IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v66y2013i9p1393-1397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The significant difference paradigm promotes bad science

Author

Listed:
  • Hubbard, Raymond
  • Lindsay, R. Murray

Abstract

The present paper addresses questions raised by Ball and Sawyer (2013--this issue) on Hubbard and Lindsay´s (this issue) article. In particular, it responds explicitly to their concerns about the possible drawbacks of using overlapping confidence intervals as a measure of significant sameness, and whether or not a “straw man” argument is being offered. Importantly, this article elaborates on other critical elements of the significant sameness paradigm, including the notion of predictive precision, and the fact that this paradigm accurately describes how real science progresses.

Suggested Citation

  • Hubbard, Raymond & Lindsay, R. Murray, 2013. "The significant difference paradigm promotes bad science," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1393-1397.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:66:y:2013:i:9:p:1393-1397
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296312001385
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Otley, David & Pollanen, Raili M., 2000. "Budgetary criteria in performance evaluation: a critical appraisal using new evidence," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 483-496, May.
    2. A. S. C. Ehrenberg & J. A. Bound, 1993. "Predictability and Prediction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 156(2), pages 167-194, March.
    3. Lindsay, R. Murray, 1995. "Reconsidering the status of tests of significance: An alternative criterion of adequacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 35-53, January.
    4. Colwyn Jones, T. & Dugdale, David, 2002. "The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(1-2), pages 121-163.
    5. George Box, 1994. "Statistics and Quality Improvement," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 157(2), pages 209-229, March.
    6. Easley, Richard W. & Madden, Charles S. & Dunn, Mark G., 2000. "Conducting Marketing Science: The Role of Replication in the Research Process," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 83-92, April.
    7. Ball, A. Dwayne & Sawyer, Alan G., 2013. "Issues involving the use of significant sameness in testing replications and generating knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1389-1392.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kristina Haberstroh & Ulrich R. Orth & Stefan Hoffmann & Berit Brunk, 2017. "Consumer Response to Unethical Corporate Behavior: A Re-Examination and Extension of the Moral Decoupling Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 161-173, January.
    2. Davidsson, Per, 2015. "Data replication and extension: A commentary," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 12-15.
    3. Adler, Susanne Jana & Röseler, Lukas & Schöniger, Martina Katharina, 2023. "A toolbox to evaluate the trustworthiness of published findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. Gray, Rob & Milne, Markus J., 2015. "It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it? Of method and madness," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 51-66.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hubbard, Raymond & Lindsay, R. Murray, 2013. "From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1377-1388.
    2. Marginson, David & Ogden, Stuart, 2005. "Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers' budgeting behaviours," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 435-456, July.
    3. Derfuss, Klaus, 2016. "Reconsidering the participative budgeting–performance relation: A meta-analysis regarding the impact of level of analysis, sample selection, measurement, and industry influences," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 17-37.
    4. Uncles, Mark D. & Kwok, Simon, 2013. "Designing research with in-built differentiated replication," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1398-1405.
    5. Klaus Derfuss, 2015. "Relating Context Variables to Participative Budgeting and Evaluative Use of Performance Measures: A Meta-analysis," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(2), pages 238-278, June.
    6. Rakesh Sambharya & Martina Musteen, 2014. "Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: An empirical study across countries," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 314-330, December.
    7. Nicolas Berland & Yves Levant & Vassili Joannides, 2009. "Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of budget. Symmetrical analysis of rhetoric associated to the introduction of budget and “beyond budgeting”," Post-Print hal-01661710, HAL.
    8. Simon Alcouffe & Pierre Mévellec, 2012. "Analyse de la littérature sur l'ABC et proposition d'une taxinomie," Post-Print hal-00936600, HAL.
    9. Natalia M. Mintchik & Timothy A. Farmer, 2009. "Associations Between Epistemological Beliefs and Moral Reasoning: Evidence from Accounting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 259-275, January.
    10. Rina Sandhu & Jane Baxter & David Emsley, 2008. "The Balanced Scorecard and its Possibilities: The Initial Experiences of a Singaporean Firm," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 18(1), pages 16-24, March.
    11. Francisco J. Conejo & Lawrence F. Cunningham & Clifford E. Young, 2020. "Revisiting the Brand Luxury Index: new empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 108-122, January.
    12. Hall, Matthew, 2008. "The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 141-163.
    13. Rodney Coyte & Martin Messner & Shan Zhou, 2022. "The revival of zero‐based budgeting: drivers and consequences of firm‐level adoptions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 3147-3188, September.
    14. Nayeem, Tahmid & Casidy, Riza, 2015. "Australian consumers' decision-making styles for everyday products," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 67-74.
    15. Jeacle, Ingrid & Carter, Chris, 2011. "In TripAdvisor we trust: Rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 293-309.
    16. Marco Giovanni Rizzo, 2014. "La relazione tra il livello di coinvolgimento nel processo di budget, il commitment verso gli obiettivi, la soddisfazione lavorativa e i relativi risvolti sulla performance manageriale. I risultati di," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 9-34.
    17. Yves Levant & Simon Alcouffe & Nicolas Berland, 2008. "Actor-networks and the diffusion of management accounting innovations : a comparative study," Post-Print hal-01682216, HAL.
    18. Ryan, James C. & A Tipu, Syed A., 2022. "Business and management research: Low instances of replication studies and a lack of author independence in replications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    19. Mahmoud Nassar & Husam Aldeen Al‐Khadash & Alan Sangster, 2011. "The diffusion of activity‐based costing in Jordanian industrial companies," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8(2), pages 180-200, June.
    20. Hartmann, Frank G. H. & Moers, Frank, 1999. "Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research: an evaluation of the use of moderated regression analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 291-315, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:66:y:2013:i:9:p:1393-1397. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.