Advocacy and Objectivity in Science

J. Armstrong

Management Science, 1979, vol. 25, issue 5, 423-428

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.

Keywords: science; advocacy; objectivity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1979
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.25.5.423 (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: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:25:y:1979:i:5:p:423-428

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Management Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().