Confirmation bias: methodological causes and a palliative response

Adam Fforde ()
Additional contact information
Adam Fforde: Victoria University

Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 2017, vol. 51, issue 5, No 24, 2319-2335

Abstract: Abstract The paper advocates for changes to normative aspects of belief management in applied research. The central push is to argue for methodologically-required choice to include the possibility of adopting the view that a given dataset contains insufficient regularities for predictive theorising. This is argued to be related to how we should understand differences between predictive and non-predictive knowledges, contrasting Crombie and Nisbet. The proposed direction may also support management practices under conditions of uncertainty.

Keywords: Confirmation bias; Research methodology; Agnotology; Unknowability (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-016-0389-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:qualqt:v:51:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-016-0389-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135

DOI: 10.1007/s11135-016-0389-z

Access Statistics for this article

Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology is currently edited by Vittorio Capecchi

More articles in Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().