response to this discussion

Please response to this discussion
The assignment was to remember back when you had to read something very, very
closely and decipher the meaning of what you were reading and write a “thick
description” of that experience
As an introduction to “thick description”, an initial understanding of descriptions
generally is in order. According to (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011), a description

generally, "… is the first task in the analytic cycle…", and forms the foundation for
qualitative data analysis by potentially providing much rich detail to help one become
familiar with the data, issues, understanding of the data and it nuances to help give
valuable insight to the data (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011, Chapter 10). Hennink et
al., (2011) goes on to powerfully suggest description can give engaging accounts of
events, processes and social phenomena– potentially, i.e., by providing that description
which is called a "thick description" or a description that does not just describe a
behavior of a participant, but that also gives rich context. For example, such as when
Field Work Notes are accompanied with transcribed and coded data that can help give
rich meaning and understanding. By contrast, a "thin description would only describe
the behavior without that rich context (Hennink et al., 2011)., e.g., only answering the
research question without much context and coding.
Thick descriptions entail an inductive activity. By transcribing the data, understanding
it, coding and re-coding, refining the inductive research question and process such that
"… connections and relationships between issues that become useful later when
developing explanations… notice patterns…", suggesting possibly new concepts giving
way to new theories, frameworks, and such (Hennink et al., 2011, Chapter 10).
The authors own experience with thick descriptions and the inductive process may
have been being involved in helping to facilitate an organization wide needs
assessment. In trying to understand the minimal intrusive way to administer the needs
assessment, a description of what it was and was trying to accomplish had to be done.
There were several iterations (inductive cycles) in which the Director of Training &
Education (DTE) assisted in trying to help understand the context of why the needs
assessment was important and its outcome as not all understand its purpose. After
several iterations with questions about performance in the context of the organization’s
internal and external environment—a needs assessment document emerged that went
from 100 questions to about 45 questions.
Conclusion

Even with the above experience of a thick description, the learning process with the
needs assessment still continues, e.g., the wording of the questions such that there are
singular concepts in them so as not to confuse the participants in answering questions.
Other issues included a flat organization chart so that being anonymous was difficult.
Informed consent was a issue as this was part of the organization's process. Also, that
admitting that there was a problem was a problem in itself. The assessment was piloted
only to a few, but never rolled out officially to this day.
Merriam & Tisdell (2016) attest to the power and potential of thick descriptions in the
interpretation of qualitative phenomena when speaking of social events, processes,
institutions, and culture. Ultimately, one must evaluate, apply and act upon these thick
descriptions in an even wider context of the rigor and robustness with which the study
itself was conducted.

Please response to this discussion
Deductive reasoning works as a more general approach to a more specific approach.  It
is sometimes called in a more informal way as a "top-down" approach, such as thinking
up a theory about the  topic  of interest.  Then narrow it down to a more specific
hypothesis that can be tested (SRM, 2006), and continue to narrow down and
observation collected to address the hypothesis, and lastly the hypothesis needs to be
tested with specific data to confirm or not of the original theory (SRM, 2006).  However,
inductive reasoning works differently, such as moving from specific observations to
broader generalization and theories (SRM, 2006).  Inductive reasoning begins with
specific observations and measures, and begin to detect patterns and regularities
(SRM, 2006), and formulate some unconfirmed hypothesis that can be explored, and
lastly develop general theories or conclusions (SRM, 2006).

However, inductive content analysis is a qualitative method of content analysis that
researchers use to develop theory and studying documents, recordings, and other
verbal and printed materials.  The main differences between inductive and deductive
approaches to research are that while a deductive approach is aimed and testing theory
(Gabriel, 2013), and inductive approach is concerned with the generation of new theory
emerging from the data (Gabriel, 2013).
Deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion, and inductive is used,
but often people may confuse both inductive and deductive reasoning and it is important
to learn the meaning so proper logic can be identified (Bradford, 2017).  The importance
of deductive and inductive approach is that inductive is reasoning where the premises
supports the conclusion and the conclusion is the hypothesis, and deductive is
reasoning where true premises develop a true and valid conclusion.
Both approaches can offer certain advantages, but these two methods of reasoning
have a very different feel to them when you are conducting research.  Inductive
reasoning by its very nature is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the
beginning (SRM, 2006).  Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is
concerned with testing the hypothesis (SRM, 2006).

Please response to this discussion
This process of research study is a craft, a skill, an art, and a science.  Often times
when speaking with my father, a skilled craftsman and machinist by trade himself, about
the skill of a craftsman and how to attain such high skills in any endeavor one might
embark upon– my father always said that one must first have a solid foundation in
whatever craft they intend to imbue. My father was also involved with racing innovations
as a result of his craftsman skills. He worked for Chevrolet, General Motors, and
eventually became a plant maintenance supervisor in the innovative modelling shop.
After a SOLID FOUNDATION, he stated an appropriate apprenticeship was
required under a master craftsman, and then one becomes a journeyman. When I
inquired about how long one would be a journeyman — he replied, forever! This is a long
commitment to mastering a craft, can we make that commitment? The journeymen’s job
was then to create, innovate, master, and perfect his or her craft, forever. When I
inquired about doubt and not being sure, etc., he would always repeat himself about
having a SOLID FOUNDATION. He would also suggest that if it was in the book– don't
worry– it’s old already.

Differences Between Inductive and Deductive Analysis and the Differences

Between Inductive and Deductive Code Development

I mentioned the craftsman story to emphasize the required solid foundation referred
to that may also apply in the research discipline in one form or another and it means just
that, if one is only a positivist or one only solidly leans or professes qualitative research
skills heavily– do they really have the solid foundation referred to be the required
journeyman and humanitarian where creation and innovation are the tools of change? I
say not! As such, this solid foundation in research can be the deductive work laid before
one as the light, path, structures, concepts, theories, and frameworks to create the
necessary guide posts and bridges for the inductive work to follow– the creation and
innovation of the process of research. There will always be naysayers and those who
profess the building is on fire. This is not the journeyman’s worry in the least.
As a “master craftsman” of research, the initial deductive work or foundation helps
guide data collection and research questions for the initial coding, not too much initially
(say 30 or less questions as 100 questions is initially far too much to code, Blog, A. V.,
(2014)) after which thorough coding, recoding, and initial categories are derived and
continues. My old math teacher professed that the problem was that people hate to
read. Software packages like Atlas.ti ver. 8 can help with this, but is also not easy– but,
a tool which the apprentice must master if they are to become the master themselves
(Blog, A. V., 2014). Hennink, Hutter & Bailey (2011) suggests that both deductive and
inductive types of coding lead to inductive reformulation of concepts, theories,
frameworks, and research question for further understanding, creation, and innovation.
It cannot be wrong just because it’s not in a book– all the solid foundation, apprentice,
and such have been laid for its work; for creation and innovation.
Discuss the Importance of Each Approach and When Each May be Used,

Including When a Combination May be Used

So, each approach– both deductive and inductive have their part to play in the
creative and innovative process—in getting to understanding, application, and human
well-being. “Deductive codes originate from the researcher…  topic s in the interview
guide that were derived from the concepts or theory in the research literature…
Inductive codes come directly from the data and are developed from reading the
reading and noting the issues raised by participants… of importance… allows the data to
‘speak for itself’…” (Hennink et al., 2011, Chapter 9).
Conclusion

So, the only real question is probably not reliability or trustworthiness– it is the rigor
and robustness of a mastered process based on a solid foundation, proper apprentice
and lifelong commitment to mastering it that prevails; commitment. Sometimes, the
university or institution plays it part in that process—of the failed prospect's solid
foundation, and apprentice unfortunately for the sake of the almighty
dollar—compromise as it were. One example, again unfortunately, is Ashford
University’s Library, of which I do not speak lightly, not having the best tools available for
the aforementioned purpose, e.g., the full SAGE Navigator for seminal research at the
doctorate level, Web of Science, and so on. We can, however, get by. When queried

about these, the standard budget answers, we have never had them before, etc.,
prevail. What to say?
Lastly, in this regard, I am not a crusader or martyr– however, the task and road of
the journeymen never ceases or ends, or at least should not. At least if human well-
being and the future of this planet mean anything at all.
Please separate all responses