Hypothetico-deductive

method

Slide 1-1
• It is popularized by the Austrian
philosopher Karl Popper, is a
version of scientific method.
• It provides a useful, systematic,
approach for generating
knowledge to solve basic and
managerial problems.

2
Step 01 & Step 02
• To find solutions for identified problems, a
problem statement that includes the
general objective and research questions
of the research should be developed.
• involves the seeking of information in
depth, of what is observed (for instance,
the observation that our company is losing
customers).
• This could be done by a literature review
(literature on customer switching) or by
talking to several people in the work
setting, to clients (why do they switch?), or
to other relevant sources, thereby
gathering information on what is
happening and why.
• Through any of these methods, we get an
idea or a “feel” for what is transpiring in
the situation

4
Research example of hypothesis
development
• Problem statement: complaints
about the service quality.
• Theory: customer satisfaction is
based on the service quality
dimensions of responsiveness,
reliability, assurance, tangibles,
and empathy.
• Hypothesis: There is a positive
relationship of perceived
employee responsiveness and
satisfaction of customers.

5
Step 04, 05, 06 & 07

6
 Deductive reasoning
It is a process of arriving at a conclusion by
applying known facts or principles to a specific
situation.
Starting with general theory and then apply this
theory to a specific case.
All living things (General statement – first
premise) will eventually die. This animal is a
living thing. (Inference – second premise)
Therefore, this animal (Conclusion) will
eventually die.
• The scientific method uses deductive
reasoning to test a theory (recall that, to a
scientist, a theory is an organized set of
assumptions that generates testable
predictions) about a topic of interest.
• In deductive reasoning, we work from the
more general to the more specific.
• We start out with a general theory and
then narrow down that theory into specific
hypotheses we can test.
• We narrow down even further when we
collect specific observations to test our
hypotheses and confirm (or refute) our
original theory.
7
Inductive reasoning
• It is a process where we observe
specific phenomena and on this basis
arrive at general conclusion.
• in inductive reasoning, more specific
to the more general.
• The observation of a first, second,
and third white swan (this is a very
famous example) may lead to the
proposition that “all swans are
white.” In this example, the repeated
observation of a white swan has led
to the general conclusion that all
swans are white.
• All the giraffes that I have seen
(Repeated observations) have very
long necks. Therefore I conclude that
all (Conclusion) giraffes have long
necks.
8
Why Scientific Research?
• This research is not based on hunches, experience and intuition.
• It is purposive and rigorous.
• Enables all those who are interested in researching and knowing about the
same or similar issues to come up with comparable findings when data are
analyzed.
• Findings are accurate and confident.
• Apply solutions to similar problems.
• It is more objective.
• Highlights the most critical factors at the work place that need specific
attention to solve or minimize problems.
• Scientific Investigation and Managerial Decision Making are integral part of
effective problem solving.
• It can be applied to both basic and applied research.

9
The Hallmarks of Scientific Research

Main distinguishing characteristics of scientific research may be listed

as follows:
• Purposiveness
• Rigor
• Testability
• Replicability
• Precision and Confidence
• Objectivity
• Generalizability
• Parsimony

1
0
Purposiveness

• Increasing employee
commitment and increase
performance levels will benefit
the organization.
• Developing and adding in the
body of knowledge through
theory development, and theory
testing(for acceptance,
rejection, and alteration).

1
1
Rigor

1
2
1
3
Precision and confidence

S
l
i
d
e

Example: If we had a hypothesis that stated
that greater participation in decision making will
increase organizational commitment and this
was not supported by the results, it makes no
sense if the researcher continues to argue that
increased opportunities for employee
participation would still help!
Example: If a researcher’s findings that
participation in decision making enhances
organizational commitment are found to be
true in a variety of manufacturing, industrial
and service organizations, and not merely in
the particular organization studied by the
researcher, then the generalizability of the
findings to other organizational settings in
enhanced. The more generalizable the
research, the greater its usefulness and value.
1
5
1
6