IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/scaman/v25y2009i1p108-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The constant causes of never-ending faddishness in the behavioral and social sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Starbuck, William H.

Abstract

Summary The history of the behavioral and social sciences contains endless sequences of conceptual and methodological fads. Disappointed with the results of their current concepts and methods, researchers pursue new topics or approaches in the hope that they will bring better results. In time, however, the new fads too disappoint. The wide spread and persistence of disappointment evidence the influence of common and fundamental misbeliefs about scientific methodology. This article points to the detrimental effects of four specific misbeliefs: that research lends itself to mass production, that mechanistic descriptions adequately portray behavioral and social processes, that generalizations ought to be broad, and that statistical methods provide useful insights even if researchers misuse them. Detrimental ideas such as these can survive scrutiny and evaluation because researchers cannot agree about what effective research looks like. Lacking reliable indicators of research effectiveness, researchers both flit capriciously from one idea to another and adhere stubbornly to unproductive ideas.

Suggested Citation

  • Starbuck, William H., 2009. "The constant causes of never-ending faddishness in the behavioral and social sciences," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 108-116, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:25:y:2009:i:1:p:108-116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522108001085
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Pawel Sobkowicz, 2015. "Innovation Suppression and Clique Evolution in Peer-Review-Based, Competitive Research Funding Systems: An Agent-Based Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(2), pages 1-13.
    2. Lund, Rebecca, 2012. "Publishing to become an “ideal academic”: An Institutional Ethnography and a Feminist Critique," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 218-228.
    3. Slavica Manic, 2016. "Economics Imperialism: SWOT Analysis," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 6(3), pages 151-161.
    4. Tienari, Janne, 2012. "Academia as financial markets? Metaphoric reflections and possible responses," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 250-256.
    5. Meglio, Olimpia & Risberg, Annette, 2011. "The (mis)measurement of M&A performance—A systematic narrative literature review," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 418-433.
    6. Humphrey, Christopher & Gendron, Yves, 2015. "What is going on? The sustainability of accounting academia," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 47-66.
    7. Damien Besancenot & Habib Dogguy, 2011. "Paradigm Shift," CEPN Working Papers halshs-00590527, HAL.
    8. Katja Rost & Bruno S. Frey, 2011. "Quantitative and Qualitative Rankings of Scholars," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 63(1), pages 63-91, January.
    9. Olimpia Meglio, 2020. "Towards More Sustainable M&A Deals: Scholars as Change Agents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-11, November.
    10. Slavica Manic, 2016. "Economics Imperialism: SWOT Analysis," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 6(3), pages 151-161, March.

    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:scaman:v:25:y:2009:i:1:p:108-116. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/872/description#description .

    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.