Journal of Research in Educational Systems
Scientific Journal

Applying Abductive Reasoning in Behavioral Sciences Research: A Systematic Review

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Sahar Sadat Taheri Tafti 1
Keyvan Salehi 2

1 PhD student in Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2026.564256.3419
Abstract
Objective: This study was conducted to elucidate the position, analyze the applications, and develop a practical guide for the abductive reasoning approach in behavioral sciences research. By offering an innovative framework, this approach enables a deeper understanding and more meaningful explanation of the complex and multidimensional problems in behavioral sciences.
Method: This study was conducted as a systematic documentary review, adhering to the PRISMA (2020) guidelines. A systematic search of resources in the ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was performed using a comprehensive set of keywords, leading to the initial identification of 1,526 records. A four-stage screening process was conducted with independent review by two researchers, ultimately resulting in the selection and analysis of 62 eligible articles.
Results: The data analysis resulted in the identification and classification of the applications of abductive reasoning into six principal dimensions: cognitive, methodological, practical, philosophical, critical, and emerging interdisciplinary. The results confirm its high efficacy in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research. Key strengths include its capacity for creative theorization, in-depth analysis of phenomena, and methodological flexibility, though challenges such as interpretive subjectivity remain.
Conclusions: Based on the findings of this review, it can be argued that the integration of abductive reasoning with novel analytical technologies constitutes an essential step in advancing the methodology of behavioral sciences research. This convergence not only unveils new horizons for exploring complex behavioral issues by providing a unified framework, but also significantly mitigates the inherent limitations of purely quantitative or qualitative approaches when confronting ambiguous, multidimensional research questions.

Keywords

Abductive Reasoning
Multidimensional Analysis
Research Methodology
Creative Theorization
in-Depth analysis of Phenomena
Subjects
توکلی‏یرکی، ر.، عارفی، م.، جعفری، ا.، و خادمی‏کله‏لو، م. (۱۴۰۴). هم‏آفرینی برنامه‏ریزی درسی در آموزش‏عالی ایران: تحلیلی بر تجارب دانشجویان. پژوهش در نظام‏های آموزشی، ۱۹(۶۸)، ۱۰۵-۸۹. https://www.jiera.ir/article_229082.html
غیاثی ندوشن، سعید. (۱۴۰۲). زیست‏بوم آموزش و یادگیری الکترونیکی در دانشگاه: خوانشی از تجارب زیسته اساتید و دانشجویان. پژوهش در نظام‏های آموزشی، ۱۸(۶۷)، ۸۷–۱۰۸. https://www.jiera.ir/article_229082.html
 
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2011). Qualitative research and theory development: Mystery as method. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446287950
Alinejad, D. (2018). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315673974
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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1175
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780199689453.001.0001
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Cronin, B. (2018). Phenomenology of human understanding. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91716-1
Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.91cre
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385281
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802779
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985833
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208531
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483349429
Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134543
Earl Rinehart, K. (2021). Abductive analysis in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(2), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420935912
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4004
Flick, U. (2004). A companion to qualitative research. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608191
Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation in data collection. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526448225
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526434976
Flandin, S., & Gorman, J. C. (2025). Individual Perturbation Training: Insights from Enaction Theory. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 69. https://doi.org/10.1177/15419312231196677
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029
Gómez-Jorge, F., Bermejo-Olivas, S., Díaz-Garrido, E., & Soriano-Pinar, I. (2025). Success in entrepreneurship: The impact of self-esteem and entrepreneurial orientation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 21(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00896-9
Haig, B. D. (2018). An abductive theory of scientific method. In B. D. Haig, Method matters in psychology: Essays in applied philosophy of science (pp. 35–64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97343-2_3
Haig, B. D. (2005). An abductive theory of scientific method. Psychological Methods, 10(4), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.10.4.371
Haig, B. D. (2014). Investigating the psychological world: Scientific method in the behavioral sciences. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027366.001.0001
Jaruwachirathanakul, B., & Fink, D. (2005). Internet banking adoption strategies for a developing country: The case of Thailand. Internet Research, 15(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510602708
Jarrahi, M. H., Askay, D., Eshraghi, A., & Smith, P. (2023). Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: A partnership between human and AI. Business Horizons, 66(1), 87-99.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2022.03.002
Krippendorff, K. (2009). The content analysis reader. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385281
Kline, P. (2015). Personality (Psychology Revivals): Measurement and theory. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714750
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001
Locke, K., Feldman, M., & Golden-Biddle, K. (2022). Coding practices and iterativity: Beyond templates for analyzing qualitative data. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 262–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120948600
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., Clarke, M.,  Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1988). Criteria for assessing naturalistic inquiries as reports. American Journal of Evaluation, 9(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821408800900207
Liang, C., Wang, W., Zhou, T., & Yang, Y. (2022). Visual abductive reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 15565–15575). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01513
Levitt, H. M. (2019). Reporting standards for qualitative research in psychology: What are they, and why do we need them? In reporting qualitative research in psychology: How to meet APA style journal article reporting standards (pp. 3–18). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000152-001
Magnani, L. (2011). Abduction, reason and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7542-3
Materla, T., Cudney, E. A., & Antony, J. (2019). The application of Kano model in the healthcare industry: A systematic literature review. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(5-6), 660–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1328980
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9038-7_4
Nguyen, H. T., Goebel, R., Toni, F., Stathis, K., & Satoh, K. (2023). How well do SOTA legal reasoning models support abductive reasoning? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06912. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.06912
Nguyen‐Trung, K., Saeri, A. K., & Kaufman, S. (2024). Incorporating pragmatism in a behaviour change-led climate adaptation project: A collaborative reflection. Qualitative Research Journal, 24(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-11-2023-0168
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer , L., Tetzlaff , J. M., Akl , E. A., Brennan , S. E., Chou , R., Glanville,  J., Grimshaw, J. M.,  , Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M.,  Li, T.,   Loder, E. W.,   Mayo-Wilson,   E., McDonald , S., …  & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Peirce, C. S. (1960). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 2: Elements of logic. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674331906
Peirce, C. S. (2014). Charles Sanders Peirce. Springer. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjsf4fx
Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6hp34j
Reichertz, J. (2004). Abduction, deduction and induction in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 159–165). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosa002
Reichertz, J. (2019). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory–an updated review. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 259–281). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526485656.n15
Ragin, C. C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520957350
Shani, A. B., Coghlan, D., & Alexander, B. N. (2020). Rediscovering abductive reasoning in organization development and change research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(1), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319892660
Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473906907
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529731750
Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique: Overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310381156
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226180458.001.0001
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
Walton, D. (2014). Abductive reasoning. University of Alabama Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6hp34j
Vaughan, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226851761.001.0001
Zhao, W., Chiu, J. T., Hwang, J. D., Brahman, F., Hessel, J., Choudhury, S., Choi, Y.,  Li, X. L., & Suhr, A. (2023). UNcommonsense reasoning: Abductive reasoning about uncommon situations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08469. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.08469
 
Journal of Research in Educational Systems
Volume 20, Issue 72
March 2026
Pages 15-29

Home

Editorial Boards

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us