Here is my thoughts about the questions I posted a couple of weeks ago. Any comments are more than welcome.
Instead of using traditional inductive and deductive procedures in which the text elements are examined and categorized according to their frequency, I have used the method of abduction in the reconstructive analyses of lived experiences and family histories and collective histories of my participants and the societies they lived in. 
The abduction method first extracts an observed event, fact or concatenation from the interview transcripts, rather than applying pre-established theories from the outset. In this method facts are produced from the participants’ actual life experiences and events within an objective spatial-temporal situation, consisting of the existential condition in which actions and decisions are embedded. 
Secondly, a hypothetical reading of an observed event or concatenation which shows up in interrelated sequences is developed by the researcher and the team members. The hypothetical interpretation includes not only how this observed event, situation, or concatenation could be experienced in relation to the context of age, personal development, family, generation, and historical period of a society and milieu, but also how this set of events back in these historical circumstances could shape the later life of the individual and family development (i.e. what might happen subsequently to the subject and his/her family development), so that questions concerning how the subjects would respond to them can be developed in the form of follow-up hypotheses (FHs). 
More importantly, these hypotheses and follow-up hypotheses are tested against subsequently revealed empirical data, and this sequential analysis involves verifying or disproving hypotheses once a subsequent datum is revealed, which makes it possible to narrow the initial wide range of hypotheses. The procedure of hypothetical reading and testing also reveals which of the hypotheses are more probable and which less probable. Through the exclusion of the latter it is possible to limit the analysis in the process of revealing datum after datum.
The team are invited to formulate and develop a variety of contradictory and different possible readings in order to formulate hypotheses about all the possibilities that are available for the subject in a certain historical situation. These are then contrasted with the actual selections he/she makes or excludes and with the team’s FHs as to what the consequences of these selections are for the future of the subjects and his/her family. As the sequential analysis proceeds, whether the subject systematically ruled out or ignored certain possibilities of actions becomes apparent, and rules or principles that determined their selection and actions might be discovered. 
Take the example of Mrs. Su. When the team members were told Mrs. Su was assigned a position at the library of Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences upon graduation, in accordance with the 1982 social context in China the team hypothesised that Mrs. Su would have been happy and content in her job because a university job was a very attractive option in the 1980s. Furthermore, people with HE degrees were few and far between at that time, and were highly prized. A follow-up hypothesis from this datum was that she would continue to be happy with her job and would focus on her son David's upbringing. As the analysis proceeded, however, this hypothesis was weakened and eventually falsified by the evidence of subsequent data. Mrs. Su decided to go to Australia in 1989 and qualified as a registered valuer in her forties. Her subjective historical perspective is analysed in third step of the method:
“The job is good, but I feel restless at the moment. In 1989 I resigned from my job, even though it was a good workplace.” 
Being a filing clerk at the bottom of a hierarchical state organization hindered Mrs. Su's ambitious goals in her life – being honoured by the state and continually aspiring to progress. This is how the abductive interpretation distinguishes itself from traditional inductive and deductive analysis, where the initial hypothetical readings which were formulated from the researcher and team members are tested against the empirical data from the subjects' own actions and interpretations. 
If there is no linkage from subsequently revealed empirical datum to support and falsify established particular FHs, then there is no point (very little) in reporting the FHs in the final writing-up (Wengraf, 2013).