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. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04195-8">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04195-8</a>, <a href="/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04189-6#ref-CR200">2019</a>), Edwards (J Bus Ethics. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04197-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04197-6</a>, <a href="/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04189-6#ref-CR202">2019</a>), and Powell (J Bus Ethics. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04196-7">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04196-7</a>, <a href="/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04189-6#ref-CR206">2019</a>) 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.

Social work theory– practice relationship: Challenges to overcoming positivist and postmodern fragmentation

Epistemology and social work: enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism

A Contribution of Social Work to the Discourse on the Theory-Practice Relationship

Integrating theory and practice: A new heuristic paradigm for social work practice

Using Structural Social Work Theory to Drive Anti-Oppressive Practice With Latino Immigrants

Critical Practice for Challenging Times: Social Workers' Engagement with Community Work

Social work, ideology, discourse and the limits of post-hegemony

Critical social work and competency practice: a proposal to bridge theory and practice in the classroom

Neoliberalism and social work identity

The end of social work

Attaining Theoretical Coherence Within Relationship-Based Practice in Child and Family Social Work: The Systemic Perspective

Paradigms and conceptions of theories of social justice, equity, and values

Ideology and community social psychology: theoretical considerations and practical implications

The Role and Significance of Sociological Theory Within Research Traditions in Relation to the Historical Context of the Postmodern Turn

From sociology to social theory: Critical cosmopolitanism, modernity, and post-universalism

Positioning structural social work in Indian context

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

Luhmann’s system theory in social work: Criticism and reflections

Applying theories of social exchange and symbolic interaction in the treatment of unconsummated marriage/relationship

Back to Basics: A Critique of the Strengths Perspective in Social Work

Negotiating the Nexus: Symbiotic Relationship of Theory and Practice in Conflict Management