Why is one study technique superior to another?

Reviewers on manuscripts or grant proposals often react positively if authors use in-favor study techniques and negatively if authors use not-in-favor study techniques. A tacit assumption is that the in-favor technique is superior to alternate techniques. However, study techniques for theory testing depend on auxiliary assumptions that connect nonobservational terms in theories with observational terms in empirical hypotheses. Therefore, the extent to which a technique is useful depends on the theory and empirical hypothesis under investigation. A technique might be useful from one theoretical perspective and not useful from another theoretical perspective. Or a technique might successfully connect to one empirical hypothesis but not another. The present work threshes out some of the relevant philosophical issues.