Pak Djarot ysh, supaya 'betul'nya, kita bisa telusuri asal mula istilah 'analytic induction', yang dipopulerkan oleh Peter K Manning melalui beberapa buku yaitu "Semiotics and Fieldwork" (1987) dan "Analytic Induction" (1991). Dia mengakui analytic induction diturunkan dari penulisan ilmiah George Herbert Mead dan Florian Znaniecki, termasuk dari pengembangan Chicago School. Supaya tidak salah saya ungkapkan definisi aslinya: analytic induction was a nonexperimental qualitative sociological method that employs an exhaustive examination of cases in order to prove universal, causal generalizations.
Lebih lanjut: The claim to universality of the causal generalizations is the weakest, for it is derived from the examination of a single case studied in light of a 'preformulated hypothesis' that might be reformulated if the hypothesis does not fit the facts. And 'practical certainty' of the (reformulated) hypothesis is obtained 'after a small number cases has been examined'. Discovery of a single negative case is held to disprove the hypothesis and to require its reformulation. After 'certainty' has been attained, 'for purposes of proof, cases outside the area circumscribed by the definition are examined to determine whether or not the final hypothesis applies to them. If it does, it is implied, there is something wrong with the hypothesis, for 'scientific generalizations consist of descriptions of conditions which are always present when the phenomenon is absent'. The two keys to the entire procedure are the definition of the phenomenon under investigation and the formulation of the tentative hypothesis. Ultimately, however, despite its aim, analytic induction does not live up to the scientific demand that its theories 'understand, predict, and control events'. Analytic induction is not a means of prediction; it does not clearly establish causality; and it probably cannot endure a principled examination of its claims to [be] making universal statements. Indeed, according to the most demanding ideal standards of the discipline, analytic induction as a distinctive, philosophical, methodological perspective is less powerful than either enumerative induction of axiomatic-modelling methods. Silahkan bapak2 dikutip, lumayan untuk meyakinkan promotornya, dan boleh ditambah didaftar pustaka: Manning, P.K. (1987). Semiotics and Fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Manning, P.K. (1991). Analytic Induction. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Symbolic Interactionism: Vol. 2. Contemporary Issues (pp. 401-430). Brookfield, VE: Edward Elgar Salam, -ekadj --- In [email protected], Eko B K <ekobu...@...> wrote: > > Pak Djarot, kalimat2 saya tsb bukan merespon posting bapak, tapi posting pak Eka, maaf kalau saya lupa memberikan salam awal kepada siapa itu ditujukan... > > posting saya merespon posting pak Eka yg sbb: > >>>"Jadi fieldwork dengan analisis induktif sebenarnya tidak masuk ke > lapangan dengan tangan kosong, telah ada skema pengetahuan yang > dimiliki peneliti sebelumnya, biasanya melalui comparison method. Suatu > informasi diuji berkali-kali dengan berbagai pandangan ilmu hingga > sampai pada batas tertentu.">>> > > yah kalau ke lapangan sudah penuh dgn teori dan ketika di lapangan kita membandingkan teori2 tsb dgn kondisi di lapangan seperti kata pak Eka, bagi saya ini sama dgn testing hipothesis, yakni deduksi... saya kira Pak Djarot sepaham dgn saya karena bapak sering mengatakan bahwa dlm proses konstruksi hipothesis melalui metode induksi, kita memang harus melupakan sejenak semua teori2 di kepala, setelah diakhir penelitian hipothesis selesai dikonstruksi baru kita bandingkan dgn teori2 yg ada... > > salam... > > > > > > --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Djarot Purbadi dpurb...@... wrote: > > From: Djarot Purbadi dpurb...@... > Subject: Re: [referensi] Re: posmo, induktif vs deduktif Pak Djarot > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 4:06 PM
