How Do I Reason? (2 of 5)

Speaker: Mikko Ketokivi (IE Business School) Bounded rationality, overconfidence, attentional bias, confirmation bias, selection bias, et cetera. The list of factors severely limiting decision-makers' rationality is endless. Surprisingly, few scholars consider this basic fact when they examine their own reasoning faculties. Yet, just like managers, researchers are decision-makers. In this session, we look at scholarly reasoning and argument from the point of view of research practice. We also examine the role of prescriptive and normative methodology in the process: How can methodological training help scholars improve their reasoning? Or is this a question of training, methodological or otherwise, in the first place? Recommended reading: Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge. Lave, C. A., and J. G. March (1975). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Harper & Row. Ketokivi, M., and S. Mantere. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review 35(2), 315-333. Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organization science. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 70-89. Ketokivi, M., Mantere, S., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Reasoning by analogy and the progress of theory. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 637-658.