Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

What is abductive qualitative research? And how do we carry it out in practice? These are questions that a lot of qualitative researchers are asking these days. This sub-theme proposes to bring together a community of scholars, who are curious about how to work abductively with qualitative data, to discuss the philosophical foundations, methodological approaches, and best practices of qualitative abductive research.

The goal of qualitative research is data-driven theory development (Bansal et al., 2018; Eisenhardt, 1989). Qualitative researchers have developed an arsenal of tools to theorize from data, including techniques for research design, data collection, and data analysis. Common for many of these techniques is that they approach qualitative research from an angle of inductive reasoning, that is, theory can be abstracted and generalized from empirical observations. Induction as an approach to theory building has its roots in Znaniecki’s The Method of Sociology (1934) and Glaser and Strauss’ Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). Induction has for the last couple of decades become nearly synonymous with qualitative research within management and organization studies (Eisenhardt, 1989; Ketokivi & Mantere, 2010). Most qualitative researchers take for granted that the work they do is induction, and “induction” is the word most qualitative scholars use to label their work. Echoing deep-rooted tensions found within the intellectual history of grounded theory, authors have recently begun to challenge whether the work we do genuinely can be said to be inductive (Mantere & Ketokivi, 2013) as well as whether induction should be replaced with abduction as the underlying form of reasoning for our work (Locke et al., 2008; Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021; Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).

An inquiry into whether induction is the ideal label for qualitative theory building is important for several reasons. First, a tight connection between our descriptions of our methods (including their labels) and our actual research practices is important for obtaining rigor and transparency in our research (Grodal et al., 2021; Pratt et al., 2020). Second, junior scholars and scholars residing in disadvantaged locations rely on our written work to learn how to conduct qualitative methods. If there is a mismatch between our explicit written practices and our informal practices, then it might be harder for these scholars to learn how to conduct qualitative research. Lastly, if there is a misalignment between our labels and our practices then it becomes difficult for us to have an in-depth conversation and ongoing development of these research practices.

With the recent interest in methodological reflections, such as seen in recent discussions of templates (Köhler et al., 2022; Pratt et al., 2022), the time is thus ripe to undertake fundamental reconsiderations of our approaches to qualitative theory building. In recent years, scholars have increasingly turned to exploring methodological alternatives to induction (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Especially, authors have pointed to abduction as a fruitful alternative to induction (Fleming & Oswick, 2025; Locke et al., 2008; Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021). The notion of abduction originates in the work of Charles Sanders Peirce (1934), who focuses not on how theories are shown to be true, but how they are discovered. Currently, discussions of abduction within management and organization studies show quite some range, especially across communities focusing on quantitative versus qualitative research (Behfar & Okhuysen, 2018; Pillai et al., 2024). Broadly, authors are aligned in the sense that they depict abduction first as the identification of an anomaly followed by the generation of an explanation for the anomaly. Anomalies are defined as intrinsically important or puzzling empirical observations which are inconsistent with extant theory (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007). After identifying an anomaly, the goal of the qualitative researcher is to generate explanations for the anomaly from their data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).

Expanding our understanding of abduction is important for several reasons. First, inductive, qualitative methods have historically been justified through claims that qualitative methods are useful for building new theories in areas characterized by a theoretical void or theoretical immaturity (Bansal et al., 2018; Corley et al., 2021; Edmondson & McManus, 2007). However, as management and organizational theory have advanced over the decades and reached a higher state of theoretical maturity, it begs the question of what role qualitative methods should play when our field is only scarcely populated by theoretical voids, but extensive theoretical coverage exists across an array of organizational phenomena. As abduction does not assume a theoretical void in a broad domain area (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014), but rather a specific puzzling or anomalous discrepancy between an empirical observation and existing theoretical understandings (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007), engaging in abductive qualitative research could be a path to theoretical advancement in domains that are maturing theoretically.

Second, an array of scholars has already pointed out that induction is not an adequate description of what most researchers actually do (Eisenhardt et al., 2016; Grodal et al., 2021; Mantere & Ketokivi, 2013). However, due to the institutionalization of induction-based templates, authors might feel pressured to retrofit their work into an inductive description, decoupling research practice from presentation. Several authors have proposed that abduction is a more realistic depiction of how scholars make theoretical inferences from data (Gehman et al., 2018). This echoes the origin of abduction in Peirce’s (1934) work focusing on abduction as a mode of theory generation that “respected the economy of research,” understood as the resource constraints scientific knowledge production was subject to. Therefore, in order to enhance transparency, we should explore further whether abduction is a more adequate representation of the work authors conduct in qualitative research.

Some authors have argued that abduction is both more useful for theoretical discovery than induction, due to its focus on explaining empirical anomalies (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012), and more creative and imaginative in its approach to generating theory (Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021). Abduction generates novel perspectives through mystery (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007), doubt (Locke et al., 2008), or puzzlement (Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021; Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). For example, authors have argued that rather than identifying broad gaps in existing literature, abductive research designs actively seek to challenge assumptions of extant theorizing (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). Other authors have proposed that abduction is better capable of arriving at unexpected findings (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). These authors have argued that in contrast to induction that in its pure, stylized form avoids interference from prior theory, abduction actively considers prior theory to identify empirical observations in the data which might forward extant theory (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007).

Finally, an array of methodological works on abduction has focused on the phenomenological and psychological aspects of abduction, as in how the abductive process or studied phenomenon is experienced subjectively by the researcher (Locke et al., 2008; Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021), rather than practical approaches to constructing abductive research designs, data analysis, and theorization or the logic of abductive reasoning (Mantere & Ketokivi, 2013). By psychological accounts of abduction, we mean the emotional dimensions of the research process, and by phenomenological accounts we mean how the studied phenomenon is experienced within the first-person perspective by the researcher. This tendency is reflected in an array of discussions that often describe abductive methods in how they are felt or experienced from the first-person perspective of the researcher, focusing on which emotions or experiences the researchers should act on and how. For example, authors often emphasize a sense of puzzlement (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014), mystery (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007), and doubt (Locke et al., 2008) in the abductive process. Beyond the usefulness of abduction in generating doubt, mystery, and puzzlement, it is important to enhance the transparency of abductive research, to allow for critique and refinement of how to utilize abductive designs and inferences.

In sum, although attention to abduction is increasing, we lack understanding of the diversity of abductive approaches within qualitative research as well as more detailed understanding of the specific techniques and best practices that researchers use to tackle each stage of abductive research, from data collection to data analysis and theory development. Because methodological work on abduction varies widely, more reflections on how abduction can be embedded in our research practice, and practical demonstrations of how to carry out such research are needed before our field fully can reap the fruits of abduction. Also, as reflected in sociological papers that reflect an abductive logic, the structure of writing for abductive research likely differs from the templates we have for reporting deductive and inductive research. Therefore, there is a need for further demonstrations and conceptual discussions of abductive work, not solely to understand how to carry out abductive research, but also how to report it.

The goal of this sub-theme is to bring together qualitative scholars who are interested in abduction both to create a community of scholars engaged in these methods and to begin a collective conversation about the tools and methods that we need to develop to push research forward in this domain. These are just some of the questions pertaining to abductive qualitative research that we hope to address in this sub-theme. In general, the task which lies before us is to identify the unique challenges associated with collecting, analyzing, and theorizing within an abductive logic.

For the sub-theme we are interested in empirical qualitative papers that are trying to use an abductive logic or where the authors have an interest in exploring what an abductive analysis would look like for their paper. We are also interested in theoretical papers which examine abduction as a method.

Studies in this sub-theme may, thus, include, but are not restricted to, theoretical or empirical papers that cover these topics:

• Qualitative studies focused on an empirical puzzle

• Studies seeking empirical explanations to puzzling observations

• Studies that actively seek to respond to empirical observations that pose theoretical discrepancies with existing works or actively seek to assess alternative explanations

• Reflections and/or proposed techniques for using abductive methods

• Studies that debate whether abduction is a better fit for certain types of studies or phenomena than others.

• Studies that offer conceptual methodological reflections on abductive reasoning

• Meta-theoretical reflections or studies examining the merits of abduction in relation to the maturation cycle of a research field or theoretical domain as in contrast to induction or deduction.

• ​Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281.
• Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.
• Bansal, P., Smith, W. K., & Vaara, E. (2018). New ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189–1195.
• Behfar, K., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2018). Perspective—Discovery within validation logic: Deliberately surfacing, complementing, and substituting abductive reasoning in hypothetico-deductive inquiry. Organization Science, 29(2), 323–340.
• Corley, K., Bansal, P., & Yu, H. (2021). An editorial perspective on judging the quality of inductive research when the methodological straightjacket is loosened. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 161–175.
• Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
• Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1113–1123.
• Fleming, P., & Oswick, C. (2025). Advancing abductive theory building: Balancing creative curiosity and programmatic rigour through “loosely coupled abduction.” Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70034
• Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284–300.
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company.
• Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021). Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 591–612.
• Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 315–333.
• Köhler, T., Smith, A., & Bhakoo, V. (2022). Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins, limitations, and new directions. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 183–210.
• Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Perspective—Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918.
• Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organization science. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 70–89.
• Peirce, C. S. (1934). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 5). Harvard University Press.
• Pillai, S. D., Goldfarb, B., & Kirsch, D. (2024). Lovely and likely: Using historical methods to improve inference to the best explanation in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 45(8), 1539–1566.
• Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19.
• Pratt, M. G., Sonenshein, S., & Feldman, M. S. (2022). Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 211–238.
• Sætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684–701.
• Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226180458
• Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.
• Znaniecki, F. (1934). The method of sociology. Farrar & Rinehart.