This paper makes a case for the necessity of inductive and abductive approaches to research in occupational health science and the broader organizational sciences. Three forms of scientific inference are described: induction (exploratory research that generalizes from observations), abduction (deriving explanations for observations), and deduction (confirmatory research that tests theory-derived hypotheses). It is argued that the current deductive exclusiveness in the major journals of many fields has created unintended challenges to research integrity of confirmation bias, phacking, HARKing, and the chrysalis effect. Recommendations are given for writing and reviewing research papers that adopt an inductive and/or abductive approach.Keywords Abduction . Exploratory research . Inductive research . Philosophyofscience . Research integrity . Research methods Discovery can be considered the most important aspect of scientific progress, both for the field and individual scientists. Famous scientists are generally known mostly for what they discovered, such as Einstein for relativity, Fleming for penicillin, and Newton for mechanics of motion. Although these examples are from the physical sciences, social and organizational sciences have discoveries too, for example, that goals improve performance (E. A. Locke and Latham 1990), or that introducing new work technologies can be disruptive and stressful (Trist and Bamforth 1951). These discoveries add to the knowledge base of the field, help direct future research, and are often the basis for evidence-based intervention in the field. Yet despite the fact that discovery is vitally important in science, for more than two decades, the organizational sciences have rejected discovery, considering it somehow inferior and unimportant as