The one best way? ‘Scientific’ research on HRM and the threat to critical scholarship
本文指出人力资源管理研究中实证主义方法论主导，排挤了批判性研究，并分析了制度因素如何阻碍多元方法，呼吁学界推动方法论多元化。
HRM scholarship is increasingly dominated by ‘scientific’ research characterised by a positivist methodology, complex statistical techniques, correlational theorising and incremental advances in knowledge. While this approach has long been prominent in HRM research, what is new is the almost total dominance of this kind of research, which has largely crowded out alternative approaches, particularly those that are overtly critical in orientation. A variety of institutional factors has contributed to this shift in HRM scholarship, and these place significant obstacles in front of those who seek to reclaim space for critical voices. There is, however, room for greater methodological pluralism, and researchers, academic institutions and journals have roles to play in promoting viable alternatives.