IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v18y1972i10pb613-b618.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science

Author

Listed:
  • Ian I. Mitroff

    (University of Pittsburgh)

Abstract

For the past two years I have been studying a group of over forty eminent physical scientists. I have repeatedly interviewed (there are over 220 hours of tape-recorded interviews) and questioned them about their methodology and attitudes towards science and scientists. The purpose of my study has been to find out how practicing scientists actually do science and what they think about the nature of science.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages 613-618, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:18:y:1972:i:10:p:b613-b618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.18.10.B613
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Oliva, Rogelio, 2003. "Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 552-568, December.
    2. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    3. Saleh, Mohamed & Oliva, Rogelio & Kampmann, Christian Erik & Davidsen, Pål I., 2010. "A comprehensive analytical approach for policy analysis of system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 673-683, June.
    4. J. Scott Armstrong, 1979. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
    5. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, EconWPA.
    6. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-84, January.
    7. JS Armstrong & Roderick J. Brodie & Andrew G. Parsons, 2004. "Hypotheses in Marketing Science: Literature Review and Publication Audit," General Economics and Teaching 0412013, EconWPA.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:18:y:1972:i:10:p:b613-b618. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.