Challenges of Semiotic Abduction in Management Research

This Counterpoint challenges Fleming and Oswick’s (2025) Point paper and their notion of loosely coupled abduction. Whereas their Point emphasizes how abductive theorizing can balance creativity and rigor through consensus‐based plausibility, we argue that this very reliance on consensus carries epistemic risks. Specifically, abductively posited mechanisms may become established through repetition and shared acceptance rather than empirical verification. We define this heuristic process as semiotic abduction, an unintended consequence of the consensus rule emphasized in the Point. Whereas the Point emphasizes how abduction can be disciplined in the formation of theory, beginning with anomalies and gaining plausibility through informed consensus, we highlight the danger that such mechanisms may gain traction without sufficient validation. Semiotic abduction, we argue, risks fostering mechanism drift, theoretical ambiguity, and the fragmentation of research domains around unverified assumptions. We conclude by offering recommendations to mitigate these risks.