→vs. Other Frameworks

When to use IAI — and when not to

IAI is not universally superior to other research methods. It is designed for one specific class of problem: generating the theoretical category that does not yet exist. For other problem classes, other methods are more appropriate. This table draws directly from the paper's analysis in Section 3.

Method	Starting point	Primary instrument	What it produces	Designed for	Not designed for
IAI — Whetstone Method ✦	Post-experiential provocation	Structured adversarial debate	New theoretical categories	✓ Generating constructs that do not yet exist	✗ Hypothesis-testing within existing paradigms
Hypothetico-Deductive (HD)	Prior theory → hypothesis	Empirical falsification	Tested, falsifiable claims	✓ Testing what is already imaginable and nameable	✗ Generating constructs that cannot yet be pre-registered
Grounded Theory (GT)	Data without prior hypothesis	Constant comparative coding	Theory grounded in empirical data	✓ Phenomena where the gap is empirical — the right theory awaits the right data	✗ Phenomena where the gap is conceptual — the right category does not yet exist
Delphi Method	Expert panel + questionnaire	Structured consensus convergence	Collective expert estimate	✓ Forecasting, policy prioritisation, expert consensus under uncertainty	✗ Generating genuinely novel theoretical categories — consensus pools existing knowledge

Key distinction from Grounded Theory: GT begins with data and brackets prior assumptions. IAI begins with a provocation and makes prior assumptions explicit and productive. GT is suited to empirical gaps; IAI is suited to conceptual gaps. The methods are complementary, not competing.