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.

On choosing meaningful research projects in the natural sciences

Posing Fundable Questions in Mathematics and Science Education

The choice: evaluating and selecting scientific proposals

Applied research: a scientist's perspective

Science Communication a New Frontier of Researcher's Job

Why Scientists Chase Big Problems: Individual Strategy and Social Optimality

Revisiting the Exploration-Exploitation Behavior of Scholars? Research Topic Selection: Evidence from a Large-Scale Bibliographic Database

[The Experience of Initiating the Projects in Ophthalmologic Research].

Interdisciplinarity: A Nobel Opportunity

Should We All be Scientists? Re-thinking Laboratory Research as a Calling

Mind the gap: rigour and relevance in collaborative heritage science research

Paradigm change and uncertainty about funding of public health research: social and scientific implications

Reaching and implementing the best available knowledge in wildlife biology

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

Attach Importance to the Topic Selection of the Science Fund in the New Era and Improve the Project Subsidy Rate

We must discuss research environments

Towards a Framework for a New Research Ecosystem

Learning to Prioritize Our Collaborative Opportunities: Overcoming the Bright Shiny Object Syndrome

From Traditional Research to Responsible Research: The Necessity of Scientific Freedom and Scientific Responsibility for Better Societies

Selection mechanisms underlying high impact biomedical research--a qualitative analysis and causal model