Why do funding agencies favor hypothesis testing?

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3):363-374 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Exploratory inquiry has difficulty attracting research funding because funding agencies have little sense of how to detect good science in exploratory contexts. After documenting and explaining the focus on hypothesis testing among a variety of institutions responsible for distinguishing between good and bad science, I analyze the NIH grant review process. I argue that a good explanation for the focus on hypothesis testing—at least at the level of science funding agencies—is the fact that hypothesis-driven research is relatively easy to appraise. I then explore one method by which we might gauge the epistemic merits of different styles of inquiry

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,363

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Chow's defense of Null-hypothesis testing: Too traditional?Robert W. Frick - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):199-199.
Sex differences: Empiricism, hypothesis testing, and other virtues.David P. Barash - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):276-277.
A viable alternative to Null-hypothesis testing.Bruno D. Zumbo - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):227-228.
The logic of Null hypothesis testing.Edward Erwin - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):197-198.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-23

Downloads
74 (#165,303)

6 months
5 (#154,856)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Chris Haufe
Case Western Reserve University

Citations of this work

Centralized Funding and Epistemic Exploration.Shahar Avin - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (3):629-656.
Centralized Funding and Epistemic Exploration.Shahar Avin - 2017 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axx059.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
The division of cognitive labor: two missing dimensions of the debate.Baptiste Bedessem - 2018 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (1):3.

View all 20 citations / Add more citations