Top
Best
New

Posted by timr 2 days ago

A flawed paper in management science has been cited more than 6k times(statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu)
702 points | 366 commentspage 7
burgh 1 day ago|
[dead]
loxodrome 2 days ago||
Do people actually take papers in "management science" seriously?
abanana 2 days ago||
Yes, that's the problem, many do, and they swear by these oversimplified ideas and one-liners that litter the field of popular management books, fully believing it's all "scientific" and they'll laugh at you for questioning it. It's nuts.
graemep 2 days ago||
There is a difference between popular management books and academic publications.

For example there is a long history of studies of the relationship between working hours and productivity which is one of the few things that challenges the idea that longer hours means more output.

abanana 2 days ago||
Yes, but the books generally take their ideas from the academic publications. And the replication problems, and general incentives around academic publishing, show that all too often, the academic publications in the social sciences are unfortunately no more rigorous than the populist books.
graemep 1 day ago||
That is true, but the popular books both simplify and cherry pick which makes it a whole to worse.
malshe 1 day ago||
They do and there is nothing wrong with that. The papers published in this journal are peer-reviewed and go through multiple rounds of review. Also, note that Andrew King could carry out the replication because the data is publicly available.
wtcactus 1 day ago||
There’s no such thing as management “science”.

Social “sciences” are completely bastardizing the word science. Then, they come complaining that “society doesn’t trust science anymore”. They, the social “scientists”, the ones responsible for removing all meaning from the word science,

gyulai 1 day ago|
I came to this discussion, specifically looking for the term "management 'science'", with the quotation marks where they belong, and I found it right here, so thanks for that :-) ...I don't think I'd be capable of letting the term roll off my tongue without doing the airquotes either.
mwkaufma 1 day ago||
Conservatives very concerned about academic reproducability* (*except when the paper helps their agenda)
striking 1 day ago||
This link may be blogspam of https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-institutional-failures-un...
gdevenyi 1 day ago||
Welcome Ideological science published to support the regime. There's a lot more where this came from .
efitz 1 day ago|
The paper touches on a point (“sustainability “) that is a sacred cow for many people.

Even if you support sustainability, criticizing the paper will be treated as heresy by many.

Despite our idealistic vision of Science(tm), it is a human process done by humans with human motivations and human weaknesses.

From Galileo to today, we have repeatedly seen the enthusiastic willingness by majorities of scientists to crucify heretics (or sit by in silence) and to set aside scientific thinking and scientific process when it clashes against belief or orthodoxy or when it makes the difference whether you get tenure or publication.