Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hunt, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Realist Theory of Empirical Testing Resolving the Theory-Ladenness/ Objectivity Debate

Shelby D. Hunt

Texas Tech University

This article explores whether theory-ladenness makes empirical testing an inse cure foundation for objectivity. Specifically, this article uses path diagrams as visual heuristics to assist in (1) developing a parsimonious representation of the traditional empiricist view of empirical testing, (2) showing how the "New Image" view ostensibly threatens the objectivity of science, (3) proposing a unified, realist theory of empirical testing, (4) developing a representation of the unified theory, (5) exploring several potential threats to objectivity, (6) discussing the proposed theory's implications for social science, and (7) adumbrating three foundational premises for scientific realism.

Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 24, No. 2, 133-158 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/004839319402400201
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organization StudiesHome page
S. D. Hunt
Book Review: Andrew H. Van de Ven Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research: 2005 Oxford University Press, Oxford
Organization Studies, November 1, 2008; 29(11): 1469 - 1475.
[PDF]

Home page
 Administration & SocietyHome page
R. Andrews, G. A. Boyne, and R. M. Walker
Reconstructing Empirical Public Administration: Lutonism or Scientific Realism?
Administration Society, May 1, 2008; 40(3): 324 - 330.
[PDF]

Home page
 Anthropological TheoryHome page
J. T. O'Meara
Causation and the postmodern critique of objectivity
Anthropological Theory, March 1, 2001; 1(1): 31 - 56.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organization ScienceHome page
A. F. Connell and W. R. Nord
Crossroads--Reconsidering the "Fact-Value Antinomy: A Comment on Eastman and Bailey (1997)"
Organization Science, March 1, 1998; 9(2): 245 - 250.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Management InquiryHome page
S. D. Hunt
On the Rhetoric of Qualitative Methods: Toward Historically Informed Argumentation in Management Inquiry
Journal of Management Inquiry, September 1, 1994; 3(3): 221 - 234.
[Abstract]