Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2003906
 


 



Institutionalized Dualism: Statistical Significance Testing as Myth and Ceremony


Marc Orlitzky


University of South Australia - School of Management

November 1, 2011

Journal of Management Control, Vol. 22, No. 1, September 2011

Abstract:     
Several well-known statisticians regard significance testing as a deeply problematic procedure in statistical inference. Yet, in-depth discussion of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) has largely been absent from the literature on organizations or, more specifically, management control systems. This article attempts to redress this oversight by drawing on neoinstitutional theory to frame, analyze, and explore the NHST problem. Regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive forces partly explain the longevity of NHST in organization studies. The unintended negative consequences of NHST include a reinforcement of the academic-practitioner divide, an obstacle to the growth of knowledge, discouragement of study replications, and mechanization of researcher decision making. An appreciation of these institutional explanations for NHST as well as the harm caused by NHST may ultimately help researchers develop superior methodological alternatives to a controversial statistical technique.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Keywords: Epistemology, neoinstitutional theor, null hypothesis significance testing, quantitative methods, sociology of science, statistical significance test

JEL Classification: B00, C00, C12

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 13, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Orlitzky, Marc, Institutionalized Dualism: Statistical Significance Testing as Myth and Ceremony (November 1, 2011). Journal of Management Control, Vol. 22, No. 1, September 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2003906

Contact Information

Marc Orlitzky (Contact Author)
University of South Australia - School of Management ( email )
Australia
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 220
Downloads: 24
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.235 seconds