Theorising and practitioners in HRD: the role of abductive reasoning

Purpose – 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. Design/methodology/approach – 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. Findings – 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. Research limitations/implications – While this is a conceptual paper, it does suggest implications for engagement and participation in theorising with HRD practitioners. Practical implications – Abductive reasoning adds to the repertoire of HRD scholars and practitioners. Originality/value – The paper elucidates the value of abductive reasoning and points to how it can become an integral element of theory building in HRD

Auditor independence and audit risk: a reconceptualisation

The principles-based U.K. regulatory framework for auditor independence (Chartered Accountants Joint Ethics Committee 1996), which was adopted in 1997, identifies threats to independence in fact, independence in appearance, and the safeguards that control these threats. These principles are incorporated in the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC 2001) ethics framework. Drawing on six case studies of interactions involving significant accounting issues between audit engagement partners and finance directors in U.K.-listed companies, we analyze the threats and safeguards to auditor independence in fact that are relevant to the outcome of each interaction. Despite the U.K.'s comprehensive regulatory framework for independence, audit quality control, and independent inspection of firms, not all the interactions have a fully compliant outcome. Independence in fact is compromised where the safeguards in the framework are insufficient defense against the threats, particularly regarding intimidation and bullying during the audit process. Further examples of existing threats are identified and additional threats emerge, in particular an urgency threat, and a loss of face threat. Management motivation is found to be a key driver of pressure. Threats to independence arising within audit firms are not recognized in the current U.K. audit risk model. An extended risk model incorporating within-firm risk is suggested. This study demonstrates the need for continual improvement to regulatory frameworks; in particular it supports the recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule on improper influence on the conduct of audits (Securities and Exchange Commission 2003a)

Nominal Abstraction

Recursive relational specifications are commonly used to describe the computational structure of formal systems. Recent research in proof theory has identified two features that facilitate direct, logic-based reasoning about such descriptions: the interpretation of atomic judgments through recursive definitions and an encoding of binding constructs via generic judgments. However, logics encompassing these two features do not currently allow for the definition of relations that embody dynamic aspects related to binding, a capability needed in many reasoning tasks. We propose a new relation between terms called nominal abstraction as a means for overcoming this deficiency. We incorporate nominal abstraction into a rich logic also including definitions, generic quantification, induction, and co-induction that we then prove to be consistent. We present examples to show that this logic can provide elegant treatments of binding contexts that appear in many proofs, such as those establishing properties of typing calculi and of arbitrarily cascading substitutions that play a role in reducibility arguments.Comment: To appear in the Journal of Information and Computatio

Linking objective and subjective modeling in engineering design through arc-elastic dominance

Engineering design in mechanics is a complex activity taking into account both objective modeling processes derived from physical analysis and designers’ subjective reasoning. This paper introduces arc-elastic dominance as a suitable concept for ranking design solutions according to a combination of objective and subjective models. Objective models lead to the aggregation of information derived from physics, economics or eco-environmental analysis into a performance indicator. Subjective models result in a confidence indicator for the solutions’ feasibility. Arc-elastic dominant design solutions achieve an optimal compromise between gain in performance and degradation in confidence. Due to the definition of arc-elasticity, this compromise value is expressive and easy for designers to interpret despite the difference in the nature of the objective and subjective models. From the investigation of arc-elasticity mathematical properties, a filtering algorithm of Pareto-efficient solutions is proposed and illustrated through a design knowledge modeling framework. This framework notably takes into account Harrington’s desirability functions and Derringer’s aggregation method. It is carried out through the re-design of a geothermal air conditioning system

Hume’s problem, epistemic deductivism and the validation of induction

Contrary to Owen (2000), Hume's problem is, as has traditionally been supposed, a problem for the justification of inductive inference. But, contrary to tradition, induction on Hume's account is not deductively invalid. Furthermore, on a more modem conception of inductive or ampliative inference, it is a mistake to suppose that the proper construal of an argument explicating the supposed justification for such inferences should in general be non-deductive. On a general requirement for argument cogency that arguments should be suitably constructed so as to make it clear to the audience that the subject is justified, on whatever basis is cited, in regarding the hypothesis with whatever epistemic attitude the arguer purports to be so justified, arguments in general, fully explicated and properly construed, should be deductively valid. Hume’s problem does not prevent such justification because his crucial argument establishes only that our basic assumptions cannot be justified, in the sense of being 'proven', or shown by non-question-begging argument to be just. It does not establish that our basic assumptions, properly explicated, are not just, or that they are not (at least to the satisfaction of most of us) clearly so. Nor does Goodman's 'new riddle' of induction pose a serious problem for the justification of our inductive inferences, as is still commonly suggested, since Jackson figured out the solution to the riddle thirty years ago. There is an analogous problem to Hume’s for the provability of principles or claims of deductive inferability, and if my analysis of the proper construal structure of argument (in the natural sense) is correct, this will block Howson's (2000) proposed escape route. Nevertheless, as with the case of induction, the unprovability of basic claims and principles of deductive inferability does not bar their deployment in cogent justifications

What Can Artificial Intelligence Do for Scientific Realism?

The paper proposes a synthesis between human scientists and artificial representation learning models as a way of augmenting epistemic warrants of realist theories against various anti-realist attempts. Towards this end, the paper fleshes out unconceived alternatives not as a critique of scientific realism but rather a reinforcement, as it rejects the retrospective interpretations of scientific progress, which brought about the problem of alternatives in the first place. By utilising adversarial machine learning, the synthesis explores possibility spaces of available evidence for unconceived alternatives providing modal knowledge of what is possible therein. As a result, the epistemic warrant of synthesised realist theories should emerge bolstered as the underdetermination by available evidence gets reduced. While shifting the realist commitment away from theoretical artefacts towards modalities of the possibility spaces, the synthesis comes out as a kind of perspectival modelling

Gravity gradient stabilization system for the applications technology satellite Eighth monthly progress report, 1-28 Feb. 1965

Gravity gradient stabilizing boom and dampers and attitude sensor systems for applications technology satellit

A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency

This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and may indeed serve to correct, the informal understanding and applications of the RSA criteria concerning their conceptual dependence, their function as update-thresholds, and their status as obligatory rather than permissive norms, but also show how these formal and informal normative approachs can in fact align