Advocacy as a Scientific Strategy : The Mitroff
نویسندگان
چکیده
In September 1971, in connection with the debate over the United States Anti-Ballistic Missile System, an ad hoc committee for the Operations Research Society of America [ORSA, 1971] published a set of guidelines for doing scientific research. The ORSA committee members were concerned that many people who claim to be scientists operate in violation of these guidelines. Their feelings could be summarized as follows: Most so-called scientists either do not understand or cannot bring themselves to follow the scientific method. They solve problems in a biased fashion just as non-scientists do. The result is that most of the scientific literature is pure garbage. Worse yet, the scientists cannot even recognize it as garbage. The committee felt that publication of the guidelines was unlikely to have a significant effect on the behavior of scientists. To give their report some impact, the committee tried to generate a controversy over the guidelines by publishing papers under the fictitious name of Ian Mitroff. (Mitroff is Russian slang for hoax.)
منابع مشابه
Advocacy as a Scientific Strategy: The Mitroff Myth
A committee created a fictitious author, Ian Mitroff, who published a paper that violated scientific guidelines. The Mitroff paper recommended an advocacy strategy for scientific research; it said that scientists should vigorously defend their initial hypothesis. I use the advocacy strategy to scientifically prove that Mitroff does not exist. Comments Postprint version. Published in Academy of ...
متن کاملPower and Politics in the Global Health Landscape: Beliefs, Competition and Negotiation Among Global Advocacy Coalitions in the Policy-Making Process
Background Advocacy coalitions play an increasingly prominent role within the global health landscape, linking actors and institutions to attract political attention and resources. This paper examines how coalitions negotiate among themselves and exercise hidden forms of power to produce policy on the basis of their beliefs and strategic interests. Methods This paper examines the beliefs and ...
متن کاملPublished in Management Science, 25 (1979), 423-428
Three strategies for scientific research in management are examined: advocacy, induction, and multiple hypotheses. Advocacy of a single dominant hypothesis is efficient, but biased. Induction is not biased, but it is inefficient. The multiple hypotheses strategy seems to be both efficient and unbiased. Despite its apparent lack of objectivity, most management scientists use advocacy. For exampl...
متن کاملمدلهای مدافعهی پرستاری: مروری بر کارکردهای نقش حمایتی پرستار
A model is a summarized representation of facts. Health-related models show values, perceptions and various understandings of health care. This study investigated the nursing advocacy models and the nurses’ protective role. In this review article, related literature and documents were searched in PubMed, Science Direct, Proquest, Google Scholar, Magiran, Iran Medex, and Scientific Information D...
متن کاملAdvocacy and Objectivity in Science
Three strategies for scientific research in management are examined: advocacy, induction, and multiple hypotheses. Advocacy of a single dominant hypothesis is efficient, but biased. Induction is not biased, but it is inefficient. The multiple hypotheses strategy seems to be both efficient and unbiased. Despite its apparent lack of objectivity, most management scientists use advocacy. For exampl...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2000