Modes of Reasoning in Management and Organization Studies: Promises and Perils of Abduction and Induction

Abstract Debates about theorizing in management and organization studies have at their core the question of how scholars mobilize different modes of reasoning. The principles of deduction and induction have long structured methodological discussions. The third way – abduction – derived from Peirce’s conception of ‘inference to the best explanation’, has gained traction in debates about how to generate novel and original theoretical insights. This Point–Counterpoint debate focusses on the promises and perils of abduction vis‐à‐vis induction as modes of reasoning. In their Point , Fleming and Oswick propose ‘loosely coupled abduction’ as a mode of reasoning that steers a middle ground between unbounded, ‘creative’ abduction and highly proceduralized, ‘disciplined’ abduction. In their Counterpoint , Filatotchev et al. accept the creative promise of abduction but warn that consensus‐based plausibility can engender what they call ‘semiotic abduction’, where mechanisms become widely accepted through repetition rather than verification. Building on these contributions, in this introduction to the debate, I situate abduction within the broader landscape of deductive and inductive reasoning in management research, critically evaluate the arguments advanced by the Point and Counterpoint , and propose avenues for future research on the role of abductive reasoning in management and organization studies.