How to resolve a contradiction? It's not that hard. You can find an encompassing approach that embodies both sides of the coin. This is a kind of Rogerian Thinking - Carl Rogers being a famous writer who recommended giving everybody full trust and benefit of the doubt. These slides are short and sweet, showing the steps in how to resolve problems when the evidence contradicts itself. Especially how the real power relations are thus revealed; how the actual contrasts are also somehow 'real', and how the data is a little bit misleading. Good luck!

1. 4210011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Critical Thinking Using
Qualitative Data and Software
(Part Three) – Results and
Conclusions
By Wendy Olsen
2014
Methods@Manchester Workshop
Aiming at PhD Students and Researchers
Who Want to Disseminate Arguments

2. 421
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
AIM 4) Develop better argumentation skills
AIM 5) Combine empirically based arguments
with theory, using triangulation and
retroduction
2

3. 421
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
3
How to Proceed- 1.
• 1. set up the Premises, data and conclusions of
an inductive argument first.
• 2. now consider another inductive argument,
such as a competing interpretation or a
contradictory set of quotes.
• 3. develop an integrating argument by reworking
the conceptual framework, revising concepts or
elements of the reasoning, make notes.

4. 421
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
4
How to Proceed – 2.
• 4. set up the Premises, data and conclusions of
another argument, perhaps either
– DEDUCTIVE: theory - we would expect + DATA-
Test result.
– RETRODUCTIVE: results  we are surprised >>
speculate what must be the cas for this to have
happened >>> rework conceptual framework OR posit
a new PREMISE(S) - develop the 2nd
or 3rd
argument
• 5. develop an integrating argument by reworking
the claims being made, and moving some
elements of the reasoning, and clarify
conclusion overall.

5. 421
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
How to Finish Up
• 6. Finally, review your overall argument.
– Is it now coherent? (that is, does it have
linkages between the parts?)
– Is it now consistent? (is it ontologically
wholesome, and is it epistemologically
agreeable? Is it valid, true to authentic
voices, etc.)
– Does it involve rejecting some theory, or
simply encompassing one by another?
5

6. Helpful hints for Models
• These are used for brainstorming.
• You place CODES here as Project Items.
• They have CONNECTORS. Add more of these.
• You add PROJECT ITEM >> NOTE to make your
own freestyle handwritten notes about the
arguments.
– Lay arguments. – no theory
– Your expert arguments. - invoke theory
– Please try to move toward more advanced,
sophisticated arguments similar to a PhD or Article. 6

7. Exercise 2, brought to a conclusion
• Could students please offer their arguments
using the board/flipchart?
• I can offer my own.
• You may draft yours on the sheet printed as
Exercise 2.
7

8. Check on Contradictions and
Power
• Three types of contradiction-
– People fighting against power
– People being both for/against a norm
– People contradicting what they said earlier.
8

9. Check on Contradictions and
Power
• Three types of contradiction-
– People/agents/organisations fighting against
power
– People/agents/organisations being both
for/against a norm
– People/agents/organisations contradicting what
they said earlier.
9

10. 4210011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Thank you.
P.S. Something to read by Wendy Olsen on
ontology. . .
Olsen, W.K. (2006), “Pluralism, Poverty and
Sharecropping: Cultivating Open-Mindedness in
Development Studies”, Journal of Development
Studies, 42:7, pgs. 1130-1157.
or
Olsen, Wendy, (2009) “Moral Political Economy and
Moral Reasoning About Rural India: Four
Theoretical Schools Compared”, Cambridge
Journal of Economics,
http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/33/5/875.pdf,
33:5, 875-902.