IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhb/lufewp/2004_006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The (Non-)Significance of Quantitative Management Research: The Demise of Popper in View of a Hypothesis-Verifying Publication Norm

Author

Listed:
  • Stafsudd, Anna

    (Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, Lund University)

Abstract

This paper argues that there is a norm in the publication of quantitative management research that accepted hypotheses are conceived of as good hypotheses. This has far-reaching implications for quantitative research in that, in the worst case scenario, this norm encourages commonsensical research questions and manipulation of data in order for an article to be published. Naturally, such behavior is not otherwise encouraged by the research community and, therefore, there is not even transparency in the decisions that are made. Instead, the choices that are made in the course of a research process (both in terms of how variables are operationalized and in terms of how results can be interpreted) are down-played unless in cases where hypotheses are rejected. Sample- and instrument-issues are then the most frequently used excuses for non-expected findings. Rather than trying to live up to demands set outside the social sciences (and failing), this paper calls for more reflexivity in quantitative management studies. The world is a messy place and so is our data.

Suggested Citation

  • Stafsudd, Anna, 2004. "The (Non-)Significance of Quantitative Management Research: The Demise of Popper in View of a Hypothesis-Verifying Publication Norm," Working Paper Series 2004/6, Lund University, Institute of Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhb:lufewp:2004_006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:hhb:lufewp:2004_006. 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: Elsbeth Andersson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ielunse.html .

    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.