Skip to main content
Log in

On the Whys and Hows of Quantitative Research

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For this issue of JBE, Zyphur and Pierides (J Bus Ethics 143(1):1–16, 2017) have written a paper on a concept that they have labeled relational validity. The purpose of the paper and of their advocacy for the concept of relational validity is to improve the way that quantitative research (QR) is done by expanding our understanding of its ethics-laden aspects. I agree entirely with the authors that every decision regarding QR is an ethics-laden one and that our research as a whole would be improved by recognition of this fact. I disagree with the authors regarding some of the ways that this improvement might be brought about.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  • Cortina, J. M. (2002). Big things have small beginnings: An assortment of “minor” methodological misunderstandings. Journal of Management, 28(3), 339–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (2003). Apples and oranges (and pears, oh my!): The search for moderators in meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 415–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1997). On the logic and purpose of significance testing. Psychological Methods, 2(2), 161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M., Green, J. P., Keeler, K. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing the models that we claim to test? Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 350–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N. E., Brodie, R. J., Danaher, P. J., & Johnston, W. J. (2002). How firms relate to their markets: An empirical examination of contemporary marketing practices. Journal of marketing, 66(3), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N. E., Brodie, R. J., & Munro, H. J. (1997). Understanding contemporary marketing: Development of a classification scheme. Journal of Marketing management, 13(6), 501–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N. E., Brodie, R. J., & Munro, H. J. (2000). An investigation of marketing practice by firm size. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 523–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K. (2017). Thanks, congratulations, and publishing useful research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1352575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K., Gedikli, C., Watson, D., Semkina, A., & Vaughn, O. (2017). Job design, employment practices, and well-being: A systematic review of intervention studies. Ergonomics, 60(9), 1177–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the social sciences, 1(2), 309–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselli, E. E., & Brown, C. W. (1948). The effectiveness of intelligence tests in the selection of workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(6), 575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (2016). Approving or improving research ethics in management journals. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 507–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2017). Focusing on ethics and broadening our intellectual base. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, K. (2017). Fuck nuance. Sociological Theory, 35, 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Singletary, S. L., & Kazama, S. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. S. (2010). An experimental field study of interpersonal discrimination toward Muslim job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 881–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, E. B., Shapiro, J. R., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S. L., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, S., & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. M. (2016). The problem with [in] management theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 1132–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67(4), 371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosier, C. I. (1951). I. Problems and designs of cross-validation 1. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 11(1), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R., & Russell, C. J. (2016). Mend it or end it: Redirecting the search for interactions in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 549–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115625322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyman, J., & Pearson, E. S. (1928). On the use and interpretation of certain test criteria for purposes of statistical inference: Part I. Biometrika, 20A(1/2), 175–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyman, J., & Pearson, E. S. (1933, October). The testing of statistical hypotheses in relation to probabilities a priori. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 492–510). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(5), 529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheng, Z., Meaden, J.J., Hartzler, C., & Cortina, J.M. (2017). How do (and should) we make sense of our data. Symposium presented at the 32nd Annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando.

  • Turker, D. (2009a). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009b). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1982). Factors influencing four rules for determining the number of components to retain. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17(2), 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is quantitative research ethical? Tools for ethically practicing, evaluating, and using quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3549-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose M. Cortina.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I declare that I have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

This study does not contain any studies with human participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cortina, J.M. On the Whys and Hows of Quantitative Research. J Bus Ethics 167, 19–29 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04195-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04195-8

Keywords

Navigation