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.

Some elementary distinctions among, and comments concerning, the 'control' question 'test' (CQT) polygrapher's many problems: a reply to Honts, Kircher and Raskin

Psychology and the Lie detector Industry: A Fifty-Year Perspective

Discussion of Papers by Frank, and Robbins & Wallerstein.

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

The Physicist Inside the Ambiguous Room: an argument against the need of consciousness in quantum mechanical measurement process

A reply to Rovelli's response to our "Assessing Relational Quantum Mechanics''

The scientific status of the defence mechanism test: a reply to Kline

Arguments for and proposed tests of a revised S-R contiguity-reinforcement theory of human Pavlovian autonomic conditioning: Some contra-cognitive claims

Discussion of Papers by Saslow & Matarazzo, and Lacey.

Experimental Psychology and Psychoanalysis: What We Can Learn from a Century of Misunderstanding

What is the Logic of Experimental Inquiry?

Propagation and interaction of shock waves of quasilinear equation

Comment on "Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality"

The Pragmatic QFT Measurement Problem and the need for a Heisenberg-like Cut in QFT

A Defense of the Paraconsistent Approach to Quantum Superpositions (Answer to Arenhart and Krause)

Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Peaceful Coexistence: Examining Kent's Relativistic Solution to the Quantum Measurement Problem

Something is wrong in the state of QED

Addressing some common objections to generalized noncontextuality

What weak measurements and weak values really mean - Reply to Kastner

Cognitive resource theory: Issues for specifying a test of the theory.