IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tcu/wpaper/201108.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Schools of Thought in the Republic of Social Science

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Garnett

    (Department of Economics, Texas Christian University)

Abstract

In an incisive analysis of academic tribalism, Stephen Balch (2004) argues that schools of thought can be catalysts or barriers to disciplinary inquiry, depending on the institutional setting. He cites physics, chemistry, and mathematics as fields in which competing schools of thought generally enhance the marketplace of ideas by increasing the scope and value of intellectual exchange (ibid., 2). Balch deems these disciplines “collegial” because, though “rivalries exist among hypotheses and investigators, there is general agreement on the means of resolving them and a strong sense of shared intellectual mission” which enable “internalized checks” to “keep things on the straight and narrow” (ibid., 4). By contrast, Balch describes the social sciences and humanities as “adversarial disciplines” in which paradigmatic rivalries “shade into enmities, bear heavily on methods of verification as well as the substance of disputes, involve judgments of value as well as of fact, often reveal an absence of shared mission, and produce results whose employment outside academe is very frequently polemical” (ibid., 4). In these contexts, schools become impediments to “serious academic discourse about the human condition” (ibid., 2) as the collegial ideal of a “free and open marketplace of ideas” (ibid., 1) gives way to balkanized disciplines “divided into enduring factions whose partisans frequently treat their opponents more as foes than colleagues” (ibid., 4).

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Garnett, 2011. "Schools of Thought in the Republic of Social Science," Working Papers 201108, Texas Christian University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:tcu:wpaper:201108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.tcu.edu/RePEc/tcu/wpaper/wp11-08.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Klein, 2001. "Plea to Economists Who Favor Liberty: Assist the Everyman," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 27(2), pages 185-202, Spring.
    2. McCloskey,Deirdre N., 1994. "Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521436038, October.
    3. Peter J. Boettke & David L. Prychitko (ed.), 1994. "The Market Process," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 54.
    4. Roger Koppl, 2011. "Against representative agent methodology," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 43-55, March.
    5. Levy, David M. & Peart, Sandra J., 2009. "Sympathy, evolution, and The Economist," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 29-36, July.
    6. McCloskey,Deirdre N., 1994. "Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521434751, October.
    7. Geoffrey Hodgson, 2002. "Visions of Mainstream Economics: A Response to Richard Nelson and Jack Vromen," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(1), pages 125-133.
    8. Peter Boettke, 2011. "Cultivating constructive discourse over economics and public policy," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 67-70, March.
    9. Harpham, Edward J., 2000. "The Problem of Liberty in the thought of Adam Smith," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 217-237, June.
    10. Peter Boettke, 2004. "Obituary. Don Lavoie (1950-2001)," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 377-379.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert Garnett, 2011. "Specialists and citizens all: A reply to Boettke, Koppl, and Holcombe," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 71-76, March.
    2. Robert Garnett, 2006. "Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 521-546.
    3. Robert Garnett, 2011. "Pluralism, Academic Freedom, and Heterodox Economics," Working Papers 201107, Texas Christian University, Department of Economics.
    4. Robert Garnett, 2011. "Why should Austrian economists be pluralists?," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 29-42, March.
    5. Paul Lewis, 2005. "Boettke, The Austrian School and the Reclamation of Reality in Modern Economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 18(1), pages 83-108, January.
    6. Ioana Negru, 2013. "Revisiting the Concept of Schools of Thought in Economics: The Example of the Austrian School," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(4), pages 983-1008, October.
    7. Claus Dierksmeier, 2011. "The Freedom–Responsibility Nexus in Management Philosophy and Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 263-283, June.
    8. Graupe, Silja & Steffestun, Theresa, 2018. ""The market deals out profit and losses": Wie ökonomische Standardlehrbücher das unreflektierte Denken in Metaphern fördern," Working Paper Series Ök-38, Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Institut für Ökonomie.
    9. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Rod O'Donnell, 2006. "Keynes's Principles of Writing (Innovative) Economics," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(259), pages 396-407, December.
    11. Warren Samuels, 1995. "Some thoughts on multiplicity," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 287-292.
    12. Yalcintas, Altug, 2012. "İktisat doga bilimlerinin Mekke’si mi oluyor?: Toplumsal ve doga bilimleri iliskisi uzerine bir atıf analizi [Is economics becoming the Mecca of Biology?: A citation analysis of the relationship be," MPRA Paper 43493, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Simon Mohun, 1999. "Markets, Money and Ideology," Working Papers 402, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    14. David C. Batten, 1999. "The Mismatch Argument: The Construction of a Housing Orthodoxy in Australia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 36(1), pages 137-151, January.
    15. Spencer, David A, 2000. "The Demise of Radical Political Economics? An Essay on the Evolution of a Theory of Capitalist Production," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(5), pages 543-564, September.
    16. Andrew Yuengert, 2006. "Model selection and multiple research goals: The case of rational addiction," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 77-96.
    17. Wilfred Dolfsma & Patrick J. Welch, 2009. "Paradigms and Novelty in Economics: The History of Economic Thought as a Source of Enlightenment," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(5), pages 1085-1106, November.
    18. Mary Morgan, 2001. "Models, stories and the economic world," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 361-384.
    19. Michael Perelman, 2011. "Retrospectives: X-Efficiency," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 211-222, Fall.
    20. Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, 2019. "Lachmann practiced humanomics, beyond the dogma of behaviorism," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(1), pages 47-61, March.

    More about this item

    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:tcu:wpaper:201108. 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: John Harvey (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detcuus.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.