IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0502055.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science

Author

Listed:
  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

Abstract

In general, I thought that the Boal and Willis “Note on the Armstrong/Mitroff Debate” 1 provided an interesting and fair discussion. 2 The summary of the consequences of the subjective versus objective approaches (Table 1 in their paper) was helpful. It clearly outlined the dilemma faced by scientists: “Should I strive for personal gain or for scientific contributions?” It also described what is likely to happen to the theories generated from the subjective and objective approaches. For example, the authors claimed that the subjective approach will yield a fuller hearing for a theory.

Suggested Citation

  • JS Armstrong, 2005. "The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502055, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502055
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0502/0502055.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Scott Armstrong, 1979. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
    2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?," General Economics and Teaching 0502058, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. JS Armstrong & Raymond Hubbard, 2005. "Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?," General Economics and Teaching 0502052, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. J. Scott Armstrong, 1986. "The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Reply," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 183-185, March.
    5. J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Learner Responsibility in Management Education, or Ventures into Forbidden Research (with Comments)," General Economics and Teaching 0502012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    8. JS Armstrong, 2004. "Strategies for Implementing Change: An Experiential Approach," General Economics and Teaching 0412026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. 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.
    10. Vernuccio, Maria & Ceccotti, Federica, 2015. "Strategic and organisational challenges in the integrated marketing communication paradigm shift: A holistic vision," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 438-449.
    11. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "The Mission of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    12. John W. Boudreau, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Organizational Behavior, Strategy, Performance, and Design in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1463-1476, November.
    13. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
    14. Armstrong, J. Scott & Lusk, Edward J., 1987. "Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis," MPRA Paper 81693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. JS Armstrong & Estella Bee Dagum & Robert Fildes & Spyros Makridakis, 2005. "Publishing Standards for Research in Forecasting (Editorial)," General Economics and Teaching 0502054, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    objectivity; falsification; management science; publication;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    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:0502055. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.