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.

Holism versus Reductionism in Modern Social Science Research

The history of reductionism versus holistic approaches to scientific research

HOLISM, INDIVIDUALISM, REDUCTIONISM

Reductionism and holistic medicine

Hume's Reductionism of Testimony: Hot Water and Way Out

Reductionistic and Holistic Science

So what do we really mean when we say that systems biology is holistic?

Abstraction in ecology: reductionism and holism as complementary heuristics

Reductionism and its heuristics: Making methodological reductionism honest

Complexity and the reductionism–holism debate in systems biology

A Call for Holism Research in the Realm of Territorial Spatial Planning and Landscape Design

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

Beyond reductionism: The emerging holistic paradigm in education.

Urban land use, mobility and theory of science: exploring the potential for critical realism in empirical research

[From relativism to evaluation. Recent trends in the historiography of science and the humanities]

Holism and Reductionism - A Daoist Explanation

‘Reductionistic’ and ‘Holistic’ Views of Resource-Based Theory: A Review of the Literature

Conducting sustainability research in the anthropocene: toward a relational approach

"Social science is explanation or it is nothing." Introduction to a debate