Abstract
Following C. S. Peirce, abduction is often interpreted as a first phase of inquiry where a hypothesis is formulated requiring testing. I maintain, however, that a natural scientific ideal of testing is not the most suitable model for studies on human practices. Practical experimentation follows a different kind of a logic, and Peirce’s formulations need to be developed further. I interpret abduction in relation to the Deweyan idea of a working hypothesis, and the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete. Practical abduction is about enriching the working hypothesis instead of “testing” it in a strict sense. In studies on human practices abduction continues throughout the research process.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
