Advocacy and Objectivity in Science

J. Scott Armstrong ()

General Economics and Teaching from EconWPA

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)
Date: 2005-02-11
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 7
View list of references View citations in EconPapers

Downloads: (external link)
http://129.3.20.41/eps/get/papers/0502/0502060.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
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: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502060

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in General Economics and Teaching from EconWPA
Series data maintained by EconWPA ().