COMPETENCIAS CLAVES

The process of inquiry in this study was done in a systematic and consistent manner. Mixed method researchers believe that research questions can better be explored through a combination of research methods and techniques (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012: 117; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 5).

To enable the arrival of logical conclusions of the observed reality of the management of burns by nurses the researcher used both inductive and deductive reasoning strategies (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012: 8). As mixed method research is evolving, so too is the understanding of its theoretical framework. The emergent pragmatic approach used in mixed method research, is the abductive reasoning process. This approach to reasoning encourages the use of both inductive and deductive reasoning; it can produce stronger measures of association whilst allowing that multiple paths to meaning exist (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012: 8).

50 However in searching the literature it was evident that this form of reasoning has not been widely accepted in nursing research as yet. In a review done by Lipscomb (2012), eighty nine hits for the search phrase inductive reasoning, eighty seven hits for the search phrase deductive reasoning and just five hits for the phrase abductive reasoning were found. Two of the five located papers on abductive reasoning (Haig, 2008; Richardson& Kramer, 2006), were published in journals that do not specifically target nursing or health and for that reason, they may be unfamiliar to nurses (namely Journal of Theory Construction and Testing and Qualitative Research). Of the remaining three papers, two were by Råholm (2010), and the third, by Gordon, Morton, & Brooks, (2005). According to Lipscomb (2012: 245), the scarcity of information on the topic means that it has “not yet been absorbed by the profession.”

The concept of abduction is closely associated with the work of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) (Lipscomb, 2012: 245; Råholm, 2010: 262; Given, 2008: 1), but the development trail is difficult to follow due to the shortage of literature available in nursing research. Nurse researchers and scholars are relatively indifferent towards the concept of abductive reasoning and this indifference is apparent in nursing research textbooks. Reference lists in Brink, et al., (2012), Polit & Beck (2010, 2006), Bowling (2009), Creswell (2009a), Parahoo (2006) and deVos, et al., (2005), identify entries for induction and deduction, but not abduction. The researcher in line with the evolving nature of mixed methodology therefore used abductive reasoning as the overall reasoning strategy.

Each of the three reasoning strategies and it role in this study are explained below.

Abductive reasoning

Is a process that values both deductive and inductive approaches but relies principally on the expertise, experience and intuition of the researcher.

Associated with mixed method research, through inter-subjectivity of researchers and their understanding based on shared meaning, this approach to reasoning encourages the use of both inductive and deductive approaches to research (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012: 8). Inter-subjectivity refers to shared understanding between two or more subjects and establishing the objectivity of the claim made (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012: 117; Given, 2008: 467; Unger, 2005:3). Drawing on the philosophical notion of subjectivity (meaning is necessarily coloured by one’s experiences and bias), inter-subjectivity recognises that meaning is based on one’s position of reference and is socially mediated through interaction (http://www.srmo.sagepub.com/view/sage-encyc-qualitative).

51 Abductive reasoning begins when reviewers understand that a set of seemingly unrelated findings are in fact related and ends with models of relationships that can themselves be formally tested (Sandelowski, Voils, Leeman, et al., 2012: 326). In an abductive model, new ideas emerge by taking various clues and restrictions into account and by searching and combining existing ideas in novel ways (Råholm, 2010: 260).

Abduction is advantageously different from induction and deduction as it reaches beyond a pure extraction of facts (Råholm; 2010: 262). According to Råholm (2010: 261), abduction makes deeper and also new understanding of caring possible. In this study, abductive reasoning was suitable, as the researcher was familiar with the literature on burn wound management and its current practice due to her experience and expertise in the clinical environment. The researcher could therefore channel her existing skills in such a way that would best answer the research questions.

Deductive reasoning

Is the process of developing specific predictions from general principles (Polit & Beck, 2012: 725; Brink, et al., 2012:211; LoBiondo- Wood & Haber, 2010:577; Burns & Grove, 2007: 537).

The nursing process is an example of deductive reasoning in nursing where nurses use the framework to categorise data and define the patients nursing diagnosis. Chinn & Kramer (2008:214), Schwandt (2007:147), and Rossouw (2003:39), describe deductive reasoning as a form of logic whereby reasoning moves from the general to the specific, where the starting point embodies two or more concepts that are categorised in relation to each other in broad terms or descriptions with a conclusion that contains specific concepts or data on the relationship.

In this study, deductive reasoning was used when the summaries of the findings from the integrative review were made on what the best available evidence was for the management of burn wounds as well as during the processing of data from the observation.

Inductive reasoning

Is described as reasoning in statements with data that is specific to statements that have broader and general conclusions (Chinn & Kramer, 2008: 214; Schwandt, 2007:146; Rossouw, 2003: 40).

The data that emerges in the conclusion can be considered in relation to broader events or phenomena in another similar context or system.

52 Inductive reasoning was used to interpret the statements from nurses during the interviews where conclusions were based on probable support from the statements (Mouton & Marais, 1994: 108-109).