Inductive vs. deductive research

Before proceeding with the research activities, it is necessary to consider the relationship between theory and observations that the inductive vs. deductive debate brings to the research arena. Trochim’s (2006) diagram (Figure 4-1) and related quotation below illustrate the relationship between the two:

114

Figure 4-1 Theory and Observations in Research

“The figure shows that there are really two realms that are involved in research. The first, on the top, is the land of theory. It is what goes on inside our heads as researchers. It is where we keep our theories about how the world operates. The second, on the bottom, is the land of observations. It is the real world into which we translate our ideas -- our programs, treatments, measures and observations. When we conduct research, we are continually flitting back and forth between these two realms, between what we think about the world and what is going on in it.”

(Trochim, 2006)

Although this research study began with a hypothesis (see section 1.1.2), this was not taken into account during the data analysis stages and the analysis began with an inductive approach, moving from data to theory. This allowed the researcher to make unpredicted observations and identify patterns and regularities in order to then draw some conclusions. This theory building approach was used to enable observations and reactions to be made in relation to BSL users’ descriptions of their experiences of working together, and for those observations to then be presented in the form of a

115

theory. Because such theories were produced after the observations were made, they are referred to as “post factum” theory (Merton 1968).

Initially, the choice of an inductive or deductive approach in the study led to some difficulty. Previous research carried out by Deaf researchers has pointed to a tendency towards an inductive approach for researching Deaf communities (such as Emery, 2008; O’ Connell, 2008; de Clerck, 2007; Sahasrabudhe, 2010; Padden-Duncan, 2007 and Sutherland, 2008) and has been comprised of questionnaires, case studies or fieldwork-based focus group activities. Such research activities allow for qualitative based, inductive research that results in empowerment in the study of the “stigmatized languages” (Fischer, 2009: 1). Emery (2011) draws attention to the results of phonocentrism and disempowerment in the lives of Deaf people that have led many Deaf citizens to rely on a more concrete approach.

In the case of this research, an inductive approach is also appropriate, as it enables the research to establish its outcomes and sets a background for the results through this “framework of ideas, concepts, and design of the study – that put into action and yield interesting and achievable results” (Wisker, 2001: 80). The following diagram (Figure 3-2) illustrates the inductive approach taken in this study. That is, the data collection and analysis were carried out in an inductive manner and the following discussion draws on the themes and issues that were identified during the literature review and pre-analysis stage. The theoretical stages of this research project are illustrated in an extension of Silverman’s (2007: 53) diagram (Figure 4-2 below). The arrows begin at the point of looking at various ‘models’ and move downwards through a list of the concepts and theories that influenced this study. This is to indicate that the research did begin with a hypothesis (in section 1.1.2). At the point of methodology and onwards, the arrows move upwards to reflect the fact that the data collection and analysis stages proceeded inductively:

116

Figure 4-2 Adapted from Silverman’s Levels of Analysis Models

117

4.2.2 Translation: traditional vs. non-traditional methods

Most hearing authors working in the field of Deaf Studies have produced written texts when accounting for the lives, the language and the culture of Deaf people and there has been very little research that has led to accounts of this community group that are available in the natural language of the community, i.e. British Sign Language. There has, however, been a dramatic advance in available technologies, resulting in most people having access to computer and internet facilities. This phenomenon has challenged scholars working in the Deaf Studies field to produce more appropriate methodologies and research output methods. The use of video-recording of signing to capture the original data has become more popular in deaf studies research but this is known to lead to extensive time-consuming translation work. Translation difficulties have been continually raised and a minority of Deaf scholars have begun to produce research findings in BSL format (Temple and Young, 2004). Temple and Young report that the translation issues are masked by the dissemination of academic work in the written medium:

“The debates around perspective in qualitative research, and translation studies specifically, are ignored as the spoken word or signed language becomes fixed on paper.”

(Temple and Young, 2004: 164)

This “translation dilemmas” issue has raised cause for concern regarding the interpretation and editing of materials collected in sign language and Hibbard and Fels (2010, also Stone, 2010) have advocated the production of ‘sign language videos instead of in written form’, using technology such as ‘Sign Link Studio’. Hibbard and Fels’s attempts to employ both languages (English and American Sign Language - ASL) for the purposes of producing and submitting a postgraduate thesis in ASL led to a lot of extra pressure, which they clearly feel could have been avoided:

118

“The translation and interpretation between ASL and English and then English and ASL was a time-consuming and difficult, high workload task for me. In addition, my level of English literacy is not as high as my ASL literacy level and therefore I was less confident in the completeness of my answer. If I was able to work directly in ASL rather than having to constantly translate between the two languages, I would have been much more efficient and confident in my answer.”

(Hibbard and Fels, 2010: 6)

Roberts (2011) also raises concern about the lack of appropriate assessments in BSL, in this case for the purposes of mental health assessments, and informs us that materials must be translated and then back-translated several times before they have reliability and validity. Researching in a signed language only is a move towards research output that is not subject to intensive interpretation and is readily accessible to members of the Deaf community in their native language, as previously discussed in this chapter, and is important for this study. There is clearly more work to be done in order to arrive at a more appropriate methodology in deaf studies research. More recent innovations, such as hypertext or videotext are now beginning to be used, and this provides the benefit of enabling the sign language output to be seen alongside a text translation, making it accessible in both formats. Clifford & Marcus, (1986) and Barker (2008) have considered this issue further, and other research, such as Clifford (1988) have also questioned the fact that the products of research are always written texts:

“…produces interpretations through intense research experiences, how is unruly experience transformed into written account? How precisely is garrulous, over determined cross-cultural encounter shot through with power relations and personal cross-purposes circumscribed as an adequate version of

a more or less discrete ‘other world’ composed by an individual author?”

(Clifford, 1988: 25)

119

Translation between spoken and signed languages presents a clear picture of how true meaning is not found in speech or text alone. For example, a translation is subject to the translator’s personal upbringing and background, which greatly influences the outcome of the translation. This influence is seen in the new phenomenon of ‘ghostwriting’, where a writer takes another person’s ideas and puts them into text for them but there is unavoidable influence from the ghostwriter. Temple & Young’s (2004) discussion of

‘translation dilemmas’ has raised this issue in relation to researching sign languages. In the case of an academic whose first language is a signed language, for example, there is cognitive process where the author thinks in the signed language but has to go through a process of interpretation in order to present that information in text. This involves a process of editing and re-editing and results in a substantial loss of information and hence scholars such as Alker (2000) and Emery (2011) have attempted to produce and present information in BSL, rather than rely on a translation or interpretation. As Emery (2006) emphasises, any text can always be given an alternative translation and therefore trying to find the true meaning is problematic; each speaker has their own unique way of expressing meaning in its own context and, as Emery notes, “neither the researcher nor translator can know what these are” (p. 146).