Advocacy and Objectivity in Science
AbstractThree strategies for scientific research in management are examined: advocacy, induction, and multiple hypotheses. Advocacy of a single dominant hypothesis is efficient, but biased. Induction is not biased, but it is inefficient. The multiple hypotheses strategy seems to be both efficient and unbiased. Despite its apparent lack of objectivity, most management scientists use advocacy. For example, 2/3 of the papers published in a sampling of issues of Management Science (1955-1976) used advocacy. A review of the published empirical evidence indicates that advocacy reduces tire objectivity of the scientists. No evidence was found to suggest that this lack of objectivity could be overcome by a 'marketplace for ideas' (i.e., publication for peer review). It is recommended that tire method of multiple hypotheses be used.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0502060.
Length: 7 pages
Date of creation: 11 Feb 2005
Date of revision:
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 7
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://220.127.116.11
advocacy; objectivity; science; publication;
Other versions of this item:
- A - General Economics and Teaching
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2005-04-16 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages B613-B618, June.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong & Edward J. Lusk, 2005. "Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis," General Economics and Teaching 0502041, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502055, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2004. "Strategies for Implementing Change: An Experiential Approach," General Economics and Teaching 0412026, EconWPA.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.