Abstract
This article aims to analyze the existing literature on financial literacy in the light of Popperian analysis of its hypotheses. The final sample included 18 articles addressing the topic, focusing on identifying hypotheses susceptible to refutation. The results indicated that just over half of the analyzed articles presented refutable hypotheses, supporting the presence of contradictions within the positivist paradigm. These findings contribute to understanding the use of refutable hypotheses in quantitative studies and demonstrate the importance of adopting a critical and scientific approach in research development in this area.
References
Bacon, F. (1620). Novum Organum.
Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. The Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383-417.
Green, S., Higgins, J. P. T., Alderson, P., Clarke, M., Mulrow, C. D., & Oxman, A. D. (Eds.). (2005). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons.
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Joanna Briggs Institute. (2022). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Recuperado em 20 de março de 2023, de https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL
Malkiel, B. G. (2003). The efficient market hypothesis and its critics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 59-82.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Management in Perspective