REFLECTIONS ON APPROACHES TO RESEARCH STRATEGIES IN MANAGEMENT Mihály Görög University of Pannonia, Veszprém gorog.mihaly@gtk.uni ‐pannon.hu Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 37 Abstract The literature on research methods, while introducing both induc ti ve and deduc ti ve research strategies, as well as the associated qualita ti ve and quan ti ta ti ve research methods, provides the epistemological underpinning of research. However, this literature generally neglects the role of logic in research, which some ti mes could lead to inappropriate reasoning in both doctoral thesis work and research papers. Inappropriate reasoning is due primarily to misinterpre ti ng induc ti ve and deducti ve forms of reasoning in the literature on research methods as a result of neglec ti ng logic. This paper sheds new light on interpre ti ng induc ti ve and deducti ve forms of knowledge crea ti on including logic, which has played an important role as the science of reasoning in knowledge crea ti on since the ti me of Aristotle. This paper is specula ti ve in nature, and provides the reflec ti ons of an experienced researcher from the management domain. Keywords: deduc ti ve research, induc ti ve research, role of logic in research, types of research 1 INTRODUCTION The primary aim of research in any domain is the creation of new knowledge; thus the validity of research outcomes is of great importance. Janiszewski, Labroo, and Rucker (2016) stated that the validity of research outcomes is strongly re ‐ lated to the appreciation of the contribution of re ‐ search outcomes to extant knowledge. They proposed two factors that determine the contribu ‐ tion of a research study, namely the quality and the benefit. Quality, they stated, is a twofold phe ‐ nomenon that includes being grounded in and ex ‐ panding extant knowledge on the one hand, and the appropriate implementation of the research on the other hand. They defined benefit as the extent to which the new knowledge challenges the exist ‐ ing knowledge. Bryman and Bell (2015) also dis ‐ cussed quality, and they emphasized three criteria against which the quality of business research needs to be evaluated: reliability, replicability, and validity. Bryman and Bell stated that reliability and replicability are strongly interrelated. Whereas re ‐ liability relates to measures used to quantify phe ‐ nomena, replicability implies the potential for achieving the same outcome when a research study is repeated based on the same conditions. Bryman and Bell defined validity as the truth of the conclusions, in terms of generalization, of the re ‐ search. Mårtensson, Fors, Wallin, Zander, and Nils ‐ son (2016) discussed quality of research in the context of its evaluation, and they asserted that quality research needs to be (1) credible (i.e., co ‐ herent, consistent, rigorous, and transparent), (2) contributory (i.e., original, relevant, and generaliz ‐ able), (3) communicable (i.e., consumable, acces ‐ sible, and searchable), and (4) conforming (i.e., regulatory aligned, ethical, and sustainable). The importance of a valid generalization also was stressed by Troja (2019), especially in the case of qualitative research, because a superficial gener ‐ alization could weaken credibility, i.e., validity. Gray (2004) suggested data triangulation and methodological triangulation in order to ensure validity via reliability. To enhance both validity and practicability Joslin and Müller (2016) em ‐ phasized the importance of adopting a double re ‐ search perspective in terms of observing phenomena based on a dual paradigm. Thus, to Vol. 11, No. 2, 37 ‐54 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2022.v11n02a03 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 38 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management ensure the validity of the research outcomes, Joslin and Müller (2016) strongly suggested the use of triangulation in project studies, such as data triangulation (e.g., adopting multiple data sources), triangulation of researchers (e.g., two researchers are engaged), methodological trian ‐ gulation (e.g., the use of mixed methods), theory triangulation (e.g., adopting multiple theoretical perspectives), and philosophical triangulation (e.g., adopting different epistemological posi ‐ tions). Joslin and Müller stated that the use of the latter type of triangulation in the investigation of the very same phenomenon is advisable when there is a potential to achieve synthesis of those research outcomes that are derived from such re ‐ search studies that are based on different episte ‐ mological positions. From the point of view of both validity and quality of research it seems reasonable to con ‐ sider criticism published in management journals regarding the use of research strategies and methods. Sometimes this criticism is coupled with the moral attitude of the researchers, and authors also tend to couple criticism with the overwhelming use of quantitative research meth ‐ ods. Wolceshyn and Daellenbach (2018), while ar ‐ guing for the legitimacy of inductive research in management, highlighted the underlying reason for the overwhelming use of quantitative re ‐ search in the management domain. They stated that this reason is rooted in the emergence of management sciences, when management schol ‐ ars, to achieve scientific legitimacy by means of emulating the natural sciences, propagated the use of hypothetico ‐deductive research coupled with quantitative methods. In line with Wol ‐ ceshyn and Daellenbach (2018), Pernecky (2016) highlighted Émile Durkheim’s role in introducing a scientific approach to social science (specifically to sociology) based on his approach to social phe ‐ nomena. Durkheim’s approach proposes that so ‐ cial phenomena are independent of our knowledge of them, and thus they can be ob ‐ served objectively. In this way, the use of (hypo ‐ thetico ‐)deductive research and the underlying positivist epistemological position might result in achieving scientific recognition in the wider com ‐ munity of scientists. Banks et al. (2016) iden ti fied several forms of ques ti onable research prac ti ce based on a consid ‐ erable sample that may occur when hypothe ti co ‐de ‐ duc ti ve quan ti ta ti ve research is applied. These findings, which were reinforced by Schwab and Star ‐ buck (2017), include • repor ti ng hypotheses selec ti vely, i.e., excluding a hypothesis with sta ti s ti cally non ‐significant results from the paper; • excluding data from analysis, i.e., excluding outlier data to achieve sta ti s ti cal significance; • hypothesizing a ft er results are known (HARKing), i.e., adjus ti ng predefined hypotheses to the out ‐ comes; • including control variables selec ti vely, i.e., includ ‐ ing only those control variables that support the sta ti s ti cally significant outcomes; • falsifying data, i.e., crea ti ng data instead of col ‐ lec ti ng real ‐life data; and • rounding o ff a p ‐value, i.e., manipula ti ng signifi ‐ cance. Unlike in induc ti ve ‐qualita ti ve research, the aforemen ti oned prac ti ces are experienced primarily when hypothe ti co ‐deduc ti ve quan ti ta ti ve research, i.e., the most frequently employed research strategy in the management domain, is applied. Several stud ‐ ies have highlighted the specific underlying reasons for this phenomenon. Both Banks et al. (2016) and Recker and Mertens (2019) iden ti fied several rea ‐ sons, such as the pressure on academics to publish, the ti me pressure of publishing new results as quickly as possible, and the ranking policy of journals. Oster ‐ loh and Frey’s (2020) cri ti cism of the review prac ti ce of many leading journals also might imply poten ti al reasons for conduc ti ng ques ti onable research. These circumstances have resulted in replica ti on crises (e.g., Banks et al., 2016) or contradic ti ng research out ‐ comes (e.g., Görög, 2019). All in all, the use of these prac ti ces weakens the quality and reliability, and therefore the validity, of the research outcomes. Regarding induc ti ve ‐qualita ti ve research, a few criti cal remarks can be found in management jour ‐ nals. These include the poten ti ally limited knowl ‐ edge of the researcher and the inherent limits of human observa ti ons (Zalaghi & Khazaei (2016). However, Mohajan (2018) while poin ti ng out poten ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 39 ti al advantageous features of induc ti ve ‐qualita ti ve research, iden ti fied a couple of disadvantages which might limit the validity of research results, including di fficul ti es in demonstra ti ng scien ti fic rigor related to collec ti ng data, and the fact that these research results could not be verified objec ti vely. Thus, one might conclude that, apart from the researchers’ honesty, validity of a research outcome is determined primarily by the use of an appropriate research strategy and methods, or rather by the ap ‐ propriate use of the strategies and methods. In this way, authors of books on research methods have primary responsibility, because both doctoral stu ‐ dents and prac ti cing researchers rely on these books to a great extent. Doctoral students are trained from these books, and prac ti cing researchers refer to these books when jus ti fying the appropriateness of the research strategies and methods deployed in their research. Although ar ti cles published in man ‐ agement journals have discussed the use of re ‐ search strategies (such as induc ti ve, deduc ti ve, or abduc ti ve) or analy ti cal methods (such as qualita ‐ ti ve and quan ti ta ti ve), the authors of such papers basically agree with the book authors. What does characterize the books, or at least the books cited in this paper, on research methods? Most of these books, while focusing on the wider domain of social sciences, provide an epistemolog ‐ ical background of applying di fferent research strategies and the associated analy ti cal methods (in ‐ cluding data collec ti on methods as well), or even in ‐ troducing the appropriate rhetorical aspects in terms of style of wri ti ng. However, it is hard to find a book on research methods that provides insight into logic, i.e., the science of reasoning. Tsang (2017) stated that courses lacking logic in doctoral schools result in inappropriate reasoning in thesis works and in the research ‐based manuscripts submi tt ed to management journals. Logic seems to be a certain kind of interface between philosophy and research strategies. It implies that researchers can opera ‐ ti onalize their philosophical (both ontological and epistemological) stance and the associated research methodology by means of the tools of logic. Lacking familiarity with logic might lead to misinterpre ti ng the use of research strategies, in terms of both the induc ti ve and deduc ti ve forms of crea ti ng new knowledge. This paper sheds fresh light on interpre ti ng in ‐ duc ti ve and deduc ti ve forms of knowledge crea ti on in rela ti on to the philosophy of science, and the sci ‐ ence of logic (as the science of reasoning) which have played an important role since the ti me of Aris ‐ totle in crea ti ng scien ti fic knowledge. The basics of logic is introduced in a separate sec ti on. Interpre ti ng this approach to knowledge crea ti on provides the poten ti al for, as collateral aims, understanding the unit of analysis, proposing basic research types, and a spiral ‐based evolu ti on process of knowledge cre ‐ a ti on in management. This paper is specula ti ve in nature, especially the last sec ti on, which summa ‐ rizes the concluding thoughts of the author . To make this apparent, the first ‐person pronoun is used in that sec ti on. However, before introducing the exis ti ng ap ‐ proaches to the topic, a terminological issue is dis ‐ cussed. A few authors use the term “approach” when discussing induc ti ve and deduc ti ve methods of conduc ti ng research, whereas others use the term “strategy” when discussing these methods of research. In this paper when the exis ti ng literature is introduced, the term used by the authors of each paper is adopted. However, when my own views and proposals are introduced, I use the term “strat ‐ egy” to classify induc ti ve and deduc ti ve research. The paper is organized as follows. The following two sec ti ons introduce how research methods and the underlying strategies to conduc ti ng research are interpreted in management arti cles that discuss the perceived use of these tools, and in books on re ‐ search methods. The interpreta ti ons given in the books are reflected in the arti cles. This implies that the ar ti cles show how the research methods o ffered in the books are understood and perceived by the researchers in the course of using them. This jus ti ‐ fies introducing the approaches available in ar ti cles and books in separate sec ti ons. Those two sec ti ons are followed by the introduc ti on of approaches to research in the literature on logic, beginning with philosophers who stress the role of logic in research. In this way, the paper moves from an applica ti on level toward a more theore ti cal level. The paper ends with concluding thoughts, bearing in mind the underlying epistemological stances when interpret ‐ ing the use of deduc ti ve logic in management re ‐ search. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 40 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management 2 FINDINGS IN MANAGEMENT ARTICLES DEVOTED TO THE USE OF RESEARCH METHODS Although each research paper published in management journals introduces the research methods applied in the underlying research, several papers published in these journals have discussed research methods applied in management research. Aldag and Stearn (1988) reported the use of various research methods, and the increasing number of qualita ti ve analy ti cal procedures in addi ti on to the quan ti ta ti ve analyses. Bansal, Smith, and Vaara (2018), while emphasizing the role of qualita ti ve data ‐based induc ti ve research in theory develop ‐ ment, stated that this kind of paper submission has reached 20% of the total submissions to the Academy of Management Journal. Bansal, Smith, and Vaara also stressed the need to use di fferent types of qualita ti ve research methods in addi ti on to case ‐based posi ti vist research. In the project man ‐ agement domain, Müller and Söderlund (2015) highlighted that research studies are very tradi ti onal because researchers prefer using ques ti onnaires and quan ti ta ti ve analyses, and emphasised the need to consider context specificity in such re ‐ search. Barra tt , Choi, and Li (2011) argued for con ‐ duc ti ng case ‐based qualita ti ve research in opera ti ons management, which would contribute to developing the theore ti cal underpinning of this domain area. Go ttf redson and Aguilis (2017) high ‐ lighted the importance of adop ti ng a dual deduc ‐ ti ve–induc ti ve research method to determine the rela ti onships between leadership behaviour and fol ‐ lower performance reliably. Whi tf ield and Strauss (2000) stated that there is a definite shi ft from induc ti ve research adop ti ng qualita ti ve analyses toward deduc ti ve research adop ti ng quan ti ta ti ve analysis in order to build (in ‐ duc ti vely) and test (deduc ti vely) theories. However, Whi tf ield and Strauss did not say that each deduc ‐ ti ve research is ab ovo quan ti ta ti ve or that each in ‐ duc ti ve research is ab ovo qualita ti ve in nature. Hyde (2000), like Whi tf ield and Strauss (2000), clearly di fferen ti ated quan ti ta ti ve and qualita ti ve re ‐ search, and stated that quan ti ta ti ve research gener ‐ ally is based on a deduc ti ve process, whereas qualita ti ve research is based on an induc ti ve pro ‐ cess. Hyde further argued for a balanced use of both induc ti on and deduc ti on in each research in order to avoid neglec ti ng useful theore ti cal perspec ti ves due to extreme induc ti on, or developing (new) the ‐ ory due to extreme deducti on. Those papers con ‐ sidered deduc ti ve research to be a theory ‐tes ti ng e ffort which aims to jus ti fy whether a given theory or concept is valid in a given context, whereas in ‐ duc ti ve research is considered as a theory ‐building process which aims to generalize specific occur ‐ rences of the inves ti gated phenomenon. In addi ti on to using induc ti ve and deduc ti ve re ‐ search, Kovács and Spense (2005) argued for de ‐ ploying abduc ti ve research in logis ti cs to support theory development in this domain. Abduc ti ve re ‐ search is understood here as a certain combina ti on of induc ti ve and deduc ti ve research. In an abduc ti ve research process, a theory is matched with challeng ‐ ing real ‐life cases, and, as a result of resolving their contradic ti ons, a new or a further developed theory is formulated and applied. Although abduc ti ve re ‐ search is used in management research less o ft en than deduc ti ve and induc ti ve research, Behfar and Okhuysen (2018) emphasized its advantageous fea ‐ tures. In their view, this research method is “an in ‐ separable, indispensable, and valuable approach linking the development of explana ti on and the tes ti ng of resul ti ng hypotheses to advance theory” (Behfar & Okhuysen, 2018, p. 323). Thus, they stated that an abduc ti ve research process has an outstanding role in theory development when re ‐ solving and explaining contradic ti ons or inconsisten ‐ cies experienced in the phenomenon researched. Therefore, they suggested that an abduc ti ve re ‐ search method should subs ti tute the tradi ti onal de ‐ duc ti ve and induc ti ve research methods. In terms of papers which report or propagate the use of di fferent research types, ar ti cles have been published in management journals which pro ‐ vide a broader picture of undertaking management ‐ related research. Janiszewski, Labroo, and Rucker (2016) di fferen ‐ ti ated deduc ti ve ‐conceptual research and non ‐de ‐ duc ti ve ‐conceptual research. Deduc ti ve ‐conceptual research focuses on a theory, concept ‐to ‐theory, or concept rela ti onship to construct new theore ti cal knowledge; that is, the primary aim is to contribute Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 41 to theory development by means of tes ti ng the pro ‐ posed new construct. Non‐deduc ti ve ‐conceptual re ‐ search focuses on rela ti onships between empirically observed phenomena to provide explana ti on. Za ‐ laghi and Khazaei (2016) approached this issue by making reference to logic, and they di fferen ti ated deduc ti ve and induc ti ve methods. A deduc ti ve method starts by considering general concepts from which a specific conclusion is drawn based on formal logical reasoning. An induc ti ve method starts by ob ‐ serving a specific phenomenon, and then the con ‐ clusion drawn is generalized to a similar context. This generaliza ti on might lead to construc ti ng a new or novel theory or concept. Recker and Mertens (2019), similarly to Bansal, Smith, and Vaara (2018), used the term “hypothe ti co ‐deduc ti ve research” when they discussed the importance of significance tes ti ng of null hypothesis. This term was used for deduc ti ve re ‐ search in recent management literature, because, according to the broadly accepted no ti on, in deduc ‐ ti ve ‐quan ti ta ti ve research a hypothesis is deduced from extant literature. Pathirage, Amaratunga, and Haigh (2008) and Wolceshyn and Daellenbach (2018) also adopted the terms “deduc ti ve” and “induc ti ve” to di fferen ‐ ti ate between the two fundamental approaches to conduc ti ng research. They considered the terms in the context of epistemology, that is, from the point of view of how knowledge is created and acquired. Bearing in mind the two extremes, Pathirage, Ama ‐ ratunga, and Haigh (2008) emphasized posi ti vist and social construc ti vist epistemological posi ti ons, and in light of these two posi ti ons they highlighted the fundamental di fferences between deduc ti ve and in ‐ duc ti ve research. Thus, they stated that because posi ti vists believe in an external world which is in ‐ dependent of our knowledge of it (even the social world), the researcher is independent, and is able to reveal causal rela ti onships by means of deduc ti ve thinking. Social construc ti vists believe in a socially constructed (non ‐objec ti ve and non ‐external) world; thus the researcher is part of the observed phenomenon. Therefore, a researcher collects data from which a general understanding of a phe ‐ nomenon is achieved by means of induc ti ve think ‐ ing. Bredillet (2004) stated that relying on a “being ontology” which postulates a fixed reality and the associated posi ti vist mirror is not appropriate in pro ‐ ject ‐related research, and argued for adop ti ng a “becoming ontology” postula ti ng a changing reality and the associated subjec ti vism to achieve e ffec ti ve ‐ ness of project management research outcomes. Despite the slightly di fferent phrasing used by the aforemen ti oned authors, the basic concepts of conduc ti ng management research are understood similarly; however, the terms for research ap ‐ proaches (deduc ti ve and induc ti ve) and analy ti cal approaches (quan ti ta ti ve and qualita ti ve) some ‐ ti mes are used as synonyms. Studies di fferen ti ate (hypothe ti co ‐)deduc ti ve and induc ti ve research, and consider these research strategies basically in the same way, although Zalaghi and Khazaei (2016) presented a di fferent no ti on about deduc ti ve and induc ti ve research. However, there seems to be an agreement among studies regarding the strong con ‐ nec ti on between (hypothe ti co ‐)deduc ti ve research and the use of quan ti ta ti ve methods on the one hand, and the connec ti on between induc ti ve re ‐ search and the use of qualita ti ve methods on the other hand. The scope of the research methods propagated for use in management research has been broadened, and the importance of epistemo ‐ logical underpinning of conduc ti ng management re ‐ search has become common. In addi ti on to the epistemological underpinning of research, a few studies have shed light on the role of axiology in research as well. Axiology is con ‐ cerned with the involvement of the researchers’ value system in the research, i.e., it addresses the ques ti on of whether the rela ti onship between the phenomenon being observed and the researcher has an impact on the research (e.g., Pathirage, Ama ‐ ratunga, & Haigh, 2008). Reiter (2017) argued that researchers’ engagement in terms of their posi ti on ‐ ality is needed in the pure social sciences (e.g., so ‐ ciology). Bansal, Smith, and Vaara (2018) adopted the term “engaged scholarship,” which implies that a researcher is part of the context of the phe ‐ nomenon being observed. In this way, they stated that the involvement of the researchers’ value can strengthen the insight into a researched phe ‐ nomenon. Hudson and Okhuysen, (2014) and Beh ‐ far and Okhuysen (2018) stated that it is naïve to assert that researchers might value neutral par ti ci ‐ pants in the research process. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 42 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management 3 APPROACHES TO RESEARCH IN BOOKS DEVOTED TO RESEARCH METHODS Although several books have been published in the last decade introducing research methods ap ‐ plicable in social sciences, the number of books de ‐ voted to management research is limited. Thus, this sec ti on of the paper also considered a few books on the wider scope of social science ‐related research. Gray (2004) di fferen ti ated deduc ti ve and induc ‐ ti ve research in the context of organiza ti onal re ‐ search based on the rela ti on between a theory or concept and the research aim. In deduc ti ve research the aim is to empirically jus ti fy or falsify rela ti onships between theories or concepts asserted in the prede ‐ fined hypotheses, whereas in induc ti ve research the aim is to construct generaliza ti ons and rela ti onships between concepts or theories, or even to construct new theories from the outcomes of empirical obser ‐ va ti ons. Gray (2004) emphasised the poten ti al for a combined use of deduc ti ve and induc ti ve processes. Bryman and Bell (2015) used the terms “deduc ti ve” and “induc ti ve” theory or strategy alternately. They stated that in deduc ti ve research, hypotheses are de ‐ duced from the extant literature, i.e., from what is already known, whereas in induc ti ve research a the ‐ ory development is inferred from the empirical find ‐ ings. Akin to Gray’s (2004) view, Bryman and Bell did not emphasise a definite separa ti on between deduc ‐ ti ve and induc ti ve research, and referred to their combined use as abduc ti on. Jensen and Lauire (2016) di fferen ti ated between deduc ti ve and induc ‐ ti ve research based on the nature of empirical infor ‐ ma ti on. In their view, quan ti ta ti ve methods rely on numerical data and generally adopt a deduc ti ve way of thinking, while qualita ti ve methods rely on non ‐ numerical data and generally follow an induc ti ve method. They referred to the combina ti on of quan ‐ ti ta ti ve and qualita ti ve methods as mixed methods. Tracy (2020) also di fferen ti ated deduc ti ve and induc ti ve reasoning, using terms from logic. How ‐ ever, bearing in mind a pure social science context, Tracy referred to these as e ti c and emic understand ‐ ings. Emic refers to emerge, which implies induc ti ve research aiming at the introduc ti on of human be ‐ haviour in a context ‐specific manner from the point of view of the actors to develop general trends, whereas e ti c (external) refers to deduc ti ve research, in which predefined external theories are used to de ‐ scribe and explain a situa ti on. Tracy stated that a qualita ti ve analysis, compared with a quan ti ta ti ve method, implies more elements of subjec ti vity. Troja (2019) propagated a stepwise ‐deduc ti ve induc ti ve mode which includes a phase from empirical data to concepts or theories as an induc ti ve process. Then, as a deduc ti ve process, there is a phase from theo ‐ re ti cal toward empirical. However, this model resem ‐ bles abduc ti on (e.g., Bryman & Bell, 2015). Most research method books discuss the ques ‐ ti on of research approaches (deduc ti ve or induc ti ve) and the associated data analysis methods (quan ti ta ‐ ti ve or qualita ti ve) alongside the epistemological po ‐ si ti ons. Gray (2004) stressed that selec ti ng a data collec ti on method (e.g., interviews or ques ti on ‐ naires) is determined by the research methodology used (e.g., grounded research or survey research). This methodology is influenced by the theore ti cal perspec ti ves adopted by the researcher (e.g., posi ‐ ti vism), and also is determined by the researcher’s epistemological posi ti on (e.g., objec ti vism). Episte ‐ mology, as the philosophy of science, is concerned with crea ti ng knowledge adequately, whereas ontol ‐ ogy is concerned with the external world in rela ti on to which research as knowledge crea ti on is under ‐ stood. Gray discussed three epistemological posi ‐ ti ons: objec ti vism, construc ti vism, and subjec ti vism. In Gray’s (2004) view, objec ti vism postulates as an ontological posi ti on an objec ti ve external world, and the related theore ti cal perspec ti ve is posi ti vism, and thus research involves discovering the objec ti ve ex ‐ ternal world primarily by means of deduc ti ve re ‐ search. Construc ti vism, in his view, also postulates as an ontological posi ti on an objec ti ve external world, but its related theore ti cal perspec ti ve is inter ‐ pre ti vism, and thus research is about crea ti ng knowl ‐ edge by means of interac ti on with the external world within the frame of induc ti ve research. Subjec ti vism, Gray states, does not postulate that an external world objec ti vely exists; thus, knowledge is imposed on the world by the subject, i.e., this world could be interpreted in a qualita ti ve ‐induc ti ve way. Creswell (2012), in addi ti on to the epistemolog ‐ ical determina ti on of methodological issues, empha ‐ sised the role of rhetoric and axiology in research, which include the role of values adopted by the re ‐ searcher, i.e., whether the researcher’s values could Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 43 shape the interpreta ti on of the research outcomes. However, in his approach, posi ti vism and construc ‐ ti vism, to name just two concepts, are referred to as paradigms or worldviews, whereas Gray (2004) re ‐ ferred to these concepts as theore ti cal perspecti ves. Tracy’s (2020) approach to paradigms is similar to that of Creswell (2012), although she emphasized the role of posi ti vist, interpreta ti ve, cri ti cal, and post ‐ modern paradigms. She also emphasized that choos ‐ ing a certain paradigm precludes choosing another one simultaneously. Tracy (2020) referred to the term “theore ti cal framework” (e.g., interpre ti vism or ethnography) as a system of principles to explain dif ‐ ferent phenomena. Kuhn’s (1970) broadly accepted interpreta ti on of a paradigm includes a combina ti on of ontological stance, epistemological posi ti on, and research methodology. For epistemological posi ti ons, Bryman and Bell (2015) di fferen ti ated two fundamental philosophi ‐ cal stances, namely posi ti vism and interpre ti vism, both of which include di fferent genres. They stated that posi ti vism is associated with the natural sci ‐ ences, and therefore it cannot be applied properly in social science research. According to Bryman and Bell, because the emphasis in social research is on understanding human behavior, interpre ti vism is considered to be an appropriate epistemological po ‐ si ti on. Bryman and Bell (2015) also di fferen ti ated ontological posi ti ons, such as objec ti vism and con ‐ struc ti onism. Whereas objec ti vism postulates a re ‐ ality which is external to the social actors, construc ti onism says that the external world is a so ‐ cial construct. Bryman and Bell also emphasized the role of both ontological and epistemological posi ‐ ti ons in formula ti ng research ques ti ons and con ‐ duc ti ng research, which leads to adop ti ng a certain paradigm (e.g., Kuhn, 1970). The la tt er postulates adop ti ng a certain research design (e.g., longitudinal research) which provides guidance for implement ‐ ing research methods (e.g., ques ti onnaire ‐based data collec ti on). Bryman and Bell (2015) used the term “strategy” (similar to di fferen ti a ti ng the terms induc ti ve and deduc ti ve) when di fferen ti a ti ng quan ‐ ti ta ti ve and qualita ti ve research. In their view, a quan ti ta ti ve research strategy, which emphasizes collec ti ng and analyzing data quan ti ta ti vely, adopts an objec ti ve ontological posi ti on and a deduc ti ve approach to test theories. A qualita ti ve research strategy, they stated, which emphasizes collec ti ng and analyzing data non ‐numerically, adopts con ‐ struc ti vism as an ontological posi ti on and primarily uses an induc ti ve approach to theory genera ti on. Thus, Bryman and Bell considered the phenomenon of mixed methods as a combined use of quan ti ta ti ve and qualita ti ve research strategies. Drouin, Müller, and Sankaran (2013) stated that very few project ‐related studies have adopted con ‐ temporary epistemological approaches, and they ar ‐ gued in favor of adop ti ng theories from the broader social sciences (e.g., organiza ti onal and behavioral sciences) to innovate project management research based on new approaches (such as pragma ti sm and postmodernism) by using novel research methods (e.g., ac ti on research and ethnographic study). Books on research methods, especially those recently published, also shed light on the role of ax ‐ iology in research. Tracy (2020) defined axiology as a discipline which deals with values that are associ ‐ ated with a certain research area. This approach postulates value ‐laden research, e.g., the conscious adop ti on of the value of social jus ti ce in sociology. Bryman and Bell (2015) also approached this ques ‐ ti on in terms of values which reflect the beliefs and feelings of the researchers. According to Bryman and Bell, the influence of values manifests primarily in terms of sympathy or an ti pathy when qualita ti ve research and interview ‐based data collec ti on are ap ‐ plied. They also stressed that research might be con ‐ sciously value ‐laden. Although there are di fferences in approaches to research, especially in terms of understanding epis ‐ temology, the underlying concepts of conduc ti ng re ‐ search are understood basically in the same way despite the use of slightly di fferent phrasing when the basic concepts of research are explained. These primarily include how the terms “deduc ti ve” and “in ‐ duc ti ve” research and, respec ti vely, “quan ti ta ti ve” and “qualita ti ve” research are understood and ex ‐ plained. Most authors agree to a certain extent that deduc ti ve research is used to provide empirical jus ‐ ti fica ti on or falsifica ti on of theories, whereas induc ‐ ti ve research is used to generate theories from empirical data. However, di fferences in authors’ ap ‐ proaches are important to understanding and ex ‐ plaining epistemological posi ti ons and their genres. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 44 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management 4 APPROACHES TO RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC Both the papers published in management journals and the books on research methods cited in the previous sec ti ons emphasize the role of phi ‐ losophy in research. Tsang (2017) stressed the im ‐ portance of philosophical perspec ti ves in research, sta ti ng that a philosophical perspec ti ve includes be ‐ liefs and assump ti ons about the external world and also the way in which a person knows about this world. Thus, a philosophical perspec ti ve provides a worldview for a researcher. Marsh, Ercan, and Furlong (2018) considered this issue in a broader philosophical context, sta ti ng that a researcher’s a tti tude toward an observed phenomenon is shaped by their adopted ontological and epistemological posi ti on. Ontology and episte ‐ mology are the two main branches of philosophy, and although they are related, they are di fferent. Central to ontology is the ques ti on of whether there is a real world which “is independent of our knowl ‐ edge of it” (Marsh, Ercan, & Furlong, 2018, p. 18). Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, and its primary ques ti on is what and how one can know about the world. In terms of the ontological posi ‐ ti ons, Marsh, Ercan, and Furlong di fferen ti ated be ‐ tween founda ti onalism and an ti‐ founda ti onalism. Whereas founda ti onalism postulates a real world which is independent of our knowledge of it, an ti‐ founda ti onalism postulates a socially constructed world. As the most common categoriza ti on, Marsh, Ercan, and Furlong (2018) considered scien ti fic (also referred to as posi ti vist) and hermeneu ti c (also re ‐ ferred to as interpre ti st) epistemological posi ti ons. Adop ti ng a founda ti onalist ontological posi ti on leads to adop ti ng a scien ti fic, i.e., a posi ti vist epis ‐ temological posi ti on, sta ti ng that the real world can be known objec ti vely. Thus, this approach relies on deduc ti on and is concerned with causal rela ti on ‐ ships between phenomena (using theories to define hypotheses) to produce not only explanatory but predic ti ve models as well by means of quan ti ta ti ve methods. However, an objec ti ve direct observa ti on is needed of whether the predic ti on succeeds and the deduc ti on is valid knowledge. Adop ti ng an an ti‐ founda ti onalist ontological posi ti on leads to a hermeneu ti c, i.e., an interpre ti st epistemological posi ti on, sta ti ng that the socially constructed world might be interpreted only by means of qualita ti ve methods. Although the interpre ti st posi ti on includes di fferent subsec ti ons (genres), the underlying fea ‐ tures of these genres are similar to the previously men ti oned characteris ti cs of interpre ti sm. Because these two epistemological posi ti ons are fundamen ‐ tally di fferent, Marsh, Ercan, and Furlong (2018) stressed that these posi ti ons cannot be adopted by a researcher interchangeably. When di fferen ti a ti ng posi ti vist and interpre ti st epistemological posi ti ons as fundamental posi ti ons, Marsh, Ercan, and Furlong (2018) stressed the im ‐ portance of realism, which might be considered to be a certain kind of in ‐between category. They stated that realism adopts founda ti onalism as an ontological posi ti on, and thus it uses causal state ‐ ments as hypotheses when observing certain phe ‐ nomena and their rela ti onships. However, realists state that there are objec ti ve social phenomena, and their rela ti onships, that cannot be observed di ‐ rectly, but only interpreted as they are perceived. Thus, realism accepts the use of both quan ti ta ti ve and qualita ti ve research methods. Pernecky (2016) provided an overview of the his ‐ tory of seeking true knowledge, and also considered the concepts of logic. He stated that the debate over deduc ti ve versus induc ti ve thinking has its roots in ancient Greece, and has been con ti nued over the fol ‐ lowing centuries. Empiricists argued for the supremacy of experience, which postulates induc ti ve thinking, whereas ra ti onalists stated that true knowl ‐ edge is an achievement of reasoning, i.e., logic which postulates deduc ti ve thinking. The underlying deduc ‐ ti ve thinking of ra ti onalism goes back to the ancient Greek mathema ti cian Euclid, especially his axioma ti c system (e.g., Szabó, 1967). However, the outcome of a deduc ti on needs to be jus ti fied or falsified by means of experiments or empirical observa ti ons. The aim of induc ti ve reasoning is to achieve generaliza ‐ ti ons by means of observing par ti cular phenomena and inferring general law in terms of theory. Because both deduc ti ve and induc ti ve reason ‐ ing are underlying tools for crea ti ng new knowl ‐ edge, they are discussed further based on literature on science of reasoning, i.e., logic. Logic is a method by means of which correct reasoning can be di ffer ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 45 en ti ated from incorrect reasoning (Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014). An argument, i.e., reasoning, might be considered to be a sequence of sentences, i.e., a sequence of proposi ti ons, which starts with premises and ends with a conclusion (Gamut, 1991). Proposi ti ons are important parts of reasoning because whether something is true or false is stated by means of sentences which are referred to as proposi ti ons (e.g., Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014). Although a proposi ti on may include a simple state ‐ ment (a categorical asser ti on), it also might be com ‐ pound, including complex asser ti ons. Copi, Cohen, and McMahon (2014) di fferen ti ated the following compound proposi ti ons: • Conjunc ti ve, e.g., “in winter the temperature is below zero, and it is frequently snowing,” i.e., each part can be asserted separately. • Disjunc ti ve (alterna ti ve), e.g., “at the end of the road you can turn le ft or right,” i.e., only one of the components is true. • Hypothe ti cal (condi ti onal), e.g., “if I am sleepy, then I go to bed,” i.e., only the if–then proposi ‐ ti on, but none of the components is asserted. Using proposi ti ons, one can construct argu ‐ ments, which include inferences resul ti ng in the conclusion drawn. Thus, the structure of arguments includes proposi ti ons (commonly referred to as premises) and a conclusion, in which the premises support the conclusion. The conclusion of an infer ‐ ence may be used to form a new premise in a fol ‐ lowing structure of argument. Depending on how the premises support the conclusion, an argument, and the implied inference, might be deduc ti ve or in ‐ duc ti ve. When the conclusion is supported conclu ‐ sively by its premises, the argument is referred to as deduc ti ve; however, when this conclusiveness is not ascertained, the argument (and the implied infer ‐ ence) is induc ti ve. The di fference between deduc ti ve and induc ‐ ti ve reasoning is based on the nature of the claims which are made using arguments about the rela ‐ ti ons between premises and a conclusion (e.g., Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014). In a deduc ti ve argu ‐ ment the conclusion, as a product of inference of the argument, comes from the premises as an ab ‐ solute necessity. However, in an induc ti ve argument the conclusion, as a product of inference of the rea ‐ soning, comes from the premises with a certain de ‐ gree of probability. The following two examples shed light on this di fference: 1) Each six ‐year ‐old child has to go to school. Peter is a six ‐year ‐old child. Therefore, Peter has to go to school. 2) Most six ‐year ‐old children have to go to school. Peter is a six ‐year ‐old child. Therefore, Peter probably has to go to school. The di fference between deduc ti ve and induc ‐ ti ve reasoning places the ques ti on of validity at the forefront. Central to logic is highligh ti ng what makes an argument valid, i.e., what makes a valid inference (e.g., Gamut, 1991). Gamut also highlighted that from the point of view of validity, the sequence of sentences, i.e., of the proposi ti ons (premises then conclusion), is of vital importance because this se ‐ quence ensures the validity of argument schemata, i.e., of the structure of an argument. When true premises irrefutably underpin the conclusion, the argument is considered to be valid. Because this is not the case when an induc ti ve argument is applied, the ques ti on of validity is considered in connec ti on with deduc ti ve arguments. “A deduc ti ve argument is valid when, if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true” (Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014, p. 24). The conclusion of an induc ti ve argument can never be certain, although the level of its probability can vary. Thus, one example of induc ti ve reasoning might be stronger or weaker than another. “Even when the premises are all true, however, and pro ‐ vide strong support for the conclusion, that conclu ‐ sion is not established with certainty” (Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014, p. 25) in the case of induc ti on. Bearing in mind this di fference between deduc ti on and induc ti on, it is clear that considering further in ‐ forma ti on can change the probability of an induc ti ve argument, whereas the validity of deduc ti ve reason ‐ ing will not change due to addi ti onal informa ti on. Unlike the validity of an argument, the ques ti on of truth is understood related to the proposi ti ons, es ‐ pecially to those which are considered to be the premises, sta ti ng something about a case. When the premises are true and the argument is valid, this ar ‐ gument is referred to as sound (e.g., Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014). Thus, a sound argument neces ‐ sarily includes a true conclusion. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 46 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management Although a simple argument may consist of one premise, for the purpose of scien ti fic reasoning, Aristotle developed his syllogis ti c logic (e.g., Gamut, 1991) in which two premises are used to draw a conclusion. Thus, syllogism is a deduc ti ve argument in which the conclusion is inferred from two premises. The validity of syllogism requires the use of its standard form, which implies, further to the internal structure of the proposi ti ons, a specified order of the proposi ti ons (argument schemata). In terms of the proper internal structure of the propo ‐ si ti ons, of both premises and the conclusion, the concepts of major term, minor term, and middle term are di fferen ti ated (e.g., Copi, Cohen, & McMa ‐ hon, 2014) in the following example: All elephants can fly. Jumbo is an elephant. Therefore, Jumbo can fly. In this example the predicate of the conclusion is fly, and this is referred to as the major term of this syllogism. The subject of the conclusion is Jumbo, and this is referred to as the minor term of this syllogism. Elephant, referred to as the middle term, is in both the premises, but never in the con ‐ clusion. The premise in which the major term (fly) is included is referred to as a major premise, whereas the premise in which the minor term (Jumbo) is included is referred to as a minor premise. A categorical syllogism has a standard form when both the premises and the conclusion are a standard form of categorical proposi ti ons (e.g., Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014), and these are arranged in a predefined order, i.e., the major premise is first, the minor premise is second, and the conclusion is last. The validity of this syllogism depends on this form. Further to categorical syllogism which is con ‐ structed from categorical proposi ti ons, a disjunc ti ve syllogism consists of one disjunc ti ve (alterna ti ve) proposi ti on as one of the premises. The other premise denies one of the alterna ti ves stated in the first premise. Thus, a disjunc ti ve syllogism requires the use of a logical constant such as or, and the valid conclusion of a disjunc ti ve syllogism includes an al ‐ terna ti ve that is not denied. For example: At the end of the road you can turn le ft or right. At the end of the road you can’t turn le ft . At the end of the road you can turn right. A hypothe ti cal (condi ti onal) syllogism consists of condi ti onal proposi ti ons which include an an ‐ tecedent (e.g., if I am sleepy) and a consequent (e.g., then I go to bed). Whereas the pure hypothe ti ‐ cal syllogism relies on two condi ti onal proposi ti ons, the mixed hypothe ti cal syllogism is based on one condi ti onal proposi ti on and one categorical propo ‐ si ti on as premises. For example: If I am sleepy, then I go to bed. I am sleepy. Then I go to bed. In this form of mixed hypothe ti cal syllogism (modus ponens) the antecedent included in the condi ti onal premise is confirmed by the categorical premise, whereas the conclusion states the conse ‐ quent (e.g., Gamut, 1991). In other forms of mixed hypothe ti cal syllogism (modus tollens), the categor ‐ ical premise denies the consequent stated in the condi ti onal premise, and the antecedent is denied in the conclusion (e.g., Gamut, 1991). The structural validity of the mixed hypothe ti cal syllogisms re ‐ quires the use of appropriate logical constants, such as if ... then, if and only if, and not. Again, due to the rela ti ons between the premises and the conclusion, in the case of deduc ‐ ti on the conclusion comes from their premises with certainty, i.e., if a deduc ti on is valid and its premises include true asser ti ons, the conclusion must be true. However, in the case of induc ti on, also due to the re ‐ la ti on between its premises and the conclusion, the resul ti ng conclusion is true with a certain probability. To strengthen the probability of an induc ti vely achieved analogical conclusion, Copi, Cohen, and McMahon (2014) drew a tt en ti on to considering an appropriate number of similar and dissimilar as well as relevant cases, whereas the conclusion needs to be formulated modestly. Further to analogy, an in ‐ duc ti ve inference might relate to casual rela ti onships as well, in which a cause ‐and ‐e ffect rela ti onship is supposed between two phenomena. In this case, it Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 47 is postulated that similar e ffects are produced by similar causes, i.e., generality is available due to the causal law. Induc ti ve generaliza ti on, i.e., formula ti ng a general proposi ti on from par ti cular experiences, might be achieved by simple enumera ti on. Thus, the higher the number of observed causali ti es, the greater is the poten ti al for a more probably true in ‐ duc ti ve generaliza ti on. However, a nega ti ve case casts doubt on the truth of this generaliza ti on (e.g., Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, 2014). The conclusion of any inference might be used as a premise of further inferences to provide build ‐ ing blocks for developing scien ti fic explana ti ons which could lead to construc ti ng general truths or theories which are empirically verified (e.g., Copi, Ercan, & Furlong, 2014). Copi, Ercan, and Furlong stated that this process includes several steps, such as problem iden ti fica ti on, formula ti ng preliminary hypotheses, collec ti ng addi ti onal evidence to adjust preliminary hypotheses and formulate explanatory hypotheses, drawing and tes ti ng consequences, and applying the new knowledge (theory). According to Copi, Ercan, and Furlong, central to this process is formula ti ng hypotheses which are considered to be appropriate when they (1) are compa ti ble with pre ‐ viously established theories, (2) have predic ti ve or explanatory power, and (3) imply rela ti ve simplicity. 5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT The preceding brief overview of the research ap ‐ proaches or strategies discussed in management jour ‐ nals and introduced in books on research methods makes it possible to provide a concluding summary of logic and its rela ti on to the philosophy of science. This summary focuses on interpre ti ng deduc ti ve and in ‐ duc ti ve research in the management domain, and its rela ti on to epistemology (philosophy of science). Addressing these issues provides poten ti al for further discussion and interpreta ti on of ques ti ons, such as the unit of analysis in management research and the basic types of management research. All this helps to interpret the evolu ti on process of man ‐ agement knowledge as a certain kind of knowledge crea ti on spiral. Although terminology tends to di ffer some ‐ ti mes, the authors of studies in management jour ‐ nals and of books all consider and interpret both deduc ti ve and induc ti ve research strategies. It is ac ‐ cepted broadly that deduc ti ve research follows a theory–hypotheses–jus ti fica ti on/falsifica ti on pro ‐ cess, whereas induc ti ve research is based on an ob ‐ serva ti on–pa ttern/hypotheses–theory process. Research tends to associate a deduc ti ve approach with quan ti ta ti ve analysis, and an induc ti ve ap ‐ proach with qualita ti ve analysis. However, the broadly used term “hypothe ti co ‐deduc ti ve research” implies, and a few authors (e.g., Bryman & Bell, 2015) state expressis verbis, that in deduc ti ve re ‐ search hypotheses are deduced from extant litera ‐ ture, i.e., from what we already know. These authors also state that in the course of induc ti ve research a theory is inferred from the empirical findings. In the science of logic, inference as the form of reasoning is considered to be a process in which the premises lead to a conclusion. An inference, de ‐ pending on the rela ti ons between its premises and its conclusion, is either deduc ti ve or induc ti ve. Al ‐ though it seems acceptable that in induc ti ve re ‐ search, knowledge is inferred inducti vely as a result of induc ti ve generaliza ti on, sta ti ng that hypotheses are deduced from extant knowledge in hypothe ti co ‐ deduc ti ve research is ques ti onable in terms of logic. To make this issue clear, we need to discuss further the approaches to knowledge crea ti on. Gray (2004) introduced three types of studies: (1) exploratory, which aim to determine a situa ti on; (2) descrip ti ve, which aim to describe a phe ‐ nomenon as it is; and (3) explanatory, which focus on highligh ti ng rela ti onships between phenomena. To produce these studies, di fferent types of research need to be completed. Both exploratory and de ‐ scrip ti ve studies require observa ti on in order to in ‐ troduce a new phenomenon or an undiscovered aspect of a known phenomenon. An example is in ‐ troducing the concept of a project as a temporary organiza ti on (e.g., Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). However, an explanatory study might require either induc ti ve or deduc ti ve research. When the rela ti on ‐ ships between phenomena are highlighted as a re ‐ sult of induc ti ve generaliza ti on the researcher, based on exis ti ng knowledge of these phenomena, assumes (but does not deduce) a certain rela ti on ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 48 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management ship between them. This assump ti on is formulated as a hypothesis; then, by collec ti ng and analysing empirical data, this hypothesis is jus ti fied (or falsi ‐ fied) as a result of induc ti ve generaliza ti on. An ex ‐ ample is highligh ti ng the rela ti onship between project types and the project manager’s leadership style (e.g., Müller and Turner, 2007). When the re ‐ la ti onships between phenomena are determined as a result of deduc ti ve reasoning, the researcher, based on exis ti ng knowledge (in terms of concepts or theories) related to these or other phenomena, deduces (as a result of logical succession, i.e., infer ‐ ence) a certain rela ti onship between them. This de ‐ duc ti ve conclusion is formulated as a hypothesis; then, by empirical observa ti on, this hypothesis is re ‐ inforced (or refuted). An example is determining the rela ti onship between the market posi ti on perceived by project ‐based organiza ti ons and the type of con ‐ tract used by the project clients. (e.g., Görög, 2016). Bearing in mind the di fference between induc ‐ ti ve and deduc ti ve inference (reasoning) as intro ‐ duced in the literature on logic, I would say that use of the term hypothe ti co ‐deducti ve research is mis ‐ leading because it relies on a certain kind of miscon ‐ cep ti on related to deduc ti ve research. Therefore, most of the research which is referred to as deduc ‐ ti ve in management journals and books on research methods actually is induc ti ve research (inducti ve generaliza ti ons) reflec ti ng the science of logic. The preceding cases exemplify this statement and also provide jus ti fica ti on for it. However, in the case of quan ti ta ti ve analysis–based research, the induc ti ve generaliza ti on is underpinned quan ti ta ti vely, and qualita ti ve analysis–based research qualita ti vely supports the induc ti ve generaliza ti on. In terms of epistemological stances, the litera ‐ ture on philosophy di fferen ti ates two fundamental posi ti ons, namely posi ti vist (also referred to as sci ‐ en ti fic) and interpre ti st (also referred to as hermeneu ti c). However, Marsh, Ercan, and Furlong (2018) di fferen ti ated an in ‐between posi ti on, real ‐ ism, which adopts founda ti onalism as an ontological posi ti on, emphasizing the need to consider causal rela ti onships between phenomena. Realists also state that there are objec ti ve rela ti onships between social phenomena that cannot be observed directly, only interpreted as they are perceived. It is charac ‐ teris ti c of the hermeneu ti c/interpre ti st epistemo ‐ logical posi ti on that this stance includes several dif ‐ ferent genres (branches); however, it seems that there is no commonly agreed name for these di ffer ‐ ent genres. Most of these genres some ti mes named are di fferently when introduced in books on re ‐ search methods and briefly interpreted in manage ‐ ment journals, which can result in a certain amount of cogni ti ve confusion for prac ti cing researchers. Creswell (2012) provided an extensive list, including postposi ti vism, social construc ti vism, pragma ti sm, postmodern perspec ti ves, feminist theory, cri ti cal race theory, etc., whereas Troja (2019) adopted the umbrella term “research perspec ti ve” and intro ‐ duced symbolic interac ti onism, ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and social construc ti vism. How ‐ ever, Marsh, Ercan, and Furlong (2018) drew a tt en ‐ ti on to the lack of discussion of the poten ti al relevance of these genres. In my view, adop ti ng one of these genres as an epistemological posi ti on is strongly related to the unit of analysis (and the underlying research aim) considered in a research study and also to the axi ‐ ological approach of the researcher. Authors (e.g., Creswell, 2012; Troja, 2019) when exemplifying the use of di fferent research methods (based on a cer ‐ tain epistemological genre) regularly consider, as the unit of analysis, a person or a small well ‐defined group of people. Revealing behavior of persons or a small and well ‐defined group of persons might ex ‐ plain conduc ti ng value ‐laden research. For me, many of the genres that have emerged in the last decades seem to present certain axiological world ‐ views rather than addressing the ques ti on of what and how one can know about the world. Adop ti ng this kind of approach might be explained in sociol ‐ ogy; however, management research does not need to emulate the current research prac ti ces of sociology. At this point, the following interrelated ques ‐ ti ons need to be raised: • What is the unit of analysis in management re ‐ search? • What are the appropriate epistemological posi ‐ ti ons in management research? • What is the role of axiology in management re ‐ search? Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 49 Although management is strongly related to leadership, it is considered to be a di fferent domain (e.g., Gri ffin, 2016) Thus, I might say, in line with Bryman and Bell (2015), that in management re ‐ search the unit of analysis, in a broader sense of the term, is the organiza ti on. More precisely, man ‐ agement research, in terms of the unit of analysis, focuses on di fferent aspects of the structure and process of the organiza ti on, and also at di fferent levels, such as core ac ti vi ti es, projects, and the strategic apex. However, organiza ti ons are social constructs; they exist independently of our knowl ‐ edge of them. Organiza ti ons existed before our knowledge of them, i.e., they existed before their recogni ti on as phenomena. The case of the primi ‐ ti ve tribes jus ti fies this statement. Therefore, in line with Durkheim’s view, there is a poten ti al to ob ‐ serve objec ti vely their structures and processes at di fferent levels, and to analyze rela ti onships among di fferent opera ti onal aspects of organiza ti ons. Con ‐ sequently, both posi ti vism/scien ti fic and realism (e.g., Marsh, Ercan, & Furlong, 2018) might be adopted as epistemological posi ti ons. This seems to be in line with Lewis and Thornhill’s (2016) re ‐ search opinion in which the proposed underlying epistemological stance of deduc ti ve (logic ‐based) research is posi ti vism or (cri ti cal) realism. As was men ti oned previously, Bredillet (2004) stressed that a “being ontology” which postulates a fixed reality and the associated posi ti vist mirror is not appropriate in research, and he argued for adop ti ng a “becoming ontology” postula ti ng a changing reality and the associated subjec ti vism (regardless the unit of analysis and the associated research aim) to achieve e ffec ti veness of research outcomes. However, one might say that natural constructs also undergo changes, and adop ti ng posi ti vism in research into them broadly is ac ‐ cepted. The evolu ti on of our planet or the current climate change are examples. Of course, natural constructs change slowly. Business organiza ti ons can change rapidly, but they have permanent fea ‐ tures, such as process or structure, and the old lin ‐ ear ‐func ti onal organiza ti onal structure is in use nowadays as well. Although organiza ti ons are objec ti vely exis ti ng phenomena, the influence of values adopted by the researcher cannot be excluded fully. This influence might appear in terms of sympathy or an ti pathy (e.g., Bryman & Bell, 2015) related to informants, which can occur in the natural sciences as well (e.g., in research on climate change) related to the con ‐ sequences of the observed phenomenon. However, the use of a consciously value ‐laden, i.e., worldview ‐ driven research methodology does not support cre ‐ a ti ng addi ti onal knowledge in management sciences when structures and processes of organiza ti ons are studied. Thus, value ‐inspired, worldview ‐based management research could not provide new in ‐ sight into the structure and process of organiza ti ons. On the contrary, consciously value ‐laden research in this respect could result in rather non ‐valid, and thus unreliable, research outcomes. However, when the unit of analysis (and the underlying research aim) is the behavior of people ac ti ng in an organi ‐ za ti on, a researcher might adopt a di fferent episte ‐ mological stance. One final question is whether there is the po ‐ tential to apply such deductive research in man ‐ agement science as it is understood in the science of logic. Further to the structural validity (argu ‐ ment schemata), this kind of knowledge creation requires commonly agreed true concepts or theo ‐ ries by means of which true propositions as premises are formulated. Concepts define phe ‐ nomena and are considered to be the building blocks of theories. Theories conceptualize and ex ‐ plain phenomena, and also are used to generate future expectations (in terms of explanations) about (social and natural) phenomena (e.g., Pathi ‐ rage, Amaratunga, & Haigh, 2008). Joslin and Müller (2016) emphasized that theory needs to be used in research in order to explain a phenomenon being observed. In this way, a theory primarily is used to provide an answer to why something hap ‐ pens; thus, a theory helps the researcher to reveal and understand the causes that create the phe ‐ nomenon being observed. To exemplify applying deduc ti ve research strat ‐ egy in the management domain, a more general in ‐ terpreta ti on of Fiedler’s (1967) con ti ngency theory is considered. Using this theory, we can construct valid deduc ti ve arguments (as modus ponens) re ‐ garding the appropriate use of di fferent organiza ‐ ti onal structures as follows: Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management 50 If the core ac ti vity of an organiza ti on can be standardized, then su fficient coordina ti on can be ensured in this organiza ti on by means of di ‐ rect supervision. The core ac ti vity of this organiza ti on can be standardized. Therefore, su fficient coordina ti on can be en ‐ sured in this organiza ti on by means of direct su ‐ pervision. If su fficient coordina ti on can be ensured in this organiza ti on by means of direct supervision, then the use of the linear ‐func ti onal organiza ti onal structure is appropriate in this organiza ti on. Su fficient coordina ti on can be ensured in this organiza ti on by means of direct supervision. Therefore, the use of the linear ‐func ti onal orga ‐ niza ti onal structure is appropriate in this orga ‐ niza ti on. The outcome of this deduc ti on, i.e., the conclu ‐ sion related to the appropriateness of a linear ‐func ‐ ti onal organiza ti onal structure, can be reinforced or rejected by means of empirical observa ti ons. Trian ‐ gula ti on, especially data triangula ti on, triangula ti on of researchers, and methodological triangula ti on, as suggested by Joslin and Müller (2016), could in ‐ crease the objec ti vity and reliability of this observa ‐ ti on, and could reinforce the validity of the conclusion. However, knowledge crea ti on based on a deduc ti ve approach requires familiarity with logic, the science of reasoning. Unlike the philosophy of science, which is a core course in many doctoral schools, logic generally is neglected in most man ‐ agement doctoral schools. I strongly propose teach ‐ ing logic in doctoral schools to enhance the use of both induc ti ve and deduc ti ve reasoning in research. To achieve this end, authors of research method books need to introduce not only the epistemolog ‐ ical underpinning but also the logical underpinning of the di fferent research strategies. Bearing in mind the example related to the use of linear ‐func ti onal organiza ti onal structure, we need to address the ques ti on of how to formulate appro ‐ priate premises in order to draw reliable and valid conclusions. Central to the premises of the first argu ‐ ment (inference) is the concept of coordina ti on (as the primary role of any organiza ti onal structure) and its rela ti onship with standardiza ti on, whereas the premises in the second argument (inference) include proposi ti ons related to the concept of direct supervi ‐ sion (as one of the coordina ti on mechanisms) and its rela ti onship with the linear ‐func ti onal organiza ti onal structure. Thus, the conclusion of the first inference (argument) is used as a premise of the second infer ‐ ence (argument) to provide scien ti fic reasoning for the use of a linear ‐func ti onal organiza ti onal structure (from among the poten ti al choices) in a given context. Further to the case of organiza ti onal structures, it is characteris ti c of the broader management do ‐ main that there is more than one tool to complete the very same management task. In strategic man ‐ agement there are di fferent tools (PEST , SWOT , etc.) to analyze internal and external opera ti onal envi ‐ ronments, di fferent strategic choices (e.g., cost lead ‐ ership, di fferen ti a ti on, etc.), and di fferent ways in which strategy is defined (i.e., strategy development pa tt erns). Project management is an example be ‐ cause there are di fferent ti me ‐planning tools, di ffer ‐ ent risk assessment tools, di fferent project implementa ti on strategies, and so forth. One can state that none of those tools which might be de ‐ ployed to complete the very same management task is be tt er than another. However, each of them has both advantageous and disadvantageous fea ‐ tures from the point of view of their e fficient use. Organiza ti ons operate in di fferent internal and ex ‐ ternal contexts, and in di fferent contexts the use of di fferent tools to address the very same manage ‐ ment task seems to be appropriate. The proposed deduc ti ve reasoning provides the poten ti al to elaborate such a method (as new knowl ‐ edge) by means of which the contextual features and the features of the considered management tools can be matched. Achieving this postulates formula ti ng premises which imply (1) rela ti onships between the characteris ti cs of the opera ti onal environment and the di fferent characteris ti cs of those management tools which are available to complete the very same management task, and (2) rela ti onships between or ‐ ganiza ti onal characteris ti cs and the di fferent charac ‐ teris ti cs of those management tools which are available to complete the very same management task. These premises might be used as statements (proposi ti ons) in syllogisms to implement deduc ti ve Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 51 reasoning and achieve a context ‐related applica ti on of these management tools. Table 1 presents some poten ti al methods for using deduc ti ve reasoning in management research. To formulate appropriate (i.e., true) premises, there is a need for a detailed ex ‐ plora ti on of the characteris ti cs of those tools by which the underlying concepts are opera ti onalized in the course of their use, and of the characteris ti cs of the context in which these tools are used. However, in the case of di fferent management tasks (i.e., the management tools), di fferent characteris ti cs of the context (internal and external) should be considered. Applying this deduc ti ve argument (reasoning) in management research might enrich management science with research outcomes that have practi cal managerial implica ti ons as well. These likely results could eliminate, or at least moderate, the disadvan ‐ tageous consequences of the frequently experi ‐ enced trial ‐and ‐error–based applica ti on of the poten ti al management solu ti ons and the use of the associated management toolkit. The research out ‐ comes achieved might be jus ti fied or falsified by means of empirical observa ti ons focusing on the success rate achieved in the case of using the man ‐ agement toolkit in a context ‐related manner. Wolceshyn and Daellenbach (2018), with refer ‐ ence to Aristotle, stated that induc ti on and deduc ‐ ti on are more complementary than contradictory. Thus, bearing in mind the previously men ti oned three basic research types, the evolu ti on of knowl ‐ edge of a management domain area (a branch of it, e.g., project management) might be described as a knowledge development spiral. Janiszewski, Labroo, and Rucker (2016), proposed factors that determine the contribu ti on of a research study, and introduced the metaphor of a knowledge tree, which also has implica ti ons for the evolu ti on of management knowledge or of the di fferent branches within the management domain. However, the proposed spi ‐ ral ‐based approach focuses directly on the likely evolu ti onary process. This spiral ‐based evolu ti on process commences with observa ti ons to describe and define the phe ‐ nomena in order to formulate concepts. These con ‐ cepts make it possible to generalize rela ti onships among phenomena by means of induc ti ve research in order to formulate and develop theories as a re ‐ sult of induc ti ve generaliza ti on. The theories, and the concepts, enable researchers to produce new knowledge by means of deduc ti on (i.e., formula ti ng premises by means of theories or concepts) to pro ‐ vide explanatory models for understanding reality. This evolu ti onary process could be characteris ti c of each branch within the management domain, and new phenomena might emerge. Emergence of a new phenomenon could generate a new spiral, and, primarily in the deduc ti ve phase of the spiral, con ‐ cepts and theories developed in other branches or other domains could be considered to formulate premises for deducing new knowledge. Further ‐ more, by further observing a previously observed phenomenon, a new aspect of this phenomenon could be revealed which could result in further in ‐ duc ti ve and deduc ti ve phases of the spiral. This evo ‐ lu ti on process of knowledge crea ti on is in line with Maylor and Söderlund’s (2015) no ti on of project management knowledge. They emphasized that studies and their outcomes are built on each other over ti me to increase the level of knowledge. Ac ‐ cordingly, research in management might be (1) ob ‐ Management task (associated tools that operate the underlying concepts) Contextual features considered Strategy development Internal (organiza ti onal) and external (opera ti onal environment) characteris ti cs Strategic analysis Internal (organiza ti onal) and external (opera ti onal environment) characteris ti cs Strategic choice Internal (organiza ti onal) and external (opera ti onal environment) characteris ti cs Applying organiza ti onal structure Task (core ac ti vi ti es) characteris ti cs and diversifica ti on ‐related characteris ti cs Managing project (e.g., the use of project organiza ti ons and project implementa ti on strategy) Project characteris ti cs and parent organiza ti on characteris ti cs Table 1: Poten ti al methods for deduc ti ve management research Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management 52 serva ti onal, to highlight phenomena; (2) induc ti ve, to deepen and widen exis ti ng knowledge; and (3) deduc ti ve, to create new knowledge based on ex ‐ is ti ng knowledge. These basic types of research might build on each other alongside the spiral ‐ based evolu ti on process of knowledge crea ti on, or might be combined in a complex research study. Applying deduc ti ve research (as it is under ‐ stood in logic) when it seems possible is jus ti fied by the inherent poten ti al disadvantageous features of induc ti ve generaliza ti on, such as (1) limited sample size in terms of limited number of informants, cases, numerical data, etc.; and (2) informants’ familiarity with the research topic, and their honesty. However, in the case of a deduc ti ve approach, the structural validity of the arguments and the true proposi ti ons as premises guarantee a true conclusion. In this way, the validity of research outcomes, as was discussed in the Introduc ti on, and their objec ti vity, might be improved. However, as Marsh, Ercan, and Furlong (2018) noted, the objec ti ve observa ti on needed in this case might be as objec ti ve as the observer who completes this observa ti on. 6 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER THOUGHTS The limita ti ons of this paper primarily derive from the limited knowledge of the author. The author is a prac ti cing researcher in one of the branches of man ‐ agement sciences. It seems impossible to highlight all the poten ti al methods for adop ti ng deduc ti ve reason ‐ ing, as it is understood in logic, in the wider manage ‐ ment domain; such an e ffort exceeds the limita ti ons of a paper . However, the author hopes this paper gen ‐ erates further, specific thoughts on the poten ti al use of deduc ti ve reasoning as a research strategy in di ffer ‐ ent branches of the management domain, and that it proves to be a star ti ng point for further discussion. REFERENCES Aldag, R.J., Stearn, T .M. (1988). Issues in Research Method ‐ ology. Journal of Management, 14(2), 253 ‐276. Bansal, P ., Smith, W .K., Vaara, E. (2018). New Ways of See ‐ ing through Qualita ti ve Research. Academy of Man ‐ agement Journal, 61(4), 1189 ‐1195. Banks, G.C., O’Boyle Jr., E.H., Pollack, J.M., White, C.D., Batchelor, J.H., Whelpley, C.E., Abston, K.A., Benne tt , A.A., Atkins, C.L. (2016). Ques ti ons About Ques ti onable Research Prac ti ce in the Field of Management: A Guest Commentary. Journal of Management, 42(1), 5 ‐20. Barra tt , M., Choi, T .Y ., Li, M. (2011). Qualita ti ve Case Stud ‐ ies in Opera ti ons Management: Trends, Research Out ‐ comes, and Future Research Implica ti ons. Journal of Opera ti ons Management, 29(4), 329 ‐342. Behfar, K., Okhuysen, G.A. (2018). Discovery Within Valida ‐ ti on Logic: Deliberately Surfacing, Complemen ti ng, and Subs ti tu ti ng Abduc ti ve Reasoning in Hypothe ti co ‐De ‐ duc ti ve Inquiry. Organiza ti on Science, 29(2), 323 ‐340. Bredillet, C.N. (2004). Beyond the posi ti vist mirror: To ‐ wards a project management ‘gnosis’. Proceedings of IRNOP VI. Turku, Finland EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK Literatura o raziskovalnih metodah ob uvajanju induk ti vnih in deduk ti vnih raziskovalnih pristopov ter s tem povezanih kvalita ti vnih in kvan ti ta ti vnih raziskovalnih metod zagotavlja epistemološko pod ‐ lago raziskovanja. Kljub temu pa ta literatura na splošno zanemarja vlogo logike v raziskovanju, kar bi v časih lahko pripeljalo do neustreznega sklepanja tako v doktorskih disertacijah kot tudi pri razisko ‐ valnih delih na splošno. Neustrezno sklepanje se najve čkrat zgodi zaradi napa čne interpretacije in ‐ duk ti vnih in deduk ti vnih oblik sklepanja v literaturi o raziskovalnih metodah, kot posledica zanemarjanja logike. Ta članek me če novo lu č na interpretacijo induk ti vnih in deduk ti vnih oblik ust ‐ varjanja znanja, vklju čno z logiko, ki ima pomembno vlogo kot znanost sklepanja pri ustvarjanju znanja že vse od Aristotelovega časa. Ta prispevek je špekula ti vne narave in ponuja refleksije izkušenega raziskovalca s podro čja managementa. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 53 Bryman, A., Bell, E. (2015, 4 th edn.). Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Copi, I.M., Cohen, C., McMahon, K. (2014, 14 th edn.) In ‐ troduc ti on to Logic. Essex: Pearson. Creswell, J.W. (2012, 3 rd edn.). Qualita ti ve Enquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. London: SAGE. Drouin, N., Müller, R., Sankaran, S. (2013). Novel Ap ‐ proaches to Organiza ti onal Project Management Re ‐ search: Transla tional and Transforma ti onal. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Fidler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership e ffec ti veness. New York: McGraw ‐Hill. Gamut, L.T.F. (1991). Logic, Language, and Meaning. Vol. I. Introduc ti on to Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Go ttf redson, R.K., Aguinis, H. (2017). Leadership behav ‐ iors and follower performance: Deduc ti ve and induc ‐ ti ve examina ti on of theore ti cal ra ti onales and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Organiza ti onal Be ‐ havior, 38, 558 ‐591. Görög, M. (2016). Market posi ti ons as perceived by pro ‐ ject ‐based organisa ti ons in the typical project busi ‐ ness segment. Interna ti onal Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 187 ‐201. Görög, M. (2019). Highligh ti ng Determinants of the Mar ‐ ket Posi ti ons of Project ‐Based Companies in the Typi ‐ cal Project Business Segment: A Study of Using a Deduc ti ve Research Strategy. SAGE. Gray, D.E. (2004). Doing Research in the Real World. Lon ‐ don: SAGE. Griffin, R.W . (2016, 12 th edn.). Management. Mason. OH: South ‐Western. Hudson, B.A., Okhuysen, G.A. (2014). Taboo topics: Struc ‐ tural barriers to the study of organiza ti onal s ti gma. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3), 242–253. Hyde, K. (2000). Recognising deduc ti ve processes in qual ‐ ita ti ve research. Qualita ti ve Market Research, 3(2), 82 ‐89. Janiszewski, C., Labroo, A.A., Rucker, D.D. (2016). A Tuto ‐ rial in Consumer Research: Knowledge Crea ti on and Knowledge Apprecia ti on in Deduc ti ve ‐Conceptual Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 200 ‐209. Jensen, E.A., Laurie, C. (2016). Doing Real Research. Lon ‐ don: SAGE. Joslin, R.., Müller, R. (2016). Iden ti fying interes ti ng project phenomena using philosophical and methodological triangula ti on. Interna ti onal Journal of Project Man ‐ agement, 34(6), 1043 ‐1056. Kovács, Gy., Spens, K.M. (2005). Abduc ti ve reasoning in logis ti cs research. Interna ti onal Journal of Physical Distribu ti on & Logis ti cs Management, 35(2), 132 ‐144. Kuhn, T .S. (1970, 2 nd edn.). The Structure of Scien ti fic Rev ‐ olu ti ons. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lundin, R. A., Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the tem ‐ porary organiza ti on. Scandinavian Journal of Man ‐ agement, 11, 437 ‐455. Marsh, D., Ercan, S.A., Furlong, P. (2018). A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Poli ti cal Sci ‐ ence. In Theory and Methods in Poli ti cal Sciences (4 th edn.) edited by Lowndes, V., Marsh, D., Stoker, G. (chapter 11, 177 ‐198). London: Palgrave. Maylor, H., Söderlund, J. (2015). Project Management Re ‐ search: Addressing Integra ti ve Challenges. In Designs, Methods and Prac ti ces for Research of Project Man ‐ agement. edited by Beverly, P. (chapter 1, 11 ‐17). Farnham: Gower Mårtensson, P ., Fors, U., Wallin, S., Zander, U., Nilsson, G. (2016). Evalua ti ng research: A mul ti disciplinary ap ‐ proach to assessing research prac ti ce and quality. Re ‐ search Policy, 45(3), 593 ‐603. Mohajan, H.K. (2018). Qualita ti ve Research Methodology in Social Sciences and Related Subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23 ‐48. Müller, R., Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project man ‐ ager’s leadership style to project type. Interna ti onal Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21 ‐32. Müller, R., Söderlund, J. (2015). Innova ti ve approaches in project management research. Interna ti onal Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 251 ‐253. Osterloh, M., Frey, B.S. (2020). How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia. Research Policy, 49(1), 103831. Pathirage, C.P., Amaratunga, R.D.G., Haigh, R.P. (2008). The role of philosophical context in the development of research methodology and theory. The Built and Human Environment Review, 1(1), 1 ‐10. Pernecky, T. (2016). Epistemology and Metaphysics for Qualita ti ve Research. London: SAGE. Recker, J., Mertens, W . (2019). New Guideline for Null Hy ‐ pothesis Significance Tes ti ng in Hypothe ti co ‐Deduc ‐ ti ve IS Research. Journal of the Associa ti on for Informa ti on Systems. Reiter, B. (2017). Theory and Methodology of Exploratory Social Science Research. Interna ti onal Journal of Science and Research Methodology: Human, 5(4), 129 ‐150. Saunders, M., Lewis, P . and Thornhill, A. (2019, 8 th edn.) Research methods for business students. Harlow: Pearson Educa ti on Limited. Schwab, A., Starbuck. W.H. (2017). A call for openness in research repor ti ng: How to turn covert prac ti ces into helpful tools. Academy of Management Learning and Educa ti on, 16(1), 125–141. Tracy, S.J. (2020, 2 nd edn.). Qualita ti ve Research Methods: Collec ti ng Evidence, Cra ft ing Analysis, Communica ti ng Impact. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley ‐Blackwell. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 Mihály Görög: Reflec ti ons on Approaches to Research Strategies in Management 54 Szabó, Á. (1967). Greek Dialec ti cs and Euclid’s Axioma ti cs. Studies in Logic and the Founda ti ons of Mathema ti cs, 47, 1 ‐27. Troja, A. (2019). Qualita ti ve Research as Stepwise ‐Deduc ‐ ti ve Induc ti on. London: Routledge. Tsang, E.W .K. (2017). The Philosophy of Management Re ‐ search. London: Routledge. Whi tf ield, K., Strauss, G. (2000). Methods Ma tt er: Changes in Industrial Rela ti ons Research and their Im ‐ plica ti ons. Bri ti sh Journal of Industrial Rela ti ons, 38(1), 141 ‐151. Wolceshyn, J., Daellenbach, U.S. (2018). Evalua ti ng Induc ‐ ti ve versus Deduc ti ve Research in Management Stud ‐ ies: Implica ti ons for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers. Qualita ti ve Research in Organiza ti ons and Manage ‐ ment: An Interna ti onal Journal, 13(2), 183 ‐195. Zalaghi, H., Khazaei, M. (2016). The Role of Deduc ti ve and Induc ti ve Reasoning in Accoun ti ng Research and Stan ‐ dard Se tti ng. Asian Journal of Finance & Accoun ti ng, 8(1), 23 ‐37.