Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:33:54.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Kwok Leung
Kwok Leung*
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

hypothetic-deductive methodpositivity biaspost hoc hypothesis假设ー演绎法积极性偏差事后假设
Type
Forum Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 471 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Academy of Management. 2010. Information for contributors. [Last accessed 23 March 2011.] Available from URL: http://aom.pace.edu/amj/contributor_information.html Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. 2010. Journal of applied psychology. [Last accessed 24 March 2011.] Available from URL: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl/ Google Scholar
Ayala, F. J. 2009. Darwin and the scientific method. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(Suppl): 10033–10039.Google Scholar
Bern, D. J. 1987. Writing the empirical journal article. In Zanna, M. & Darley, J. (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist: 171–201. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Chen, Y. R., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. 2000. Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 138–159.Google Scholar
Canter, M., Bennett, B., Jones, S., & Nagy, T. 1994. Ethics for psychologists: Commentary on the APA ethics code. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Chen, X. P. 2011. Author ethical dilemmas in the research publication process. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 423–432.Google Scholar
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 1992. Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Gerdtham, U. G., & Ruhm, C. J. 2006. Deaths rise in good economic times: Evidence from the OECD. Economics and Human Biology, 4(3): 298–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goerzen, A. 2007. Alliance networks and firm performance: The impact of repeated partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5): 487–509.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management's devotion of theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1346–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. 2010. Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3): 196–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkman, B. L., & Chen, G. 2011. Maximizing your data or data slicing? Recommendations for managing multiple submissions from the same dataset. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 433–446.Google Scholar
Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. 1988. Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4): 753–772.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A. 2007. The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6): 867–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ruhm, C.J. 2000. Are recessions good for your health? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2): 617–650.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K. M. 1999. Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 759–780.Google Scholar
Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. 2008. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(3): 252–260.Google Scholar
Uchino, B. N., Thoman, D., & Byerly, S. 2010. Inference patterns in theoretical social psychology: Looking back as we move forward. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(6): 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar