Search results

Qualitative researchers are often confronted with a dilemma of selecting an appropriate approach within which to situate their research. This has led to successive attempts by qualitative researchers in the built environment (BE) to combine two dominant approaches – deductive and inductive; in the conduct of their inquiry. Such attempts can be traced to the poor comprehension of the abductive approach. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the principles of the abductive approach and illustrate its applicability within the context of BE qualitative research.

In this study, an illustrative case study is used to depict the usefulness of the abductive approach in BE research. The case relied upon is a recently completed study of an infrastructure delivery system and an assessment of the system’s ability to deliver on socio-economic sustainability objectives.

It was established that extant theories, particularly those with a history of provenance, could be used as a basis for the development of testable propositions for assessing certain phenomena, qualitatively. However, the manner in which these propositions are utilised under an abductive approach is pivotal to the generation of credible findings.

It is expected that the findings of this paper would create awareness among researchers on the relevance of an abductive approach to qualitative research.

This study makes an authentic contribution towards resolving the challenge confronting qualitative researchers within the BE discipline as it pertains to selecting between deductive and inductive approaches. In this case, an abductive approach is suggested and its modalities shown through a comprehensive study.

To construct a framework for exploring and discussing the use of different research approaches – deductive, inductive and abductive – in logistics.

A review of research articles in three major logistics journals (International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management and Journal of Business Logistics) from 1998 to 2002.

Recognizes the dominance of deductive research in logistics, and the need for more inductive and, in particular, abductive research for theory development. Discusses the use of the abductive research approach in logistics.

Keywords searches led to a small sample size; more thorough content analysis is needed to apply the findings from the constructed framework.

Useful source of information on the three different research approaches, their possibilities and implications for research.

The abductive research approach has not yet been discussed in logistics.

The chapter discusses abductive thematic analysis as an innovative qualitative methodology in hospitality and tourism research. The novelty of the abductive approach is to combine the power of both deductive and inductive reasoning: it is possible to initiate the research starting from an existing theoretical, without renouncing to a creative phase where the researcher interprets the phenomenon beyond the words utilized and theorizes dependencies between concepts. The chapter further presents a case study to illustrate how abductive thematic analysis can be applied to study small hospitality and tourism businesses. The chapter further highlights the benefits of adapting thematic analysis to abductive reasoning, which is a paradigmatic position thus adding rigor to hospitality and tourism. The chapter finally highlights future avenues for development of methodology research toward adding further rigor to this novel methodology.

This paper focuses on the role of theory in the process of doing qualitative accounting research. It discusses the role of theory in qualitative accounting studies, and provides and example of how theory can be reflected upon, reassessed and refined during a research process.

This paper provides an illustrative account of theorizing during the process of qualitative accounting research. The paper places specific emphasis on an abductive approach to theorizing. An abductive theoretical framework is used to reflect on the theorizing process.

The “findings” reflect on the use of theory and the process of theorizing during a research process. The paper finds that abduction may be a useful way of theorizing in qualitative accounting research because it encourages the researcher to remain open to alternative explanations of data, which may promote theoretical development. This paper does not report the accounting practices of an organization in the traditional sense, but illustrates how the empirical findings led to an initial theoretical framework being developed.

The paper is intended to be informative in showing how theory can be used and developed during research. It may be of value and interest to new and emerging researchers. It may also interest established researchers seeking to reflect on their use of theory in research.

There are few contributions that focus exclusively and explicitly on how theory is used and developed during the process of qualitative accounting research. Moreover, the abductive approach has received limited attention in accounting. This paper aims to address these gaps.

The purpose of this article is to describe the similarities between abductive reasoning and entrepreneurial learning processes in order to contribute to the conceptual understanding of learning as an entrepreneurial process in itself.

The research is theoretically rooted in a conceptual development of the understanding of entrepreneurial learning processes as abductive reasoning inspired by the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. The theoretical explication of the connection between entrepreneurial learning processes and abductive reasoning is additionally illustrated by a hypotheses-based didactic model, developed by the authors to scaffold abducting reasoning into learning processes.

The authors found in the theoretical investigation of abductive reasoning a conceptualisation of entrepreneurial learning processes that connects entrepreneurial learning processes to basic cognitive human competences, and the authors found that key concepts in entrepreneurship, such as hunches and experiments, can be understood in a broader philosophical framework as basic cognitive competences.

The authors exemplify how abductive reasoning can be used in practice through a hypothesis-based didactic approach designed as a loop model.

The authors have discovered that abduction is closely related to entrepreneurship and can be a central conceptual link in understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship and learning. The athors also believe that Peirce's concept of abduction can contribute to the philosophical understanding of entrepreneurship as another name for a constant rethinking of the world.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that abductive reasoning is a typical but usually unrecognised process used by HRD scholars and practitioners alike.

This is a conceptual paper that explores recent criticism of traditional views of theory‐building, based on the privileging of scientific theorising, which has led to a relevance gap between scholars and practitioners. The work of Charles Sanders Peirce and the varieties of an abductive reasoning process are considered.

Abductive reasoning, which precedes induction and deduction, provide a potential connection with HRD practitioners who face difficult problems. Two types of abductive reasoning are explored – existential and analogic. Both offer possibilities for theorising with HRD practitioners. A range of methods for allowing abduction to become more evident with practitioners are presented. The authors consider how abduction can be used in engaged and participative research strategies.

While this is a conceptual paper, it does suggest implications for engagement and participation in theorising with HRD practitioners.

Abductive reasoning adds to the repertoire of HRD scholars and practitioners.

The paper elucidates the value of abductive reasoning and points to how it can become an integral element of theory building in HRD.

Based on a framework developed by Kovács and Spens, this paper seeks to assess the use of the three different research approaches in logistics research; discuss the use of different research methods within the three research approaches; find and discuss applications of the abductive research approach to logistics problems.

Content analysis is used in order to categorize the different research approaches. While content analysis commonly uses smaller units such as paragraphs, sentences, words or characters, this study used entire articles as the unit of analysis. The scope of the review encompassed five years (1998‐2002) of articles in IJLM, IJPDLM and JBL. A total of 378 articles was reviewed and categorized.

The findings of the study corroborate earlier studies regarding the main research approach used in logistics. Published logistics research is hypothetico‐deductive, with a strong emphasis on using survey methods. Nevertheless, inductive as well as abductive research is gaining importance. However, most logistics articles do not explicitly discuss the research process, nor the approach used. Therefore, a call for more explicit statements of the research approach is suggested.

The review of the articles is limited to three main journals in the field. A more comprehensive view of research approaches could be obtained by broadening the review to include also other types of research.

The paper provides a framework and guidelines to researchers for explicitly discussing the research approach used in logistics articles.

The paper provides an overview of the research approaches used in logistics research.

Does future thinking enhance managers’ innovative behavior? This study aims to posit that the ability to project events while considering current/future variables and their development (i.e. future thinking) – inextricably linked with the knowledge creation process – may enhance the manager’s accuracy and the number of potentially successful innovative ideas for organizations.

The authors use a between-group experiment to examine the innovation choices of 47 subjects with experience in evaluating the market potential of new products when asked to support or otherwise reject real-life innovation-related ideas. The authors test the accuracy of decisions made by participants primed to apply future thinking, practically implemented through abductive reasoning, in their decision-making.

The authors found a significant change in managers’ innovative choices, with participants primed for future thinking making significantly more accurate decisions than the control group. Those participants both correctly chose innovation-related ideas with significant future potential and rejected ideas with limited potential that ultimately failed.

This study explores how future thinking enhances managers’ innovative behavior in organizations. It provides empirical evidence on how future thinking, practiced through abductive reasoning, can work to foster innovative behavior, which is an antecedent of knowledge creation. Organizations that foster future thinking concurrently create knowledge, increasing their competitive advantage in the long run.

The aim of the paper is to address the widening theory-praxis gap in marketing. The authors propose that one viable solution to this challenge is involving practitioners in research processes as active, reflective and empowered participants. Most extant discussions addressing the inclusion of managers as partners in theorizing restrain themselves to an “if” question, arguing whether or not it is possible to create sufficiently rigorous knowledge in collaboration with practitioners. This leaves the “how” question unanswered, i.e. how should such gap-bridging research be conducted in practice.

Based on a literature review of collaborative theorizing processes, the authors develop a conceptual framework highlighting the main research design decisions when theorizing with managers. The use of the framework is illustrated with four research program examples.

Most accounts of theorizing with managers use – explicitly or implicitly – abduction as the main mode of inference. In addition to this philosophical commonality, our literature review identified 12 themes that should be considered when designing collaborative research processes. The four illustrative examples indicate that theorizing with managers is an effective way of producing and socializing both academically sound and managerially relevant knowledge. On the other hand, collaborative theorizing processes are time-consuming and studies using abductive reasoning may be more challenging to publish in top-tier journals.

This paper makes two contributions. First, the authors go beyond the extensive academic literature which provides a plethora of explanations and ideas for potential remedies for bridging the theory-praxis gap by offering a detailed description how one particular solution, theorizing with managers, unfolds in practice. Second, the authors ground collaborative theorizing processes in the philosophy of science and put abduction forward as a common nominator for such studies.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on how to apply the abductive research process for developing a theoretical explanation in studies on performance management and management control systems. This is important because theoretically ambitious research tends to require explanatory study outcomes, but prior research frameworks provide little guidance in this regard, potentially facilitating ill-defined research designs and a lack of common vocabulary and criteria for evaluating studies.

The authors introduce a methodological framework that distinguishes three interwoven theoretical abstraction levels: descriptive, analytical and explanatory. They use a recently published qualitative field study to illustrate an application of the framework.

The framework and its illustrated application make the systematic logic of the abductive research process visible and accessible to researchers. The authors explain how the framework supports moving from empirical description to theoretical explanation during the research process and where the three levels might open spaces for the positioning of novel practices and conceptual and theoretical innovations.

The framework provides guidance for an explanatory research design and theory-building purpose and has been developed in response to recent criticism in the field that highlights the wide gap between leading-edge practice and the lagging state of theory. It offers interdisciplinary vocabulary and evaluation criteria that can be applied by any accounting and management researcher regardless of whether they pursue critical, interpretive or positivist research and whether they primarily use qualitative or quantitative research methods.