Two Strategies for

Inductive
Reasoning in
Organizational
Research

Mikko Ketokivi Saku Mantere 2010

Published in Academy of Management

Review 35 (2), 315-333

1
2 Summary

The paper argues the incompleteness of inductive reasoning,

an extant debate in organizational inquiry. While presenting an
alternative strategies: idealization and contextualization as
reasoning approaches to overcome the incompleteness of
inductive reasoning. They in the process also pin point the
limitations of these strategies and differentiate the
methodological and policy dimension of evaluation of research
 Toulmin (2003) Uses of Argument
3 the model posits reasoning as social negotiation which takes place as dialogue
among scientific community. It states how theoretical claims are made

Background
- The problem, question
- Context of claim

Reasons: Evidence:
Claims:
-Major premise -Minor premise
propositions,
-logic underlying -data backing reasons
hypothesis
-Grounds -warrants
-explanations

Qualifiers: Reservation:
-when claims holds -Limitations: Ground for rebuttal
-Assumption -Logical refutation :validity
-Boundary conditions -Empirical refutation: Truth
-Contingency Cogency of argument: persuasiveness
4 Three Main parts of the argument

Claim: This is the main point, the thesis, the controlling idea. The
claim may be directly stated (usually at the first of a text, but
sometimes at the end, especially for effect) or the claim may be
implied. You can find the claim by asking the question, "What is
the author trying to prove?" These could be theoretical
interpretations or theoretical generalizations
5

Grounds/ Support: These are the reasons given in support of the

claim; they are also known as evidence, proof, data, arguments, or
grounds. The support of a claim can come in the form of facts and
statistics, expert opinions, examples, explanations, and logical
reasoning. You can find the support by asking, "What does the
author say to persuade the reader.
6

Warrants: These are the assumptions or presuppositions underlying the

argument provides justification for bridging grounds to claim. These are
practical standards of argument. You can infer the warrants by asking,
"Whats causing the author to say the things s/he does?" or "Wheres the
author coming from?"
7 The highlights of the paper

The challenge of organization scientists is

making claims of the argument (conclusion) from empirical data credible and
understandable to the scientific community. Due to unpredictability of
evaluation process
The drivers of this unpredictability in review process are: the innumerable
theoretical and paradigmatic models and theories, positioning ones arguments,
epistemological inadequacy, lack of standards for qualitative research and
complexity of social negotiation (a journal review process)
And according to David Hume, it is the incompleteness of inductive
reasoning that has implications to the construction and evaluation of theory
8 Inductive reasoning and the practical reasoning

Practical reasoning in scientific text initiates from differing grounds to

various claims (Toulmin diagram) to convince audience. If that is so the
challenge/ dilemma is there are no universally sound principles governing
practical reasoning process and research in organization science is
dismissed on their weaknesses and not understanding strengths:
Understand the logic of different reasoning
And help authors build consistency and transparency into how they justify
argument (rigor)
 9 The Dilemma of Reasoning

The knowledge claim from inductive reasoning is from data/ evidence/

observation of events. Its claims do not originate from premise, like in
deduction which has normative foundation
From one set of data many generalizations can be made. So the problem of
induction is that it does not address the goal of empirical research:
generalization and prediction.
In inductive reasoning thus generalization and prediction are habitual not
epistemic
10 The many generalization from a given set of data, how do you explain
your generalization is important.
Another point is regarding epistemic virtues (creativity, openness, belief
in ethical process, critical thinking) and pragmatic virtues (simplicity,
interestingness, usefulness). There is no consensus on universal
application, or standards which can be adopted
The main subject of inquiry is inductive inference (generalization of
empirical findings) and theoretical explanation ( steps to formulate the
findings in theoretical language
The explanationist view adopts use of pragmatic virtues in reasoning
theoretical explanation. Spartan rejects pragmatism
11 Practical reasoning, inference and explanation

The focus of argument in here is on aspects of social negotiation

process, where authors engage in scientific reasoning and its evaluation.
Toulmins model tells how theoretical claims are made based on
empirical data.
The framework shows distinction between inference and theoretical
explanation.
Authors have to convince and defend both the inference and
explanation.
12 Two important points to keep in mind:
1. inferences drawn from empirical data to theoretical explanation are
based on inductive reasoning, which bridges the ground to claims,
subject to the problem of induction, the inadequacy of inductive
reasoning a reasoning dilemma in research practice.

2. Whether inference and explanation are treated separate or single,

has a challenge and choice for the author of an argument, because
there are no methodological guidelines for making a choice (like in
deduction)
13 Example of dilemma

A situation in quantitative researcher has to choose between two

regression model1. a model that explains 30% variance of dependent
variable with only main effects of predictor variables in the model
2. a model that explains 35% variance.
The classical epistemic virtue of empirical adequacy suggest the second. If
pragmatic virtue than predicting 30 % will be selected
Which ever is selected depends on authors choice of discourse
(argument, narration, explanation or description) the researcher wishes to
participates
14 In applying Hypothetico-deductive method (Hempel 1965), researcher
focuses to test a single theory for empirical adequacy. If theory
produces prediction of unknown, correct signs of regression coefficient
.and the theory fits the data, the researcher will not proceed to give
alternative explanation.
It is when the data does not fit the data, alternative argument is
given.this is a problem of induction.
HD is a good tool for inference but does not provide selection criteria
choosing between alternative explanation
An extant debate on role of researcher as an active reasoner: Strauss
and Corbin dismiss the role of researcher, they only subscribe to it as
interrogator of data
 However, the researcher as active reasoner led to formulation of the
15 inference to best explanation (IBE).
Characteristics of IBE
Candid
Overcomes some of the problems of HD (does not provide how we choose)
It is normative not descriptive account of inductive reasoning
It has some weaknesses inductive reasoning.
 Idealization and Contextualization as practical
16 reasoning strategies

Two alternative strategies emerge from the inadequacy of inductive

reasoning and accompany approaches, i.e., HD and IBE.
Idealization
Contextualization
Both can be used in qualitative and quantitative research and both have
strengths and weaknesses
17 Idealization

From Husserl to Einstein have mentioned idealization as hallmark of

science
It is simplification of complex phenomenon to a manageable level
Used to model a phenomenon (market equilibrium, model of plane etc.)
Here the focus is on idealization of practical reasoning
It is based on classical epistemic virtue (truth, objectivity)
Inference is evaluated as an independent normative, intersubjective
standards
 Idealization could be HD e.g. authors seek warrant to move from theoretical
18 proposition to observational hypothesis by appealing to deductive reasoning
The actual epistemic virtue adopted is empirical adequacy, ability
of theory to produce empirical prediction
Idealization strategy is supported by normative epistemology and
methodology
Idealization provides a common language and has important role in the
intellectual constitution of communities
Its weakness is there no general rule for selecting between alternative
explanations, which is the weakness of inductive reasoning
It ignores the role of scientist as active reasoner
Questions the statistical rule of thumb, p< .05, R square, Cronbach alpha
19 Contextualization

It espouses IBE (inference to the best explanation and treats inference and
explanation separate
I seeks to establish the contextual authenticity of reasoning. Reasoning is
understood context dependent. It is what the researcher and audience judge
20 3 distinct forms of context dependent reasoning

Subjective contextualization: peculiar background of researcher, detailed

description. The evaluator seeks the authenticity of researcher account of
data and critical thinking
Empirical contextualization: provides maximum access to empirical
context. A contextual detail. The uniqueness is researchers own
construction. Equivalent to ethnographic writing
Theoretical contextualization: seeks warrant (justification) through
establishing the relevance of claim with respect to particular theory.
Theory plays important role in explaining context
21 Improving arguments through endogenous and
exogenous dialogue

Methodological (Endogenous)
Policy (Exogenous)
Rejection of research on either of the above
The dilemma between the author and audience understanding argument and
choosing from among number of explanation
Does the author use idealization in a clear and justified manner? Is the author using
theoretical contextualization consistently with the theory? These are some of the
methodological question
As soon as the reviewer ask the question of choice of strategy or its tenets or does
not acknowledge that the author makes a choice becomes a policy question
22 Makes a choice and defend it

Authors should choose between idealization and contextualization: separate

inference and explanation or keep it one. Questions on that will become
endogenous critique and will be fruitful methodological dialogue