Advocacy and Objectivity in Science

J. Armstrong

General Economics and Teaching from University Library of Munich, Germany

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.

Keywords: advocacy; objectivity; science; publication (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 7 pages
Date: 2005-02-11
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 7
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0502/0502060.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Advocacy and Objectivity in Science (1979)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502060

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in General Economics and Teaching from University Library of Munich, Germany
Bibliographic data for series maintained by EconWPA ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).