Researching Work, Employment and Employee Relations

Employment and Employee Relations
Student Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
City (State)
Date
Employment and Employee Relations
Introduction
There are two broad methods of analysis namely, inductive and deductive. While the inductive is defines as the movement from the specific to the general, the deductive does the reverse and starts with the general and completes with the specific using experience or through observation inductively as those arguments based on law and other prominently acceptable ideologies are expressed by deduction. In a nutshell, researchers who use deduction work from top to bottom while those who use induction work from bottom up. Research uses quantitative and qualitative methods, which are deductive and inductive respectively (Onwuegbuzi & Leech, 2005, p.270). The two methods address the same problem but using different approaches, as they are not mutually exclusive.
The objective of science is to find real solutions through experimentation and testing. Hypotheses are used to make assumptions before theories are generated to corroborate the experiments. The reasoning for this procedure requires logical thinking. Both inductive and deductive thinking are interlinked because they form the basis for scientific research. Through induction, a conclusion is generalized from scenarios based on observation while through deduction; reasoning is used in the application of specific principles to reach certain conclusions based on assumptions. The two forms of research methodologies work the opposite way. Many scientists prefer to use the deduction method because through deduction, many theories are fronted as a beginning point unlike induction which is achieved through observation. Apart from these two forms, there is reduction which is a method of getting simple reasons from complex effects.
The relationship between induction and reduction
As has been introduced above, both deduction and induction are the basis for scientific research. Induction begins with observation, making many scientists rule out the its viability as a reliable model for research as insinuated by David Hume, the rationality of believing conclusions arrived at on the basis of conviction is the problem ( Hume, 2006, p.2). He further indicates that induction is a way of proving something without evidence. Observation does not guarantee that anything that happens is true, a part from the provisional belief that it could be true and there is no actual theory behind its supposition. The example given by Hume is the assumption that the sun rises. Through induction, there is no explanation that guarantees that the sun will rise. Another famous scientist Charles Darwin based his evolution theory on induction. He observed various aspects of nature and made a conclusion that there is a common origin for species. Many arguments opposing this theory argue that Darwin was vague in using observation to draw conclusions. Hume is concerned about the generality of the evidence provided by observation in influencing beliefs of other states of affairs.
Using the law of gravity the relationship between reduction and induction can be explained. Newton asserted that the environment influenced the motion of an object, explaining that the speed will be determined by resistance and direction by external forces from the side. Without an external force, the object will progress in a stable uniform motion that is linear. Through observation, Newton was able to determine the patterns. Then he created a hypothesis that became the basis for his law of gravity (Walsh, 2017, p.216). This was out of observation implying that the reduction preceded the induction.
Relationship between Deduction and Reduction
When a comparison is made with induction, deduction is easily appreciated by scientists because the facts are based on its premises. If they are true, obviously the findings will be true thereby giving positive conclusions. Other than the previously created themes around the process, it is more logical and reasonable than induction because it is taken through testing and verification through processes of practical experiments (Hitchcock, 2017, p.11). One theory of reduction is the Nagel’s theory, which is regarded as a means of getting to a conclusion (Sarkar, 2015, p.44). The relationship between induction and deduction can be tested by generalizing then into one specific statement of theory. In deduction, the theory is true if it can be fixed, but if it changes, the end result of the deduction will change (Seshia, 2015, p.2041).
Deduction is formal and a little complex compared to induction although it becomes easier to gather its original statement making conclusions difficult. In the Fizeau experiment, Einstein used light to put forward the principle of light velocity (Nickles, 1988, p.39). He used deductive reasoning to exhibit his prowess and the accuracy in deduction. Reduction is always a constituent element of deduction because in deductive reasoning, the original observation is used as a means to narrow down from a general to a specific opinion. Theories that have been used from the beginning are reduced in deductive reasoning and are also related to previous ones. When combined with reduction, the process of deduction becomes more reliable and theories become more specific.
Another form of research uses interaction in combination with reduction. Reduction precedes induction since induction begins with observation and thereafter progresses into patterns from which a hypothesis is drawn. This then is reduced down to conclusions that can be used to confirm the theories by acquiring information. In the processes of induction and deduction, reduction is important.
Differences
The two methods function in contrasting ways because of how they perceive nature. Quantitative theorists belief that a single reality can be determined by scientific theories, while those who subscribe to qualitative principles work with many realities produce different meanings to different people projected from a researcher’s perspective (Trochim, 2006, p.108). The disciples in this context are determined by the relationship between the researcher and the participants. Quantitatively, researchers need to separate themselves from the participants while the relationship between the researcher and the participant in qualitative research is important. Research according to the quantitative researchers, it should be free whereas qualitative researchers understand that it is influenced by values of the researcher.
Similarities
There are many similarities that emanate from these two methods. Both of them propose the replacement of the terms qualitative and quantitative with exploratory and confirmatory in order to reflect their relationships (Brannen, 2017, p.10). Their objectives are the same despite their different approaches and separation will lead to a lope sided perspective in terms of information r...