The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science
In general, I thought that the Boal and Willis “Note on the Armstrong/Mitroff Debate” 1 provided an interesting and fair discussion. 2 The summary of the consequences of the subjective versus objective approaches (Table 1 in their paper) was helpful. It clearly outlined the dilemma faced by scientists: “Should I strive for personal gain or for scientific contributions?” It also described what is likely to happen to the theories generated from the subjective and objective approaches. For example, the authors claimed that the subjective approach will yield a fuller hearing for a theory.
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.:
- J. Scott Armstrong, 1979.
"Advocacy and Objectivity in Science,"
INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502060, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, EconWPA. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502055. 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: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.