IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v25y1979i5p423-428.html

Advocacy and Objectivity in Science

Author

Listed:
  • J. Scott Armstrong

    (University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

Three 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 the 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 the method of multiple hypotheses be used.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Scott Armstrong, 1979. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:25:y:1979:i:5:p:423-428
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.25.5.423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.25.5.423
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.25.5.423?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. JS Armstrong, 2005. "The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502055, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Armstrong, J. Scott & Lusk, Edward J., 1987. "Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis," MPRA Paper 81693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
    5. Vernuccio, Maria & Ceccotti, Federica, 2015. "Strategic and organisational challenges in the integrated marketing communication paradigm shift: A holistic vision," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 438-449.
    6. John W. Boudreau, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Organizational Behavior, Strategy, Performance, and Design in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1463-1476, November.
    7. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "The Mission of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    8. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    10. Lucas Chacur & Murillo Dias, 2026. "Value Creation in Luxury Real Estate: Perspectives of Customers and Companies," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 21(2), pages 1-65, March.
    11. Francesca Faggioni & Marco Valerio Rossi & Andrea Sestino, 2024. "Conceptualizing Supply Chain Resilience in Exogenous Crisis Times: Toward a Holistic Definition," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(4), pages 17308-17332, December.
    12. JS Armstrong, 2004. "Strategies for Implementing Change: An Experiential Approach," General Economics and Teaching 0412026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Woodside, Arch G. & Sharma, Manish, 2017. "Case-based modeling of prolific liars and constant truth-tellers: Who are the dishonesty and honesty self-reporters?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 142-153.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:25:y:1979:i:5:p:423-428. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.