Abstract

Hypothesizing after the results are known, or HARKing, occurs when researchers check their research results and then add or remove hypotheses on the basis of those results without acknowledging this process in their research report ( Kerr, 1998 ). In the present article, I discuss 3 forms of HARKing: (a) using current results to construct post hoc hypotheses that are then reported as if they were a priori hypotheses; (b) retrieving hypotheses from a post hoc literature search and reporting them as a priori hypotheses; and (c) failing to report a priori hypotheses that are unsupported by the current results. These 3 types of HARKing are often characterized as being bad for science and a potential cause of the current replication crisis. In the present article, I use insights from the philosophy of science to present a more nuanced view. Specifically, I identify the conditions under which each of these 3 types of HARKing is most and least likely to be bad for science. I conclude with a brief discussion about the ethics of each type of HARKing.

Highlights

  • Hypothesizing after the results are known, or HARKing, occurs when researchers check their research results and add or remove hypotheses on the basis of those results without acknowledging this process in their research report (Kerr, 1998)

  • HARKing has become a hot topic in the wake of the replication crisis

  • The discussion seems to have polarized towards the view that all HARKing is bad for science

Read more

Summary

Survey Item

“In a paper, reporting an unexpected finding as having been predicted from the start.” “In a paper, reporting an unexpected finding as having been predicted from the start.”. Pierce, and published in had occurred between the completion of Dalton

Psychology during
Conclusions
Findings
Life after
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call