IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0502060.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Advocacy and Objectivity in Science

Author

Listed:
  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

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 tire 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 tire method of multiple hypotheses be used.

Suggested Citation

  • JS Armstrong, 2005. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502060
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0502/0502060.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Armstrong, J. Scott & Lusk, Edward J., 1987. "Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis," MPRA Paper 81693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. JS Armstrong & Edward J. Lusk, 2005. "Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis," General Economics and Teaching 0502041, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. JS Armstrong, 2004. "Strategies for Implementing Change: An Experiential Approach," General Economics and Teaching 0412026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. 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.
    6. JS Armstrong, 2005. "The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502055, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    advocacy; objectivity; science; publication;

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wpa:wuwpgt:0502060. 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). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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 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.

    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.