Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning and Levels of Abstraction

Describing the methodology of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) imply a helpful distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning:

This is an inductive method of theory development. To make theoretical sense of so much diversity in his data, the analyst is forced to develop ideas on a level of generality higher in conceptual abstraction than the qualitative material being analyzed. (p. 114)

"The abstraction of grounded theory from data" (Glaser & Holton, 2004, p. 21) is a clear demonstration of an inductive process. It moves from low abstraction (data) to high abstraction (theory).

Deduction works in the other direction. Take the famous example:

• All men are mortal.
• Socrates is a man.
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

After the "therefore" is a statement of low abstraction, about a particular property of a particular individual.

If we phrase a similar line if inquiry inductively, notice how the statement after the "therefore" is higher in abstraction than anything before it:

• This man is mortal.
• That man is mortal.
• These men are mortal.
• Those men are mortal.
• Therefore, all men are (likely) mortal.

Inductive reasoning results in higher abstraction; deductive reasoning results in lower abstraction. Inductive reasoning creates abstraction; deductive reasoning uses abstraction.

References

Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 4(01), 1–24. Retrieved from https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/94

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (1st ed.). Aldine Publishing Company.