A very interesting question, Kelvin. As always, it probably depends on what one considers to be "abductive" reasoning.

Pierce, as you probably know, coined the term. He thought that an element of surprise was part of the process: "I didn't expect that" type of reasoning. Umberto Eco identified three forms of explanation associated with abductive reasoning. Overcoded abduction is where only one explanation seems possible, while undercoded abduction where several explanations are possible. The third he called "creative" abduction where the explanation and the context arrive together, employing both inductive and deductive reasoning which mutually condition each other. This is probably what people have in mind when thinking about abduction, maybe?

Generating metaphors is a related area where abduction occurs, when one "Sees one thing as another", not as a simile but as a cognitive act.

This is clearly an important factor in the activities of modelling, understood in a general sense, where non-linear processes of deduction and induction are used in the context of generating artefacts and explanations of both real and abstract systems.

Methodologically, so called "constructivist" understanding of knowledge seem to employ abductive reasoning in interpreting social phenomena, as you point out.

Whether any of these processes can be taught is a very interesting question.Perhaps it is the case that one could start by making people aware of the way they already use abduction in their lives as a form of tacit knowledge? One then could formalise their reflections by making explicit the abductive nature of the processes that have been indentified. This could occur in contexts ranging from everyday problem solving to making conspiracy theories!

Look forward to hear what others have to say, but thanks for opening the discussion thread.

I'd recommend PBL.

Self-directed learning examples.

Hope this helps,

Matt

Thank you Matthew. I am interested in what others may offer. I suspect many people have a naturally intuitive of abductive bent (I know these concepts are not exactly the same) and may struggle to support others to develop the freedom to think in these ways.

A very interesting question, Kelvin. As always, it probably depends on what one considers to be "abductive" reasoning.

Pierce, as you probably know, coined the term. He thought that an element of surprise was part of the process: "I didn't expect that" type of reasoning. Umberto Eco identified three forms of explanation associated with abductive reasoning. Overcoded abduction is where only one explanation seems possible, while undercoded abduction where several explanations are possible. The third he called "creative" abduction where the explanation and the context arrive together, employing both inductive and deductive reasoning which mutually condition each other. This is probably what people have in mind when thinking about abduction, maybe?

Generating metaphors is a related area where abduction occurs, when one "Sees one thing as another", not as a simile but as a cognitive act.

This is clearly an important factor in the activities of modelling, understood in a general sense, where non-linear processes of deduction and induction are used in the context of generating artefacts and explanations of both real and abstract systems.

Methodologically, so called "constructivist" understanding of knowledge seem to employ abductive reasoning in interpreting social phenomena, as you point out.

Whether any of these processes can be taught is a very interesting question.Perhaps it is the case that one could start by making people aware of the way they already use abduction in their lives as a form of tacit knowledge? One then could formalise their reflections by making explicit the abductive nature of the processes that have been indentified. This could occur in contexts ranging from everyday problem solving to making conspiracy theories!

Look forward to hear what others have to say, but thanks for opening the discussion thread.

Kelvin, Unlike science, which is deductive and inductive, the design disciplines are eminently abductive. If you adopt a design based approach, or an approach guided by design thinking, you are likely to be adopting an abductive approach. Project based and design based learning approaches are, thus, ideal, as suggested by Matthew. If you wish to get deeper into the epistemology of abduction, in its relationship with the deductive and inductive approaches, you may wish to read my chapter Action Research and Design in Information Systems, here on ResearchGate. Some ot the references I cite may also be useful, namely those that discuss the so called ‘designerly ways of knowing’. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225919951_Action_Research_and_Design_in_Information_Systems

Dear Kelvin,

Like Ian, I wouls urge you to take profitt from reading some of the books of Charles Sanders Pierece. Not only did he coin the expression abductive reasoning, but also wrote cogently on abductive reasoning. Note that one thinks of reasoning what comes to our mind is deductive and inductice reasoning, and we often forget abductive reasoning.

So, you are raising a timely, even though overlooked issue.

Kind regards,

Orlando

I would encourage you to read *about* Peirce’s ideas on abduction, but I wouldn’t suggest you read Peirce’s books (his name, by the way, is Peirce, and not Pierce). He was a genius, but he had great difficulty in explaining himself. The most valuable implications of abduction to the learning process reside in the cyclical, or dialectical, nature of abductive reasoning. The attached picture, from one of my courses, summarizes the difference.

I appreciate all these comments. The question arose a) as a result of reading about Peirce's ideas and b) the fact that in the past two years I have been placed in the position of mentoring theological students who wish to research the practice of ministry. Your comments, in addition to my reading, has shown me that some of the skills I use when mentoring new clinicians in a practice-based learning environment are likely transferable to my new opportunities.

Kelvin, I can only praise your adoption of the “practice turn” in your research. The theories of practice are becoming very popular in the study of the professions, since they uncover a lot of hidden knowledge on the role of practice in the development of the professions. I’m also very interested in that line of research, which I explore in the context of the engineering and teaching professions. Donald Schön spoke of the crisis of professional knowledge and the pursuit of the epistemologies of practice. The modes of cognition induced by practice are indeed very inspiring. On the other hand, they tend to be phenomenological, cyclical, and, to a large extent, abductive.

It is interesting that you are discussing abduction in the context of developing ministry, Kelvin. A former colleague at King's, Alister McGrath, headed a ministry group in the department. He has a science background and used Peirce's ideas in his book "Enriching our Vision of Reality: Theology And The Natural Sciences In Dialogue". He gives a very intersting discussion of how abduction is a model for developing intelligibility. You may also have come across Andrew Walker and Philip Barnes, who were in the same group?

Antonio, your account of the cyclical nature of abduction is interesting. It suggests a hermeneutical process. In what sense is it dialectical? Sadly the idea of the "reflective practitioner" is no longer used in theories of teacher development in the uk. Since the centralisation of the currciulum in 90s and the introduction of targets and accountability, the model is no longer of individual self improvement. I have found Engstrom's view of Activity theory to be more useful in understanding how practices are conditioned by the social-cultural context rather than individuals reflecting on their experience. BTW Antonio In your work on engineering, have you come across Richard Noss's work? Great discussion BTW!

Ian, Thanks for pointing out Alister McGrath’s book, which I didn’t know about. I have used the word ‘dialectical’ in the sense adopted by Schön — a “conversation with reality” — but ‘hermeneutical’ is probably a better word, specially in the context of ministry practice. I’m with you in the the criticism of the current, neoliberal, visions of pedagogy, which are so detrimental to genuine learning. I like Engström’s ideas about expansive learning, but I share Bonnie Nardi’s view that, though Activity Theory is good for describing reality, it is generally limited for intervening (which, as an engineer, I value much). That’s why I prefer more projective sociological theories, such as Actor-Network Theories, Lave and Wenger’s legitimate peripheral participation, and Bourdieu’s theories of practice. Yes, I’ve come across Richard Noss, with whom I had the pleasure of working, in the past, in a couple of European projects. Thanks for the most stimulating comments.

Kelvin, I hope this piece of debate is helpful to your work. One interesting aspect of abductive practices is that they often find richer expression in shared environments, which makes them particularly valuable in the context of social practices, such as those of the professions.

The paedagogic based behavioristic mau be give opportunity to samelatary (plagiation)

Me parece una pregunta muy interesante que me ha llevado a reflexionar e interesarme mucho sobre el tema, a partir de las importantes respuestas que me han dado la oportunidad de revisar los aportes de varios autores que estoy segura enriquecerán mi práctica pedagógica. Desde mi experiencia me parece que algunos métodos pedagógicos que se emplean y que seguramente muchos de ustedes aplican son los idóneos para generar el razonamiento abductivo. El estudio de casos y todos aquellos métodos que promueven la movilización del razonamiento ante realidades concretas implican una diversidad de miradas desde nuestra particular perspectiva. El aprendizaje basado en problemas y el método de proyectos creo que posibilitan este pensamiento, tanto en el proceso como en el resultado final.

Maria, gracias para sus ideas que me dan apoyo para mis metodos pedadgogicos.

Prof Rasyad, I agree that plagiarism can be problematic. There are ways, however, to reduce the possibility of this occurring.

Antonio and Ian, I am familiar with Schön's work and find that his three movements of reflection to be a useful heuristic for my students. I agree with both of you that a hermeneutical framework is very useful. That being said, I am also drawn to Schön's idea of "conversation" from the perspective that the dialogue is an important component of the hermeneutical process.

Ian, thank you for pointing me back to Alister McGrath. I was unaware of this source and will look for it.

It"s meaningfull and appropriate for. ceritain setting : conditioning behavior, habit and for behavior whit ini SOP. It's not for scientivic devolopment

Research pertaining to problem-based learning through abductive reasoning and its effectiveness is widely available in the sciences. It seems an incredible means of activating learning with a student-centered approach.

Yes I agree, Kristin, Problem-Based Learning offers good opportunities for abductive reasoning with emphasis on learner-centred discovery. Reading the various answers above, I am reminded of Bruner’s taxonomy of learning episodes (discovery of new knowledge, manipulation of the knowledge/transformation to another form & evaluation). It’s the final episode, evaluation, where abductive inference fits. Bruner believed this stage was necessary to check new knowledge for plausibility (i.e., Does this look right? Does it fit? How do I know?).