IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bus/jphile/v1y2008i2p127-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Fragmentation to Ontologically Reflexive Pluralism

Author

Listed:
  • Vinca Bigo

    (Cambridge University)

  • Ioana Negru

    (Anglia Ruskin University)

Abstract

Considerable attention has recently been directed towards the analysis of pluralism in social science, not least in economics. Plurality is often taken as a mark of pluralism. But it is not the same thing, and often indicates little more than a disconnected fragmentation of contributions to a topic. We believe, in fact, that such fragmentation is rife in modern social theorising, and identify numerous causes. We subsequently examine the possibility of using an ontologically reflexive form of pluralism to achieve a greater degree of theoretical integration between various strands of thought than has hitherto been the case. We conclude by stressing the need to be aware of ontological presuppositions in social theorising. Our motivation is a concern with advancing a ‘the pluralist project’ in which, where feasible, an integration of ideas takes centre stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Vinca Bigo & Ioana Negru, 2008. "From Fragmentation to Ontologically Reflexive Pluralism," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 1(2), pages 127-150, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bus:jphile:v:1:y:2008:i:2:p:127-150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jpe.ro/pdf.php?id=2852
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://jpe.ro/?id=revista&p=136
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John B. Davis & D. W. Hands & Uskali Mäki (ed.), 1998. "The Handbook of Economic Methodology," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 741.
    2. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2003. "Pluralism in Economics: A Public Good or a Public Bad?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-034/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 18 May 2004.
    3. Davis, John B., 2006. "The turn in economics: neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism?," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-20, April.
    4. David Colander, 2018. "The Death Of Neoclassical Economics," Chapters, in: How Economics Should Be Done, chapter 5, pages 46-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. David Colander & Richard Holt & J. Rosser, 2007. "Live and dead issues in the methodology of economics," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 303-312.
    6. Richard Lipsey, 2001. "Successes and failures in the transformation of economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 169-201.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.
    2. William A. Jackson, 2018. "Strategic Pluralism and Monism in Heterodox Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(2), pages 237-251, June.
    3. Claudius Gräbner & Birte Strunk, 2020. "Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 311-329, October.
    4. Lo, Alex, 2014. "The Problem of Methodological Pluralism in Ecological Economics," MPRA Paper 49543, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Katarzyna Gruszka & Annika Scharbert & Michael Soder, 2016. "Changing the world one student at a time? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics Papers ieep7, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    6. Urban, Janina & Rommel, Florian, 2020. "German economics: Its current form and content," Working Paper Series 56, Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Institut für Ökonomie.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michele Di Maio, 2013. "Are Mainstream and Heterodox Economists Different? An Empirical Analysis," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(5), pages 1315-1348, November.
    2. Andrea Salanti, 2020. "All That Glitters Is Not Gold: The Case of Mainstream Pluralism," Annals of the Fondazione Luigi Einaudi. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Economics, History and Political Science, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Torino (Italy), vol. 54(2), pages 287-310, December.
    3. Sheila C. Dow, 2012. "Variety of Methodological Approach in Economics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Foundations for New Economic Thinking, chapter 13, pages 210-230, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Urban, Janina & Rommel, Florian, 2020. "German economics: Its current form and content," Working Paper Series 56, Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Institut für Ökonomie.
    5. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. S M Amadae, 2020. "Life without Virtue: Economists Rule. Review essay of Dani Rodrik’s Economics Rules," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 25(2), pages 51-70, September.
    7. Jackson, William A., 2013. "The Desocialising of Economic Theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 40(9), pages 809-825.
    8. Pinto, Hugo, 2011. "The role of econometrics in economic science: An essay about the monopolization of economic methodology by econometric methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 436-443, August.
    9. Claudius Gräbner & Birte Strunk, 2020. "Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 311-329, October.
    10. David Colander & Richard Holt & J. Rosser, 2007. "Live and dead issues in the methodology of economics," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 303-312.
    11. Prevost, Benoît & Rivaud, Audrey & Michelot, Agnès, 2016. "Économie politique des services écosystémiques : de l’analyse économique aux évolutions juridiques," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 19.
    12. Lynne Chester, 2019. "Judging Heterodox Economics: A Response to Hodgson's Criticisms," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Schiffman, Daniel A., 2004. "Mainstream economics, heterodoxy and academic exclusion: a review essay," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 1079-1095, November.
    14. D. Wade Hands, 2012. "The Rise and Fall of Walrasian Microeconomics: The Keynesian Effect," Chapters, in: Microfoundations Reconsidered, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Duarte N. Leite & Sandra T. Silva & Oscar Afonso, 2014. "Institutions, Economics And The Development Quest," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 491-515, July.
    16. Duncan Hodge, 2007. "Economics, realism and reality: a comparison of Mäki and Lawson," Working Papers 063, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    17. Jennifer K Gippel, 2013. "A revolution in finance?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(1), pages 125-146, April.
    18. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2009. "Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics," MPRA Paper 48173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    20. Joanna Dzionek-Kozlowska, 2013. "Ekonomia jako nauka pozytywna. Refleksje na marginesie 'Ekonomii dobra i zla' Tomasa Sedlacka/Economics as a Positive Science. Reflections after Reading Thomas Sedlacek’s 'Economics of Good and Evil’," Annales. Ethics in Economic Life, University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, vol. 16(1), pages 335-344, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    plurality; ontologically reflexive pluralism; scattered pluralism; fragmentation; integration;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B59 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Other
    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bus:jphile:v:1:y:2008:i:2:p:127-150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Valentin Cojanu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.