Why Are Assumptions Important?

  • Apollo M. Nkwake


Assumptions are the foci for any theory and thus any paradigm. It is important to make assumptions explicit and to make a sufficient number of assumptions 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 2:235–60, 1978, p. 235) 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.” Assumptions can be rated on a scale of articulation from tacit to explicit.


Importance of assumptions  Argumentation  Evidence generation  Methodology selection  Ontological assumptions  Epistemological assumptions  Foci of paradigms  Assumptions in theory  Explicating assumptions  Scale of assumptions articulation 


  1. Babbie, E. R. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, J., & Niehaves, B. (2007). Epistemological perspectives on IS research: A framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions. Information Systems Journal, 17, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, G. E. (1933). Assumptions. Accounting Review, 8(2), 157–159.Google Scholar
  4. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds, UK: Leeds Books.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borg, W., & Gall, M. (1983). Educational research: An introduction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Longman Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Brannen, J. (2012). Expert voices. In S.E. Baker & R. Edwards. How many qualitative interviews is enough. National Centre for Research Methods Review Discussion Paper (pp. 16–17). Retrieved from
  8. Bredo, E., & Feinberg, W. (1982). Knowledge and values in social and educational research. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryman, A. (1998). Quantitative and qualitative research strategies in knowing the social world. In T. May & M. W. (Eds.), Knowing the social world (pp. 138–156). Bucking, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, R., & Wasco, S. M. (2000). Feminist approaches to social science: Epistemological and methodological tenets. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6), 773–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coomer, D. (1984). Critical science: Approach to vocational education research. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 9(4), 34.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crossan, M., Lane, H., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L. (1995). Organizational learning: Dimensions for a theory. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granello, D. H. (2002). Assessing the cognitive development of counseling students: Changes in epistemological assumptions. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41(4), 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene, J. C., & Curucelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, J. C., Lipsey, M. W., & Schwandt, T. A. (2007). Method choice: Five discussant commentaries. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Hammersley, M. (1995). The politics of social research. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Hawkins, D. F. (1978). Applied research and social theory. Evaluation Quarterly, 2(1), 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about Knowledge and knowing their relation to Learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.Google Scholar
  32. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1), 3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Kanazawa, S. (1988). In defense of unrealistic assumptions. Sociological Theory, 16(2), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan, S. A., & Garrett, K. E. (2005). The use of logic models by community-based initiatives. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kies, D. (1995). Underlying assumptions. Retrieved from
  38. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lynn, S. J., Weekes, J. R., & Milano, M. J. (1989). Reality versus suggestion: Pseudomemory in hypnotizable and simulating subjects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 198(2), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mason, P., & Barnes, M. (2007). Constructing theories of change: Methods and sources. Evaluation, 13(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mingers, J. A. (2003). Classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(6), 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mir, R., & Watson, A. (2001). Critical realism and constructivism in strategy research: Toward A synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1169–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mitroff, I., & Bonoma, T. V. (1978). Psychological assumptions, experimentation, and real world problems: A critique and an alternate approach to evaluation. Evaluation Quarterly, 2(2), 235–260. Scholar
  44. Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. The Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagel, E. (1963). Assumptions in economic theory. The American Economic Review, 53(2), 211–219.Google Scholar
  46. Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  47. Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9), 785–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioners-researchers. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scates, D. E. (1940). Assumptions underlying research data. The Journal of Educational Research., 34(4), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scott, D., & Usher, R. S. (1996). Understanding educational research. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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, NY: Times Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 566–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ullman-Margalit, E. (1983). On presumption. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(3), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Warner, R. S. (1978). Toward a redefinition of action theory: Paying the cognitive element its due. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1317–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weiss, C. H. (2011). 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
  61. Weiss, C. H. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation, 87(Fall), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. Williams, D. D. (1986). When is naturalistic evaluation appropriate? New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Apollo M. Nkwake
    • 1
  1. 1.Questions LLCMarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations