IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/maorev/v7y2011i03p471-479_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presenting Post Hoc Hypotheses as A Priori: Ethical and Theoretical Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Leung, Kwok

Abstract

Presenting post hoc hypotheses based on empirical findings as if they had been developed a priori seems common in management papers. The pure form of this practice is likely to breach research ethics and impede theoretical development by suppressing the falsification process. Two other forms may be more tolerable: deletion of rejected hypotheses and refinement of hypotheses inspired by empirical findings. To address this problem, the field should provide stronger recognition of replication, descriptive research, rejected and post hoc hypotheses, and critical tests of competing hypotheses. These positive changes require the concerted effort of researchers, management associations, and journal editors and reviewers.

Suggested Citation

  • Leung, Kwok, 2011. "Presenting Post Hoc Hypotheses as A Priori: Ethical and Theoretical Issues," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 471-479, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:maorev:v:7:y:2011:i:03:p:471-479_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S174087760000262X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rubin, Mark, 2020. "Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?," MetaArXiv vgr89, Center for Open Science.
    2. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    3. Gary A. Hoover & Christian Hopp, 2017. "What Crisis? Taking Stock of Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct," CESifo Working Paper Series 6611, CESifo.
    4. Benson Honig & Joseph Lampel & Donald Siegel & Paul Drnevich, 2014. "Ethics in the Production and Dissemination of Management Research: Institutional Failure or Individual Fallibility?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 118-142, January.
    5. H. Latan & C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & M. Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Post-Print hal-04276024, HAL.
    6. Hengky Latan & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & Murad Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 549-569, May.
    7. Brian K. Boyd, 2018. "Paradigm development in Chinese management research: The role of research methodology," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 805-827, September.

    More about this item

    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:cup:maorev:v:7:y:2011:i:03:p:471-479_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/mor .

    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.