At the end of the two deductive methodological approaches the second research question (Can local political online forums support all categories of deliberation?) was not
answered fully. Both deductive approaches could not answer this question because both approaches were aimed at theory testing not theory building. A qualitative inductive methodology was chosen because theory building is the outcome of research (Bryman, 2004). In order to examine if the categories of deliberation, or other types of discussion were present within forums this research required a methodology which could create generalizeable inferences from observations within the threads of a sample of 138 forums.
The second research question within this thesis was developed into a hypothesis. This was done because the two deductive methodologies showed that local political online forums were weak at supporting rational deliberation redefined. On the basis of these findings it was decided to develop the following alternative hypothesis:
• Alternative hypothesis - local political online forums cannot support rational deliberation redefined.
An approach was required that could generate a theory from the data within the sample to test this hypothesis. A qualitative approach was chosen because systematic qualitative analysis is an inductive process. Silverman (2000) argues that qualitative researchers share a belief that they can provide a deeper understanding of social phenomenon over and above quantitative methods. Silverman does not argue that certain quantitative methods such as statistics are biased, but he suggests that there are areas within social reality that statistics cannot work.
There are various ways of conducting qualitative inductive research, however, this research required an inductive approach that used hypotheses as part of its theory generation i.e. this research required a process that generated theory and also conducted theory testing. Analytic induction was chosen to do this because Ratcliff (2006) argues that analytic induction is the best methodology to test hypotheses qualitatively. ‘Analytic
induction is an approach to the analysis of data in which the research seeks universal explanations of phenomena by pursuing the collection of data until no cases that are inconsistent with a hypothetical explanation (deviant or negative cases) of a phenomena are found’ (Bryman, 2004. p400). Bryman (2004) says that this process is “iterative” in
that there is “a repetitive interplay” between data collection and analysis. Analytic induction was chosen for this research because it provided a mechanism to test the hypothesis developed earlier, and it was chosen because it can be combined with quantitative approaches to give a more holistic view of a phenomenon (Ratcliff, 2006).
Ratcliff (2006) argues that the goal of analytic induction is “making universal statements
that may need to be modified later if exceptions are discovered, but ultimately can reflect fairly exhaustively knowledge of what is researched. Causation is a potential goal of such knowledge, although it is causation that can include numerous exceptions. Those
exceptions, however, add to the base of knowledge as the generalizability of the construct is determined, and a new more comprehensive law of behaviour can be generated that accounts for the exception ”
Robinson (1951) uses Cressey’s (1950) work to provide a procedure for conducting analytic induction: 1, define the phenomenon to be explained (research question); 2, formulate a hypothetical explanation of the phenomenon; 3, one case is studied to see if the hypothesis fits the facts; 4, if the hypothesis is not consistent with the facts, “either
the hypothesis is reformulated or the phenomenon to be explained is redefined, so that the case is excluded. 5, practical certainty may be attained after a small number of cases has been examined, but the discovery by the investigator of a single negative case
disproves the explanation and requires a re-formulation”. (Robinson, 1951, p813); 6, the
procedure of examining cases, redefining a hypothesis and reformulating the hypothesis continues until a ‘universal relationship’ is established.
Analytic induction does not produce statistical description of characteristics or focus on correlations. Analytic induction’s aim is to find a general theory through a causal process (Lindesmith, 1947). Robinson (1951) further emphasizes this point “Analytic Induction
gives us universal statements, of the form ‘All S are P’, instead of mere correlations to which there are always exceptions” (Robinson, 1951, p812). In terms of generalizing
from causal propositions within analytic induction, Robinson argues that such
generalizations do not imply an absolute truth, because such generalizations should be accepted as provisional as long as no better theory is found or no contradictory evidence exists.
In terms of the criticisms levelled at analytic induction, Ratcliff (2006) notes Znaniecki’s (1934) concern that analytic induction only provides the necessary conditions for a phenomena but not the sufficient conditions for its presence i.e. analytic induction cannot predict phenomenon occurring with certainty, it can only provide a partial explanation for phenomena. However, Ratcliff (2006) states that this partial explanation can be supplemented by enumerating (correlations & statistical relationships) data to provide a fuller explanation –this was done in this research. Finally, unlike grounded theory analytic induction does not provide useful guidelines, especially in terms of how many cases should be investigated when no negative cases have arisen (Bryman 2004). In chapter eight this research details how saturation of themes was reached and how the decision was taken to cease examining cases. Cressey’s (1950) approach to analytic induction was adapted to test the hypothesis above.
5.4 Conclusion
The following three chapters show the analysis resulting from this two pronged
methodological approach. The next chapter presents the first deductive methodological approach which set up a local political online forum in conjunction with GBC to answer the three research questions within this thesis and test E-Democracy.org’s Local Issues Forum recommendations. Chapter seven details the second deductive methodological approach, which again answers the three research questions within this thesis and tests E- Democracy.org’s Local Issues Forum recommendations but in this case focuses on a bigger sample of forums from around the world. Chapter eight encapsulates the results from the qualitative inductive methodology and tests the alternative hypothesis above.