comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

eplicated to similar cases, and this enhances the potential for predictive validity of such
studies.
From a pragmatist instrumentalist perspective that dominates the business and economic
world, the value of knowledge is related to its practical use. That is, the more the
practical the knowledge the more it is valuable. Therefore, culture is seen as a valuable
instrument to be studied and exploited for better performance and more efficiency as it
can provide practical knowledge of expected behaviour in other cultures. Additionally,
predictive ability and practicality may bring more support to further positivistic
research. Since these studies try to create practical, hard and relatively context free
knowledge, they are more likely to receive attention and financial support from both
scholars and practitioners. For instance, the studies adopting a positivistic quantitative
approach have more chances to be published in top-ranked management journals,
especially in USA (Johnson and Duberley, 2000). The proponents of positivist approach
maintain that many of the criticisms directed to this approach are due to poor research
methods. These would appear to stem from failures in the editorial and peer review
processes. More advanced methods and statistical techniques need to be developed
(Johnson and Duberley, 2000) to help overcome this problem, as well as more valid
editorial and peer reviews. They argue that the problems encountered in positivistic
research are due to underdeveloped methods and as more complex methods are
introduced, the quality of research will improve. A possible problem is that as more
complex methods are introduced, the proportion of editors and reviewers who are able
to comprehend them may decrease.
Supporting the pragmatic realities of adopting the positivist empirical approach
Wysocki (2005) observed, “For decades traditional scholarly journals have held an
exalted and lucrative position as arbiters of academic excellence, controlling what’s
published and made available to the wider community.” Hence, as most academics work
in a publication driven or influenced work milieu, we can conclude that ontology,
epistemology, and methodology promulgated in most academic research is defined by
publishers, editors, and reviewers from academic journals, particularly those deemed
upper tier journals. The hundreds of hours I have spent investigating ontological,
epistemological, and methodological issues in research in the social sciences, searching
for a theme, leads to the theme that has been stated by Johnson and Duberley (2000);
studies adopting a positivistic and quantitative approach have a greater chance of being
150