“Historical” and “scientifically valid”: The value and method of comparative measure of argument

Abstract

Notes that a recent survey found many scholars who believe, incorrectly, that history is not random enough, large enough, or controlled enough for science. Reiterates why science is not dependent on randomization, size, or control, but does require comparison. Posits that the most powerful feature of scientific validation is the comparative measurement of argument (CMA). Specifically illustrates how and why comparison inexpensively elevates any history into an excellent vehicle for relevant, credible, scientific scholarship. Concludes that the best method of CMA is not always obvious, but researchers should always try CMA because they will find that any use of it will produce some recognizable value and provide discipline to unmanageable data sources such as history.

Citation

Rosenberg, V.L. (1996), "“Historical” and “scientifically valid”: The value and method of comparative measure of argument", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 68-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552529610127704