Let me make a clarification on the claim I present at 4:42. Instead of "deduction, induction, and abduction are forms of reasoning, not ways of doing research," a better formulation would have been, "deduction, induction, and abduction are forms of reasoning, not research designs." Saying "I do deductive research" is misleading, because what we casually call "deductive research" incorporates inductive and abductive reasoning as well. The same observation applies to "inductive research" and "abductive research."
"Food for thoughts", indeed. Before viewing this session, I did confound the ways of reasoning and the ways of doing research (research design). It made me contemplate what we claim deductive or inductive research design and the 'extreme state' of generalising and contextualising. Is that extreme generalisation actually a high level of contextualisation in one way or another? Now I can find the answer thanks to your transparent explanation. :) Thank you Prof. Ketokivi, and I really look forward to your subsequent sessions.
Thank you, and I hope to see you again next Friday! In the follow-up reflection on this session (which was just posted), I make the point that not acknowledging the use of abductive reasoning and thinking it's induction, we end up "overplaying our reasoning hand" in that we mistakenly believe our reasoning to be stronger than it actually is. This leads to confirmation bias. If we are going to be biased, we should try to be biased toward being conservative in our reasoning.
Let me make a clarification on the claim I present at 4:42. Instead of "deduction, induction, and abduction are forms of reasoning, not ways of doing research," a better formulation would have been, "deduction, induction, and abduction are forms of reasoning, not research designs." Saying "I do deductive research" is misleading, because what we casually call "deductive research" incorporates inductive and abductive reasoning as well. The same observation applies to "inductive research" and "abductive research."
"Food for thoughts", indeed. Before viewing this session, I did confound the ways of reasoning and the ways of doing research (research design). It made me contemplate what we claim deductive or inductive research design and the 'extreme state' of generalising and contextualising. Is that extreme generalisation actually a high level of contextualisation in one way or another? Now I can find the answer thanks to your transparent explanation. :)
Thank you Prof. Ketokivi, and I really look forward to your subsequent sessions.
Thank you, and I hope to see you again next Friday! In the follow-up reflection on this session (which was just posted), I make the point that not acknowledging the use of abductive reasoning and thinking it's induction, we end up "overplaying our reasoning hand" in that we mistakenly believe our reasoning to be stronger than it actually is. This leads to confirmation bias. If we are going to be biased, we should try to be biased toward being conservative in our reasoning.
@@MikkoKetokivi Totally agree!
Thanks for sharing. I was not able to join for this session. I had a class.
This is exactly why the lectures are recorded. I understand the timing of the live sessions may be problematic.