Search results

This paper examines Hayek’s version of methodological individualism in relation to individual economic actions and economic effectiveness (social actions). According to this approach, economic and social order is determined by the myriad atomistic actions that are the result of individual planning taking into consideration the idiosyncratic nature of knowledge. Economic policy is a form of social planning which is not only ineffective but also has cataclysmic long‐lasting effects, creating a disorder in the market system. Two arguments are made in this study. First, methodological individualism should be considered and be accepted as a serous attempt to explain atomistic (economic) behaviour as purposeful actions constrained by scarce resources and limited knowledge. Second, Hayek’s strong version of methodological individualism is very simplistic as it is applied to economic policy issues, contradicting his argument in support of a methodological dualism.

Questions the universality of theories of management and organizational behaviour on the ground that they have not adequately addressed the factor of culture. Traditionally, these theories consider political, regulatory, social, economic, and technological forces on behaviour, without taking into account the cultural context within which such forces operate. Neglecting the culture factor may be traced to an ideological bias that there is regularity or invariance in human behaviour regardless of cultural variation. Another issue concerns the ideology of methodological individualism. The inadequacy of existing literature and research directions is reviewed first. In conclusion, it is suggested that the traditional research paradigm, which relies on the methodological individualism, employed in decades of management and psychological research should be balanced by a more holistic approach, such as methodological relationalism, which recognizes the individual’s embeddedness in the social network.

To discuss systemic thinking in relation to the naturalistic and anti‐naturalistic position in the philosophy of social science. To develop the theme in two parts: I and II.

A cybernetic approach is taken and a discussion on what is the foundation for the philosophy of social science for systemic thinking is developed.

The findings for Part I are that the rationalistic view of knowledge is based on reflection and reason. The empirical viewpoint on knowledge based on observations. The realistic view of knowledge is based on the link between the rationalistic and the empirical point of view. The systemic viewpoint is based on the realistic view of knowledge.

Provided assistance to social scientists who study social systems from the systemic or cybernetic point of view. Gives researchers studying problems/phenomena in social systems a systemic viewpoint.

It positioned systemic thinking in relation to the philosophy of social science.

The paper addresses the puzzling phenomenon of the ubiquity of economic forecasting, of which property market forecasting is but one instance, on the one hand, and the unreliability of such forecasts, on the other hand. The paper explains why property market forecasts fail, in a non-trivial sense, and why this problem is irredeemable.

This was a conceptual paper and was based on original thought and literature review.

This paper attributes the failure of property market forecasts to the inappropriate application of the methodology of the natural sciences to the social sciences by mainstream economics. Specifically, the problem is located in the positivist philosophy and the assumptions of methodological individualism and rational choice theory underlying neoclassical economic theory.

The paper makes an original contribution by clearly showing why and how the methodology of the natural sciences, especially physics, has been applied to economics and property market analysis, why this is inappropriate and why it leads to failure. The paper introduces a debate that has hitherto been mostly confined to philosophy and mainstream economics into the property or real estate discipline and in a manner that is accessible to a non-philosophy audience.

Much of the contemporary methodological literature tends to be self-referential and frequently ignorant of the breadth and depth of philosophical assumptions underpinning various methodological positions. Without a clear understanding of the philosophical underpinnings, logically deriving applicable validity criteria becomes very difficult (if not impossible). As a result, the purpose of this paper is to present a critical review of historical and more recent philosophical arguments for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research in social science.

A targeted review of seminal philosophy of science papers dealing with ontological and epistemological assumptions of, and relation between, natural and social science.

The paper highlights the link between ontological/epistemological assumptions and methodological choices in social science. Key differences between the natural and social science are discussed and situated within the main paradigms.

The paper draws attention to a range of difficulties associated with the adoption of the natural sciences and the related positivist approaches as a role model for work in the social sciences. Unique contributions of interpretive and critical approaches are highlighted. The paper may be of value to scholars who are interested in the historical context of the still-ongoing qualitative-quantitative debate.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the provisions of both the neoclassical economics and new institutional economics theses and assesses the implications of their methodologies for property market analysis.

This research is based on secondary literature review and desk-based study.

It is argued that new institutional economics, grounded on firmer foundations of human behaviour, offers an analytical approach to the study of the property market which emphasizes the institutionally contingent nature of real estate exchange, thus placing real estate within its socio-economic context.

In-depth examination and juxtaposition of the provisions, assumptions, philosophical orientations and limitations of these main traditions of economic thought towards the achievement of a representative study of the workings of the property market.

The purpose of this paper is to present a general scientific methodology on tenets from Mario Bunge’s philosophy.

Systemic thinking and conceptual generalisation.

A general scientific methodology based on tenets from Mario Bunge’s philosophy of social science.

Using quantitative methods to conduct a research to test Asplunds motivation theory and North’s action theory.

How to conduct a research based on a systemic perspective.

An advantage of linking a systemic perspective to organisational psychology studies is that it may result in new ways of looking at old problems and bring new perspectives to the methods used. One explanation may be the fact that while researchers within various organisational psychology subject fields are largely specialists, the systemic perspective is oriented towards general scientific methodology.

The authors have not seen anybody who have tried to apply systemic thinking as a general methodology for research.

To discuss systemic thinking in relation to the naturalistic position in the philosophy of social science. To develop the theme in two parts: Part I: systemic thinking and the naturalistic position; and Part II: the systemic position.

A cybernetic approach is taken, and a discussion on what is the foundation for the philosophy of social science for systemic thinking and the systemic position is developed.

The findings of Part I have been given. Part II analyses the systemic position and considers the classical controversy in social science between methodological individualism and methodological collectivism (holism). The pre‐condition on which the systemic position is based is given. The ideal requirements set up by the systemic position are presented under the headings: espistemology/methodology; ontology; axiology; and the ethical position.

Provided assistance to social scientists who study social systems from the systemic or cybernetic viewpoint and give a practical analysis of the systemic position. Provides researchers and others working in this field with an investigation of the role and conduct of social scientists.

It positioned systemic thinking in relation to the philosophy of social science.

This paper discusses Frank H. Knight's thought under three major themes, namely subjectivism, interpretation and social economics. Knight's economics starts with a conscious mind construct which is able to infer under partial knowledge. Conscious human action is purposive, forward looking and extends towards other individuals. Rejecting neoclassical positivism, Knight points to the need for economics to reconceptualize itself as an interpretative study, a methodology in the Weberian tradition. Furthermore, his allure for phenomenological economics opens a methodological possibility for the Austrian School of Economics. This paper concludes that Knight's insight earns himself a place in the history of subjectivist economics.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a general micro-theoretical framework that helps to understand the embeddedness of trade unions within the European system of industrial relations, and the consequences of this embeddedness for industrial relations outcomes. First, starting from the paradoxical observation of a trend towards homogeneity within a complex, multi-layered European industrial relations system consisting of heterogeneous and autonomous agents, the paper aims to explicate the mechanisms which produce these similarities. Second, the paper seeks to analyse potential mechanisms for transnational trade union cooperation and, third, it concludes by outlining its applicability as the basis for methodological approaches which enable realistic and policy relevant analyses.

This paper is conceptual and focusses on the development of a general micro-theoretical framework which captures European industrial relations actors’ behaviour and outcomes. It integrates theoretical and empirical accounts from differing social science disciplines and from various methodological starting points on trade union action and interaction into one general micro-theoretical framework.

Starting from a typology of trade union goals, the authors show how various social mechanisms lead to interdependencies between trade unions and review empirical evidence for their consequences. The authors, then, identify a set of motives for transnational cooperation that would allow outcomes that are in line with trade union objectives.

Against the background that previous studies on trade union action and cross-national interaction have paid less attention to the puzzling stylised fact that industrial relations outcomes are mimicked by heterogeneous and autonomous agents actors in different countries, the authors address this research gap by developing a novel general micro-theoretical framework for the analysis of transnational trade union action and interaction in order to better understand the underlying causal mechanisms for the common behaviour and outcomes of autonomous actors.