Can Quantitative Research Solve Social Problems? Pragmatism and the Ethics of Social Research
- PDF / 540,005 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 46 Downloads / 246 Views
COMMENTARY
Can Quantitative Research Solve Social Problems? Pragmatism and the Ethics of Social Research Thomas C. Powell1 Received: 21 December 2017 / Accepted: 23 May 2019 © The Author(s) 2019
Abstract Journal of Business Ethics recently published a critique of ethical practices in quantitative research by Zyphur and Pierides (J Bus Ethics 143:1–16, 2017). The authors argued that quantitative research prevents researchers from addressing urgent problems facing humanity today, such as poverty, racial inequality, and climate change. I offer comments and observations on the authors’ critique. I agree with the authors in many areas of philosophy, ethics, and social research, while making suggestions for clarification and development. Interpreting the paper through the pragmatism of William James, I suggest that the authors’ arguments are unlikely to change attitudes in traditional quantitative research, though they may point the way to a new worldview, or Jamesian “sub-world,” in social research. Keywords Quantitative research · Ethics · Pragmatism
Introduction I was invited by the editors of this journal to comment on an article called “Is Quantitative Research Ethical? Tools for Ethically Practicing, Evaluating, and Using Quantitative Research” (Zyphur and Pierides 2017). The topic of the article is important and of great intrinsic interest to me, so I am pleased to offer this commentary. As will become clear, I agree with much of what the authors wrote, and with their overall philosophical orientation. The authors presented a compelling critique of traditional approaches to quantitative research (QR) in the social sciences, offering an ethical orientation for organizational research and providing helpful examples of ethical approaches to QR in management studies. Of course, agreement makes uninteresting commentary and it is pointless to repeat the authors’ arguments and agree with them. What I have done instead is to play the devil’s advocate, selecting a few key points from the paper and evaluating them from the perspective of a traditional QR practitioner. For example, the authors argued that traditional approaches to QR are not objective but value-laden. I agree * Thomas C. Powell [email protected] 1
Said Business School, University of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HP, UK
with this (see Powell 2001a), but I evaluate whether the authors’ proposals alleviate this problem or make it worse. The authors argued that quantitative researchers should do their part to solve human problems. I agree with this (see Powell 2014a), but I consider whether the problems they discussed were caused by quantitative methods, and whether it is reasonable to expect any research method to solve them. The authors endorsed a pragmatist epistemology as against foundationalist or “correspondence” epistemologies. I agree with this (see Powell 2001b, 2002, 2003, 2014b), but I review the origins of pragmatist philosophy and consider whether pragmatism can legitimately be used to justify the social agendas of academic
Data Loading...
