The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics
Abstract
The central claim of this paper is that organization studies needs to be fundamentally reshaped. Such change is needed to provide room for ethics and to increase the relevance of research. We argue that the new pragmatism provides critical resources for this change. Pragmatism is a particularly helpful tool to use in that it highlights the moral dimensions of organizing (is this useful for our purposes?) while at the same time avoiding entrenched epistemological distinctions that marginalize ethics and make research less useful. The paper begins by discussing the relative absence of ethics within the mainstream of organization studies, indicates why this relative absence is problematic, and proceeds to show how pragmatism offers a preferable approach. Epistemology—specifically the debate between positivists and anti-positivists—becomes a central issue because the framework of positivism is overtly hostile to ethics (and other nonquantitative approaches to studying organizations), rendering it a marginal subject. While anti-positivism holds promise for overcoming this hostility towards ethics, it retains some of the destructive elements of positivism that create new and equally troubling difficulties. The paper claims, in contrast to the proposals of others (e.g., Zald's 1993 position) that the preferred alternative is not to split the difference, but to move beyond the positivism vs. antipositivism debate and work from an alternative framework. Pragmatism allows researchers to put this debate to the side and, in the process, develop research that is focused on serving human purposes—i.e., both morally rich and useful to organizations and the communities in which they operate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2010.495581 · Cited by 2,755
Self-citationJones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259075 · Cited by 1,595
Self-citationChristmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400231 · Cited by 745
Why the Time Has Come to Retire Instrumental Stakeholder Theory
Weitzner, D., & Deutsch, Y. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0342 · Cited by 40
What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders
Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., Berman, S. L., & Elms, H. (2022) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503211053005 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-140
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2143588318
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123
- The paper
- Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.