This piece focuses on the challenges of applying Western theoretical concepts in non-Western contexts – particularly through a retroductive approach applied to higher education (HE) research in Kazakhstan. Theoretical frameworks are foundational in research, offering structured lenses for analysing complex phenomena. However, in the social sciences and humanities, theories are not universally applicable – their relevance often depends on context. Much academic scholarship is influenced by Western theories, while Kazakhstan’s HE system, with its Soviet legacy and ongoing post-Soviet transformation, presents a markedly different context. This divergence does not render Western theories irrelevant; rather, it underscores the need for their critical adaptation. The methodological practice of retroductive inference plays a central role in this adaptive process. As an iterative approach, retroduction continuously integrates empirical evidence (as in ‘induction’) with theoretical insight (as in ‘deduction’), enabling a dynamic interplay between data and theory (Belfrage & Hauf, 2017; Meyer & Lunnay, 2013). By emphasising this method, I argue that theoretical frameworks require ongoing reassessment when employed beyond their original sociopolitical contexts.

Following a retroductive logic, I applied Gramsci’s (1971) theory of intellectuals – which examines academia’s role in sustaining societal hegemony (p. 12) – to evaluate how effectively this framework captures the dynamics of the Kazakhstani HE context. Gramsci distinguishes between two types of intellectuals: organic and traditional. Organic intellectuals emerge from and align with a ruling class within a given economic structure, promoting hegemonic norms and values (Gramsci, 1971, p. 9). Traditional intellectuals, by contrast, appear autonomous and often act as if independent of dominant social groups (Gramsci, 1971, p. 9). While the former typically support the status quo, the latter may foster counter-hegemonic knowledge.

In my research, I focused on faculty members at Kazakhstani universities – key actors in the national system of intellectuals – as they are engaged not only in disseminating but also in producing knowledge. Initially, in line with Gramsci’s framework, I hypothesised that the younger, post-Soviet generation of faculty members could be seen as today’s organic intellectuals, while the older, Soviet-era faculty might represent traditional intellectuals – formerly organic under the Soviet regime. However, interviews with Kazakhstani faculty prompted a reassessment of this binary. The data encouraged a more nuanced understanding of Kazakhstan’s post-Soviet intellectual landscape.

The retroductive cycle revealed that the academic landscape in Kazakhstan cannot be neatly divided between senior Soviet-era and post-Soviet faculty: not all younger academics function as organic intellectuals. A more salient divide exists between those who are English-speaking, internationally educated or socialised in Western-style institutions, and those who are primarily Russian- or Kazakh-speaking, educated in Soviet-inherited institutions, and less exposed to global academic norms. The latter often align ideologically with older, Soviet-trained scholars. This suggests that the categories of organic and traditional intellectuals should not be treated as fixed or clear cut, but rather as ideal types. In practice, intellectuals occupy a spectrum – with overlapping identities, orientations and positionalities.

‘The task is not to reject Western theories outright, but to engage with them critically – testing, refining and recalibrating their assumptions to account for local complexity and historical specificity.’

Throughout the retroductive process, I continually reconnected interview data with original theory and initial assumptions, refining my hypotheses and exploring alternative explanations (Barnett et al., 2016). Discrepancies between theory and data revealed contradictions that prompted further reflection. This iterative process continued until theoretical saturation was reached – when emerging explanations cohered into a more comprehensive understanding. Unlike linear methods, retroductive analysis allows theorisation to evolve dynamically through sustained engagement with both data and theory (Ritz, 2020).

Despite certain limitations, Gramsci’s framework still offers valuable insights into HE reform in Kazakhstan. Through the concept of a system of intellectuals, we can better understand how faculty members play a central role in legitimising and disseminating norms that uphold hegemonic structures. However, the process of adapting such theories reinforced the importance of careful contextualisation. The task is not to reject Western theories outright, but to engage with them critically – testing, refining and recalibrating their assumptions to account for local complexity and historical specificity.

References

Barnett, A. J., Baggio, J. A., Shin, H. C., Yu, D. J., Perez-Ibarra, I., Rubiños, C., & Anderies, J. M. (2016). An iterative approach to case study analysis: Insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.632

Belfrage, C., & Hauf, F. (2017). The gentle art of retroduction: Critical realism, cultural political economy, and critical grounded theory. Organisation Studies, 38(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616663239

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell-Smith, Eds. & Trans.). Lawrence & Wishart.

Meyer, S. B., & Lunnay, B. (2013). The application of abductive and retroductive inference for the design and analysis of theory-driven sociological research. Sociological Research Online, 18(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2819

Ritz, B. (2020). Comparing abduction and retroduction in Peircean pragmatism and critical realism. Journal of Critical Realism, 19(5), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2020.1831817