Scholarlink

<p>Despite sustained advances in analytical sophistication, research across various disciplines continues to exhibit fragile inference, limited theoretical accumulation, and persistent disagreement over core claims. This paper argues that these problems reflect a deeper and largely untheorized condition: the <i>illusion of rigor</i>. We define this condition as the substitution of analytical complexity for <i>inferential coherence</i>, referring to the alignment between theoretical ambition, research design capacity, and the scope of claims advanced. Developing <i>inferential coherence</i> as a foundational theoretical construct, we show how inferential incoherence is systematically produced through four structural mechanisms: inferential load inflation, design substitution, analytical compensation, and rhetorical closure. We integrate these mechanisms into a comprehensive diagnostic framework and an inferential architecture that explains why analytically sophisticated studies may nonetheless yield distorted, non-cumulative theories. By reframing rigor as an inferential achievement rather than a technical performance, this paper offers a unifying evaluative lens for theory-driven empirical research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The illusion of rigor: Why analytical sophistication cannot substitute for inferential coherence

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月27日

查看全文
  • Aamir Rashid,
  • Rizwana Rasheed

摘要

Despite sustained advances in analytical sophistication, research across various disciplines continues to exhibit fragile inference, limited theoretical accumulation, and persistent disagreement over core claims. This paper argues that these problems reflect a deeper and largely untheorized condition: the illusion of rigor. We define this condition as the substitution of analytical complexity for inferential coherence, referring to the alignment between theoretical ambition, research design capacity, and the scope of claims advanced. Developing inferential coherence as a foundational theoretical construct, we show how inferential incoherence is systematically produced through four structural mechanisms: inferential load inflation, design substitution, analytical compensation, and rhetorical closure. We integrate these mechanisms into a comprehensive diagnostic framework and an inferential architecture that explains why analytically sophisticated studies may nonetheless yield distorted, non-cumulative theories. By reframing rigor as an inferential achievement rather than a technical performance, this paper offers a unifying evaluative lens for theory-driven empirical research.