When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress.

Review of General Psychology 21:308-320 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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 three forms of HARKing: (1) using current results to construct post hoc hypotheses that are then reported as if they were a priori hypotheses; (2) retrieving hypotheses from a post hoc literature search and reporting them as a priori hypotheses; and (3) failing to report a priori hypotheses that are unsupported by the current results. These three 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 three 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.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-12-10
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
287 ( #23,334 of 64,211 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
74 ( #9,176 of 64,211 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.