Bergdahl Elisabeth, Berterö Carina M
Research & Development Unit, FoU nu, SLSO, Stockholm, Sweden; Faculty of Professional Studies, Nursing Science, University of Nordland, Bodö, Norway.
Nurs Philos. 2015 Apr;16(2):110-20. doi: 10.1111/nup.12073. Epub 2014 Nov 20.
In nursing today, it remains unclear what constitutes a good foundation for qualitative scientific inquiry. There is a tendency to define qualitative research as a form of inductive inquiry; deductive practice is seldom discussed, and when it is, this usually occurs in the context of data analysis. We will look at how the terms 'induction' and 'deduction' are used in qualitative nursing science and by qualitative research theorists, and relate these uses to the traditional definitions of these terms by Popper and other philosophers of science. We will also question the assertion that qualitative research is or should be inductive. The position we defend here is that qualitative research should use deductive methods. We also see a need to understand the difference between the creative process needed to create theory and the justification of a theory. Our position is that misunderstandings regarding the philosophy of science and the role of inductive and deductive logic and science are still harming the development of nursing theory and science. The purpose of this article is to discuss and reflect upon inductive and deductive views of science as well as inductive and deductive analyses in qualitative research. We start by describing inductive and deductive methods and logic from a philosophy of science perspective, and we examine how the concepts of induction and deduction are often described and used in qualitative methods and nursing research. Finally, we attempt to provide a theoretical perspective that reconciles the misunderstandings regarding induction and deduction. Our conclusion is that openness towards deductive thinking and testing hypotheses is needed in qualitative nursing research. We must also realize that strict induction will not create theory; to generate theory, a creative leap is needed.
在当今护理领域，对于质性科学探究而言，什么构成良好基础仍不明确。有一种倾向是将质性研究定义为归纳探究的一种形式；很少讨论演绎实践，即便有所讨论，通常也是在数据分析的背景下。我们将审视“归纳”和“演绎”这两个术语在质性护理科学以及质性研究理论家那里是如何使用的，并将这些用法与波普尔及其他科学哲学家对这些术语的传统定义联系起来。我们还将质疑质性研究是或应该是归纳性的这一断言。我们在此捍卫的立场是，质性研究应采用演绎方法。我们也认为有必要理解创建理论所需的创造性过程与理论的正当性之间的差异。我们的立场是，对科学哲学以及归纳和演绎逻辑与科学的作用的误解仍在损害护理理论与科学的发展。本文的目的是讨论和反思科学的归纳与演绎观点以及质性研究中的归纳与演绎分析。我们首先从科学哲学的角度描述归纳和演绎方法及逻辑，然后考察归纳和演绎概念在质性方法和护理研究中通常是如何被描述和使用的。最后，我们试图提供一种理论视角，以调和对归纳和演绎的误解。我们的结论是，质性护理研究需要对演绎思维和检验假设持开放态度。我们还必须认识到，严格的归纳不会创建理论；要生成理论，需要创造性的飞跃。
