179 Austrian nurses found that they had moderate to positive attitudes towards caring for patients aged > 80 years [ 46 ]. However, previous research has also found that nurses’ attitudes towards others, such as caring for older people, are complex, with both positive and negative aspects [ 47 , 48 ]. Thus, consistently positive attitudes towards nurses should be developed. Ethical training and continuous educational opportunities should also be provided [ 45 ].

Besides, previous studies have shown that nurses’ attitudes stem from their self-perception of the profession and that self-identification is an important part of this perception. Most of the nurses in this study still had a high level of acceptance of nursing as a profession and felt that it was a very rewarding job to have. This result was similar to that of previous studies in that those with high self-identity tended to have stronger self-confidence, had a clearer understanding of their abilities and values, were more likely to have stable and healthy relationships and were motivated to achieve their goals and aspirations. However, surveys conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic found that most nurses needed to promote their self-identity [ 49 , 50 ]. For instance, Zhang et al. reported that, among 348 Chinese nurses, most reported that their professional self-identity was low or moderate [ 49 ].

In addition, some nurses in this study also reported that they needed to further improve their communication skills. To further enhance nurses’ professional self-concept, nurses’ psychological problems should be recognized early, and psychological intervention support and emotional management training should be provided. Moreover, relevant education and training, such as strengthening effective communication and interpersonal skills, should be provided, thereby inspiring nurses to be more passionate and committed to nursing and to maintain their long-term positive attitudes.

Stimulating the autonomy of nurses’ occupational-related behavior is a synergistic force that improves their professional self-concept development

According to the SCT framework, an individual’s behavior plays a key role in their professional development. This study concluded that nurses’ occupation-related behaviors influenced their professional self-concept, with role-oriented behavior being the main aspect. This study examined nurses’ perceptions of job fulfillment and motivation, as well as their willingness to actively choose to take on the nursing role in the event of a conflict between family roles and time allocation. Nurses expressed that their motivation towards professional development was connected to the meaningful work they gained from their work, which is consistent with the results of previous studies [ 51 ]. Nurses’ intrinsic autonomy must be stimulated to develop and nurture this behavior. Studies have shown that individuals with a higher level of autonomy are more likely to take on responsibility and are more flexible, proactive, open to challenges, and adaptable to the content and demands of their work. Consequently, nursing managers can develop training programs to assist nurses in adapting to and developing their professional roles. In addition, regarding role conflict, some nurses indicated that they would be willing to meet patients’ needs over their own. However, choosing a role may be challenging owing to work-family conflict [ 52 ]. Thus, nurses require help to balance work and family life, including developing their coping strategies, organizational policies, and culture [ 53 ].

Moreover, nurses’ occupation-related behaviors are manifested as knowledge-oriented behaviors. In this study, they were manifested as nurses being aware of their own inadequacies and acting accordingly, such as seeking advice from others on job content or expertise. Previous studies have also found that nurses’ knowledge and skills in certain specialized areas require improvements [ 54 ], and that nurses need help to better cope with the challenges they face through more educational and clinical practice opportunities [ 52 ]. Furthermore, previous research has emphasized the importance of knowledge in providing adequate care, including health promotion and disease prevention. Nurses also need to be able to locate the required knowledge and its sources. Nurses should not limit their knowledge to textbooks; they should also know how to apply it and translate it into action to develop their competencies [ 55 , 56 ].

Accordingly, nurses’ occupational-related behaviors can be promoted through the development of their professional competencies, such as the development of cyclical work plans, setting specific self-improvement goals, and proactive pursuit of various learning opportunities.

Creating a favorable environment that enhances nurses’ perceived support and sense of belonging is an external motivation to enhance their professional self-concept

In this study, a favorable environment and external related factors, including the work environment in which an individual is placed, others’ perceptions, atmosphere, and perceived support, may serve as extrinsic motivations for an individual’s career development and professional self-concept.

First, others’ perceptions of the nurses’ roles are crucial. Some nurses felt that others’ perceptions of nursing roles could be considered one of the factors influencing their professional self-concept. Kallio et al. [ 51 ] found that these perceptions significantly affected nurses’ physical and mental health and influenced their job retention. Negative perceptions of nurses’ roles by others may lead to role conflicts. The public’s perception of the role of nurses has changed from the original daily auxiliary work, such as giving injections and medicines. However, establishing and maintaining a good image among nurses is a long-term process that requires joint efforts of the nursing community and the outside community.

Second, a favorable working environment, including providing a group of nurses with an adequate sense of support and belonging, is an important component of their psychological needs for self-actualization [ 57 ]. A positive working atmosphere, with harmonious interpersonal relationships and mutual trust among members, enhances team cohesion and contributes to team development. In line with the findings of Drott et al. [ 58 ], we found that the interactive relationships between leaders and their subordinates as well as employees’ supportive aspects can affect individuals’ development. A qualified leader can think differently and provide help and guidance to subordinates, thus motivating and driving the entire nursing team in the department [ 59 ].

Additionally, schools emphasize theoretical and humanistic qualities at the organizational level, including education and hospital management, whereas hospitals concentrate on operational and individual competencies. School and clinical education play important roles in the early formation and long-term development of nurses’ professional self-concept, which is in line with previous studies [ 60 , 61 ]. Teachers play a central role in shaping student qualities and professional values, imparting education, and influencing their clinical adjustment and professional development. Hence, nursing teachers should possess a solid foundation of knowledge and humanistic qualities to influence students’ clinical adjustment and professional development effectively. Furthermore, they should enhance nursing students’ practical experiences and cultivate solid interpersonal skills to positively impact their clinical adaptation [ 43 ].

In addition, favorable social support contributes to nurses’ career development. This study found that nurses who perceived themselves to have greater support from society, organizations, and peers could face work stress and challenges using positive strategies. This was consistent with the findings of Liu et al. [ 62 ]. Moreover, Cao et al. [ 63 ] suggested that a positive work environment motivates individuals to work harder to achieve their career development. For instance, a positive coworker relationship could promote career development by allowing individuals to feel safe in their group, trust others, and learn from each other [ 64 ]. Moreover, in a leadership relationship, Kallio et al. [ 51 ] reported that support for nurses’ career development by nursing managers is very important, as nurses’ perceived limitations in their career development are one of the reasons that lead them to choose to leave the nursing profession. Thus, nursing managers should be able to provide nurses with career planning assistance, targeted motivation, and encouragement to participate in various competitions and training opportunities. This would help them recognize their strengths and develop motivation to grow in their nursing careers.

Limitations

This study provides a rich understanding of Chinese nurses’ perceptions of their professional self-concept and the influencing factors. These findings further enrich the theoretical framework of professional self-concept. These factors may be beneficial for advancing nurses’ career development. However, this study had some limitations. First, the interviewer attempted to recall and document the interviewees’ facial expressions during the one-on-one interviews. However, capturing and recording all the participant’s facial expressions and movements was difficult, resulting in some potential oversights. Second, some nurses declined to participate because of time constraints associated with face-to-face communication. The gender bias in the sample, which was predominantly made up of women and had a small sample size, caused the research methodology and purposeful sampling, to restrict the generalization of the results to be broader nursing population. Third, the results of this study may be biased towards exploring the factors influencing nurses’ professional self-concept, and personal bias associated with the influence of the environment, such as others’ opinions on nurses, may be present. Interviewers’ interpretation and construction may have affected the data collection and analysis, and some of the content may not have been explored in-depth. Third, quotes were translated from Chinese into English, and the meanings of the translated quotes may differ slightly from the original meanings in Chinese. Moreover, although the results of this study shed light on Chinese nurses’ perceptions of the components and factors of professional self-concept, this study did not describe the interrelations between the components and factors. Therefore, the findings of this study should be interpreted carefully.

This study provides new insights into nurses’ perceptions of professional self-concept and its influencing factors based on PERMA theory and SCT. First, nurses emphasized professional identity, competence, care, and knowledge as the primary components of professional self-concept, which indicates that nursing managers should pay closer attention to these areas. Second, according to nurses, three themes and eight subthemes in personal, behavioral, and external aspects that affect nurses’ professional self-concept have been identified. Adopting differing positive methods in accordance with these themes and factors, such as promoting nurses’ positive qualities, attitudes, and behaviors and establishing a good support system, can be used as a foundation to enhance nurses’ professional self-concept and development. Additionally, it needs to be highlighted that enhancing nurses’ professional self-concept requires not only the nurses themselves, but also the joint efforts of patients, their families, the healthcare system, and society as a whole.

Data availability

All the raw data (including participants’ voice files and the texts of the interviews) will be confidential and will not be able to share publicly. However, the codes that emerged during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Arthur D, Randle J. The professional self-concept of nurses: a review of the literature from 1992–2006. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2007;24(3):60–4.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Xu Y, Liang Y, Ye H, Xu Y. Literature review of the research on nursing students’ professional self-concept. Med Educ Online. 2023;28(1):2153396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2153396 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hosseini A, Mousavi SH, Hajibabaee F, Haghani S. The relationship between workplace bullying and professional self-concept in Iranian nurses. Nurs Open. 2021;8(1):232–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.622 .

Cho Y, Han Y, Jeong Y, Professional Self-Concept. Job stress, and triage competency among emergency nurses: secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional survey. J Emerg Nurs. 2022;48(3):288–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2022.01.010 .

Young Choi J, Hee Lee J. Factors affecting professional self-concept among psychiatric nurses in South Korea. Iran J Public Health. 2022;51(3):552–61. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v51i3.8931 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cowin LS, Johnson M, Craven RG, Marsh HW. Causal modeling of self-concept, job satisfaction, and retention of nurses. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45(10):1449–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.10.009 .

Tong LK, Zhu MX, Wang SC, Cheong PL, Van IK. Factors influencing caring behaviour among registered nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: a qualitative study using the COM-B framework. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30(8):4071–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13855 .

Goliroshan S, Nobahar M, Raeisdana N, Ebadinejad Z, Aziznejadroshan P. The protective role of professional self-concept and job embeddedness on nurses’ burnout: structural equation modeling. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1):203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00727-8 .

Cerit B, Uzun LN. Being a nurse at the ground zero of care in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. J Relig Health. 2022;61(1):827–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01491-4 .

Aydın M, Aydın Aİ, Kulakaç Ö. Nurses as the leading fighters during the COVID-19 pandemic: self-transcendence. Nurs Ethics. 2022;29(4):802–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330211065848 .

Zamanzadeh V, Valizadeh L, Praskova A, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Asghari E. Reaching for the stars: Iranian nurses’ perceptions of career success. Int Nurs Rev. 2019;66(1):78–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12460 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eyni S, Mousavi SE, Taghavi R. Developing a causal model of nurses’ compassion competence based on professional self-concept and work conscience: the mediating role of self-efficacy (case study: nurses in psychiatric ward of Ardabil hospitals). Curr Psychol. 2023;42:32218–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04200-w .

Article   Google Scholar  

Cowin LS, Hengstberger-Sims C. New graduate nurse self-concept and retention: a longitudinal survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2006;43(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.03.004 .

Kantek F, Şimşek B. Factors relating to professional self-concept among nurse managers. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(23–24):4293–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13755 .

ten Hoeve Y, Jansen G, Roodbol P. The nursing profession: public image, self-concept and professional identity. A discussion paper. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(2):295–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12177 .

Juanamasta IG, Aungsuroch Y, Preechawong S, Gunawan J. Factors related to professional self-concept of nursing students and nurses: a systematic review. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2023;28(6):642–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.Ijnmr_222_20 .

Arthur D, Pang S, Wong T, Alexander MF, Drury J, Eastwood, et al. Caring attributes, professional self concept and technological influences in a sample of registered nurses in eleven countries. Int J Nurs Stud. 1999;36(5):387–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7489(99)00035-8 .

Seligman MEP. Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press. 2011. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25554-000 .

Xiao Q, Cooke FL, Chen L. Nurses’ well-being and implications for human resource management: a systematic literature review. Int J Manag Rev. 2022;24(4):599–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12295 .

Bandura A. A social cognitive perspective on positive psychology. Int J Social Psychol. 2011;26(1):7–20. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347411794078444 .

Kim G, Yu H, Ryu E. Social group membership, burnout, and subjective well-being in new nurses in the life transition period: a cross-sectional study. Nurs Open. 2023;10(5):3295–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1581 .

Jakubiak B, Tomlinson JM. The Role of Social Support in promoting self-development. Interpersonal Relat Self-Concept. 2020:125–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_8 .

Orgambídez A, Almeida H. Social support, role clarity and job satisfaction: a successful combination for nurses. Int Nurs Rev. 2020;67(3):380–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12591 .

Mlinar S, Tusak M, Karpljuk D. Self-concept in intensive care nurses and control group women. Nurs Ethics. 2009;16(3):328–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733009102696 .

Gecas V. The Self-Concept. Annu Rev Sociol. 1982;8:1–33. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-07901-001 .

Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. 1986.  https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-98423-000 .

McConnell AR, Brown CM, Shoda TM. The social cognition of the self. The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. 2013;497–516. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-34444-024 .

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care: J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .

Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 .

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .

Lefrid M, Torres EN, Okumus F. Immigrant hospitality workers: familism, acculturation experiences, and perception of workplace. Int J Hosp Manag. 2022;103:103213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103213 .

Ni YX, Wu D, Bao Y, Li JP, You GY. Nurses’ perceptions of career growth: a qualitative descriptive study. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(11):3795–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15376 .

Marangu E, Mansouri F, Sands N, Ndetei D, Muriithi P, Wynter K, et al. Assessing mental health literacy of primary health care workers in Kenya: a cross-sectional survey. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2021;15(1):55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-021-00481-z .

Carvalho D, Sequeira C, Querido A, Tomás C, Morgado T, Valentim O, et al. Positive Mental Health Literacy: a Concept Analysis. Front Psychol. 2022;13:877611. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.877611 .

Lindert L, Choi KA, Pfaff H, Zeike S. Health literacy at work - individual and organizational health literacy, health supporting leadership and employee wellbeing. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):736.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09766-0 .

Madrid HP, Barros E, Vasquez CA. The emotion regulation roots of job satisfaction. Front Psychol. 2020;11:609933–3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.609933 .

Pirdelkhosh M, Mohsenipouya H, Mousavinasab N, Sangani A, Mamun MA. Happiness and moral courage among Iranian nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: the role of workplace social capital. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:844901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.844901 .

Lyu FF, Ramoo V, Wang YX. Career maturity, psychological resilience, and professional self-concept of nursing students in China: a nationwide cross-sectional study. J Prof Nurs. 2022;42:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.06.003 .

Rogers M, Lamarche K, Miller M, Moore KS, Spies LA, Taylor J, et al. Global emotional and spiritual well-being and resilience of advanced practice nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(5):1483–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15161 .

Işık MT, Çokan Dönmez Ç, Can Özdemir R. Relationship between nurses’ professional values, empathy, and patience: a descriptive cross-sectional study. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2022;58(4):2433–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.13078 .

Javanmardnejad S, Bandari R, Heravi-Karimooi M, Rejeh N, Sharif NH, Montazeri A. Happiness, quality of working life, and job satisfaction among nurses working in emergency departments in Iran. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01755-3 .

Hoffmann A, Pilger S, Olbrecht T, Claassen K. Qualitative evaluation of a brief positive psychological online intervention for nursing staff. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2023;44:38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2023.04.003 .

Kim JS. Relationships between reality shock, professional self-concept, and nursing students’ perceived trust from nursing educators: a cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;88:104369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104369 .

Li HQ, Xie P, Huang X, Luo SX. The experience of nurses to reduce implicit rationing of nursing care: a phenomenological study. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):174. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01334-5 .

Rekisso AD, Mengistu Z, Wurjine TH. Nurses’ attitudes towards the nursing profession and associated factors in selected public hospitals, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2021: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00808-2 .

Lampersberger LM, Schüttengruber G, Lohrmann C, Großschädl F. Nurses’ perspectives on caring for and attitudes towards adults aged eighty years and older. Scand J Caring Sci. 2023;37(2):458–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13127 .

Rush KL, Hickey S, Epp S, Janke R. Nurses’ attitudes towards older people care: an integrative review. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(23–24):4105–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13939 .

Holmberg C, Wolf A, Olsson MM, Heckemann B. Nurses’ general attitudes and caregiving-specific perceptions toward the oldest-old: a nationwide survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;136:104379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104379 .

Zhang B, Tao H, Xie M, Zhang J, Zhang M, Zhang Y. Factors associated with professional identity among ICU nurses during COVID-19: a cross-sectional study. Nurs Open. 2023;10(8):5701–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1817 .

Mo Y, Tao P, Liu G, Chen L, Li G, Lu S, et al. Post-traumatic growth of nurses who faced the COVID-19 epidemic and its correlation with professional self-identity and social support. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:562938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.562938 .

Kallio H, Kangasniemi M, Hult M. Registered nurses’ perceptions of their career-An interview study. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30(7):3378–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13796 .

Vázquez-Calatayud M, Errasti-Ibarrondo B, Choperena A. Nurses’ continuing professional development: a systematic literature review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021;50:102963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102963 .

Dilmaghani RB, Armoon B, Moghaddam LF. Work-family conflict and the professional quality of life and their sociodemographic characteristics among nurses: a cross-sectional study in Tehran, Iran. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):289. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01069-9 .

Ortiz MI, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Cariño-Cortés R, Navarrete-Hernández JJ, González-Montiel CA. Nurses knowledge and attitude regarding pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022;63:103390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103390 .

Skår R. Knowledge use in nursing practice: the importance of practical understanding and personal involvement. Nurse Educ Today. 2010;30(2):132–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.06.012 .

Gassas R. Sources of the knowledge-practice gap in nursing: lessons from an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;106:105095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105095 .

Maslow A. Toward a psychology of being. D Van Nostrand. 1962. https://doi.org/10.1037/10793-000 .

Drott J, Engström M, Jangland E, Fomichov V, Malmström M, Jakobsson J. Factors related to a successful professional development for specialist nurses in surgical care: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01258-0 .

Al-Thawabiya A, Singh K, Al-Lenjawi BA, Alomari A. Leadership styles and transformational leadership skills among nurse leaders in Qatar, a cross-sectional study. Nurs Open. 2023;10(6):3440–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1636 .

Yang G, Zang X. Development of the professional competence and professional self-concept of undergraduate nursing students during the clinical practice period: a cross-lagged panel analysis. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022;63:103360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103360 .

Wang M, Guan H, Li Y, Xing C, Rui B. Academic burnout and professional self-concept of nursing students: a cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today. 2019;77:27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.03.004 .

Liu L, Hu S, Wang L, Sui G, Ma L. Positive resources for combating depressive symptoms among Chinese male correctional officers: perceived organizational support and psychological capital. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-89 .

Cao X, Li J, Gong S. Effects of resilience, social support, and work environment on turnover intention in newly graduated nurses: the mediating role of transition shock. J Nurs Manag. 2021;29(8):2585–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13418 .

Kılıç E, Altuntaş S. The effect of collegial solidarity among nurses on the organizational climate. Int Nurs Rev. 2019;66(3):356–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12509 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the nurses who participated in our study.

This research was funded by grants from (1) The Key Project of Nursing Psychology Scientific Research Planning Subjects in 2022 by the Nursing Psychology Professional Committee of China Association for Mental Health (CAMH); (2) The Key Discipline Project (Nursing) of Guangzhou Education Bureau; (3) Research Innovation Project for Postgraduate Education in the School of Nursing, Guangzhou Medical University (HY202221).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Nursing, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510182, China

Chuyuan Miao, Chunqin Liu, Ying Zhou, Liqin Song, Joanne W.Y. Chung, Wenying Tan & Xiaohua Li

Department of Nursing, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510150, China

Xiaofang Zou

Kiang Wu Nursing College of Macau, Macao, Macao SAR, 999078, China

Joanne W.Y. Chung

Department of International Culture Education, Chodang University, Muan, 58530, Republic of Korea

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CYM: collected data, analyzed, and drafted the manuscript. CQL: analyzed and revised the manuscript. YZ: collected data, designed and supervised the study. XFZ: collected data and supervised the study. LQS: collected data and added some ideas to the manuscript. JWYC: designed, revised and supervised the study. WYT and XHL: collected and analyzed data. DL: revised the manuscript. YZ and JWYC should be considered the co-corresponding authors. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ying Zhou or Joanne W.Y. Chung .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Informed consent was acquired from all study participants when conducting this study. The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Guangzhou Medical University (No. 202210003). In addition, to ensure the confidentiality of each participant, we anonymized the data for this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

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.

Miao, C., Liu, C., Zhou, Y. et al. Nurses’ perspectives on professional self-concept and its influencing factors: A qualitative study. BMC Nurs 23 , 237 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01834-y

Download citation

Received : 18 December 2023

Accepted : 01 March 2024

Published : 09 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01834-y

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

• Professional self-concept
• Qualitative study

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research

Mattia casula.

1 Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Strada Maggiore 45, 40125 Bologna, Italy

Nandhini Rangarajan

2 Texas State University, San Marcos, TX USA

Patricia Shields

While hypotheses frame explanatory studies and provide guidance for measurement and statistical tests, deductive, exploratory research does not have a framing device like the hypothesis. To this purpose, this article examines the landscape of deductive, exploratory research and offers the working hypothesis as a flexible, useful framework that can guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. The working hypothesis conceptual framework is introduced, placed in a philosophical context, defined, and applied to public administration and comparative public policy. Doing so, this article explains: the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research; how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive, explorative research; the nature of micro-conceptual frameworks for deductive exploratory research; and, how the working hypothesis informs data analysis when exploratory research is deductive.

Introduction

Exploratory research is generally considered to be inductive and qualitative (Stebbins 2001 ). Exploratory qualitative studies adopting an inductive approach do not lend themselves to a priori theorizing and building upon prior bodies of knowledge (Reiter 2013 ; Bryman 2004 as cited in Pearse 2019 ). Juxtaposed against quantitative studies that employ deductive confirmatory approaches, exploratory qualitative research is often criticized for lack of methodological rigor and tentativeness in results (Thomas and Magilvy 2011 ). This paper focuses on the neglected topic of deductive, exploratory research and proposes working hypotheses as a useful framework for these studies.

To emphasize that certain types of applied research lend themselves more easily to deductive approaches, to address the downsides of exploratory qualitative research, and to ensure qualitative rigor in exploratory research, a significant body of work on deductive qualitative approaches has emerged (see for example, Gilgun 2005 , 2015 ; Hyde 2000 ; Pearse 2019 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 3) the use of conceptual frameworks derived from comprehensive reviews of literature and a priori theorizing were common practices in qualitative research prior to the publication of Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) The Discovery of Grounded Theory . Gilgun ( 2015 ) coined the terms Deductive Qualitative Analysis (DQA) to arrive at some sort of “middle-ground” such that the benefits of a priori theorizing (structure) and allowing room for new theory to emerge (flexibility) are reaped simultaneously. According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 14) “in DQA, the initial conceptual framework and hypotheses are preliminary. The purpose of DQA is to come up with a better theory than researchers had constructed at the outset (Gilgun 2005 , 2009 ). Indeed, the production of new, more useful hypotheses is the goal of DQA”.

DQA provides greater level of structure for both the experienced and novice qualitative researcher (see for example Pearse 2019 ; Gilgun 2005 ). According to Gilgun ( 2015 , p. 4) “conceptual frameworks are the sources of hypotheses and sensitizing concepts”. Sensitizing concepts frame the exploratory research process and guide the researcher’s data collection and reporting efforts. Pearse ( 2019 ) discusses the usefulness for deductive thematic analysis and pattern matching to help guide DQA in business research. Gilgun ( 2005 ) discusses the usefulness of DQA for family research.

Given these rationales for DQA in exploratory research, the overarching purpose of this paper is to contribute to that growing corpus of work on deductive qualitative research. This paper is specifically aimed at guiding novice researchers and student scholars to the working hypothesis as a useful a priori framing tool. The applicability of the working hypothesis as a tool that provides more structure during the design and implementation phases of exploratory research is discussed in detail. Examples of research projects in public administration that use the working hypothesis as a framing tool for deductive exploratory research are provided.

In the next section, we introduce the three types of research purposes. Second, we examine the nature of the exploratory research purpose. Third, we provide a definition of working hypothesis. Fourth, we explore the philosophical roots of methodology to see where exploratory research fits. Fifth, we connect the discussion to the dominant research approaches (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) to see where deductive exploratory research fits. Sixth, we examine the nature of theory and the role of the hypothesis in theory. We contrast formal hypotheses and working hypotheses. Seven, we provide examples of student and scholarly work that illustrates how working hypotheses are developed and operationalized. Lastly, this paper synthesizes previous discussion with concluding remarks.

Three types of research purposes

The literature identifies three basic types of research purposes—explanation, description and exploration (Babbie 2007 ; Adler and Clark 2008 ; Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Whetsell 2017 ). Research purposes are similar to research questions; however, they focus on project goals or aims instead of questions.

Explanatory research answers the “why” question (Babbie 2007 , pp. 89–90), by explaining “why things are the way they are”, and by looking “for causes and reasons” (Adler and Clark 2008 , p. 14). Explanatory research is closely tied to hypothesis testing. Theory is tested using deductive reasoning, which goes from the general to the specific (Hyde 2000 , p. 83). Hypotheses provide a frame for explanatory research connecting the research purpose to other parts of the research process (variable construction, choice of data, statistical tests). They help provide alignment or coherence across stages in the research process and provide ways to critique the strengths and weakness of the study. For example, were the hypotheses grounded in the appropriate arguments and evidence in the literature? Are the concepts imbedded in the hypotheses appropriately measured? Was the best statistical test used? When the analysis is complete (hypothesis is tested), the results generally answer the research question (the evidence supported or failed to support the hypothesis) (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ).

Descriptive research addresses the “What” question and is not primarily concerned with causes (Strydom 2013 ; Shields and Tajalli 2006 ). It lies at the “midpoint of the knowledge continuum” (Grinnell 2001 , p. 248) between exploration and explanation. Descriptive research is used in both quantitative and qualitative research. A field researcher might want to “have a more highly developed idea of social phenomena” (Strydom 2013 , p. 154) and develop thick descriptions using inductive logic. In science, categorization and classification systems such as the periodic table of chemistry or the taxonomies of biology inform descriptive research. These baseline classification systems are a type of theorizing and allow researchers to answer questions like “what kind” of plants and animals inhabit a forest. The answer to this question would usually be displayed in graphs and frequency distributions. This is also the data presentation system used in the social sciences (Ritchie and Lewis 2003 ; Strydom 2013 ). For example, if a scholar asked, what are the needs of homeless people? A quantitative approach would include a survey that incorporated a “needs” classification system (preferably based on a literature review). The data would be displayed as frequency distributions or as charts. Description can also be guided by inductive reasoning, which draws “inferences from specific observable phenomena to general rules or knowledge expansion” (Worster 2013 , p. 448). Theory and hypotheses are generated using inductive reasoning, which begins with data and the intention of making sense of it by theorizing. Inductive descriptive approaches would use a qualitative, naturalistic design (open ended interview questions with the homeless population). The data could provide a thick description of the homeless context. For deductive descriptive research, categories, serve a purpose similar to hypotheses for explanatory research. If developed with thought and a connection to the literature, categories can serve as a framework that inform measurement, link to data collection mechanisms and to data analysis. Like hypotheses they can provide horizontal coherence across the steps in the research process.

Table  1 demonstrated these connections for deductive, descriptive and explanatory research. The arrow at the top emphasizes the horizontal or across the research process view we emphasize. This article makes the case that the working hypothesis can serve the same purpose as the hypothesis for deductive, explanatory research and categories for deductive descriptive research. The cells for exploratory research are filled in with question marks.

Table 1

Connecting research purpose and frameworks for deductive inquiry

The remainder of this paper focuses on exploratory research and the answers to questions found in the table:

• What is the philosophical underpinning of exploratory, deductive research?
• What is the Micro-conceptual framework for deductive exploratory research? [ As is clear from the article title we introduce the working hypothesis as the answer .]
• How does the working hypothesis inform the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research?
• How does the working hypothesis inform data analysis of deductive exploratory research?

The nature of exploratory research purpose

Explorers enter the unknown to discover something new. The process can be fraught with struggle and surprises. Effective explorers creatively resolve unexpected problems. While we typically think of explorers as pioneers or mountain climbers, exploration is very much linked to the experience and intention of the explorer. Babies explore as they take their first steps. The exploratory purpose resonates with these insights. Exploratory research, like reconnaissance, is a type of inquiry that is in the preliminary or early stages (Babbie 2007 ). It is associated with discovery, creativity and serendipity (Stebbins 2001 ). But the person doing the discovery, also defines the activity or claims the act of exploration. It “typically occurs when a researcher examines a new interest or when the subject of study itself is relatively new” (Babbie 2007 , p. 88). Hence, exploration has an open character that emphasizes “flexibility, pragmatism, and the particular, biographically specific interests of an investigator” (Maanen et al. 2001 , p. v). These three purposes form a type of hierarchy. An area of inquiry is initially explored . This early work lays the ground for, description which in turn becomes the basis for explanation . Quantitative, explanatory studies dominate contemporary high impact journals (Twining et al. 2017 ).

Stebbins ( 2001 ) makes the point that exploration is often seen as something like a poor stepsister to confirmatory or hypothesis testing research. He has a problem with this because we live in a changing world and what is settled today will very likely be unsettled in the near future and in need of exploration. Further, exploratory research “generates initial insights into the nature of an issue and develops questions to be investigated by more extensive studies” (Marlow 2005 , p. 334). Exploration is widely applicable because all research topics were once “new.” Further, all research topics have the possibility of “innovation” or ongoing “newness”. Exploratory research may be appropriate to establish whether a phenomenon exists (Strydom 2013 ). The point here, of course, is that the exploratory purpose is far from trivial.

Stebbins’ Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences ( 2001 ), is the only book devoted to the nature of exploratory research as a form of social science inquiry. He views it as a “broad-ranging, purposive, systematic prearranged undertaking designed to maximize the discovery of generalizations leading to description and understanding of an area of social or psychological life” (p. 3). It is science conducted in a way distinct from confirmation. According to Stebbins ( 2001 , p. 6) the goal is discovery of potential generalizations, which can become future hypotheses and eventually theories that emerge from the data. He focuses on inductive logic (which stimulates creativity) and qualitative methods. He does not want exploratory research limited to the restrictive formulas and models he finds in confirmatory research. He links exploratory research to Glaser and Strauss’s ( 1967 ) flexible, immersive, Grounded Theory. Strydom’s ( 2013 ) analysis of contemporary social work research methods books echoes Stebbins’ ( 2001 ) position. Stebbins’s book is an important contribution, but it limits the potential scope of this flexible and versatile research purpose. If we accepted his conclusion, we would delete the “Exploratory” row from Table  1 .

Note that explanatory research can yield new questions, which lead to exploration. Inquiry is a process where inductive and deductive activities can occur simultaneously or in a back and forth manner, particularly as the literature is reviewed and the research design emerges. 1 Strict typologies such as explanation, description and exploration or inductive/deductive can obscures these larger connections and processes. We draw insight from Dewey’s ( 1896 ) vision of inquiry as depicted in his seminal “Reflex Arc” article. He notes that “stimulus” and “response” like other dualities (inductive/deductive) exist within a larger unifying system. Yet the terms have value. “We need not abandon terms like stimulus and response, so long as we remember that they are attached to events based upon their function in a wider dynamic context, one that includes interests and aims” (Hildebrand 2008 , p. 16). So too, in methodology typologies such as deductive/inductive capture useful distinctions with practical value and are widely used in the methodology literature.

We argue that there is a role for exploratory, deductive, and confirmatory research. We maintain all types of research logics and methods should be in the toolbox of exploratory research. First, as stated above, it makes no sense on its face to identify an extremely flexible purpose that is idiosyncratic to the researcher and then basically restrict its use to qualitative, inductive, non-confirmatory methods. Second, Stebbins’s ( 2001 ) work focused on social science ignoring the policy sciences. Exploratory research can be ideal for immediate practical problems faced by policy makers, who could find a framework of some kind useful. Third, deductive, exploratory research is more intentionally connected to previous research. Some kind of initial framing device is located or designed using the literature. This may be very important for new scholars who are developing research skills and exploring their field and profession. Stebbins’s insights are most pertinent for experienced scholars. Fourth, frameworks and deductive logic are useful for comparative work because some degree of consistency across cases is built into the design.

As we have seen, the hypotheses of explanatory and categories of descriptive research are the dominate frames of social science and policy science. We certainly concur that neither of these frames makes a lot of sense for exploratory research. They would tend to tie it down. We see the problem as a missing framework or missing way to frame deductive, exploratory research in the methodology literature. Inductive exploratory research would not work for many case studies that are trying to use evidence to make an argument. What exploratory deductive case studies need is a framework that incorporates flexibility. This is even more true for comparative case studies. A framework of this sort could be usefully applied to policy research (Casula 2020a ), particularly evaluative policy research, and applied research generally. We propose the Working Hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and as a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It can be used as an evaluative criterion particularly for process evaluation and is useful for student research because students can develop theorizing skills using the literature.

Table  1 included a column specifying the philosophical basis for each research purpose. Shifting gears to the philosophical underpinning of methodology provides useful additional context for examination of deductive, exploratory research.

What is a working hypothesis

The working hypothesis is first and foremost a hypothesis or a statement of expectation that is tested in action. The term “working” suggest that these hypotheses are subject to change, are provisional and the possibility of finding contradictory evidence is real. In addition, a “working” hypothesis is active, it is a tool in an ongoing process of inquiry. If one begins with a research question, the working hypothesis could be viewed as a statement or group of statements that answer the question. It “works” to move purposeful inquiry forward. “Working” also implies some sort of community, mostly we work together in relationship to achieve some goal.

Working Hypothesis is a term found in earlier literature. Indeed, both pioneering pragmatists, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead use the term working hypothesis in important nineteenth century works. For both Dewey and Mead, the notion of a working hypothesis has a self-evident quality and it is applied in a big picture context. 2

Most notably, Dewey ( 1896 ), in one of his most pivotal early works (“Reflex Arc”), used “working hypothesis” to describe a key concept in psychology. “The idea of the reflex arc has upon the whole come nearer to meeting this demand for a general working hypothesis than any other single concept (Italics added)” (p. 357). The notion of a working hypothesis was developed more fully 42 years later, in Logic the Theory of Inquiry , where Dewey developed the notion of a working hypothesis that operated on a smaller scale. He defines working hypotheses as a “provisional, working means of advancing investigation” (Dewey 1938 , pp. 142). Dewey’s definition suggests that working hypotheses would be useful toward the beginning of a research project (e.g., exploratory research).

Mead ( 1899 ) used working hypothesis in a title of an American Journal of Sociology article “The Working Hypothesis and Social Reform” (italics added). He notes that a scientist’s foresight goes beyond testing a hypothesis.

Given its success, he may restate his world from this standpoint and get the basis for further investigation that again always takes the form of a problem. The solution of this problem is found over again in the possibility of fitting his hypothetical proposition into the whole within which it arises. And he must recognize that this statement is only a working hypothesis at the best, i.e., he knows that further investigation will show that the former statement of his world is only provisionally true, and must be false from the standpoint of a larger knowledge, as every partial truth is necessarily false over against the fuller knowledge which he will gain later (Mead 1899 , p. 370).

Cronbach ( 1975 ) developed a notion of working hypothesis consistent with inductive reasoning, but for him, the working hypothesis is a product or result of naturalistic inquiry. He makes the case that naturalistic inquiry is highly context dependent and therefore results or seeming generalizations that may come from a study and should be viewed as “working hypotheses”, which “are tentative both for the situation in which they first uncovered and for other situations” (as cited in Gobo 2008 , p. 196).

A quick Google scholar search using the term “working hypothesis” show that it is widely used in twentieth and twenty-first century science, particularly in titles. In these articles, the working hypothesis is treated as a conceptual tool that furthers investigation in its early or transitioning phases. We could find no explicit links to exploratory research. The exploratory nature of the problem is expressed implicitly. Terms such as “speculative” (Habib 2000 , p. 2391) or “rapidly evolving field” (Prater et al. 2007 , p. 1141) capture the exploratory nature of the study. The authors might describe how a topic is “new” or reference “change”. “As a working hypothesis, the picture is only new, however, in its interpretation” (Milnes 1974 , p. 1731). In a study of soil genesis, Arnold ( 1965 , p. 718) notes “Sequential models, formulated as working hypotheses, are subject to further investigation and change”. Any 2020 article dealing with COVID-19 and respiratory distress would be preliminary almost by definition (Ciceri et al. 2020 ).

Philosophical roots of methodology

According to Kaplan ( 1964 , p. 23) “the aim of methodology is to help us understand, in the broadest sense not the products of scientific inquiry but the process itself”. Methods contain philosophical principles that distinguish them from other “human enterprises and interests” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 23). Contemporary research methodology is generally classified as quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Leading scholars of methodology have associated each with a philosophical underpinning—positivism (or post-positivism), interpretivism or constructivist and pragmatism, respectively (Guba 1987 ; Guba and Lincoln 1981 ; Schrag 1992 ; Stebbins 2001 ; Mackenzi and Knipe 2006 ; Atieno 2009 ; Levers 2013 ; Morgan 2007 ; O’Connor et al. 2008 ; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). This section summarizes how the literature often describes these philosophies and informs contemporary methodology and its literature.

Positivism and its more contemporary version, post-positivism, maintains an objectivist ontology or assumes an objective reality, which can be uncovered (Levers 2013 ; Twining et al. 2017 ). 3 Time and context free generalizations are possible and “real causes of social scientific outcomes can be determined reliably and validly (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 14). Further, “explanation of the social world is possible through a logical reduction of social phenomena to physical terms”. It uses an empiricist epistemology which “implies testability against observation, experimentation, or comparison” (Whetsell and Shields 2015 , pp. 420–421). Correspondence theory, a tenet of positivism, asserts that “to each concept there corresponds a set of operations involved in its scientific use” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 40).

The interpretivist, constructivists or post-modernist approach is a reaction to positivism. It uses a relativist ontology and a subjectivist epistemology (Levers 2013 ). In this world of multiple realities, context free generalities are impossible as is the separation of facts and values. Causality, explanation, prediction, experimentation depend on assumptions about the correspondence between concepts and reality, which in the absence of an objective reality is impossible. Empirical research can yield “contextualized emergent understanding rather than the creation of testable theoretical structures” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). The distinctively different world views of positivist/post positivist and interpretivist philosophy is at the core of many controversies in methodology, social and policy science literature (Casula 2020b ).

With its focus on dissolving dualisms, pragmatism steps outside the objective/subjective debate. Instead, it asks, “what difference would it make to us if the statement were true” (Kaplan 1964 , p. 42). Its epistemology is connected to purposeful inquiry. Pragmatism has a “transformative, experimental notion of inquiry” anchored in pluralism and a focus on constructing conceptual and practical tools to resolve “problematic situations” (Shields 1998 ; Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ). Exploration and working hypotheses are most comfortably situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective.

Research approaches

Empirical investigation relies on three types of methodology—quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.

Quantitative methods

Quantitative methods uses deductive logic and formal hypotheses or models to explain, predict, and eventually establish causation (Hyde 2000 ; Kaplan 1964 ; Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 ; Morgan 2007 ). 4 The correspondence between the conceptual and empirical world make measures possible. Measurement assigns numbers to objects, events or situations and allows for standardization and subtle discrimination. It also allows researchers to draw on the power of mathematics and statistics (Kaplan 1964 , pp. 172–174). Using the power of inferential statistics, quantitative research employs research designs, which eliminate competing hypotheses. It is high in external validity or the ability to generalize to the whole. The research results are relatively independent of the researcher (Johnson & Onwuegbunzie 2004 ).

Quantitative methods depend on the quality of measurement and a priori conceptualization, and adherence to the underlying assumptions of inferential statistics. Critics charge that hypotheses and frameworks needlessly constrain inquiry (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 19). Hypothesis testing quantitative methods support the explanatory purpose.

Qualitative methods

Qualitative researchers who embrace the post-modern, interpretivist view, 5 question everything about the nature of quantitative methods (Willis et al. 2007 ). Rejecting the possibility of objectivity, correspondence between ideas and measures, and the constraints of a priori theorizing they focus on “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize the findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). Characteristics of traditional qualitative research include “induction, discovery, exploration, theory/hypothesis generation and the researcher as the primary ‘instrument’ of data collection” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 18). It also concerns itself with forming “unique impressions and understandings of events rather than to generalize findings” (Kolb 2012 , p. 85). The data of qualitative methods are generated via interviews, direct observation, focus groups and analysis of written records or artifacts.

Qualitative methods provide for understanding and “description of people’s personal experiences of phenomena”. They enable descriptions of detailed “phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts.” Researchers use naturalistic settings to “study dynamic processes” and explore how participants interpret experiences. Qualitative methods have an inherent flexibility, allowing researchers to respond to changes in the research setting. They are particularly good at narrowing to the particular and on the flipside have limited external validity (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 20). Instead of specifying a suitable sample size to draw conclusions, qualitative research uses the notion of saturation (Morse 1995 ).

Saturation is used in grounded theory—a widely used and respected form of qualitative research, and a well-known interpretivist qualitative research method. Introduced by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ), this “grounded on observation” (Patten and Newhart 2000 , p. 27) methodology, focuses on “the creation of emergent understanding” (O’Connor et al. 2008 , p. 30). It uses the Constant Comparative method, whereby researchers develop theory from data as they code and analyze at the same time. Data collection, coding and analysis along with theoretical sampling are systematically combined to generate theory (Kolb 2012 , p. 83). The qualitative methods discussed here support exploratory research.

A close look at the two philosophies and assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research suggests two contradictory world views. The literature has labeled these contradictory views the Incompatibility Theory, which sets up a quantitative versus qualitative tension similar to the seeming separation of art and science or fact and values (Smith 1983a , b ; Guba 1987 ; Smith and Heshusius 1986 ; Howe 1988 ). The incompatibility theory does not make sense in practice. Yin ( 1981 , 1992 , 2011 , 2017 ), a prominent case study scholar, showcases a deductive research methodology that crosses boundaries using both quantaitive and qualitative evidence when appropriate.

Mixed methods

Turning the “Incompatibility Theory” on its head, Mixed Methods research “combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches … for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al. 2007 , p. 123). It does this by partnering with philosophical pragmatism. 6 Pragmatism is productive because “it offers an immediate and useful middle position philosophically and methodologically; it offers a practical and outcome-oriented method of inquiry that is based on action and leads, iteratively, to further action and the elimination of doubt; it offers a method for selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better answer many of their research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 17). What is theory for the pragmatist “any theoretical model is for the pragmatist, nothing more than a framework through which problems are perceived and subsequently organized ” (Hothersall 2019 , p. 5).

Brendel ( 2009 ) constructed a simple framework to capture the core elements of pragmatism. Brendel’s four “p”’s—practical, pluralism, participatory and provisional help to show the relevance of pragmatism to mixed methods. Pragmatism is purposeful and concerned with the practical consequences. The pluralism of pragmatism overcomes quantitative/qualitative dualism. Instead, it allows for multiple perspectives (including positivism and interpretivism) and, thus, gets around the incompatibility problem. Inquiry should be participatory or inclusive of the many views of participants, hence, it is consistent with multiple realities and is also tied to the common concern of a problematic situation. Finally, all inquiry is provisional . This is compatible with experimental methods, hypothesis testing and consistent with the back and forth of inductive and deductive reasoning. Mixed methods support exploratory research.

Advocates of mixed methods research note that it overcomes the weaknesses and employs the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods provide precision. The pictures and narrative of qualitative techniques add meaning to the numbers. Quantitative analysis can provide a big picture, establish relationships and its results have great generalizability. On the other hand, the “why” behind the explanation is often missing and can be filled in through in-depth interviews. A deeper and more satisfying explanation is possible. Mixed-methods brings the benefits of triangulation or multiple sources of evidence that converge to support a conclusion. It can entertain a “broader and more complete range of research questions” (Johnson and Onwuegbunzie 2004 , p. 21) and can move between inductive and deductive methods. Case studies use multiple forms of evidence and are a natural context for mixed methods.

One thing that seems to be missing from mixed method literature and explicit design is a place for conceptual frameworks. For example, Heyvaert et al. ( 2013 ) examined nine mixed methods studies and found an explicit framework in only two studies (transformative and pragmatic) (p. 663).

Theory and hypotheses: where is and what is theory?

Theory is key to deductive research. In essence, empirical deductive methods test theory. Hence, we shift our attention to theory and the role and functions of the hypotheses in theory. Oppenheim and Putnam ( 1958 ) note that “by a ‘theory’ (in the widest sense) we mean any hypothesis, generalization or law (whether deterministic or statistical) or any conjunction of these” (p. 25). Van Evera ( 1997 ) uses a similar and more complex definition “theories are general statements that describe and explain the causes of effects of classes of phenomena. They are composed of causal laws or hypotheses, explanations, and antecedent conditions” (p. 8). Sutton and Staw ( 1995 , p. 376) in a highly cited article “What Theory is Not” assert the that hypotheses should contain logical arguments for “why” the hypothesis is expected. Hypotheses need an underlying causal argument before they can be considered theory. The point of this discussion is not to define theory but to establish the importance of hypotheses in theory.

Explanatory research is implicitly relational (A explains B). The hypotheses of explanatory research lay bare these relationships. Popular definitions of hypotheses capture this relational component. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines a hypothesis a “an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven”. Vocabulary.Com’s definition emphasizes explanation, a hypothesis is “an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation”. According to Wikipedia a hypothesis is “a proposed explanation for a phenomenon”. Other definitions remove the relational or explanatory reference. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a hypothesis as a “supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts.” Science Buddies defines a hypothesis as a “tentative, testable answer to a scientific question”. According to the Longman Dictionary the hypothesis is “an idea that can be tested to see if it is true or not”. The Urban Dictionary states a hypothesis is “a prediction or educated-guess based on current evidence that is yet be tested”. We argue that the hypotheses of exploratory research— working hypothesis — are not bound by relational expectations. It is this flexibility that distinguishes the working hypothesis.

Sutton and Staw (1995) maintain that hypotheses “serve as crucial bridges between theory and data, making explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical argument will be operationalized” (p. 376, italics added). The highly rated journal, Computers and Education , Twining et al. ( 2017 ) created guidelines for qualitative research as a way to improve soundness and rigor. They identified the lack of alignment between theoretical stance and methodology as a common problem in qualitative research. In addition, they identified a lack of alignment between methodology, design, instruments of data collection and analysis. The authors created a guidance summary, which emphasized the need to enhance coherence throughout elements of research design (Twining et al. 2017 p. 12). Perhaps the bridging function of the hypothesis mentioned by Sutton and Staw (1995) is obscured and often missing in qualitative methods. Working hypotheses can be a tool to overcome this problem.

For reasons, similar to those used by mixed methods scholars, we look to classical pragmatism and the ideas of John Dewey to inform our discussion of theory and working hypotheses. Dewey ( 1938 ) treats theory as a tool of empirical inquiry and uses a map metaphor (p. 136). Theory is like a map that helps a traveler navigate the terrain—and should be judged by its usefulness. “There is no expectation that a map is a true representation of reality. Rather, it is a representation that allows a traveler to reach a destination (achieve a purpose). Hence, theories should be judged by how well they help resolve the problem or achieve a purpose ” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 , p. 23). Note that we explicitly link theory to the research purpose. Theory is never treated as an unimpeachable Truth, rather it is a helpful tool that organizes inquiry connecting data and problem. Dewey’s approach also expands the definition of theory to include abstractions (categories) outside of causation and explanation. The micro-conceptual frameworks 7 introduced in Table  1 are a type of theory. We define conceptual frameworks as the “way the ideas are organized to achieve the project’s purpose” (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 p. 24). Micro-conceptual frameworks do this at the very close to the data level of analysis. Micro-conceptual frameworks can direct operationalization and ways to assess measurement or evidence at the individual research study level. Again, the research purpose plays a pivotal role in the functioning of theory (Shields and Tajalli 2006 ).

Working hypothesis: methods and data analysis

We move on to answer the remaining questions in the Table  1 . We have established that exploratory research is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic. Given this, we will proceed with a few examples and draw out lessons for developing an exploratory purpose, building a framework and from there identifying data collection techniques and the logics of hypotheses testing and analysis. Early on we noted the value of the Working Hypothesis framework for student empirical research and applied research. The next section uses a masters level student’s work to illustrate the usefulness of working hypotheses as a way to incorporate the literature and structure inquiry. This graduate student was also a mature professional with a research question that emerged from his job and is thus an example of applied research.

Master of Public Administration student, Swift ( 2010 ) worked for a public agency and was responsible for that agency’s sexual harassment training. The agency needed to evaluate its training but had never done so before. He also had never attempted a significant empirical research project. Both of these conditions suggest exploration as a possible approach. He was interested in evaluating the training program and hence the project had a normative sense. Given his job, he already knew a lot about the problem of sexual harassment and sexual harassment training. What he did not know much about was doing empirical research, reviewing the literature or building a framework to evaluate the training (working hypotheses). He wanted a framework that was flexible and comprehensive. In his research, he discovered Lundvall’s ( 2006 ) knowledge taxonomy summarized with four simple ways of knowing ( Know - what, Know - how, Know - why, Know - who ). He asked whether his agency’s training provided the participants with these kinds of knowledge? Lundvall’s categories of knowing became the basis of his working hypotheses. Lundvall’s knowledge taxonomy is well suited for working hypotheses because it is so simple and is easy to understand intuitively. It can also be tailored to the unique problematic situation of the researcher. Swift ( 2010 , pp. 38–39) developed four basic working hypotheses:

• WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual harassment training
• WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual harassment training
• WH3: Capital Metro provides adequate know - why knowledge in its sexual harassment training
• WH4: Capital Metro provides adequate know - who knowledge in its sexual harassment training

From here he needed to determine what would determine the different kinds of knowledge. For example, what constitutes “know what” knowledge for sexual harassment training. This is where his knowledge and experience working in the field as well as the literature come into play. According to Lundvall et al. ( 1988 , p. 12) “know what” knowledge is about facts and raw information. Swift ( 2010 ) learned through the literature that laws and rules were the basis for the mandated sexual harassment training. He read about specific anti-discrimination laws and the subsequent rules and regulations derived from the laws. These laws and rules used specific definitions and were enacted within a historical context. Laws, rules, definitions and history became the “facts” of Know-What knowledge for his working hypothesis. To make this clear, he created sub-hypotheses that explicitly took these into account. See how Swift ( 2010 , p. 38) constructed the sub-hypotheses below. Each sub-hypothesis was defended using material from the literature (Swift 2010 , pp. 22–26). The sub-hypotheses can also be easily tied to evidence. For example, he could document that the training covered anti-discrimination laws.

WH1: Capital Metro provides adequate know - what knowledge in its sexual Harassment training

• WH1a: The sexual harassment training includes information on anti-discrimination laws (Title VII).
• WH1b: The sexual harassment training includes information on key definitions.
• WH1c: The sexual harassment training includes information on Capital Metro’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment policy.
• WH1d: Capital Metro provides training on sexual harassment history.

Know-How knowledge refers to the ability to do something and involves skills (Lundvall and Johnson 1994 , p. 12). It is a kind of expertise in action. The literature and his experience allowed James Smith to identify skills such as how to file a claim or how to document incidents of sexual harassment as important “know-how” knowledge that should be included in sexual harassment training. Again, these were depicted as sub-hypotheses.

WH2: Capital Metro provides adequate know - how knowledge in its sexual Harassment training

• WH2a: Training is provided on how to file and report a claim of harassment
• WH2b: Training is provided on how to document sexual harassment situations.
• WH2c: Training is provided on how to investigate sexual harassment complaints.
• WH2d: Training is provided on how to follow additional harassment policy procedures protocol

Note that the working hypotheses do not specify a relationship but rather are simple declarative sentences. If “know-how” knowledge was found in the sexual harassment training, he would be able to find evidence that participants learned about how to file a claim (WH2a). The working hypothesis provides the bridge between theory and data that Sutton and Staw (1995) found missing in exploratory work. The sub-hypotheses are designed to be refined enough that the researchers would know what to look for and tailor their hunt for evidence. Figure  1 captures the generic sub-hypothesis design.

A Common structure used in the development of working hypotheses

When expected evidence is linked to the sub-hypotheses, data, framework and research purpose are aligned. This can be laid out in a planning document that operationalizes the data collection in something akin to an architect’s blueprint. This is where the scholar explicitly develops the alignment between purpose, framework and method (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019b ).

Table  2 operationalizes Swift’s working hypotheses (and sub-hypotheses). The table provide clues as to what kind of evidence is needed to determine whether the hypotheses are supported. In this case, Smith used interviews with participants and trainers as well as a review of program documents. Column one repeats the sub-hypothesis, column two specifies the data collection method (here interviews with participants/managers and review of program documents) and column three specifies the unique questions that focus the investigation. For example, the interview questions are provided. In the less precise world of qualitative data, evidence supporting a hypothesis could have varying degrees of strength. This too can be specified.

Table 2

Operationalization of the working hypotheses: an example

For Swift’s example, neither the statistics of explanatory research nor the open-ended questions of interpretivist, inductive exploratory research is used. The deductive logic of inquiry here is somewhat intuitive and similar to a detective (Ulriksen and Dadalauri 2016 ). It is also a logic used in international law (Worster 2013 ). It should be noted that the working hypothesis and the corresponding data collection protocol does not stop inquiry and fieldwork outside the framework. The interviews could reveal an unexpected problem with Smith’s training program. The framework provides a very loose and perhaps useful ways to identify and make sense of the data that does not fit the expectations. Researchers using working hypotheses should be sensitive to interesting findings that fall outside their framework. These could be used in future studies, to refine theory or even in this case provide suggestions to improve sexual harassment training. The sensitizing concepts mentioned by Gilgun ( 2015 ) are free to emerge and should be encouraged.

Something akin to working hypotheses are hidden in plain sight in the professional literature. Take for example Kerry Crawford’s ( 2017 ) book Wartime Sexual Violence. Here she explores how basic changes in the way “advocates and decision makers think about and discuss conflict-related sexual violence” (p. 2). She focused on a subsequent shift from silence to action. The shift occurred as wartime sexual violence was reframed as a “weapon of war”. The new frame captured the attention of powerful members of the security community who demanded, initiated, and paid for institutional and policy change. Crawford ( 2017 ) examines the legacy of this key reframing. She develops a six-stage model of potential international responses to incidents of wartime violence. This model is fairly easily converted to working hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. Table  3 shows her model as a set of (non-relational) working hypotheses. She applied this model as a way to gather evidence among cases (e.g., the US response to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) to show the official level of response to sexual violence. Each case study chapter examined evidence to establish whether the case fit the pattern formalized in the working hypotheses. The framework was very useful in her comparative context. The framework allowed for consistent comparative analysis across cases. Her analysis of the three cases went well beyond the material covered in the framework. She freely incorporated useful inductively informed data in her analysis and discussion. The framework, however, allowed for alignment within and across cases.

Table 3

Example illustrating a set of working hypotheses as a framework for comparative case studies

Source : Adaptation from Table 1.1 of Crawford’s ( 2017 ) book Wartime Sexual Violence

In this article we argued that the exploratory research is also well suited for deductive approaches. By examining the landscape of deductive, exploratory research, we proposed the working hypothesis as a flexible conceptual framework and a useful tool for doing exploratory studies. It has the potential to guide and bring coherence across the steps in the research process. After presenting the nature of exploratory research purpose and how it differs from two types of research purposes identified in the literature—explanation, and description. We focused on answering four different questions in order to show the link between micro-conceptual frameworks and research purposes in a deductive setting. The answers to the four questions are summarized in Table  4 .

Table 4

Linking micro-conceptual frameworks and research purposes in deductive research

Firstly, we argued that working hypothesis and exploration are situated within the pragmatic philosophical perspective. Pragmatism allows for pluralism in theory and data collection techniques, which is compatible with the flexible exploratory purpose. Secondly, after introducing and discussing the four core elements of pragmatism (practical, pluralism, participatory, and provisional), we explained how the working hypothesis informs the methodologies and evidence collection of deductive exploratory research through a presentation of the benefits of triangulation provided by mixed methods research. Thirdly, as is clear from the article title, we introduced the working hypothesis as the micro-conceptual framework for deductive explorative research. We argued that the hypotheses of explorative research, which we call working hypotheses are distinguished from those of the explanatory research, since they do not require a relational component and are not bound by relational expectations. A working hypothesis is extremely flexible and idiosyncratic, and it could be viewed as a statement or group of statements of expectations tested in action depending on the research question. Using examples, we concluded by explaining how working hypotheses inform data collection and analysis for deductive exploratory research.

Crawford’s ( 2017 ) example showed how the structure of working hypotheses provide a framework for comparative case studies. Her criteria for analysis were specified ahead of time and used to frame each case. Thus, her comparisons were systemized across cases. Further, the framework ensured a connection between the data analysis and the literature review. Yet the flexible, working nature of the hypotheses allowed for unexpected findings to be discovered.

The evidence required to test working hypotheses is directed by the research purpose and potentially includes both quantitative and qualitative sources. Thus, all types of evidence, including quantitative methods should be part of the toolbox of deductive, explorative research. We show how the working hypotheses, as a flexible exploratory framework, resolves many seeming dualisms pervasive in the research methods literature.

To conclude, this article has provided an in-depth examination of working hypotheses taking into account philosophical questions and the larger formal research methods literature. By discussing working hypotheses as applied, theoretical tools, we demonstrated that working hypotheses fill a unique niche in the methods literature, since they provide a way to enhance alignment in deductive, explorative studies.

Acknowledgements

The authors contributed equally to this work. The authors would like to thank Quality & Quantity’ s editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable advice and comments on previous versions of this paper.

Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. There are no funders to report for this submission.

Compliance with ethical standards

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

1 In practice, quantitative scholars often run multivariate analysis on data bases to find out if there are correlations. Hypotheses are tested because the statistical software does the math, not because the scholar has an a priori, relational expectation (hypothesis) well-grounded in the literature and supported by cogent arguments. Hunches are just fine. This is clearly an inductive approach to research and part of the large process of inquiry.

2 In 1958 , Philosophers of Science, Oppenheim and Putnam use the notion of Working Hypothesis in their title “Unity of Science as Working Hypothesis.” They too, use it as a big picture concept, “unity of science in this sense, can be fully realized constitutes an over-arching meta-scientific hypothesis, which enables one to see a unity in scientific activities that might otherwise appear disconnected or unrelated” (p. 4).

3 It should be noted that the positivism described in the research methods literature does not resemble philosophical positivism as developed by philosophers like Comte (Whetsell and Shields 2015 ). In the research methods literature “positivism means different things to different people….The term has long been emptied of any precise denotation …and is sometimes affixed to positions actually opposed to those espoused by the philosophers from whom the name derives” (Schrag 1992 , p. 5). For purposes of this paper, we are capturing a few essential ways positivism is presented in the research methods literature. This helps us to position the “working hypothesis” and “exploratory” research within the larger context in contemporary research methods. We are not arguing that the positivism presented here is anything more. The incompatibility theory discussed later, is an outgrowth of this research methods literature…

4 It should be noted that quantitative researchers often use inductive reasoning. They do this with existing data sets when they run correlations or regression analysis as a way to find relationships. They ask, what does the data tell us?

5 Qualitative researchers are also associated with phenomenology, hermeneutics, naturalistic inquiry and constructivism.

6 See Feilzer ( 2010 ), Howe ( 1988 ), Johnson and Onwuegbunzie ( 2004 ), Morgan ( 2007 ), Onwuegbuzie and Leech ( 2005 ), Biddle and Schafft ( 2015 ).

7 The term conceptual framework is applicable in a broad context (see Ravitch and Riggan 2012 ). The micro-conceptual framework narrows to the specific study and informs data collection (Shields and Rangarajan 2013 ; Shields et al. 2019a ) .

Publisher's Note

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

Contributor Information

Mattia Casula, Email: [email protected] .

Nandhini Rangarajan, Email: ude.etatsxt@11rn .

Patricia Shields, Email: ude.etatsxt@70sp .

• Adler E, Clark R. How It’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research. 3. Belmont: Thompson-Wadsworth; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnold RW. Multiple working hypothesis in soil genesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1965; 29 (6):717–724. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1965.03615995002900060034x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atieno O. An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Probl. Educ. 21st Century. 2009; 13 :13–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research. 11. Belmont: Thompson-Wadsworth; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biddle C, Schafft KA. Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2015; 9 (4):320–334. doi: 10.1177/1558689814533157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brendel DH. Healing Psychiatry: Bridging the Science/Humanism Divide. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. Qualitative Research on Leadership: A Critical but Appreciative Review. Leadersh. Q. 2004; 15 (6):729–769. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casula, M.: Under which conditions is cohesion policy effective: proposing an Hirschmanian approach to EU structural funds, Regional & Federal Studies, 10.1080/13597566.2020.1713110 (2020a)
• Casula, M.: Economic gowth and cohesion policy implementation in Italy and Spain, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (2020b)
• Ciceri F, et al. Microvascular COVID-19 lung vessels obstructive thromboinflammatory syndrome (MicroCLOTS): an atypical acute respiratory distress syndrome working hypothesis. Crit. Care Resusc. 2020; 15 :1–3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford, K.F.: Wartime sexual violence: From silence to condemnation of a weapon of war. Georgetown University Press (2017)
• Cronbach, L.: Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology American Psychologist. 30 116–127 (1975)
• Dewey J. The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychol. Rev. 1896; 3 (4):357. doi: 10.1037/h0070405. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt & Co; 1938. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feilzer Y. Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2010; 4 (1):6–16. doi: 10.1177/1558689809349691. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilgun JF. Qualitative research and family psychology. J. Fam. Psychol. 2005; 19 (1):40–50. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.40. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilgun, J.F.: Methods for enhancing theory and knowledge about problems, policies, and practice. In: Katherine Briar, Joan Orme., Roy Ruckdeschel., Ian Shaw. (eds.) The Sage handbook of social work research pp. 281–297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2009)
• Gilgun JF. Deductive Qualitative Analysis as Middle Ground: Theory-Guided Qualitative Research. Seattle: Amazon Digital Services LLC; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobo G. Re-Conceptualizing Generalization: Old Issues in a New Frame. In: Alasuutari P, Bickman L, Brannen J, editors. The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods. Los Angeles: Sage; 2008. pp. 193–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grinnell, R.M.: Social work research and evaluation: quantitative and qualitative approaches. New York: F.E. Peacock Publishers (2001)
• Guba EG. What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Eval. Pract. 1987; 8 (1):23–43. doi: 10.1177/109821408700800102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guba E, Lincoln Y. Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habib M. The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia: an overview and working hypothesis. Brain. 2000; 123 (12):2373–2399. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.12.2373. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P. Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual. Quant. 2013; 47 (2):659–676. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hildebrand D. Dewey: A Beginners Guide. Oxford: Oneworld Oxford; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howe, K.R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Edu. Res. 17 (8), 10–16 (1988)
• Hothersall, S.J.: Epistemology and social work: enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism. Eur. J. Social Work 22 (5), 860–870 (2019)
• Hyde KF. Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qual. Market Res. Int. J. 2000; 3 (2):82–90. doi: 10.1108/13522750010322089. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 2004; 33 (7):14–26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2007; 1 (2):112–133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan A. The Conduct of Inquiry. Scranton: Chandler; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolb SM. Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: valid research strategies for educators. J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 2012; 3 (1):83–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levers, M.J.D.: Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open 3 (4), 2158244013517243 (2013)
• Lundvall, B.A.: Knowledge management in the learning economy. In: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics Working Paper Working Paper, vol. 6, pp. 3–5 (2006)
• Lundvall B-Å, Johnson B. Knowledge management in the learning economy. J. Ind. Stud. 1994; 1 (2):23–42. doi: 10.1080/13662719400000002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundvall B-Å, Jenson MB, Johnson B, Lorenz E, et al. Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation—From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In: Dosi G, et al., editors. Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maanen, J., Manning, P., Miller, M.: Series editors’ introduction. In: Stebbins, R. (ed.) Exploratory research in the social sciences. pp. v–vi. Thousands Oak, CA: SAGE (2001)
• Mackenzie N, Knipe S. Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues Educ. Res. 2006; 16 (2):193–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marlow CR. Research Methods for Generalist Social Work. New York: Thomson Brooks/Cole; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mead GH. The working hypothesis in social reform. Am. J. Sociol. 1899; 5 (3):367–371. doi: 10.1086/210897. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milnes AG. Structure of the Pennine Zone (Central Alps): a new working hypothesis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1974; 85 (11):1727–1732. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1974)85<1727:SOTPZC>2.0.CO;2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan DL. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2007; 1 (1):48–76. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. The significance of saturation. Qual. Health Res. 1995; 5 (2):147–149. doi: 10.1177/104973239500500201. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor MK, Netting FE, Thomas ML. Grounded theory: managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qual. Inq. 2008; 14 (1):28–45. doi: 10.1177/1077800407308907. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (5), 375–387 (2005)
• Oppenheim, P., Putnam, H.: Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II, pp. 3–36 (1958)
• Patten ML, Newhart M. Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials. 2. New York: Routledge; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearse, N.: An illustration of deductive analysis in qualitative research. In: European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, pp. 264–VII. Academic Conferences International Limited (2019)
• Prater DN, Case J, Ingram DA, Yoder MC. Working hypothesis to redefine endothelial progenitor cells. Leukemia. 2007; 21 (6):1141–1149. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404676. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch B, Riggan M. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Beverley Hills: Sage; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiter, B.: The epistemology and methodology of exploratory social science research: Crossing Popper with Marcuse. In: Government and International Affairs Faculty Publications. Paper 99. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gia_facpub/99 (2013)
• Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrag F. In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educ. Res. 1992; 21 (5):5–8. doi: 10.3102/0013189X021005005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shields, P.M.: Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A tool for public administration. Res. Pub. Admin. 41995-225 (1998)
• Shields, P.M., Rangarajan, N.: A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management. New Forums Press (2013)
• Shields PM, Tajalli H. Intermediate theory: the missing link in successful student scholarship. J. Public Aff. Educ. 2006; 12 (3):313–334. doi: 10.1080/15236803.2006.12001438. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shields, P., & Whetsell, T.: Public administration methodology: A pragmatic perspective. In: Raadshelders, J., Stillman, R., (eds). Foundations of Public Administration, pp. 75–92. New York: Melvin and Leigh (2017)
• Shields P, Rangarajan N, Casula M. It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part I) Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2019; 10 :39–47. doi: 10.31857/S013216250007107-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shields P, Rangarajan N, Casula M. It is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World (part 2) Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2019; 11 :40–51. doi: 10.31857/S013216250007459-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JK. Quantitative versus qualitative research: an attempt to clarify the issue. Educ. Res. 1983; 12 (3):6–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X012003006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JK. Quantitative versus interpretive: the problem of conducting social inquiry. In: House E, editor. Philosophy of Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1983. pp. 27–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JK, Heshusius L. Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educ. Res. 1986; 15 (1):4–12. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015001004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stebbins RA. Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strydom H. An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Soc. Work/Maatskaplike Werk. 2013; 49 (2):149–164. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutton, R. I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Administrative science quarterly. 371–384 (1995)
• Swift, III, J.: Exploring Capital Metro’s Sexual Harassment Training using Dr. Bengt-Ake Lundvall’s taxonomy of knowledge principles. Applied Research Project, Texas State University https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3671 (2010)
• Thomas E, Magilvy JK. Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. J. Spec. Pediatric Nurs. 2011; 16 (2):151–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twining P, Heller RS, Nussbaum M, Tsai CC. Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Comput. Educ. 2017; 107 :A1–A9. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulriksen M, Dadalauri N. Single case studies and theory-testing: the knots and dots of the process-tracing method. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2016; 19 (2):223–239. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2014.979718. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Evera S. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whetsell TA, Shields PM. The dynamics of positivism in the study of public administration: a brief intellectual history and reappraisal. Adm. Soc. 2015; 47 (4):416–446. doi: 10.1177/0095399713490157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willis JW, Jost M, Nilakanta R. Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Beverley Hills: Sage; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Worster WT. The inductive and deductive methods in customary international law analysis: traditional and modern approaches. Georget. J. Int. Law. 2013; 45 :445. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge. 1981; 3 (1):97–114. doi: 10.1177/107554708100300106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. The case study method as a tool for doing evaluation. Curr. Sociol. 1992; 40 (1):121–137. doi: 10.1177/001139292040001009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Applications of Case Study Research. Beverley Hills: Sage; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]

• Survey Software The world’s leading omnichannel survey software
• Online Survey Tools Create sophisticated surveys with ease.
• Mobile Offline Conduct efficient field surveys.
• Text Analysis
• Close The Loop
• Automated Translations
• NPS Dashboard
• CATI Manage high volume phone surveys efficiently
• Cloud/On-premise Dialer TCPA compliant Cloud on-premise dialer
• IVR Survey Software Boost productivity with automated call workflows.
• Analytics Analyze survey data with visual dashboards
• Panel Manager Nurture a loyal community of respondents.
• Survey Portal Best-in-class user friendly survey portal.
• Voxco Audience Conduct targeted sample research in hours.
• Predictive Analytics
• Customer 360
• Customer Loyalty
• Fraud & Risk Management
• AI/ML Enablement Services
• Credit Underwriting

Find the best survey software for you! (Along with a checklist to compare platforms)

Get Buyer’s Guide

• 100+ question types
• Drag-and-drop interface
• Skip logic and branching
• Multi-lingual survey
• Text piping
• Question library
• CSS customization
• White-label surveys
• Customizable ‘Thank You’ page
• Customizable survey theme
• Reminder send-outs
• Survey rewards
• Social media
• SMS surveys
• Website surveys
• Correlation analysis
• Cross-tabulation analysis
• Trend analysis
• Real-time dashboard
• Customizable report
• Email address validation
• Recaptcha validation
• SSL security

Take a peek at our powerful survey features to design surveys that scale discoveries.

Download feature sheet.

• Hospitality
• Financial Services
• Academic Research
• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Product Experience
• Market Research
• Social Research
• Data Analysis
• Banking & Financial Services
• Retail Solution
• Risk Management
• Customer Lifecycle Solutions
• Net Promoter Score
• Customer Behaviour Analytics
• Customer Segmentation
• Data Unification

Explore Voxco 

Need to map Voxco’s features & offerings? We can help!

Watch a Demo 

Download Brochures 

Get a Quote

• NPS Calculator
• CES Calculator
• A/B Testing Calculator
• Margin of Error Calculator
• Sample Size Calculator
• CX Strategy & Management Hub
• Market Research Hub
• Patient Experience Hub
• Employee Experience Hub
• Market Research Guide
• Customer Experience Guide
• The Voxco Guide to Customer Experience
• NPS Knowledge Hub
• Survey Research Guides
• Survey Template Library
• Webinars and Events
• Feature Sheets
• Try a sample survey
• Professional services
• Blogs & White papers
• Case Studies

Find the best customer experience platform

Uncover customer pain points, analyze feedback and run successful CX programs with the best CX platform for your team.

Get the Guide Now

We’ve been avid users of the Voxco platform now for over 20 years. It gives us the flexibility to routinely enhance our survey toolkit and provides our clients with a more robust dataset and story to tell their clients.

VP Innovation & Strategic Partnerships, The Logit Group

• Client Stories
• Voxco Reviews
• Why Voxco Research?
• Why Voxco Intelligence?
• Careers at Voxco
• Vulnerabilities and Ethical Hacking

Explore Regional Offices

• Cloud/On-premise Dialer TCPA compliant Cloud & on-premise dialer
• Fraud & Risk Management

Get Buyer’s Guide

• Banking & Financial Services

Explore Voxco 

Watch a Demo 

Download Brochures 

• CX Strategy & Management Hub
• Blogs & White papers

VP Innovation & Strategic Partnerships, The Logit Group

• Our clients
• Client stories
• Featuresheets

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning - Definition and Examples

• August 26, 2021

Get your research started with Voxco

SHARE THE ARTICLE ON

In the field of science, law, and many more, there is no proof, only conclusions drawn from observations and evidence. A lawyer cannot prove whether an incident happened or not, but they can provide evidence. 

We can consider a hypothesis true when the available evidence seems to provide verification. The conclusion is stronger when we have more evidence. 

This means that the approach of reasoning helps us reach the truth. Inductive and deductive reasoning are based on evidence. 

Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are both different approaches to research. While the former approach focuses on developing a theory, the latter tests an existing theory.

Even though both of these approaches differ in their application, they are often used as a combined approach in one large study.

In this article, we’ll gauge the difference between inductive vs. deductive reasoning and compare their strengths & limitations. 

Let’s get started. 

Logic can be branched out into two broad methods of reasoning, namely inductive and deductive reasoning.

Read how Voxco helped Modus Research increase research efficiency with Voxco Online, CATI, IVR, and panel systems.

Inductive reasoning definition.

Inductive reasoning is a logical thinking process in which specific observations that are believed to be true are combined to draw a conclusion to create broader generalizations and theories.

This approach helps you make large generalizations from specific observations. Inductive reasoning uncovers patterns from specific observations and progresses to generalize them with a theory. 

In inductive research, if the argument is strong, the truth of the premise would indicate that the conclusion is correct. However, if the argument is weak, it means that the logic connecting the premise and the conclusion is unlikely or incorrect.

Deductive reasoning definition

Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, works in the opposite direction of inductive reasoning. It is a logical thinking process that uses a top-down approach to go from the more general to the more specific. It involves the use of general assumptions and logical premises to arrive at a logical conclusion.

This approach involves approaching a conclusion by joining two pieces of information. The researcher processes two or more premises and confirms one premise with another premise to arrive at a logical conclusion. 

In deductive research, the probability of the final statement being true is very high because this approach is based on simple rules and logic. It follows that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. 

To understand inductive vs. deductive reasoning better, let’s go over the key differences.

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning: Characteristics

• In inductive reasoning , the process is to move from a specific observation to a broader and more generalized conclusion. 

In deductive reasoning , the process begins with a general statement to be proved with a logical conclusion. 

• Inductive reasoning is often called a “bottom-up approach” because you start with an observation, detect patterns, formulate a hypothesis, and reach a conclusion/theory.

Deductive reasoning is often called a “top-down approach” because you start with a theory, narrow it down to a hypothesis, observe the hypothesis, and ultimately reach a logical affirmation. 

• When it comes to inductive vs. deductive research, inductive reasoning uses qualitative analysis. 

Deductive reasoning , on the other hand, uses quantitative analysis methods. 

• In inductive reasoning , the truth of the premises does not mean that the conclusion is true as well. 

In deductive reasoning , if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true.

• In terms of inductive vs. deductive research, inductive reasoning is used in exploratory studies. Researchers use it to learn more about an area of interest when there is a limited amount of research on the topic. 

Deductive reasoning is often used in confirmatory studies. It helps researchers test a theory or hypothesis to either prove or disprove it.

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning: Examples

Example of inductive reasoning .

Observation: Pet dogs in my neighborhood are friendly.

Observe a pattern: All observed dogs are friendly. 

Theory: All dogs are friendly. 

Example of Deductive Reasoning

Hypothesis: All pet dogs in my neighborhood are friendly. 

Test hypothesis: Observe all dogs in the neighborhood. 

Conclusion: 7 out of 23 dogs in the neighborhood were not friendly= Reject the hypothesis

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning: Usage

When it comes to how we use inductive and deductive reasoning, the easy way to remember is that inductive reasoning is fast and easy to use, so we use it daily in our life. However, deductive reasoning is difficult to use in daily life since we need facts to prove the argument. 

Usage of Inductive Reasoning 

We use inductive reasoning for everyday use, such as: 

• Determining when you should leave your house for work based on the traffic. 
• Deciding on a special employee wellness program based on employee feedback. 

Usage of Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is often used to solve a problem or make decisions. 

• To determine what caused customer dissatisfaction & use it to offer the right solution. 
• Designing a new store layout that will attract more customers & increase sales.

Inductive Reasoning Approach in Research

Inductive reasoning is a logical thinking process that integrates observations with experiential information to draw a conclusion. You are employing the use of inductive reasoning every time you look at a set of data and then form general conclusions on knowledge from past experiences. 

Inductive research is usually used when there is a lack of existing literature on a topic. This is because there is no existing theory that can be tested on the concept. The inductive training approach can be categorized into the following three stages:

• Observation.
• Observe a pattern. 
• Develop a theory.

To understand this approach better, let’s take a look at the following example:

Strengths and Limitations of Inductive Reasoning

Let’s evaluate inductive reasoning by taking a look at its strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths of Inductive Reasoning

Range of probabilities

One of the most prominent advantages of inductive reasoning is that it allows you to work with a range of probabilities, expanding your perception and knowledge base despite the lack of literature available.

Encourages exploration

Inductive training begins with an observation and then moves on to exploration to test the judgment made.

Weaknesses of Inductive Reasoning

Limited scope

A drawback of inductive reasoning is that inferences are made from specific situations that may not have significance in the real world.

Deductive Reasoning Approach in Research

When employing deductive reasoning in research, you begin with a theory. This theory is then narrowed down into more specific hypotheses that can be tested. These are further narrowed down into observations that allow us to test the hypothesis to confirm whether the data supports or rejects the hypothesis.

The deductive training approach can therefore be categorized into the following four stages:

• Begin with an existing theory.
• Formulate a hypothesis based on the existing theory.
• Collect data to test the hypothesis.
• Analyze the results to see whether the data supports or rejects the hypothesis .

Strengths and Limitations of Deductive Reasoning

Let’s evaluate deductive reasoning by taking a look at its strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths of Deductive Reasoning

Helps substantiate decisions

Deductive reasoning can be used to effectively substantiate decisions such as those related to work. Also, if the decision doesn’t produce the desired results, you can still explain why you made the decision by providing logical and objective explanations.

Reliable when the original premise is true

Another advantage of deductive reasoning is that your conclusion is almost guaranteed to be true if all the original premises are true in all situations and if the reasoning applied is correct.

Weaknesses of Deductive Reasoning

Relies on initial premises being correct

Deductive reasoning heavily relies on the initial premises being correct. The final argument is invalid if even one premise is found to be incorrect.

Check out Voxco Online features to see how it can help you unlock the power of data with its robust functionalities.

• Advanced logic 
• White-label
• Auto-translations in 100+ languages

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning: Types

Types of inductive reasoning.

The following types of inductive reasoning depend on two factors: 

• Methods of defining the sample from the larger population. 
• The method of collecting premises to draw a conclusion. 

01. Generalization:

In this type of inductive research, the researcher draws a conclusion from a generalization. This means that the premise is made from the research sample, and the conclusion is drawn from the population. 

For example, if three out of four students can play football, then all the students can probably play football. 

02. Statistical generalization:

In this type, the conclusion is made based on the statistically verified sample. This means that the research sample statistically represent the target population.  

This is considered more reliable as the sample is selected randomly and is large. 

03. Anecdotal generalization:

Here, a researcher draws a conclusion based on the general features of the sample group. 

04. Prediction:

This kind of inductive research makes a prediction based on the sample (current or past). In this reasoning, the researcher collects the premise from the phenomenon and draws a general prediction of the probability of happening of the future event. 

05. Analogous:

Inductive reasoning based on analogy means that you draw a conclusion about new properties of two populations from the shared attributes of the samples of the two populations. 

For example, say samples of populations 1 and 2 have common characteristics of u,v, and w. The property x observed in population 1 can also be said to be the property of population 2. 

06. Causal inference:

Here, the conclusion is drawn based on the causal connection between the samples of different populations. The validity of this conclusion is very low as it can only be confirmed by examination. 

Now let’s move on to the types of deductive reasoning better to understand the process of inductive vs. deductive research. 

Types of Deductive Reasoning

There are three types of deductive reasoning based on two factors:

• The premise
• The kind of relationships across the premise. 

01. Syllogism:

It is a commonly used type of reasoning in deductive research. It includes a set of premises followed by a conclusion. 

• The first premise – a conditional statement. 
• The second premise – a conditional statement that connects with the conclusion of the 1st premise. 
• Concluding statement – combines the first part of the 1st premise with the second part of the 2nd premise. 

02. Modus ponens:

In this type of deductive reasoning, the second premise generally affirms the first part of the first premise. 

For example, 

1st premise: If it’s raining today, I will wear my raincoat. 

2nd premise : it is raining today. 

Conclusion : I will wear my raincoat. 

03. Modus tollens:

This kind of deductive reasoning is also known as the law of contrapositive. It is the opposite of modus ponens. In this reasoning, the second premise contradicts the first part of the first premise. 

1st premise : If it’s raining today, I will wear my raincoat. 

2nd premise : I will not wear my raincoat. 

Conclusion : It is not raining today.

Voxco helps the top 50 MR firms & 500+ global brands gather omnichannel feedback, measure sentiment, uncover insights, and act on them.

See how Voxco can enhance your research efficiency.

In this article on inductive vs. deductive reasoning, it is safe to conclude that the advantages and characteristics of both reasoning can help you reach your research goals. The two has different approach, starting points, and ways of looking at the data, however, depending on your research goal each reasoning can give you the evidence you need to conclude the truth about your customers. 

Voxco is an intuitive survey software that you can use to conduct inductive and deductive research. You can leverage robust functionalities to design surveys, collect data, and automate data analysis in real-time.

1. What is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?

Inductive reasoning involves moving from specific observations to broader generalizations, while deductive reasoning starts with general principles to reach specific conclusions.

2. How do inductive and deductive reasoning contribute to scientific methods?

Inductive reasoning helps in forming hypotheses and theories based on observations, while deductive reasoning is used to test these hypotheses and theories to draw specific conclusions.

3. Can you provide examples of inductive and deductive reasoning?

Sure! An example of inductive reasoning would be observing several instances of a phenomenon and generalizing a theory from them, whereas deductive reasoning involves starting with a theory and using it to make predictions or draw conclusions in specific cases.

4. What are the strengths and limitations of inductive reasoning?

Inductive reasoning allows for exploration and working with probabilities but has a limited scope as it’s based on specific observations and may not always apply universally.

5. How does deductive reasoning help in decision-making?

Deductive reasoning helps substantiate decisions by providing logical explanations and is reliable when the initial premises are true, aiding in making informed choices based on logical deductions.

Explore Voxco Survey Software

+ Omnichannel Survey Software 

+ Online Survey Software 

+ CATI Survey Software 

+ IVR Survey Software 

+ Market Research Tool

+ Customer Experience Tool 

+ Product Experience Software 

+ Enterprise Survey Software 

Maximize Your Data Potential: How the Right Data Lake Tools Transform Businesses

Maximize Your Data Potential: How the Right Data Lake Tools Transform Businesses SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Table of Contents In the digital age, data is

Demographic Segmentation

Demographic Segmentation Market Segmentation Guide Download our Market Segmentation Guide to understand how to deliver a best in class experience by understanding customer needs. Download

Omnichannel: Concept, methods and tips

Omnichannel: Concept, methods and tips Transform your insight generation process Use our in-depth online survey guide to create an actionable feedback collection survey process. Download

All you need to know about HCAHPS

All you need to know about HCAHPS Voxco is trusted by 450+ Global Brands in 40+ countries See what question types are possible with a

Reasons Why Mobile Optimized Surveys are Crucial for Your Business

Reasons Why Mobile Optimized Surveys are Crucial for Your Business SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Table of Contents Use of mobile phones are at an all-time

December Feature Updates

December Feature Updates SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin At the end of another calendar year, we’re continuing

We use cookies in our website to give you the best browsing experience and to tailor advertising. By continuing to use our website, you give us consent to the use of cookies. Read More