Search results

Caldwell’s Beyond Positivism was a key publication that helped precipitate the consolidation of the methodology of economics into a distinct subfield within economics. Reconsidering it after 35 years, it is striking for its antinaturalism (i.e., its lack of deference to the actual practices of economics) or, perhaps, for its meta-naturalism (displayed in its excessive deference to the philosophy of science) and for its defense of pluralism. It offers pluralism as an unsuccessful defense against dogmatism. Against Caldwell’s pluralism, dogmatism is better opposed by a commitment of fallibilism and scientific humility. Caldwell’s defense of Austrian methodology is taken as a case study to illustrate and investigate his key themes and the issues that they raise.

In 1982 my book Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century was published. At the 2017 History of Economics Society meeting, a session was held to mark the 35th anniversary of that event. Papers by Wade Hands, Kevin Hoover, Tony Lawson, and the trio Peter Boettke, Solomon Stein, and Virgil Storr were prepared. In this paper, I respond by reflecting on how I came to write Beyond Positivism and on the state of the field of economic methodology at the time, and then commenting briefly on each of the papers noted above.

Using textual analysis the authors study the relationship between social media sentiments and stock markets during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study analysis is based on a sample of 1,616,007 tweets over the period January to June 2021 for seven countries. The authors process the tweets via the VADER analyzer thereby producing both positive and negative sentiment measures.

Particularly, the authors prove that higher positivism is associated with a short-term increase in stock prices. On the other side, negativism relates inversely to stock prices with long-term impact, in the case of English-spoken countries. Notably, the study results remain robust to the inclusion of various control variables, including virtual fear and Google vaccine indexes. Finally, the authors prove that positivism is associated with higher returns and lower volatility in the short-run, while negativism is linked with lower returns in the short run.

The study analysis also has significant policy implications for researchers, investors and policymakers. First, researchers can employ our measures to quantify market sentiments and expand their research arsenal to incorporate social media trends, thus providing better explanatory power. Second, during times of severe uncertainty such as in a pandemic period, investors could beneficially take into account our textual measures and empirical results when using asset pricing models or constructing their portfolios. Third, the finding that the stock market is heavily governed by sentimental behaviors, especially during crisis periods, implies that policymakers including central banks, governments and capital market commissions must consider these sentiments before exerting their policies. In this regard, governments can effectively develop policy tools and approaches to manage recovery from the pandemic, which translates to greater long-term economic resilience. Moreover, central banks should accordingly adjust their monetary policy measures in order to stabilize financial markets, and by extension, to stop the pandemic from turning into a renewed financial crisis. For example, asset purchase program is considered the main instrument of this kind of intervention.

The authors confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. The paper should be of interest to readers in the areas of finance.

This article aims to summarize Norwegian cleaning‐related research to give an overview of the knowledge held today and to categorize the approaches used.

The research is based on an extensive literature search. Research contributions from 1814 until 2009 were studied, even though the main findings are from 1950. The different disciplines contributing to research are mapped and the contributions are categorized based on different research approaches, namely positivism, interpretivism, realism and idealism.

Norwegian cleaning‐related research experienced a burst in publications from the 1990s. The majority of Norwegian cleaning‐related research has been positivistic, mostly based on realism. The least common approach used was interpretivism‐idealism and interviews were the most frequently used method in interpretivisitc contribution. The article indicates a need for further broadening in research methods.

Through categorizing existing knowledge the article will help when searching for information and thus stimulate more research as limited research exists within the field.

The paper represents a summary of the knowledge status in cleaning with a Norwegian perspective. It is believed that the general picture also has international relevance.

Few researchers have investigated cleaning work from the perspective of cleaning personnel. It should also be noted that there has been little focus on the usability of buildings for cleaning personnel.

This article may be the first historical overview of Norwegian cleaning‐related research.

This paper aims to find common ground between the supposed incompatible meta-historical positioning of positivism and post-positivism through a turn to mnemohistory in management and organizational history.

Drawing on the idea of creative synthesis and positioning theory, the authors interject concepts from cultural memory studies in historical research on business and organizations to encourage management historians and organization theorists interested in joining the dialogue around how the past is known in the present. Using notions of “aftermath” and “events,” the idea of apositivism is written into historical organization studies to focus on understanding the complex ways of how past events translate into history. The critical historic turn event is raised as an exemplar of these ideas.

The overview of the emergence of the controversial historic turn in management and organization studies and the positioning of its adherents and antagonists revealed that there may be some commonality between the fragmented sense of the field. It was revealed that effective history vis-à-vis mnemohistory may hold the potential of a shared scholarly ethic.

The research builds on recent work that has sought to bring together the boundaries of management and organizational history. This paper explains how mnemohistory can offer a common position that is instrumental for theorizing the relationships among the past-infused constructs such as organizational heritage, legacy and identity.

Aims to address a gap in the literature about quality criteria for validity and reliability in qualitative research within the realism scientific paradigm. Six comprehensive and explicit criteria for judging realism research are developed, drawing on the three elements of a scientific paradigm of ontology, epistemology and methodology. The first two criteria concern ontology, that is, ontological appropriateness and contingent validity. The third criterion concerns epistemology: multiple perceptions of participants and of peer researchers. The final three criteria concern methodology: methodological trustworthiness, analytic generalisation and construct validity. Comparisons are made with criteria in other paradigms, particularly positivism and constructivism. An example of the use of the criteria is given. In conclusion, this paper’s set of six criteria will facilitate the further adoption of the realism paradigm and its evaluation in marketing research about, for instance, networks and relationship marketing.

This article aims to propose a critical review of James G. March’s research in and particular its consistency with its epistemological and psychological underpinnings.

The paper proposes a textual and conceptual analysis of James G. March’s study.

The article argues first that March’s study exemplifies the “physics envy” typical of management and organisation studies scholars since the early 1960s. Second, evidence is presented that March’s conclusions, irrespective of their legacy on management and organisation studies, were not developed along and were not consistent with the foundations that March espoused and advocated during most of his career. As a result, the implications of his conclusions are uncertain. To his credit, however, there are reasons to believe that, towards the end of his career, March came to recognise the limitations of his scholarship. Further, he indicated an alternative avenue for organisation studies which eschews the shortcomings of positivist and post-modern research.

Although centred on March’s work, the argument presented is relevant to psychology, organisations, choice, the nature of knowledge, the limitations of positivism and post-modernism.

The paper balances the perspective offered by recent celebratory reviews of March’s study.

Explicates and analyses selected economic methodologies: praxeology, positivism and institutionalism. Praxeology is a rationalistic methodology which utilizes deductive logic to deduce conclusions concerning economic behavior from postulates, which are self‐evident truths, but praxeologists deny that empirical verification is either necessary or desirable. Positivism is a methodology which combines deductive rationalism as a method of deriving substantive hypotheses and inductive empiricism as a method of verifying these hypotheses. Institutionalism is a pragmatic methodology which is based on an empirical epistemology and which utilizes inductive logic to formulate economic policy and to solve practical problems. Concludes that institutionalism is more empirically relevant than either praxeology or positivism, and that, therefore, institutionalism is superior to the other methodologies.