42510011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Critical Thinking Using Qualitative Data and Software

(Part Three) – Results and Conclusions

By Wendy Olsen

2014

Methods@Manchester Workshop

Aiming at PhD Students and Researchers Who Want to Disseminate Arguments

4251

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

AIM 4) Develop better argumentation skills

AIM 5) Combine empirically based arguments with theory, using triangulation and retroduction

2

4251

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

3

How to Proceed- 1.

• 1. set up the Premises, data and conclusions of an inductive argument first.

• 2. now consider another inductive argument, such as a competing interpretation or a contradictory set of quotes.

• 3. develop an integrating argument by reworking the conceptual framework, revising concepts or elements of the reasoning, make notes.

4251

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

4

How to Proceed – 2.• 4. set up the Premises, data and conclusions of

another argument, perhaps either– DEDUCTIVE: theory - we would expect + DATA-

Test result.– RETRODUCTIVE: results we are surprised >>

speculate what must be the cas for this to have happened >>> rework conceptual framework OR posit a new PREMISE(S) - develop the 2nd or 3rd argument

• 5. develop an integrating argument by reworking the claims being made, and moving some elements of the reasoning, and clarify conclusion overall.

4251

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

How to Finish Up• 6. Finally, review your overall argument.

– Is it now coherent? (that is, does it have linkages between the parts?)

– Is it now consistent? (is it ontologically wholesome, and is it epistemologically agreeable? Is it valid, true to authentic voices, etc.)

– Does it involve rejecting some theory, or simply encompassing one by another?

5

Helpful hints for Models

• These are used for brainstorming.• You place CODES here as Project Items.• They have CONNECTORS. Add more of these.• You add PROJECT ITEM >> NOTE to make your own

freestyle handwritten notes about the arguments.– Lay arguments. – no theory– Your expert arguments. - invoke theory

– Please try to move toward more advanced, sophisticated arguments similar to a PhD or Article.

6

Exercise 2, brought to a conclusion

• Could students please offer their arguments using the board/flipchart?

• I can offer my own.

• You may draft yours on the sheet printed as Exercise 2.

7

Check on Contradictions and Power

• Three types of contradiction-– People fighting against power

– People being both for/against a norm

– People contradicting what they said earlier.

8

Check on Contradictions and Power

• Three types of contradiction-– People/agents/organisations fighting against

power

– People/agents/organisations being both for/against a norm

– People/agents/organisations contradicting what they said earlier.

9

42510011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Thank you.P.S. Something to read by Wendy Olsen on

ontology. . . Olsen, W.K. (2006), “Pluralism, Poverty and

Sharecropping: Cultivating Open-Mindedness in Development Studies”, Journal of Development

Studies, 42:7, pgs. 1130-1157.or

Olsen, Wendy, (2009) “Moral Political Economy and Moral Reasoning About Rural India: Four

Theoretical Schools Compared”, Cambridge Journal of Economics,

http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/33/5/875.pdf, 33:5, 875-902.