Rules for Confirmation Qualitative confirmation rests on the assumption that there is a hypothesis or at least a hypothetical statement for the study, that data collected through qualitative methodologies will remain qualitative data and that this data can be manipulated within a set of rules. M&F propose just such a set of rules for confirmation of qualitative research. The rules are the application of deductive reasoning in an effort to confirm that the research data logically confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis framed for the study. To apply the rules, therefore, the researcher's first task is to define a hypothesis; it can be either a priori or a posteriori. The next challenge for the researcher is to determine data collection methods that will produce "evidence­instances". "Evidence­instances" are the result of the qualitative data being recast as evidential statements for confirmation. Here are the rules, exactly as written by M&F (pages 41­42, emphasis in original): Rule 1: The qualitative evidence instances must be positive for the development of the hypothesis. If they constitute a denial of the hypothesis, they disconfirm the hypothesis (see Hempel's 9.3 Df.). 1.1 The limiting "weak" case for confirmation would be the existence of only one positive instance, and for disconfirmation the existence of one (and only one) negative instance. Rule 2: If the evidence instances constitute a methodologically unique class ( 8 ), they must (minimally) not be contradictory to one another. 2.1 As a class, the statements should entail the development of the hypothesis, while the possibility of their own entailment(s) is left open. 2.2 If this class consists of only two instances and they contradict each other, then the hypothesis is neither confirmed or disconfirmed. 2.3 If this class consists of numerous instances, some of which are contradictory to the hypothesis, then (2.2) obtains, unless it can be shown that there are more instances (positive or negative) and these should be counted for or against the hypothesis, or the above instances should be given a priori "weights" in terms of importance. Note: the assignment of these weights could be given by an agreement of knowledgeable experts. Rule 3: If relevant background evidence can be adduced for the hypothesis under consideration, and if this evidence alone is sufficient for the development (e.g., entailment) of the hypothesis, and, furthermore, if it is non-contradictory to the class chosen as evidence for confirming the hypothesis, then the given hypothesis may be said to be confirmed. 3.1 If the background evidence is sufficient for the development of the hypothesis but is contradictory to the evidence chosen for confirmation, the hypothesis' confirmation will remain undetermined. Rule 4:For a given hypothesis that is to be confirmed by evidence instances derived from a variety of methodological approaches, the class comprising these statements should first be partitioned into relevant categories, i.e., historical-narrative, ethnographic, documentary, quantitative, etc. 4.1 statements within categories should be internally consistent (non-contradictory) 4.2 Each partitioned subset need not be sufficient for the derivation of the hypothesis, but the totality of subsets comprising the class should be sufficient (and, hopefully necessary). 4.3 Depending on the number of subsets, if one subset contradicts the others, either partially or wholly, the confirmation of the hypothesis is left undetermined. 4.4 If one subset is disconfirming to the hypothesis but neutral or non-contradictory tothe remaining subsets, and the remaining ones are consistent, the hypothesis will be considered confirmed. 4.5 The hypothesis will be considered disconfirmed (i.e., rejected) if (a) all subsets disconfirm, (b) if a majority disconfirm, or (c) in the limiting case of two subsets, where one is contradictory to the other, if additional grounds (i.e., agreement by experts) can be adduced for the disconfirming subset, this will be taken as sufficient for disconfirmation. (In this case the evidence has been "weighted" towards disconfirmation; of course, the converse, i.e. for confirmation, could be similarly argued.) Return to Contents Table. Go on to the next section (Application of Rules).