Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making Quantitative Research Work: From Positivist Dogma to Actual Social Scientific Inquiry

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Researchers misunderstand their role in creating ethical problems when they allow dogmas to purportedly divorce scientists and scientific practices from the values that they embody. Cortina (J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04195-8, 2019), Edwards (J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04197-6, 2019), and Powell (J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04196-7, 2019) help us clarify and further develop our position by responding to our critique of, and alternatives to, this misleading separation. In this rebuttal, we explore how the desire to achieve the separation of facts and values is unscientific on the very terms endorsed by its advocates—this separation is refuted by empirical observation. We show that positivists like Cortina and Edwards offer no rigorous theoretical or empirical justifications to substantiate their claims, let alone critique ours. Following Powell, we point to how classical pragmatism understands ‘purpose’ in scientific pursuits while also providing an alternative to the dogmas of positivism and related philosophical positions. In place of dogmatic, unscientific cries about an abstract and therefore always-unobservable ‘reality,’ we invite all organizational scholars to join us in shifting the discussion about quantitative research towards empirically grounded scientific inquiry. This makes the ethics of actual people and their practices central to quantitative research, including the thoughts, discourses, and behaviors of researchers who are always in particular places doing particular things. We propose that quantitative researchers can thus start to think about their research practices as a kind of work, rather than having the status of a kind of dogma. We conclude with some implications that this has for future research and education, including the relevance of research and research methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P. S., Forbes, L. C., & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management studies. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 119–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H. A., Pierce, C. A., & Culpepper, S. A. (2009). Scale coarseness as a methodological artifact: Correcting correlation coefficients attenuated from using coarse scales. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 623–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Villamor, I. (2019). The first 20 years of organizational research methods: Trajectory, impact, and predictions for the future. Organizational Research Methods, 22(2), 463–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 418–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 404–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. R. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12, 76–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, R. J. (2010). The pragmatic turn. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 649–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casler, C., & du Gay, P. (2019). Stances, paradigms, personae. Studi di Sociologia, 1, 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambost, I., Lenglet, M., & Tadjeddine, Y. (Eds.). (2018). The making of finance perspectives from the social sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 53–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. (2019). On the whys and hows of quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04195-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2011). The earth is not round (p = .00). Organizational Research Methods, 14, 332–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1973). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrosières, A. (1998). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning (C. Naish, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Dewey, J. (1910). The influence of Darwin on philosophy, and other essays in contemporary thought. New York: H. Holt and company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Essays in experimental logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York: Minton, Balch, & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1991). Lectures on ethics, 1900–1901 (Ed. D. Koch). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

  • Dewey, J., & Tufts, J. (1932). Ethics (revised ed.). New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (2005). Organization theory as a positive science. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 39–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • du Gay, P. (2015). Organization (theory) as a way of life. Journal of Cultural Economy, 8(4), 399–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • du Gay, P., & Vikkelsø, S. (2017). For formal organization: The past in the present and future of organization theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 370–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2019). The peaceful coexistence of ethics and quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04197-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2010). The presence of something or the absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 668–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkjaer, B., & Simpson, B. (2011). Pragmatism: A lived and living philosophy. What can it offer to contemporary organization theory? In H. Tsoukas & R. Chia (Eds.), Philosophy and organization theory (Vol. 32, pp. 55–84). Emerald Group Publishing.

  • Eyal, G. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118, 863–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2014). Registering ‘the ethical’ in organization theory formation: Towards the disclosure of an ‘invisible force’. Organization Studies, 35, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M., Ansell, C., & Boin, A. (2015). PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787–1804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1962). Explanation, reduction, and empiricism. In H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Scientific explanation, space and time (pp. 28–97). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1180–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2004). Book review essay: The relevance of Richard Rorty to management research. Academy of Management Review, 29, 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Gllbert, D. R. (1992). Business, ethics and society: A critical agenda. Business & Society, 31, 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G. (2014). Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1992a). Statistical language, statistical truth and statistical reason: The self-authentification of a style of scientific reasoning. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (Vol. 3, pp. 130–157). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1992b). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 29–64). Chicago, IL: Chicago Unviersity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (2009). Scientific reason. Taipei: NTU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassard, J., & Wolfram Cox, J. (2013). Can sociological paradigms still inform organizational analysis? A paradigm model for post-paradigm times. Organization Studies, 34, 1701–1728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, P., & Morgan, M. S. (Eds.). (2011). How well do facts travel? The dissemination of reliable knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2005). For truth and realism in management research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 127–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1898). Philosophical conceptions and practical results. University Chronicle, 1, 287–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and social theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, M., & Rumens, N. (2013). American pragmatism and organization: Issues and controversies. Surrey: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M. B. (2011). From blue sky research to problem solving: A philosophy of science theory of knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 36, 297–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. L., & Morgan, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). The age of economic measurement. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koffman, A. (2018). Bruno Latour, the post-truth philosopher, mounts a defense of science. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html.

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1961). The function of measurement in modern physical science. Isis, 52, 161–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970a). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrace (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 1–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970b). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (5th edn.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrace (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, R. S., & Cortina, J. M. (2015). Is ours a hard science (and do we care)? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 9–35). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1998). From the world of science to the world of research? Science, 280, 208–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2008). On sociology and STS. The Sociological Review, 56, 623–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 14, 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and organization studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. (2006). An engine not a camera: How financial models shape markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martela, F. (2015). Fallible inquiry with ethical ends-in-view: A pragmatist philosophy of science for organizational research. Organization Studies, 36, 537–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (1999). Toward a Campbellian realist organization science. In A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 383–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (2006). Comment on Van de Ven and Johnson’s ‘engaged scholarship’: Nice try, but. Academy of Management Review, 31, 822–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1899). The working hypothesis in social reform. American Journal of Sociology, 5, 369–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, H. A. (1925). The philosophy of the present. London: The Open Court Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, H. A. (1929). A pragmatic theory of truth. University of California Publications in Philosophy, 11, 65–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, H. A. (1938). The philosophy of the act. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1994). Ontology and rationalization in the western cultural account. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 9–27). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Jepperson, R. L. (2000). The “actors” of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological Theory, 18, 100–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaud, V. (2014). Mediating the paradoxes of organizational governance through numbers. Organization Studies, 35, 75–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the construction of the governable person. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 235–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1988). Accounting as reality construction: Towards a new epistemology for accounting practice. Accounting, Organization and Society, 13, 477–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5, 491–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, T., Deetz, S., & Reed, M. (2011). Responses to social constructionism and critical realism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 32, 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okhuysen, G. A., Lepak, D., Ashcraft, K. L., Labianca, G. J., Smith, V., & Steensma, H. K. (2013). Theories of work and working today. Academy of Management Review, 38, 491–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routine revisited: Exploring the capability and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 413–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poovey, M. (1995). Making a social body. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poovey, M. (1998). A history of the modern fact: Problems of knowledge in the sciences of wealth and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1986). The rise of statistical thinking, 1820–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1991). Objectivity and authority: How French engineers reduced public utility to numbers. Poetics Today, 12, 245–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1992a). Objectivity as standardization: The rhetoric of impersonality in measurement, statistics, and cost-benefit analysis. Annals of Scholarship, 9, 19–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1992b). Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. Social Studies of Science, 22, 633–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1993). Statistics and the politics of objectivity. Revue de Synthèse, 114, 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1997). The management of society by numbers. In J. Krig & D. Pestre (Eds.), Science in the 20th century (pp. 97–110). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (2007). Precision. In M. Boumand (Ed.), Measurement in economics: A handbook (pp. 343–356). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T. (2019). Can quantitative research solve social problems? Pragmatism and the ethics of social research. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04196-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (2004). Counting, control, and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57, 765–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, V. W. O. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, J. (2009). Causation in the social sciences: Evidence, inference, and purpose. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 39, 20–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (1989). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Free Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (1998). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 340–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., & Fuller, S. (Eds.). (1994). The social psychology of science. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77, 554–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1995). Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 289–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (2010). Never pure: Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, B. (2009). Pragmatism, mead and the practice turn. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1329–1347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1983). Simplification in scientific work: An example from neuroscience research. Social Studies of Science, 13, 205–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1985). Scientific work and uncertainty. Social Studies of Science, 15, 391–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1989). Regions of the mind: Brain research and the quest for scientific certainty. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (2003). The need for meta-theoretical reflection in organization theory. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J. (2011). Ethnography as work: Some rules of engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 218–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organizational studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9, 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmott, H. (2011). “Institutional work” for what? Problems and prospects of institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20, 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is quantitative research ethical? Tools for ethically practicing, evaluating, and using quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2019). Statistics and probability have always been value-laden: An historical ontology of quantitative research methods. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04187-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zyphur, M. J., Pierides, D. C., & Roffe, J. (2015). Measurement and statistics in ‘organization science’: Philosophical, sociological, and historical perspectives. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M. Greenwood (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies (pp. 474–482). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by Australian Research Council’s Future Fellowship scheme (Project FT140100629).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Marketing Business & Economics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Michael J. Zyphur

  2. Management Work and Organisation, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

    Dean C. Pierides

Authors
  1. Michael J. Zyphur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dean C. Pierides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Zyphur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Michael J. Zyphur declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dean C. Pierides declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zyphur, M.J., Pierides, D.C. Making Quantitative Research Work: From Positivist Dogma to Actual Social Scientific Inquiry. J Bus Ethics 167, 49–62 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04189-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04189-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation