HARKing
 | This article, HARKing, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. Please check to see if the reviewer has accidentally left this template after accepting the draft and take appropriate action as necessary.
Reviewer tools: Inform author |
Definition
HARKing is an acronym coined by social psychologist Norbert Kerr.[1] It refers to the questionable research practice[2] of hypothesizing after the results are known. Kerr (1998) defined HARKing as “presenting a post hoc hypothesis in the introduction of a research report as if it were an a priori hypothesis” (p. 197).
Rates of HARKing
A review of six surveys found that an average of 43% of researchers admitted to HARKing “at least once”.[3] This figure may be an underestimate if researcher perceive HARKing to be a questionable research practice.
Different Types of HARKing
Researchers have distinguished between different types of HARKing, including:
- THARKing: Transparently hypothesizing after the results are known[4]
- CHARKing or "pure HARKing": Constructing hypotheses after the results are known[1][3]
- RHARKing: Retrieving hypotheses from the existing literature after the results are known[3]
- SHARKing: Suppressing a priori hypotheses after the results are known[1][3]
- Active and Passive HARKing: Rubin (2017, p. 317) explained that “active HARKing is undertaken by researchers prior to the submission of their research report to the peer review team. In contrast, passive HARKing is undertaken by researchers in response to requests by editors and peer reviewers.”[3]
The Scientific Costs of HARKing
Kerr (1998) listed 12 potential costs of HARKing. Some of these costs may be associated with the replication crisis in science.[4] However, recent articles have questioned this view.[3][5]
The Ethics of HARKing
Some researchers regard HARKing as unethical because it involves deception and/or concealment. Kerr (1998, p. 209) argued that “HARKing can entail concealment. The question then becomes whether what is concealed in HARKing can be a useful part of the “truth” […] or is instead basically uninformative (and may, therefore, be safely ignored at an author’s discretion)’ (p. 209).[1] Hence, HARKing may fall into a “gray zone” of ethical practice[1][6]. Some forms of HARKing may be regarded as being more or less ethical under some circumstances.[7][3][8][5]
References
- ^ a b c d e Kerr, N. L. (1998). "HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2: 196–217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4.
- ^ John, L. K.; Loewenstein, G.; Prelec, D. (2012). "Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling". Psychological Science. 23: 524-532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953.
- ^ a b c d e f g Rubin, M. (2017). "When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress". Review of General Psychology. 21: 308-320. doi:10.1037/gpr0000128.
- ^ a b Hollenbeck, J. R.; Wright, P. M. (2017). "Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data". Journal of Management. 43: 5-18. doi:10.1177/0149206316679487.
- ^ a b Rubin, M. (2019). "The costs of HARKing". British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi:10.1093/bjps/axz050.
- ^ Butler,, N.; Delaney, H.; Spoelstra, S. "The gray zone: Questionable research practices in the business school". Academy of Management Learning & Education. 16: 94-109. doi:10.5465/amle.2015.0201.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - ^ Leung, K. (2011). "Presenting post hoc hypotheses as a priori: Ethical and theoretical issues". Management and Organization Review. 7: 471-479. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009.
- ^ Vancouver, J. N. "In defense of HARKing',". Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 11: 73-80. doi:10.1017/iop.2017.89.
| This article, HARKing, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. Please check to see if the reviewer has accidentally left this template after accepting the draft and take appropriate action as necessary.
Reviewer tools: Inform author |