The process of justifying a generalized theoretical conclusion from a specific empirical analysis continues to elude us. In this article, we suggest that this stems from an incomplete understanding and specification of how arguments are structured. Most importantly, in addition to empirical data, a generalized conclusion hinges on the application of various rules and principles of reasoning that British philosopher Stephen Toulmin labeled warrants. In this article, we apply Toulmin's model of argument structure to empirical management research by examining in particular the roles of four types of warrants: theoretical, inferential, procedural, and contextual. Based on our analysis, we suggest that making warrants and their backings explicit paves the way toward a more comprehensive understanding of how arguments are structured and how claims are justified. Importantly, an examination of warrants reveals that the choices researchers make are not limited to matters such as choosing the research topic or a particular research design, but they also extend to how we produce our claims. If we wish to understand argument structure, we must understand these choices.

中文翻译：

---

什么保证了我们的主张？论据结构的方法论评估

从具体的经验分析中证明广义理论结论的过程仍然是我们所望而知的。在本文中，我们认为这源于对论证结构的不完整理解和规范。最重要的是，除了经验数据，对各种规则和推理，英国哲学家史蒂芬·图尔明标记原理的应用广义的结论铰链权证. 在本文中，我们通过特别检查四种类型的保证的作用，将图尔敏的论证结构模型应用于实证管理研究：理论、推理、程序和上下文。根据我们的分析，我们建议明确认股权证及其支持为更全面地理解论点的结构和主张的合理性铺平了道路。重要的是，对认股权证的检查表明，研究人员所做的选择不仅限于选择研究主题或特定研究设计等问题，而且还延伸到我们如何提出我们的主张。如果我们想了解论证结构，我们必须了解这些选择。