View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Ways of Establishing Rigour in the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS)

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Ways of Establishing Rigour in the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS)
Language: English
Authors: Beng Kok Ong
Source: International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2024 27(6):707-719.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Research Methodology, Social Science Research, Qualitative Research, Statistical Analysis, Foreign Countries, Standards, Researchers, Sales Occupations, Insurance Occupations
Geographic Terms: Malaysia
DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2023.2265255
ISSN: 1364-5579
1464-5300
Abstract: This article examines how rigour is achieved in the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS). It begins with a review of some of the arguments about objectivity and rigour in social sciences, which shows that quantitative and qualitative researchers hold different meanings of objectivity and therefore different ways of achieving rigour in their research. ARS as a qualitative methodology is then described and, using a study of the experience of work of life insurance sales workers in the state of Penang, rigour in the ARS is illustrated. Three ways of establishing rigour in ARS are stated and expounded. While "two" of them are from the traditions of doing qualitative research, the "third" is from the logic of abduction.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1451953
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFTqX-Crbu4y7-9D63H0zUlAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNg9cUBA_WS14DLdzgIBEICBmzZw5maVkCpzZpxDlSF0y44IW-h70YEcUkl6zEkFBBy2q0rBnhbg0nB0Vy8Btdl1cWhXPHtPZdDdUvi6TE90EA1RN-70aD5SuItg46wN4hCFwpKYwPgu_3JMd0rSZ1mEbw_X-cudgsYAFqsbrXyZ1qLYcGBbrqaDv4qeZRwblmOp7CSw2b1ETWxh9VsA6rzPQD32ZlrD-GcXFo98
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181109441;9eb01nov.24;2024Nov28.03:42;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181109441-1">Ways of establishing rigour in the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS) </title> <p>This article examines how rigour is achieved in the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS). It begins with a review of some of the arguments about objectivity and rigour in social sciences, which shows that quantitative and qualitative researchers hold different meanings of objectivity and therefore different ways of achieving rigour in their research. ARS as a qualitative methodology is then described and, using a study of the experience of work of life insurance sales workers in the state of Penang, rigour in the ARS is illustrated. Three ways of establishing rigour in ARS are stated and expounded. While two of them are from the traditions of doing qualitative research, the third is from the logic of abduction.</p> <p>Keywords: Rigour; objectivity; authenticity; abduction; work</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-2">Introduction</hd> <p>ARS[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] is one distinctive type of qualitative research (Ong, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]) developed by Blaikie ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]; Blaikie & Priest, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>], pp. 99-101), that is concerned with generating social scientific accounts from social actors' accounts. Blaikie developed the abductive methodology by drawing heavily from the work of Schütz ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref8">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref9">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref10">50</reflink>]), Weber ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref11">56</reflink>]), Winch ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref12">57</reflink>]), Douglas ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]), Rex ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref14">44</reflink>]) and Giddens ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>This article <emph>addresses</emph> the ways in which rigour is achieved in ARS. Rigour refers to a high degree of control with limited space for error in the conduct of a study. This is not meant to stifle creativity but to provide sufficient 'control of the process that you employ in order to accommodate or explain all factors that can impact on, and thereby potentially erode, the value of your research outcomes' (Birks, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>], p. 222). According to Seale ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref18">51</reflink>]), good quality in qualitative research refers to 'an active and labour-intensive approach towards genuinely self-critical research, so that something of originality and value is created, with which, of course, people are then always free to disagree, but may be less inclined to do so because of the strength of the author's case' (p. 6). Therefore, for Seale, good-quality work in research is a matter of improving practical research skills in the service of creativity through engagement with philosophical and methodological debates and witnessing the work of more skilled practitioners. Most importantly, it 'results from doing a research project, learning from things that did and did not work, and then doing another, better one, that more fully integrates the creativity and craft skills of the researcher, and so on until a fully confident research style is developed' (Seale, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref19">52</reflink>], p. 410).</p> <p>Seale referred to 'quality' that relates to the problem of doing qualitative research that can stand up to criticism from those whose standards for judging the quality of research comes from the empiricist tradition. In other words, the things qualitative researchers must do to have their research regarded as providing useful knowledge. Hence, it is rigour of some kind, in the conduct of a study, that achieves high 'quality' qualitative research.</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-3">Ways of establishing rigour in quantitative and qualitative research</hd> <p>Rigour in social research is achievable through researchers conducting their research in such a way that they are required to be detached, unprejudiced, and open to whatever the evidence may reveal, and the methods used to investigate social life must be designed to eliminate biases (Kammeyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref20">29</reflink>], p. 32). Hence, the validity and reliability of the findings are guaranteed by the scientific methods that measure what they claim to measure (validity), and that they do so consistently (reliability). This is the positivist method of achieving rigour, which is commonly adopted in quantitative research. Positivist notions of objectivity are based on <emph>objectivism</emph>, which defines reality as existing independently of the mind, and that this reality is knowable (Crotty, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref21">15</reflink>], p. 27) or approachable (Popper, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref22">43</reflink>]; Crotty, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>], pp. 29–30). This objective knowledge can be acquired through <emph>pure observation</emph> which separates facts and values (personal and subjective views) and thus keeps the researchers at a distance from the researched (Crotty, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>], p. 26). In other words, it is achieving a one-to-one correspondence between observation statements and 'reality' that generates objective findings (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>], p. 202). Hence, quantitative research usually works within the post-positivist research paradigm and uses objectivist methods that emphasize a single social reality (Hammersley, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref26">25</reflink>], pp. 10–1, 23–25).</p> <p>Most qualitative researchers, who have adopted the interpretivist paradigm, focus on the subjective realm of social life, and view the social world as processual rather than static, with multiple social realities rather than a single reality. Therefore, they find it difficult to follow the positivist notion of objectivity. It is because of this that some qualitative researchers see knowledge production as being a joint activity between the researcher and the researched (Guba, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref27">23</reflink>]); they are co-producers, whereas in positivism the researcher is in complete control of the process (in a top-down manner).</p> <p>Instead of accepting qualitative research on its own terms, quantitative researchers, working within the positivist framework, have criticised qualitative researchers as being not scientific because they focus on people's meanings and perceptions as the sources of data. As their research cannot be objectively validated – as in the positivist tradition – knowledge is not reliable (Lincoln & Guba, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref28">31</reflink>], pp. 290–291). This critique of qualitative research is because quantitative researchers have adopted an ontological assumption that is different from most qualitative researchers. That is why some qualitative sociologists have argued that the kind of objectivity positivists claim about their findings is limited to showing that objective methods have been used and not about getting close to social actors' constructed realities (Mills, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref29">34</reflink>], pp. 71–72).</p> <p> <emph>Another</emph> argument that can be levelled against the findings of qualitative research as being biased by positivists is that qualitative research involves a certain degree of the researcher's reflexivity (Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref30">46</reflink>], p. 230). Reflexivity is a process of self-reflection through examining, questioning, and monitoring the behaviour of self and others promoted by the social conditions and experiences (Hammersley & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>], p. 16), which may modify beliefs and action. Reflexivity is a part of the ontological conditions of human life in society. Therefore, reflexivity must be an integral part of the everyday activities of social researchers because social researchers who wish to understand people's social life must use the same skills as people use to construct and maintain their social life (Giddens, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>], pp. 157–161). It is easier for researchers that reject the detached stance to be reflexive (Blaikie & Priest, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>], pp. 47–48).</p> <p>This means that reflexivity is essential for a researcher to achieve objectivity in the study of human society (Outhwaite, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref34">42</reflink>], pp. 26–27) through trying to describe clearly how the data were derived and the extent to which the interpretation of data by the researcher is reliable. Hence, most qualitative researchers prefer to use 'authenticity' or 'trustworthiness' to 'objectivity' to refer to rigour in their research (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>], p. 282). 'Authenticity' is achieved by reconstructing social actors' worlds as accurately as possible, from their point of view.</p> <p>Some social researchers have gone as far as arguing that objectivity is always relative in any kind of science, even in the natural sciences (see Crotty, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>], pp. 34−37; Kuhn, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]). For example, some radical feminists have argued that objectivity is impossible in any form of enquiry (Marshall, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>], p. 362).</p> <p>However, some qualitative researchers have tried to incorporate positivist ideas of objectivity into their work, particularly in the methods of investigation employed. One example is the use of triangulation to achieve validity in their findings (Denzin, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]). Triangulation refers to the employment of multiple methods in collecting data with the hope of reducing the effect of the peculiar biases of each one (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>], p. 263), and thus increasing the chance of producing valid finding (a single or absolute truth). However, such researchers appear to be unaware of the incompatibility of the ontological assumptions of positivism and interpretivism and, hence, in most quantitative and qualitative research (see Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some social scientists, particularly Blaikie, have argued that triangulation is not a suitable way to reduce bias and address validity in qualitative research that accepts the existence of multiple socially constructed realities (see Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]; Silverman, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref43">53</reflink>], pp. 105–106). Triangulation imposes a single and absolutist ontology, which is only appropriate to a positivist view of objectivity (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref44">5</reflink>], p. 268). However, Seale ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref45">51</reflink>]) argued that triangulation can be understood as generating multiple perspectives to adjudicate between accounts, so that some are judged true and others judged false (pp. 58–59). This is because he, by adopting a fallibilistic approach to research (with a subtle realist orientation), was interested in a realist accounting.</p> <p>While some quantitative researchers strive for objectivity, others 'strive for an inter-subjective meaning that "make sense" to ... [those] being researched' (Riley & Hawe, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref46">45</reflink>], p. 10). To some qualitative researchers who aim to achieve some degree of objectivity, objectivity is built on the ontological and epistemological limitations of human beings, who have to make their experience and their world as 'comprehensible to themselves as they can, given the profound epistemic limitations under which they operate' (see Fay, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>], pp. 211–212). However, it is impossible to achieve the detached objectivity of positivism in qualitative research. To some extent, the researcher's account is always coloured by the author's voice (Geertz, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref48">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>As we have seen, the essence of positivists' ideas of objectivity is based on the ontological assumption of a single social reality that has an independent existence. This is easier to achieve with quantitative methods using certain research techniques and statistical procedures than is possible in qualitative methods. In contrast, most qualitative research is based on different ontological assumptions, which allows for multiple realities, and as constructed rather than having an independent existence. The social actors that are being investigated do not all inhabit the same social world. This is because <emph>their</emph> worlds are socially constructed and maintained, and they exist independently of how a researcher views them. The researcher's task is to discover whether there is just one social world or more than one, and to take this into account in attempts to understand that social situation. Therefore, the qualitative researcher's ideas of objectivity in attitude, method and outcome of scientific results are different from a positivist one (Marshall, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref49">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>While qualitative researchers have different ways from quantitative researchers of achieving rigour in their research, they are, however, divided in their views on how best to establish it in their findings (Henry, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]; Birks, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>]; Johnson & Rasulova, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>], pp. 9–14). There are two traditions. The <emph>first</emph> argues that researchers, acting ethically and professionally by explaining clearly how they went about their research, can achieve rigour. This argument is based on the idea that each qualitative researcher's account is unique and, therefore, corroboration and replication is not possible. In this case, the researcher is the only possible measuring instrument and needs to be trusted as being reliable (see Charmaz & Mitchell, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref53">14</reflink>], p. 194). Therefore, rigour in qualitative research is achieved through a belief that there is merit in qualitative researchers' accounts as they have acted professionally and have explained how they went about their research (Blaikie & Priest, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>], p. 211).</p> <p>The <emph>second tradition</emph> argues that the authenticity of researchers' accounts can be achieved through social actors' corroboration. According to this tradition, social actors should corroborate the researchers' accounts to ensure that they correspond closely to social actors' understanding of their world. This can be implemented using <emph>member validation</emph>, which means that social actors must be able to recognize themselves, others and their actions in the account of their world offered by the researchers (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref55">5</reflink>], p. 118; Bryant, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>], p. 28; Schütz, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref57">49</reflink>], p. 44).</p> <p>It is important to note that while there is a widespread view that social research is fundamentally different according to the nature of quantitative or qualitative approach, and that each one corresponds to distinctly different set of ontological and epistemological assumptions, the method(s) of research used in a study may be quantitative and/or quantitative in nature. This is because such choices of a particular set of methods – quantitative and/or qualitative – are as a result of researcher's characterization of a study's substantive focus, context, purpose, motivation, and central questions which then require appropriate and justified paradigm choices and research strategies (Blaikie & Priest, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref58">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-4">Abductive Research Strategy</hd> <p>The Abductive Research Strategy (ARS) entails an <emph>idealist</emph> ontology and the epistemology of <emph>constructionism</emph>. While the former assumes that social reality is socially constructed by social actors, where there is no single reality but multiple and changing social realities, the latter regards social scientific knowledge as being derived from socially constructed mutual knowledge – from everyday concepts and meanings. Therefore, the view of the nature of social reality, the source of both descriptions and explanations, have made the ARS distinctively different from other types of qualitative research (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref60">5</reflink>], p. 116).</p> <p>Researchers using the <emph>ARS</emph> focus largely on the meanings and interpretations, the motives and intentions that people use in their daily lives, and which direct their behaviour. This is because the social world is interpreted and experienced by social actors from the inside. People use the largely tacit, mutual knowledge, the symbolic meanings, motives and rules as a guide to do what they are doing in daily life. <emph>Mutual knowledge</emph> 'is background knowledge that is largely unarticulated'. Therefore, people must 'interpret their activities together' for them 'to negotiate their way around their world and make sense of it'. '[I]t is these meanings, embedded in language', that produce people's social reality. These 'subjective meanings are not private' but are <emph>intersubjective</emph>, and they are maintained through people's ongoing interaction together (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>], p. 115).</p> <p>Because the social world is already defined and interpreted by social actors before the social scientist enters their social life, according to Giddens, social researchers cannot begin to describe any social activity without knowing the accounts of social actors. Hence, the accounts people can give of their own actions and the actions of others are the only access to any social world. Social scientists need to discover and describe this 'insider' view and should not impose an 'outsider' view on it. It is this stock of knowledge, and how it is produced and reproduced by social actors, that abductive researchers need to grasp and articulate to provide an understanding of these actions. This also means that social scientists need to deal with typical meanings produced by typical social actors.</p> <p>Hence, social explanations need to go beyond the specific meanings that people give to their actions. This means that people, and researchers, need to deal with typical meanings produced by typical social actors. In other words, everyday words, concepts, and meanings, particularly those that refer to persons, social actions, social interactions, and social situations, are everyday <emph>typifications</emph> (Schütz, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref62">48</reflink>], p. 244). They are abstractions and approximations, which are used across a variety of specific situations, and are necessary for people to be able to make their way in their everyday world. Thus, the 'concepts' and 'categories' used in everyday life need to be explored and documented, so that the characteristics of everyday <emph>typifications</emph> can be investigated, and from which typical concepts, or <emph>types</emph>, and typical categories of these typical concepts, or <emph>typologies</emph>, are derived. That is how everyday <emph>typifications</emph> are abstracted into social scientific <emph>typifications</emph> and <emph>typologies</emph>. These social scientific <emph>typifications</emph>, or <emph>types</emph>, usually form clusters, or <emph>typologies</emph>, which account for variations within some broad category of persons, actions, interactions, or situations. This use of 'concepts' and 'categories' is different from that in coding in grounded theory because in the latter they tend to be top-down creations of investigators while in the former they are derived, in a bottom-up process, from those used by social actors (Ong, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref63">39</reflink>]; Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref64">6</reflink>], pp. 100–101).</p> <p>Social actors' accounts of their actions are provided to social researchers in the language of the participants. Therefore, social scientists must learn the language social actors use to describe and negotiate their way around their world. Language here must be seen not only as a system of signs or symbols 'but as a medium of practical activity' (Giddens, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref65">20</reflink>], p. 155) which must be grasped as skilled accomplishment of active human beings and must be studied from the 'inside'. Therefore, social researchers must use the same skills as social actors use to manage their everyday social lives (Giddens, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref66">20</reflink>]). This means that abductive researchers must immerse themselves in this world and learn the skills social actors use to construct and reconstruct their life. This process of construction involves people constantly reinterpreting their world.</p> <p>As 'much of the activity of social life is routine and is conducted in a taken-for-granted and unreflective manner' it is usually only when social life is disrupted or ceases to be predictable 'that social actors are forced to consciously search for or construct meanings and interpretations'. Hence, abductive researchers 'may have to resort to procedures that encourage this reflection ... to discover the meanings and theories'. However, it is necessary for abductive researchers 'to piece together the fragments of meaning that are available from their externalized products' to generate social scientific accounts (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>], p. 92).</p> <p>The logic researchers use in the ARS is to construct the ideal types (second-level constructs) in accordance with the logic social actors use to create typifications in daily life (first-level constructs). However, the distinction is that the former are particular constructions, constructed with a certain purpose and aim in mind that have to adhere to the rule of science (Schütz, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref68">50</reflink>]). It is from the process of moving from the first level of constructs to second level constructs that the idea of abduction gains its meaning (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>], p. 177). Whether or not second level constructs can be regarded as being superior to everyday accounts is a matter of dispute.</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-5">An example of the use of ARS</hd> <p>While there are twelve practical steps in the ARS to generate typologies that are grounded in everyday activities, in the language and meaning of social actors (see Ong, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>], p. 425), the steps can be reduced to four stages (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>], pp. 116–117).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Observe the activities of social actors that are related to the research problem, and then try to elicit their accounts of these activities. This stage is satisfied through researchers immersing themselves into the everyday social world of the people to grasp their socially constructed meanings.</item> <p></p> <item> Describe their activities and meanings (conceptualizations and interpretations) by keeping as close as possible to their everyday language (first-order concepts).</item> <p></p> <item> Find suitable second-order concepts (social scientific concepts or technical concepts) to capture the differences and similarities in these accounts.</item> <p></p> <item> Derive social scientific accounts (descriptions and understanding) of the problem at hand.</item> </ulist> <p>The research focused on the experience of work of life insurance and electronics sales workers in the state of Penang, Malaysia. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004 and was particularly concerned with the extent to which these sales workers experienced work alienation and job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The discussion here is restricted to insurance sales workers.</p> <p>The Abductive Research Strategy was adopted because of the limited literature on sales workers in Malaysia and the methodological problems in previous research (for a review, see Ong, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref72">37</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref73">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref74">41</reflink>]). In addition, the flexible and independent nature of sales work has the potential, perhaps requirement, for self-reflexive monitoring. As abductive reasoning also requires reflexive monitoring, it was judged to be the most likely approach to produce useful and rigorous results.</p> <p>Fifty life insurance sales workers were selected and interviewed. This sample was selected through a combination of non-probability sampling methods, purposive sampling, snowball sampling and theoretical sampling. Data were collected by participant observation (Bernard, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>], pp. 272−307; Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref76">7</reflink>], p. 206) and, particularly, in-depth interviewing (Mason, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>], pp. 109–137). The interviews and field notes were analyzed with the help of NVivo to establish categories, to locate patterns and to generate typologies of sales workers' experience of work.</p> <p>Participants and researchers are co-producers of data and meaning through activities of sensitizing, questioning, exploring, analyzing, theorizing, and checking (Blaikie & Priest, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref78">9</reflink>], p. 16). This means that these activities produce issues for the researcher to further explore, to cross-check, qualify, elaborate and/or better illustrate or define when next engaging with participants. While the research began with a general statement of the problem to be studied, that is, <emph>the experience of work of life insurance sales workers</emph>, methodological and substantive literature that relates to the context and questions of the study was reviewed to <emph>sensitize</emph> the researcher. For example, some relevant literature was reviewed in early stages, on work alienation, orientation to work, job satisfaction, and job stress. Included in this review were some theoretical perspectives, Structuration Theory (Giddens) and the Social Construction of Reality Theory (Berger and Luckmann) (see Ong, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref79">37</reflink>]). The literature was explored further, in parallel with the fieldwork. This helped to alert me to aspects that could be studied and matters which I needed to be aware of as part of involvement with participants.</p> <p>At the stage of entering the social situation, to interview and observe the sales workers, I tried to be as non-directive as possible. This was important to avoid preconceptions and the imposition of existing concepts and theories. Hence, even though some ideas were derived from the formulation of the problem and the literature review, I endeavoured to set these ideas aside when I <emph>entered</emph> the social situations. This did not mean that the interviews were conducted without any guide. Some themes and concepts – such as 'experience of work', 'sales work', 'job satisfaction', 'stress', 'work alienation', 'work and job', 'work attitude' or 'orientation', and 'work motivation' – were used to initiate conversations with the sales workers to provide direction to the research. At the same time, I also sought to discover other concepts used by sales workers that were roughly equivalent or different. The aim was to explore the meaning given by the sales workers to these concepts and themes if they used them. This allowed the sales workers to tell their stories and for me to learn from them. In the process, many concepts were identified that were used by the participants when a topic was discussed. I was particularly interested in those that kept recurring in conversations. Concepts such as trust, relationship, friendship, being professional, good character, luck, and many others emerged as interviewing proceeded.</p> <p>I began to <emph>explore</emph> the meaning of the concepts and everyday typifications that were derived from sales workers' conversations. This task continued throughout the study. The process involved learning to speak their language, learning about their interests and their understanding of their worldviews and perspectives. I then identified the concept of 'trust' as a main category and 'relationship', 'good character', 'luck', and 'being professional' as its properties. This meant that the scope of the study was narrowed, and this process continued through identifying the main categories and their properties. This continued throughout the study.</p> <p>I was regularly involved in the work of sales workers and social activities in order to be part of their working world. This participant observation helped me to immerse myself in the <emph>form of life</emph> of the sales workers in order to learn their worldviews and their experience of work.</p> <p>I recorded ideas, comments, and behaviour related to the focal or main concepts that emerged from the interviews. This included anything that seemed to have a bearing on the sales workers' experience of work. This was done with the help of the memo writing facility in the NVivo software program. During the process of the interview, I continued to <emph>check</emph> and <emph>confirm</emph> the categories and concepts that had been identified with particular sales workers, with other sales workers. This expanded the information about the concepts and the categories.</p> <p>After the fieldwork proceeded for seven months, a search of relevant literature was conducted to see whether the concepts and categories had been used by other social scientists, and, if so, in what ways. It was possible to compare the use of the concepts in the intellectual domain with the meaning used by sales workers. This not only stimulated more questions to ask the sales workers, but it also helped me to identify the relevant literature for ideas that might help to order the data. Thus, an ongoing <emph>dialogue between everyday constructs and sociological concepts was conducted</emph>.</p> <p>The above processes continued until no new categories emerge and new or relevant data could be dealt with within the existing categories (Glaser & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>], p. 61). This is not a precise process as it involves considered judgement, based on experience and an extensive and intimate involvement in a social situation (see Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref81">13</reflink>], pp. 213–214). The constructing and deconstructing of typologies from the sales workers' accounts occurred throughout the processes, adhering all the times to Schütz's argument that they should be derived from and remain consistent with lay concepts. The typologies were either presented verbally to the sales workers or they were allowed to read the types relevant to them. Their reactions were recorded. It is understood that <emph>member checks</emph> in this research are not only about checking the validity of the researcher's types (the second level constructs), thus ensuring that they fit with the participants' understanding; but it was also done to check the first level constructs, in terms of the extent to which the researcher had fully grasped them in the first place. During the period of 'member checking' further data were collected.</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-6">Establishing rigour in the ARS through two traditions from the qualitative research</hd> <p>The approach taken in the ARS to achieve rigour in this study included the ideas of detachment but not in the positivist sense. Complete detachment is impossible because the researcher cannot set aside all preconditions (Ong, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>]). In addition to the fact that all observations are, to a certain extent, theory laden (see Popper, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref83">43</reflink>]), they are also influenced by the researcher's knowledge and past experiences (Ong, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref84">37</reflink>]). Nevertheless, I had to try to be aware of these influences and to limit their undesirable effects as much as possible. Hence, I was fully conscious that I could influence sales workers' ideas in two ways:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> by the way I posed questions; and</item> <p></p> <item> by how I interpreted what sales workers said.</item> </ulist> <p>Therefore, I took steps to alleviate them. For example, instead of questioning the sales workers directly about their experiences of work alienation, I sought to approach them with only broad themes to create an atmosphere in which they were likely to talk freely. This was normally done with an aim of establishing rapport. For example, I asked them how they go about their day-to-day working lives. From the responses, I learned how sales workers construct their realities, how they view, define, and experience the world. This enabled them to express their ideas naturally about their work and social life and I as the researcher to learn from them. As a result, I was able to understand their perspectives on the world, and their experience of work, with minimal influence on their views.</p> <p>When a close relationship between the sales workers and the researcher was not established, they tended to expect specific questions. In particular, this occurred during my first encounter with them. In this case I would say: 'I would like to know how you experience your work generally. You can talk about anything concerning your work, particularly how you feel about you work'. Not every sales worker was able to start talking with such as a general statement about his or her work. To these sales workers, I would start with specific questions on sales worker's work (but they were general questions about the research problem). For example, I began by asking when they first started sales work, and this was followed by general questions about other aspects of their work. Most of the time, they would begin to share their ideas about their work. As the rapport developed, I began to ask them many specific questions on the issues expressed by them.</p> <p>During this period, I adopted the attitude of a student in order to let the sales workers influence my views and ideas. From time to time, I sought their <emph>clarification</emph> and <emph>confirmation</emph> of their ideas, particularly about the meaning of the concepts used by them. In order to establish my position as learner, I always repeated the following statement when they had shared something about their work in which I found that I had learned something from them: 'That is a good idea, and now I have learned something from you'. This affirmation statement further stimulated them to express themselves, with the result that some were initially interviewed for up to three hours.</p> <p>However, as data were accumulated, I needed to organise and interpret them. I could not avoid making an input. I had to engage in constructing an account. This is because researchers can only collect fragments of ideas and then have to piece them together using interpretive skill. While this could be perceived by quantitative researchers as threatening the objectivity of research, it is important to know that not only can researchers influence the participants' ideas, but the participants can also influence themselves during the process of constructing their ideas for the researcher. Hence, influences on the data occur from both sides in the <emph>dialogical</emph> process. The question of to what extent one has influenced the other is a matter of degree and is dependent on the situation and the kind of relationship between them. For instance, during the interview, I discovered sales workers had indeed been involved in logically and rationally constructing their ideas in order to present them to me. The implication is that the process had made the sales workers aware of their taken-for-granted world and, therefore, this influenced them to change their ideas during the process of constructing their account for me.</p> <p>The fact that sales workers described themselves as having more understanding on how they see their work, is evidence that they had influenced themselves. A typical way of putting this is as follows: 'Now I understand myself more after getting you to understand my work'. After the conversation, both the researcher and sales workers shared some ideas about the research experience. Hence, the findings are <emph>literally the creation of the process of interaction between the researcher and the researched</emph> (Guba, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref85">23</reflink>], p. 27), which is in line with ontological assumption the ARS has adopted, that social reality that emerges out of this research process is constructed by both respondents and the researchers (see Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref86">5</reflink>], p. 53).</p> <p>However, the interpretations (the findings) are more influenced by the accounts of participants. This is because when I entered and disturbed the sales workers' lives, and sought an understanding of their perceptions about their work, I was actually trying to perform the task of facilitator to provoke and stimulate the participants to be <emph>aware of their taken-for-granted world by encouraging them to be reflexive on their practical consciousness</emph>. The aim was to enable them <emph>to clarify their mutual knowledge of the experience of work and reveal it to me</emph>.</p> <p>While I have explicated how the ARS has handled some of the important problems of rigour in social research, it is also important to note that the ARS requires a flexible method for achieving authenticity. This is because qualitative researchers focus on people's subjective understanding and perceptions as subject matter. Objectivity in qualitative research, particularly in this abductive research, refers to <emph>the rigour and transparency of the interpretative process</emph>. In other words, abductivists should demonstrate and explain clearly how they went about their research, particularly <emph>how they arrived at their findings</emph>. There is now a routine in qualitative research to do this which is supported by software (Odena, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref87">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, in the study of the experience of work of life insurance sales workers, I have demonstrated clearly how concepts, categories and typologies were constructed and developed through the iterative and cyclical process of the dialogical method and 'member checking'. Abductivist accepts that objectivity in qualitative research is not merely about clearly documenting 'a methodology and handling of data' (Riley & Hawe, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref88">45</reflink>], p. 11), but it also encompasses how the analysis was undertaken and, in this case, is about the account of the relationship between the researcher and the researched. Having explained the processes used to create ideal types, I then confirmed the authenticity of the findings by getting participants to corroborate them. In this way, the researcher's accounts should correspond closely to the participants' accounts.</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-7">Establishing rigour in ARS through the logic of abduction</hd> <p>The logic of abduction, which includes the use of the dialogical method and member checking, is applied to the process of moving from lay to technical descriptions of social life (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref89">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>The dialogical method consists of several dialogues. The dialogical idea comes from Habermas's ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref90">24</reflink>]) characterisation of the social (and cultural and hermeneutic) sciences as being based on 'communicative experience', as against 'sense experience' and monological methods in the natural sciences. Hence, an understanding of any social world is derived from communication with social actors. Four major dialogues have been identified, between:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> the researcher and the social actors whose worlds are being investigated;</item> <p></p> <item> the emerging everyday typifications and a range of ideas from various sources that are potential ingredients in the abstraction of social scientific constructs (a typology);</item> <p></p> <item> the accumulated information (what is recorded in field notes, is held in the researcher's memory or is being observed at any time, e.g. conversations, statements, and behaviour) and an emerging typology; and</item> <p></p> <item> other researchers and 'outsiders' who have knowledge of and empathy with the method, and who are involved in the research but do not participate in the field work (e.g. supervisors/advisors). (See Stacy, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref91">54</reflink>]; Blaikie & Priest, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref92">10</reflink>], pp. 233−237; Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref93">8</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <p>The first and last dialogues are actual conversations, but the other two are 'internal' or analytic dialogues. The aim of these dialogues is to capture similarities and differences between research participants on aspects of their social life of relevance to the research problem. For example, after a few interviews with some participants, together with some participant observation, I began to recognize that the importance of gaining their customers' 'trust' through building close 'relationship' with them, was being widely and profoundly discussed. While the participants had various ways of expressing them, these second-order concepts seemed to capture their language. As the interviews proceeded, 'trust' began to take on greater significance. Transcripts of earlier interviews were revisited to look for further evidence and this <emph>confirmed</emph> the importance of this concept. A review of the literature on 'trust' was undertaken, in particular, Misztal ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref94">35</reflink>]). As further interviews were conducted, the importance of 'trust' was confirmed and four other concepts emerged alongside it: 'relationship, 'luck', 'good characteristics' and 'being professional'. In time, concepts like these were gradually woven into types and typologies. Therefore, it is through the use of these dialogues, and member checking, that integrity and rigour is achieved.</p> <p>The idea of 'member checking' has been influenced by the work of Schütz ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref95">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref96">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Each term in a scientific model of human action must be constructed in such a way that a human act performed within the life-world by an individual actor in the way indicated by the typical construct would be understandable for the actor himself [sic] as well as for his fellow-men in terms of common-sense interpretation of everyday life. (Schütz, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref97">47</reflink>], p. 343)</p> <p>However, Lincoln and Guba ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref98">31</reflink>]) have argued that it is 'the most crucial technique for establishing credibility' (p. 314) in interpretivist research. The researcher needs to know whether the social actors' world has been adequately grasped; and whether or not the social scientific concepts have been overly 'contaminated' by researchers' inputs. It is an important way to demonstrate integrity (Douglas, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref99">17</reflink>], p. 16).</p> <p>If integrity has been achieved, participants should be able to recognise themselves and others. It needs to be noted that in some circumstances a reverse translation of types and typologies may be needed to make them accessible to social actors (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref100">6</reflink>], p. 101). Of course, their reactions to this more abstract way of viewing their social world may be confronting. However, in my experience, it is more like a 'penny dropping' revelation; a new, perhaps exciting, and usually comfortable way of viewing things that are very familiar. The reaction is likely to be one of appreciation for being given a 'better' way of understanding their social world. As a result, for example, because of their confirmation of the types and typologies, sales workers began to view me as an expert in their sales work and invited me many times to give them workshop and training course on the typologies (Ong, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref101">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Member checking is commonly used at the end stages of a study, but this is much limited than my use of it. In-depth interviews are conducted, the transcripts analysed, themes abstracted and participants asked to confirm the themes. It is usually a one-off process of data collection, not unlike that used with structured interviews. Just how this checking is done is usually not elaborated. An inevitable problem with this is that themes are very abstract notions and may have no everyday equivalent. How can participants be expected to recognise them?</p> <p>The basic flaw in this process is its linearity. It is modelled on the staged nature of most quantitative research. In contrast, ARS, using abductive logic, and the iterative and cyclical process of the dialogical method, was typically conducted as follows in this study.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do some participant observation.</item> <p></p> <item> Conduct a few interviews and withdraw and reflect on what has been learnt.</item> <p></p> <item> On the basis of this understanding, conduct further interviews, and withdraw and reflect again (this activity may be repeated a number of times).</item> <p></p> <item> Reinterview participants from the earlier rounds.</item> <p></p> <item> Explore with them the evolving understanding that has been gained in the meantime.</item> <p></p> <item> Present them with an account of first-level typifications as well as any second-level typifications that have been abstracted.</item> <p></p> <item> Withdraw and reflect and, if necessary, refine the types and typologies.</item> <p></p> <item> Once the researcher is confident that the types and typologies adequately account for what has been learnt, do a final round of interviews with all participants focusing on this version of the types and typologies.</item> <p></p> <item> If necessary, make further refinements to them.</item> <p></p> <item> In between these stages, further participant observation may be conducted, perhaps to seek clarification and make refinements. (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref102">8</reflink>], pp. 9–11)</item> </ulist> <p>When research is conducted in this way the researcher is a learner. It is a developmental (although frequently messy) process in which a researcher's understanding evolves, sometimes in spurts and sometimes with frustrating blockages. <emph>Member checking occurs throughout the study, not just at the end; it is an integral part of abductive logic</emph>. By the end of the process, researchers should be confident that they have adequately grasped those parts of this area of everyday life of interest (Blaikie, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref103">7</reflink>], p. 90).</p> <p>An important question is how a researcher deals with conflicting feedback from participants, as this could be seen as invalidating the findings. However, it usually provides stimulus to continue the process to find out why there is disagreement. This is likely to lead to further refinements, perhaps by adding further types.</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-8">Some outcomes</hd> <p>The operations of dialogical methods and member checking under the logic of abduction, in the study of the experience of work of life insurance sales workers in Penang, enabled the construction of three typologies. They are types of orientations to work; types of gaining trust, and types of sales workers' motivation. The types of orientation to work are 'instrumental', 'contributive', 'achievement/ego', and 'practical', and the types of gaining trust are 'relationship', 'luck', 'good characteristics', and being 'professional'. There are seven types of work motivation, such as 'responsibility' or 'money', 'achievement', 'goal-setting', 'job accomplishment', 'positive thinking', 'self-development', and 'environment'. These typologies have provided useful knowledge.</p> <p>These typologies have made possible an alternative to Marx's theory of alienation (see Ong, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref104">37</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref105">38</reflink>]). While Marx's theory of self-estrangement is rooted in the notions of production, surplus value, exploitation and human creative potentiality, this theory of self-alienation is rooted in social interaction that is concerned with people's core-self, routine practices, ontological security, existential well-being, and unconscious motives. In order to gain the trust of their customers, insurance sales workers need to perform various roles. As this process involves presenting different selves, their life is fragmented, and they are constantly separated from their real selves (core-selves). Sales workers who use <emph>the relationship</emph>, <emph>good character</emph> and being <emph>professional</emph> strategies can experience a certain degree of self-alienation, with the highest level occurring in sales workers who use the <emph>relationship</emph> strategy to gain trust.</p> <p>Between seven and eight years after the initial study, more data were collected from a sample of life insurance sales workers in the same and other states in Malaysia (Ong, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref106">41</reflink>]) but, this time, using survey methods (Ong, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref107">40</reflink>]). Sixty-six respondents came from the States of Penang, Kedah, Negri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor. This follow-up research confirmed the findings of the original research by strongly supporting the types and typologies. In addition to suggesting that they appear to be applicable across Malaysia, this extension showed that they had a degree of stability over time. This can be interpreted in two ways: that what was found in the initial study is a general phenomenon in Malaysia; or that it provides support for the rigour of the original logic and method. Perhaps it does both.</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-9">Conclusion</hd> <p>While rigour in the ARS is established through two traditions in the qualitative research, it is the use of dialogical methods and member checking, and the use of the logic of abduction, that rigour was established and affirmed. In other words, the logic of abduction works through dialogical methods and member checking that occurs within an iterative process, involving researchers in alternations between immersion and withdrawal. It is the combination of the iterative process used in establishing types and typologies, and their confirmation through member checking, that rigour is achieved.</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-10">Acknowledgement</hd> <p>I am indebted to Dr Norman Blaikie for reading this paper and giving me many useful comments and suggestions, which have further improved the paper.</p> <hd id="AN0181109441-11">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.</p> <ref id="AN0181109441-12"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Timmermans and Tavory's ([55]) abductive method of theory construction is based on Peirce's concept of abduction. However, because Peirce used the concepts of 'abduction', 'retroduction' and 'hypothesis' interchangeably and his abduction is akin to Bhasker's logic of retroduction, a process used to invent or generate new theories (see Blaikie, [4], pp. 163–176, [8]) that it is appropriate to keep Timmermans and Tavory's abduction as being 'retroduction' and to reserve 'abduction' for ARS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref17" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181109441-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bernard, H. R. (2018). Research methods in anthropology. Rowman & Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Birks, M. (2014). Quality in qualitative research. In J. Mills & M. Birks (Eds.), Qualitative methodology: A practical guide (pp. 221 – 235). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref41" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blaikie, N. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality and Quantity, 25 (2), 115 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry. Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry (2 nd ed.). Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (2 nd ed.). Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref89" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blaikie, N. (2019). Abduction. In P. Atkinson, C. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), Sage research methods foundations (pp. 1–13). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036785889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref58" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2017). Social research: Paradigms in action. Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2019). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (3 rd ed.). Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryant, C. G. A. (1995). Practical sociology: Post-empiricism and the reconstruction of theory and application. Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R. G. (1997). The myth of silent authorship: Self, substance, and style in ethnographic writing. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. 193–215). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology. Butterworth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Douglas, J. D. (1971). Understanding everyday life: Toward the reconstruction of sociological knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: A multicultural approach. Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. Hutchinson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Habermas, J. (1970). Knowledge and human interests. In D. Emmet & A. MacIntyre (Eds.), Sociological theory and philosophical analysis (pp. 36 – 54). Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research?. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849666084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2 nd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry, P. (2015). Rigor in qualitative research: Promoting quality in social science research. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 4 (IVC–2015), 25 – 28. <ulink href="http://www.isca.me/rjrs/archive/v4/iIVC-2015/6.ISCA-IVC-2015-20SHS-11.pdf">http://www.isca.me/rjrs/archive/v4/iIVC-2015/6.ISCA-IVC-2015-20SHS-11.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, S., & Rasulova, S. (2016). Qualitative impact evaluation: Incorporating authenticity into the assessment of rigour. Bath Papers in International Development and Wellbeing, No. 45, Centre for Development Studies (CDS), University of Bath.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kammeyer, K. C. W., Ritzer, G., & Yetman, N. R. (1997). Sociology: Experiencing changing societies. Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2 nd ed.). Chicago University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, G. (1996). The concise oxford dictionary of sociology. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason, J. (2018). Qualitative researching (3 rd ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Misztal, B. A. (1996). Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order. Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odena, O. (2012). Using software to tell trustworthy, convincing and useful story. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16 (5), 355 – 372. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.706019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ong, B. K. (2005). The experience of work: A case study of Chinese sales workers in an electronics company and a life insurance company [Unpublished Ph.D. thesis]. Universiti Sains Malaysia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ong, B. K. (2011, July 24–25). A Marxian form of work alienation: A critical examination of its relevance from a case of life insurance sales workers [Paper presentation]. Curitiba conference of RC36 and RC38: 'Beyond alienation and integration: Social issues and movements' at the ISA. Curitiba, Brazil.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ong, B. K. (2012). Grounded Theory Method (GTM) and the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS): A critical analysis of their differences. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15 (5), 417 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.607003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ong, B. K. (2013). The experience of work: A study of life insurance sales workers in Malaysia. Final report of short-term research project at the School of social sciences. Universiti Sains Malaysia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ong, B. K. (2020). Abductive research strategy (ARS) and the construction of typologies: An example of the use of twelve methods of ARS. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 6 (2), 52 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Outhwaite, W. (1975). Understanding social life: The method called verstehen. Allen & Unwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popper, K. R. (1961). The poverty of historicism. Routledge & Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rex, J. (1974). Sociology and the demystification of the modern world. Routledge & Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riley, T., & Hawe, P. (1999 December 7–10). Representation of voice: Reflections on silent authorship and 'objectivity' [Paper presentation]. The Australia Sociological Association Annual Conference. Melbourne, Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, K. (2009). Key concepts in sociology. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-06644-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schütz, A. (1963a). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. In M. A. Natanson (Ed.), Philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 302 – 346). Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schütz, A. (1963b). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In M. A. Natanson (Ed.), Philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 231 – 249). Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schütz, A. (1973). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected paper 1: The problem of social reality (pp. 3–47). Martins Nijhoff.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schütz, A. (1976). Collected paper II: Studies in social theory. Martimus Nijhoff.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seale, C. (2004). Quality in qualitative research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 409–419). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative methods in sociology: Describing the social world. Gower.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stacy, S. J. G. (1983). Limitations of ageing: Old people and the caring professions [ Unpublished Ph. D. thesis ]. Monash University,</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30 (3), 167 – 186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons Trans.). Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winch, P. (1958). The idea of social science and its relation to philosophy. Routledge & Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Beng Kok Ong</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Beng Kok Ong PhD, is senior lecturer in sociology, in the School of Social Sciences at Universiti Sains Malaysia, in which he teaches courses of qualitative research methods and sociology of everyday life to undergraduate students. He writes and conducts research on the sociology of work, and qualitative methodology, in particular, abductive methodology.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref107"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1451953
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Ways of Establishing Rigour in the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS)
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Beng+Kok+Ong%22">Beng Kok Ong</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Social+Research+Methodology%22"><i>International Journal of Social Research Methodology</i></searchLink>. 2024 27(6):707-719.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Science+Research%22">Social Science Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+Research%22">Qualitative Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Researchers%22">Researchers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sales+Occupations%22">Sales Occupations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Insurance+Occupations%22">Insurance Occupations</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Malaysia%22">Malaysia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13645579.2023.2265255
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1364-5579<br />1464-5300
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article examines how rigour is achieved in the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS). It begins with a review of some of the arguments about objectivity and rigour in social sciences, which shows that quantitative and qualitative researchers hold different meanings of objectivity and therefore different ways of achieving rigour in their research. ARS as a qualitative methodology is then described and, using a study of the experience of work of life insurance sales workers in the state of Penang, rigour in the ARS is illustrated. Three ways of establishing rigour in ARS are stated and expounded. While "two" of them are from the traditions of doing qualitative research, the "third" is from the logic of abduction.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1451953
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1451953
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13645579.2023.2265255
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 707
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Science Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Qualitative Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Researchers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sales Occupations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Insurance Occupations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Malaysia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Ways of Establishing Rigour in the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS)
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Beng Kok Ong
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1364-5579
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1464-5300
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Social Research Methodology
              Type: main
ResultId 1