Inductive reasoning enables us, as we have seen (in the earlier topic sheet Working with Facts), to create thought-provoking and diverse hypotheses intuitively from a few simple facts.

As we test the hypotheses, further facts emerge, giving rise to new hypotheses. But how can we be sure that we are not overlooking important areas of enquiry? The value of our work may be greatly reduced if we do not seek out essential but elusive facts. But how can we know when the research is done?

The Limitations of the Intuitive-Inductive Approach

The simple process of working inductively upwards from facts into the higher realm of creative thinking may be sufficient for the needs of a project that is primarily creative, as opposed to primarily factual. If one is writing a novel against the background of a well-documented period in history, for example, the facts are important only insofar as they give credibility to the characters and the narrative.

As we deal with more and more facts, the process of inductive reasoning tends to become unwieldy. When writing a biography, for example, the writer may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of factual information. We have seen how easy it is to generate many hypotheses from just a few facts. The inductive possibilities arising from a library of facts are infinite. The challenge for the writer is not so much the creation of ideas as the need to focus on the areas of creative thinking most likely to yield productive conclusions.

The shortcomings of the intuitive-inductive approach are most apparent in the face of a need for intellectual rigour. For example, if an historian hopes to pursue an essentially deductive argument (again, see the earlier topic sheet Working with Facts), showing how specific outcomes were shaped by historical precedents, s/he must be sure to seek out all the facts that are relevant to the argument. To the extent that inductive reasoning is a creative process, if offers no certainty that one's creative thinking will point the way towards all the areas of enquiry that rigour demands.

In short, if one's writing project makes more than casual use of facts, the creative imperative of inductive thinking must be balanced, even governed, by a more analytical process. If the facts are seeds that grow, wild and uncultivated, through inductive reasoning, there must be careful husbandry if the plant is to be nurtured, shaped and shown among others to full effect.

Inductive Reasoning Made Analytical

Business problem solvers (in management consultants Booz Allen Hamilton c. 1980) devised a technique for achieving greater rigour without sacrificing the creative power of inductive thinking. Let us consider an illustration based on business thinking, before going on to see how the technique applies to fact-based creative writing.

Imagine that a company wishes to solve a problem of declining profitability. The first step in solving the problem is to identify all the factors that affect profitability. These might include:

• product quality
• customer satisfaction
• competitive environment
• use of technology
• staff motivation

The categories are purely illustrative and not at all comprehensive, but the crucial point is that the list of factors (known as "issues") brings structure to a complex, seemingly unstructured problem. Our understanding of the problem may be increased further by dividing "issues" into sub-issues and sub-sub-issues.

Notice how the "issues" are presented in non-judgmental terms, so that they inspire creative thinking rather than constraining ideas.

This part of the process has also become known as "mind mapping".

Hypothesising about the Issues

The Booz Allen Hamilton methodology goes a crucial step further, suggesting that the problem solver should proceed to formulate hypotheses that offer possible answers to the issues.

For example, the issue of competitive environment might inspire hypotheses such as the following:

• Competitors are bringing new products to market several months faster than this company.
• Companies that have transferred production to developing countries have achieved significant profit improvements.
• There is a trend towards cheaper, no-frills products.

Once again, we are formulating hypotheses inductively. The important difference is that these hypotheses are inspired by our existing knowledge of the world in which the problem exists, rather than by a few, perhaps random, observations about the problem. The hypotheses may not prove to be particularly sound, since they are based on limited knowledge of the facts. However this does not matter since the hypotheses, having shaped the research (by covering the full range of issues), will ultimately be shaped by it.

In other words, having formulated hypotheses across the full range of "issues", we stand a much better chance of doing justice to all the issues. If, by contrast, we tried to solve the profitability problem by formulating hypotheses exclusively from the facts available within the company, we might accidentally overlook crucial issues such as competitor behaviour, with disastrous consequences for the quality and credibility of our work.

Balancing Creative and Analytical Thinking

This "top-down" approach - starting with a concise definition of the project and working "downwards" through issues and hypotheses towards the facts - is only possible if we have a reasonably good working knowledge of the facts: otherwise there is no proper basis for informed inductive reasoning. In other words, if we know the subject reasonably well, we can formulate potentially fruitful hypotheses before beginning the research work, thereby saving any wasted research effort.

The "bottom-up" approach - establishing some facts and hypothesising from them - is a good way of working up an initial awareness of a relatively unfamiliar subject. However it must be superseded by "top-down" thinking at some stage of the project if any degree of analytical rigour is required.

The "top-down" process of forming hypotheses from a framework of issues may be easily be applied to a fact-based writing project by starting with a short project brief instead of a problem definition. For example, if the brief is to write a biography of such-and-such a literary figure, some of the issues will be immediately apparent: upbringing, literary influences, etc. Other issues will become apparent as specific details of the subject's life come to light: childlessness, linguistic ability, emigration, mental illness, or whatever.

There are no standard patterns here. No two subjects are identical. Furthermore the definition of issues and sub-issues is fundamentally a creative process, despite the fact that its aim is to provide analytical rigour.