Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why are Assumptions Important?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation

Abstract

Assumptions are the foci for any theory and thus any paradigm. It is also important that assumptions are made explicit, and that the number of assumptions is sufficient to describe the phenomenon at hand. Explication of assumptions is even more crucial in research methods used to test the theories. As Mitroff and Bonoma (Evaluation Quarterly 2(2):235–260, 1978) have eloquently put it: “the power of an experiment is only as strong as the clarity of the basic assumptions which underlie it. Such assumptions not only underlie laboratory experimentation but social evaluation research as well.” A scale of articulation of assumptions is represented: (a) Very ambiguously tacit assumptions held in divergent beliefs; (b) Tacit but more obvious assumptions-where parties more or less have shared although unexpressed perceptions or beliefs e.g., legal assumptions in litigation; (c) Informally, explicit assumptions e.g., indirectly expressed or inherent in shared stories, norms, un-codified symbols, and myths; (d) Assumptions that are made explicit. E.g. in theories and models, policies and programs, research and methodology but untested; and (e) Explicit and tested assumptions.

Apparently, assumption is believed to provide an easy or lazy person’s way out of what seems to be, at least at first glance, a perplexing situation. At least, one is not justified in going ahead and making some assumption which moderately expressed is wholly an arbitrary one. Accuracy of interpretation never can be supplanted by assumption. I assume one thing, you assume something else, and the other fellows each assume something different from each of the others. Grant the acceptance of assumption, and then any one of a 100 different solutions is correct. Could anything be more ridiculous?

Bennet 1933, p. 158

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Babbie, E. R. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., & Niehaves, B. (2007). Epistemological perspectives on IS research: A framework for analyzing and systematizing epistemological assumptions. Information Systems Journal, 17, 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, G. E. (1933). Assumptions. The Accounting Review, 8(2), 157–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonell, C. (1999). Evidence based nursing: A stereo-typed view of quantitative and experimental research could work against professional autonomy and authority. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(1), 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, W., & Gall, M. (1983). Educational research: An introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredo, E., & Feinberg, W. (1982). Knowledge and values in social and educational research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (1998). Quantitative and qualitative research strategies in knowing the social world. In T. May & M. Williams (Eds.), Knowing the social world. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R., & Wasco, S. M. (2000). Feminist approaches to social science: Epistemological and methodological tenets. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6), 773–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. M. (1998). The qualitative-quantitative debate: moving from positivism and confrontation to post positivism and reconciliation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 1242–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, J. A., & Fonow, M. M. (1986). Knowledge and women’s interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. Sociological Inquiry, 56, 2–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coomer, D. (1984). Critical science: Approach to vocational education research. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 9(4), 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M., & Guatto, T. (1996). Organizational learning research profile. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M., Lane, H., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L. (1995). Organizational learning: Dimensions for a theory. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 337–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrick, J. (2010). Doubting the philosophical assumptions of interpretive research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(2), 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granello, D. H. (2002). Assessing the cognitive development of counseling students: changes in epistemological assumptions. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41(4), 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., & Curucelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 74(Summer), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., Lipsey, M. W., & Schwandt, T. A. (2007). Method choice: Five discussant commentaries. New Directions for Evaluation, 113(Spring), 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (1995). The politics of social research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. F. (1978). Applied research and social theory. Evaluation Quarterly, 2(1), 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(4), 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1), 3–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, B. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1996). The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: Comparison and contrast, ACM transactions on computer. Human Interaction, 3(4), 320–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa, S. (1988). In defense of unrealistic assumptions. Sociological Theory, 16(2), 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. A., & Garrett, K. E. (2005). The use of logic models by community-based initiatives. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 167–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerem, E., Fishman, N., & Josselson, R. (2001). The experience of empathy in everyday relationships: Cognitive and affective elements. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(5), 709–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kies, D. (1995). Assumptions. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp2/assume.htm.

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, S. J., Weekes, J. R., & Milano, M. J. (1989). Reality versus suggestion: Pseudo memory in hypnotizable and simulating subjects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 198(2), 137–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P., & Barnes, M. (2007). Constructing theories of change: Methods and sources. Evaluation, 13(2), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. A. (2003). Classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(6), 559–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mir, R., & Watson, A. (2001). Critical realism and constructivism in strategy research: Toward a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1169–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, J., & Bonoma, T. V. (1978). Experimentation, and real world problems. A critique and an alternate approach to evaluation of psychological assumptions. Evaluation Quarterly, 2(2), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. The Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 491–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1963). Assumptions in economic theory. The American Economic Review, 53(2), 211–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9), 785–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioners-researchers. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Revisiting the Quality and Quantity, 36, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scates, D. E. (1940). Assumptions underlying research data. The Journal of Educational Research, 34(4), 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D., & Usher, R. S. (1996). Understanding educational research. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shermer, M. (2011). The believing brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies-How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. New York: Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P., & Mitroff, I. I. (1984). Enhancing organizational research utilization: The role of decision makers’ assumptions. The Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 566–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman-Margalit, E. (1983). On presumption. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(3), 143–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, R. S. (1978). Toward a redefinition of action theory: paying the cognitive element its due. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1317–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubrisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Theory, measurement and analysis (Vol. 2, pp. 65–92). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation, 87(Fall), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. (2008). Objective approaches: Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. D. (1986). When is naturalistic evaluation appropriate? New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30(Summer), 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. World Vision, Inc, I Street NE 300, Washington, DC, 20002, USA

    Apollo M. Nkwake

Authors
  1. Apollo M. Nkwake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Apollo M. Nkwake .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nkwake, A.M. (2013). Why are Assumptions Important?. In: Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4797-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation