Open Access

Oliver Weigelt, Kimberly A. French, Jessica de Bloom, Carolin Dietz, Michael Knoll, Jana Kühnel, Laurenz L. Meier, Roman Prem, Shani Pindek, Antje Schmitt, Christine J. Syrek, Floor Rink

• Guzzo et al. (Reference Guzzo, Schneider and Nalbantian2022) argue that open science practices may marginalize inductive and abductive research and preclude leveraging big data for scientific research. We share their assessment that the hypothetico-deductive paradigm has limitations (see also Staw, Reference Staw2016) and that big data provide grand opportunities (see also Oswald et al., Reference Oswald, Behrend, Putka and Sinar2020). However, we arrive at very different conclusions. Rather than opposing open science practices that build on a hypothetico-deductive paradigm, we should take initiative to do open science in a way compatible with the very nature of our discipline, namely by incorporating ambiguity and inductive decision-making. In this commentary, we (a) argue that inductive elements are necessary for research in naturalistic field settings across different stages of the research process, (b) discuss some misconceptions of open science practices that hide or discourage inductive elements, and (c) propose that field researchers can take ownership of open science in a way that embraces ambiguity and induction. We use an example research study to illustrate our points.