Article contents
A Philosophy of Science Perspective on the Validity of Research Conclusions: Response to Anderson and Hayden
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 July 2024
Extract
Anderson and Hayden argue that meaningful policy implications cannot be drawn from research which lacks “structural, sociological, and conceptual verisimilitude.” Pointing to my article, “Impact of Procedural Modifications on Preferences for Plea Bargaining” (pp. 267-291) as an example of research which lacks such verisimilitude, they conclude that I am unjustified in drawing conclusions with policy implications. I disagree with them for four reasons. Anderson and Hayden have: 1) based their arguments on a misunderstanding of Lind and Walker's discussion of the circumstances in which research need replicate reality; 2) misconceived the nature of theory; 3) created an unnecessary and unsupportable distinction between “structural,” “sociological,” and “conceptual” verisimilitude; and 4) misunderstood and misrepresented my article.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1981 The Law and Society Association
Footnotes
I wish to thank Allan Lind, Susan Kurtz, Steven Balkin, and especially, Stephen A. LaTour, for their careful reading of and comments on this paper.
References
- 2
- Cited by