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

Theorizing with managers: how to achieve both academic rigor and practical relevance?

Purpose. There are heightened concerns that the theory-praxis gap is widening, despite decades of academic literature addressing the issue. We 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. Thus, the aim of this paper is to investigate how academic researchers in management and marketing can theorize with managers in order to generate results that are both academically rigorous and managerially relevant. Design/methodology/approach. Based on a literature review of collaborative theorizing processes, we 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. Findings. 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 twelve 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. Originality/value. This paper makes two contributions. First, we 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, we ground collaborative theorizing processes in the philosophy of science and put abduction forward as a common nominator for such studies

Design Thinking

{Excerpt} In a world of continuous flux, where markets mature faster and everyone is affected by information overload, organizations regard innovation, including management innovation, as the prime driver of sustainable competitive advantage. To unlock opportunities, some of them use mindsets and protocols from the field of design to make out unarticulated wants and deliberately imagine, envision, and spawn futures. Design is more important when function is taken for granted and no longer helps stakeholders differentiate. In the last five years, design thinking has emerged as the quickest organizational path to innovation and high-performance, changing the way creativity and commerce interact. In the past, design was a downstream step in the product development process, aiming to enhance the appeal of an existing product. Today, however, organizations ask designers to imagine solutions that meet explicit or latent needs and to build upstream entire systems that optimize customer experience and satisfaction. Therefore, although the term design is commonly understood to describe an object (or end result), it is in its latest and most effective form a process, an action, and a verb, not a noun: essentially, it is a protocol to see, shape, and build. Lately, design approaches are also being applied to infuse insight into the heart of campaigns and address social and other concerns

Human-machine scientific discovery

International audienceHumanity is facing existential, societal challenges related to food security, ecosystem conservation, antimicrobial resistance, etc, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already playing an important role in tackling these new challenges. Most current AI approaches are limited when it comes to ‘knowledge transfer’ with humans, i.e. it is difficult to incorporate existing human knowledge and also the output knowledge is not human comprehensible. In this chapter we demonstrate how a combination of comprehensible machine learning, text-mining and domain knowledge could enhance human-machine collaboration for the purpose of automated scientific discovery where humans and computers jointly develop and evaluate scientific theories. As a case study, we describe a combination of logic-based machine learning (which included human-encoded ecological background knowledge) and text-mining from scientific publications (to verify machine-learned hypotheses) for the purpose of automated discovery of ecological interaction networks (food-webs) to detect change in agricultural ecosystems using the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops dataset. The results included novel food-web hypotheses, some confirmed by subsequent experimental studies (e.g. DNA analysis) and published in scientific journals. These machine-leaned food-webs were also used as the basis of a recent study revealing resilience of agro-ecosystems to changes in farming management using GMHT crops

What’s so bad about scientism?

In their attempt to defend philosophy from accusations of uselessness made by prominent scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, some philosophers respond with the charge of ‘scientism.’ This charge makes endorsing a scientistic stance, a mistake by definition. For this reason, it begs the question against these critics of philosophy, or anyone who is inclined to endorse a scientistic stance, and turns the scientism debate into a verbal dispute. In this paper, I propose a different definition of scientism, and thus a new way of looking at the scientism debate. Those philosophers who seek to defend philosophy against accusations of uselessness would do philosophy a much better service, I submit, if they were to engage with the definition of scientism put forth in this paper, rather than simply make it analytic that scientism is a mistake

Abductive Reasoning in WTO Law

Law is about many things, but at base it is about rights and obligations. That jural correlation is established and sustained by means of reasoning. We hold that an actor has a right or obligation by virtue of reasoning that classically occurs in one of two forms. An obligation creates a right by means of inductive logic that rests on the conviction of similar instances in the past and the need for proof. It can also create an obligation by means of deductive logic, that is, the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) that are used to reach a logically certain conclusion. The matched pairing of induction and deduction has been present in law and international law for a long time. The pairing is attractive because it infers a certain symmetry and logical harmony. What has intrigued some commentators surveying the dualism in legal reasoning is the possibility of some other form of reasoning, a third order of logic. A number of commentators are prone to regard deduction and induction as co-terminous, essentially exclusive and exhaustive. Some commentators, however, have identified something additional. It stands to reason that if there are conventionally two modes of logic operating in any one moment, then their combined operation across all moments should create a third thing, or tertium quid, as their product. This product, I suggest, is abductive reasoning. WTO law contains some marked examples of the interaction of deductive and inductive logic that culminate in abduction. The experience suggests that, at the end of the day, reasoning – and indeed knowledge – are provisional. It also explains some of the open-endedness of comments made in WTO decisions, such as the observation in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II that “WTO rules are not so rigid or so inflexible as not to leave room for reasoned judgements in confronting the endless and ever-changing ebb and flow of real facts in real cases in the real world.

Modes of Reasoning in WTO Law

How the law reasons is central to its legitimacy. This article examines how legal reasoning is characterized by two types of logic, deductive and inductive, which are apparent in the legal system of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The article goes on to suggest that the interaction of deductive reasoning in the form of presumptions and inductive reasoning in the form of proof give rise to a third type of logic, abductive logic, defined as the ‘best’ estimate on current knowledge. It then examines how this three-fold combination of ideas is displayed in WTO law and explores what implications this has for understanding of the WTO legal system