Journal of Conflict Resolution

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schrodt, P. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4, 745-755 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002790034004008

A Methodological Critique of a Test of the Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field

Philip A. Schrodt

University of Kansas

The test of the effects of the "Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field" by Orme-Johnson et al. which appeared in the December 1988 issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution contains several substantial methodological problems. First, the measurement of the critical independent variable governing whether an effect should be found does not correspond to the most obvious interpretation of the theory, an interpretation used in later studies of the same theory. If population is measured using geographical radius rather than political boundaries, the observed effects should not have occurred, yet the study finds them anyway. In addition, the study did not adequately control for the possibility of reverse causation (the effects causing the treatment) or properly test for the possibility of spurious relationships. Because validation of the theory would contradict virtually the whole of contemporary understanding of causality in social behavior, insistence on such additional measurement specifications, controls, and statistical tests prior to publication would not have constituted unreasonable "censorship" of the research in question.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
S. CHAN
On Different Types of International Relations Scholarship
Journal of Peace Research, November 1, 2002; 39(6): 747 - 756.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Theoretical PoliticsHome page
J. L. Ray
Integrating Levels of Analysis in World Politics
Journal of Theoretical Politics, October 1, 2001; 13(4): 355 - 388.
[Abstract] [PDF]