Conceptual Rigor versus Practical Impact

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The argument that empirical studies should be appraised in terms of multiple context-dependent criteria is reviewed. A distinction is made between `practical impact' appraisal and `conceptual rigor' assessment. The idea of replacing a test of statistical significance with multiple criteria is assessed and found inappropriate when we are concerned with conceptual rigor. A test of statistical significance can be profitably used to ascertain whether or not a theory is tenable vis-a-vis a set of experimental data. It is an indispensable step in the multi-step theory-corroboration procedure which is hypothetico-deductive in nature. The binary nature of a significance test is compatible with the evolving nature of scientific knowledge, which should be based on internally and externally valid research results. The use of multiple context-dependent criteria of impressiveness, on the other hand, is antithetical to the requirements of internal validity and of external validity. A case is made that criticisms of the use of significance tests and of the hypothetico-deductive approach do not detract from the contribution to conceptual rigor due to the use of a test of significance and of the hypothetico-deductive nature of theory corroboration experimentation.

This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit: