プレプリント / バージョン1

HARKing はそんなに悪くないのか

質的研究における擁護論の批判的検討

##article.authors##

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.6663

キーワード:

HARKing、 質的研究、 尤度原理、 ベイズ推論、 疑わしい研究慣行

抄録

HARKing(Hypothesizing After the Results are Known)とは、結果を見た後で立てた仮説を、事前の仮説であったかのように報告することである。本稿は、その批判が質的研究の反復的な実践には当てはまらないとする擁護論を検討する。Fairfield and Charman(2019, 2022)は、同じ情報には同じ確率を割り当てる論理ベイズ主義の立場から、読者は事前確率と尤度比の正当性を吟味すればよく、研究者の思考や研究の展開をたどる必要はないと論じる。井頭(2024)はこれを踏まえ、質的研究への HARKing 批判に慎重さを求める。本稿は、同じ仮説・情報・確率モデル・事前配分のもとでは証拠を計算に取り込む順序は結果を変えないことを認める。しかし、そこから仮説の構成・選択の来歴を報告しなくてよいとは言えない。第一に、指定した対立説明との尤度比(同じ証拠の起こりやすさの比)だけでは、選ばれた説明の相対的な確からしさ(事後オッズ)も、候補群全体への支持も決まらない。最もよく合う候補の尤度比をこれらの代わりに示せば、説明の確からしさや群全体への支持は過大に見えうる。選択を隠す報告は、読者から、候補と事前配分を点検する材料を奪う。第二に、手元の資料で説明に根拠があることと、別の状況でもその説明が当てはまりそうだということは、区別を要する。元の状況で一定だった条件への依存は、条件が異なりうる場に説明を持ち出して初めて露呈することがある。本稿は、こうして想定した仮説の範囲(仮説空間)ごと試すことを開世界への曝露と呼ぶ。結果を見て加えた条件を最初から見通していたと偽れば、失敗と修正が事前の的中に置き換わり、次の状況でも条件を見通せるという期待が過大になりうる。最終的な説明の根拠と、枠組みを実際に試した記録は、ともに必要である。さらに、これらの認識論的な問題とは独立に、来歴を偽る報告には正直性の問題がある。以上の論点は、頻度主義(確率を長期的な頻度と捉える立場)の検定に固有ではなく、質的/量的の別を横断する。反復過程の透明な報告は共通の要請であり、研究の進め方や報告の作法を教える側には、その理由と限界を説明し、異論に答える責任がある。

利益相反に関する開示

利益相反はありません

ダウンロード *前日までの集計結果を表示します

ダウンロード実績データは、公開の翌日以降に作成されます。

引用文献

Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., and Martinson, B. C., 2007, “What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists' Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists,” *Academic Medicine* 82, 853-860.

Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., and De Vries, R., 2007, “Normative Dissonance in Science: Results from a National Survey of U.S. Scientists,” *Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics* 2, 3-14.

Barnes, E. C., 2008, *The Paradox of Predictivism*, Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, A., Charman, A. E., and Fairfield, T., 2022, “Understanding Bayesianism: Fundamentals for Process Tracers,” *Political Analysis* 30, 298-305.

Berger, J. O., and Wolpert, R. L., 1988, *The Likelihood Principle*, 2nd ed., IMS Lecture Notes-Monograph Series 6, Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

Berggren, C., Gerdin, B., and Karabag, S. F., 2025, “Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems,” *Journal of Academic Ethics* 23, 1189-1210.

Berk, R. H., 1966, “Limiting Behavior of Posterior Distributions when the Model Is Incorrect,” *Annals of Mathematical Statistics* 37, 51-58.

Birnbaum, A., 1962, “On the Foundations of Statistical Inference,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association* 57, 269-306.

Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Field, J. G., Pierce, C. A., and Dalton, D. R., 2016, “HARKing's Threat to Organizational Research: Evidence from Primary and Meta-Analytic Sources,” *Personnel Psychology* 69, 709-750.

Box, G. E. P., 1980, “Sampling and Bayes' Inference in Scientific Modelling and Robustness,” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A* 143, 383-430.

Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., et al., 2016, “Evaluating Replicability of Laboratory Experiments in Economics,” *Science* 351, 1433-1436.

Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., et al., 2018, “Evaluating the Replicability of Social Science Experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015,” *Nature Human Behaviour* 2, 637-644.

Cartwright, N., 2013, “Knowing What We Are Talking About: Why Evidence Doesn't Always Travel,” *Evidence & Policy* 9, 97-112.

Choi, H. H., 2024, “Preregistration and Predictivism,” *Synthese* 204, 173.

Collins, R., 1994, “Against the Epistemic Value of Prediction over Accommodation,” *Noûs* 28, 210-224.

Dawid, A. P., 1994, “Selection Paradoxes of Bayesian Inference,” in T. W. Anderson, K. T. Fang, and I. Olkin (eds.), *Multivariate Analysis and Its Applications* (IMS Lecture Notes–Monograph Series 24), Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 211-220.

Dellsén, F., 2025, “An Epistemic Advantage of Accommodation over Prediction,” *Philosophers' Imprint* 25.

Douglas, H., and Magnus, P. D., 2013, “State of the Field: Why Novel Prediction Matters,” *Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A* 44, 580-589.

Efron, B., 2004, “The Estimation of Prediction Error: Covariance Penalties and Cross-Validation,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association* 99, 619-632.

Errington, T. M., Mathur, M., Soderberg, C. K., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E., and Nosek, B. A., 2021, “Investigating the Replicability of Preclinical Cancer Biology,” *eLife* 10, e71601.

Fairfield, T., and Charman, A. E., 2017, “Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats,” *Political Analysis* 25, 363-380.

Fairfield, T., and Charman, A. E., 2019, “A Dialogue with the Data: The Bayesian Foundations of Iterative Research in Qualitative Social Science,” *Perspectives on Politics* 17, 154-167.

Fairfield, T., and Charman, A. E., 2022, *Social Inquiry and Bayesian Inference: Rethinking Qualitative Research*, Cambridge University Press.

Falleti, T. G., and Lynch, J. F., 2009, “Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis,” *Comparative Political Studies* 42, 1143-1166.

Forster, M., and Sober, E., 1994, “How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or Less Ad Hoc Theories Will Provide More Accurate Predictions,” *The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science* 45, 1-35.

Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A., and Fidler, F., 2018, “Questionable Research Practices in Ecology and Evolution,” *PLOS ONE* 13, e0200303.

Freiesleben, T., and Grote, T., 2023, “Beyond Generalization: A Theory of Robustness in Machine Learning,” *Synthese* 202, 109.

Geirhos, R., Jacobsen, J.-H., Michaelis, C., et al., 2020, “Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networks,” *Nature Machine Intelligence* 2, 665-673.

Gelman, A., and Loken, E., 2014, “The Statistical Crisis in Science,” *American Scientist* 102, 460-465.

Gelman, A., Meng, X.-L., and Stern, H., 1996, “Posterior Predictive Assessment of Model Fitness via Realized Discrepancies,” *Statistica Sinica* 6, 733-807.

Gelman, A., and Shalizi, C. R., 2013, “Philosophy and the Practice of Bayesian Statistics,” *British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology* 66, 8-38.

Gelman, A., Vehtari, A., Simpson, D., et al., 2020, “Bayesian Workflow,” arXiv:2011.01808.

George, A. L., and Bennett, A., 2005, *Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences*, MIT Press.

Gerring, J., 2007, *Case Study Research: Principles and Practices*, Cambridge University Press.

Giner-Sorolla, R., 2012, “Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way Through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science,” *Perspectives on Psychological Science* 7, 562-571.

Gopalakrishna, G., ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., and Bouter, L. M., 2022, “Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Research Misconduct and Their Potential Explanatory Factors: A Survey Among Academic Researchers in The Netherlands,” *PLOS ONE* 17, e0263023.

Greenberg, S. A., 2009, “How Citation Distortions Create Unfounded Authority: Analysis of a Citation Network,” *BMJ* 339, b2680.

Grote, T., Genin, K., and Sullivan, E., 2024, “Reliability in Machine Learning,” *Philosophy Compass* 19, e12974.

Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J., 2009, *The Elements of Statistical Learning*, 2nd ed., Springer.

Heckerman, D., 2022, “A Tutorial on Learning With Bayesian Networks,” arXiv:2002.00269v3(1996年稿、2022年改訂).

Hitchcock, C., and Sober, E., 2004, “Prediction Versus Accommodation and the Risk of Overfitting,” *The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science* 55, 1-34.

Hollenbeck, J. R., and Wright, P. M., 2017, “Harking, Sharking, and Tharking: Making the Case for Post Hoc Analysis of Scientific Data,” *Journal of Management* 43, 5-18.

Inbar, Y., 2016, “Association between Contextual Dependence and Replicability in Psychology May Be Spurious,” *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 113(34), E4933-E4934.

Ioannidis, J. P. A., 2005, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” *PLoS Medicine* 2, e124.

Jaynes, E. T., 2003, *Probability Theory: The Logic of Science*, Cambridge University Press.

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., and Prelec, D., 2012, “Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling,” *Psychological Science* 23, 524-532.

Kaplan, A., 1964, *The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science*, Chandler.

Kerr, N. L., 1998, “HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results Are Known,” *Personality and Social Psychology Review* 2, 196-217.

Khosrowi, D., 2019, “Extrapolation of Causal Effects – Hopes, Assumptions, and the Extrapolator’s Circle,” *Journal of Economic Methodology* 26, 45-58.

King, G., Keohane, R. O., and Verba, S., 1994, *Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research*, Princeton University Press.

Koh, P. W., Sagawa, S., Marklund, H., et al., 2021, “WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts,” *Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning* (PMLR 139), 5637-5664.

Leung, K., 2011, “Presenting Post Hoc Hypotheses as A Priori: Ethical and Theoretical Issues,” *Management and Organization Review* 7, 471-479.

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G., 1985, *Naturalistic Inquiry*, Sage.

MacKay, D. J. C., 2003, *Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms*, Cambridge University Press.

Maher, P., 1988, “Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery,” *PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association* 1988, 272-285.

Mahtani, A., 2021, “Awareness Growth and Dispositional Attitudes,” *Synthese* 198, 8981-8997.

Mayo, D. G., 2018, *Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get Beyond the Statistics Wars*, Cambridge University Press.

Mayo, D. G., and Spanos, A., 2004, “Methodology in Practice: Statistical Misspecification Testing,” *Philosophy of Science* 71, 1007-1025.

Medawar, P. B., 1963, “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?,” *The Listener* 70, 377-378.

Meehl, P. E., 1967, “Theory-Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox,” *Philosophy of Science* 34, 103-115.

Moran, H., Karlin, L., Lauchlan, E., Rappaport, S. J., Bleasdale, B., Wild, L., and Dorr, J., 2020, “Understanding Research Culture: What Researchers Think About the Culture They Work In,” *Wellcome Open Research* 5, 201.

Murphy, A. K., Jerolmack, C., and Smith, D., 2021, “Ethnography, Data Transparency, and the Information Age,” *Annual Review of Sociology* 47, 41-61.

Musgrave, A., 1974, “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation,” *The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science* 25, 1-23.

Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Kline Struhl, M., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Schönbrodt, F. D., and Vazire, S., 2022, “Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science,” *Annual Review of Psychology* 73, 719-748.

Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., and Motyl, M., 2012, “Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability,” *Perspectives on Psychological Science* 7, 615-631.

O'Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., and Gonzalez-Mulé, E., 2017, “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize into Beautiful Articles,” *Journal of Management* 43, 376-399.

Open Science Collaboration, 2015, “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science,” *Science* 349, aac4716.

Pearl, J., and Bareinboim, E., 2014, “External Validity: From Do-Calculus to Transportability Across Populations,” *Statistical Science* 29, 579-595.

Person, A. I., and Syed, M., 2026, “Qualitative Researchers Can and Do Generalize: Generalizability Claims in Qualitative Psychological Research,” *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science* 9, 25152459261474853.

Peirce, C. S., 1883, “A Theory of Probable Inference,” in C. S. Peirce (ed.), *Studies in Logic by Members of the Johns Hopkins University*, Little, Brown, 126-181.

Pettigrew, R., 2024, “How Should Your Beliefs Change When Your Awareness Grows?,” *Episteme* 21, 733-757.

Quiñonero-Candela, J., Sugiyama, M., Schwaighofer, A., and Lawrence, N. D. (eds.), 2009, *Dataset Shift in Machine Learning*, MIT Press.

Recht, B., Roelofs, R., Schmidt, L., and Shankar, V., 2019, “Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?,” *Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning* (PMLR 97), 5389-5400.

Reichenbach, H., 1938, *Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge*, University of Chicago Press.

Rodgers, P., and Collings, A., 2021, “Reproducibility in Cancer Biology: What Have We Learned?,” *eLife* 10, e75830.

Rosso, M., Herrera, A., Würbel, H., and Voelkl, B., 2024, “Evidence of HARKing in Mouse Behavioural Tests of Anxiety,” *Royal Society Open Science* 11, 231744.

Roussos, J., 2025, “Awareness Revision and Belief Extension,” *Australasian Journal of Philosophy* 103, 373-396.

Rubin, D. B., 1984, “Bayesianly Justifiable and Relevant Frequency Calculations for the Applied Statistician,” *Annals of Statistics* 12, 1151-1172.

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.

Rubin, M., 2022, “The Costs of HARKing,” *The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science* 73, 535-560.

Senn, S., 2008, “A Note Concerning a Selection ‘Paradox’ of Dawid's,” *The American Statistician* 62, 206-210.

Serra-Garcia, M., and Gneezy, U., 2021, “Nonreplicable Publications Are Cited More Than Replicable Ones,” *Science Advances* 7, eabd1705.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T., 2002, *Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference*, Houghton Mifflin.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., and Simonsohn, U., 2011, “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” *Psychological Science* 22, 1359-1366.

Smaldino, P. E., and McElreath, R., 2016, “The Natural Selection of Bad Science,” *Royal Society Open Science* 3, 160384.

Steel, D., 2008, *Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation in Biology and Social Science*, Oxford University Press.

Steele, K., and Stefánsson, H. O., 2021, “Belief Revision for Growing Awareness,” *Mind* 130, 1207-1232.

Suddaby, R., 2006, “From the Editors: What Grounded Theory Is Not,” *Academy of Management Journal* 49, 633-642.

Tyner, A. H. et al., 2026, “Investigating the Replicability of the Social and Behavioural Sciences,” *Nature* 652, 143-150.

Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., and Reinero, D. A., 2016, “Reply to Inbar: Contextual Sensitivity Helps Explain the Reproducibility Gap between Social and Cognitive Psychology,” *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 113(34), E4935-E4936.

Walsh, I., Fishman, D., Garcia-Gasulla, D., et al., 2021, “DOME: Recommendations for Supervised Machine Learning Validation in Biology,” *Nature Methods* 18, 1122-1127.

Wenmackers, S., and Romeijn, J.-W., 2016, “New Theory about Old Evidence: A Framework for Open-Minded Bayesianism,” *Synthese* 193, 1225-1250.

White, R., 2003, “The Epistemic Advantage of Prediction over Accommodation,” *Mind* 112, 653-683.

Woolston, C., 2019, “PhDs: The Tortuous Truth,” *Nature* 575, 403-406.

Worrall, J., 1985, “Scientific Discovery and Theory-Confirmation,” in J. C. Pitt (ed.), *Change and Progress in Modern Science*, Reidel, 301-331.

Worrall, J., 2014, “Prediction and Accommodation Revisited,” *Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A* 45, 54-61.

Yekutieli, D., 2012, “Adjusted Bayesian Inference for Selected Parameters,” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B* 74, 515-541.

Yom, S., 2018, “Analytic Transparency, Radical Honesty, and Strategic Incentives,” *PS: Political Science & Politics* 51, 416-421.

Zaks, S., 2021, “Updating Bayesian(s): A Critical Evaluation of Bayesian Process Tracing,” *Political Analysis* 29, 58-74.

井頭昌彦,2024,「質的研究におけるHARKing問題?」,『年報社会学論集』37,35-47.

岸政彦・石岡丈昇・丸山里美,2016,『質的社会調査の方法——他者の合理性の理解社会学』,有斐閣.

日本社会心理学会編集委員会,2023,「査読方針についてのお願い(2023年6月1日)」,日本社会心理学会ウェブサイト,<https://www.socialpsychology.jp/wp-content/uploads/peer_review_policy.pdf>(2026年9月6日閲覧).

林岳彦,2024,『はじめての統計的因果推論』,岩波書店.

ダウンロード

公開済


投稿日時: 2026-10-01 15:57:53 UTC

公開日時: 2026-10-23 00:12:03 UTC
研究分野
哲学・宗教