IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpmh/0509001.html

Rational Choice, Scientific Method and Social Scientism

Author

Listed:
  • Bongo Adi

    (Regional Economic Development, University of Tsukuba, Japan)

  • Kenneth Amaeshi

    (Warwick Business School, Coventry, UK)

  • Suminori Tokunaga

    (Regional Economic Development, University of Tsukuba, Japan)

Abstract

The eighteenth-century introduction of the scientific method of the natural sciences to the study of social phenomena draws a line between moral philosophy - that aspect of ancient and medieval philosophy that dealt with social issues - and the social sciences as known today. From the onset, the emerging social science, or rather, its epistemological orientation to 'social scientism', was vigorously challenged by many critics who saw it as a reductionist and mechanistic understanding of human beings and their society. In recent times, this criticism has narrowed down to the critique of the rationalist assumptions or rational choice theory on which much of social scientism is built. Critics of the natural science ideal in the social sciences argue that the subject matter of the social sciences - human beings, their society and interactions - is so complex and different a system that subjecting it to the crucible of the scientific method of the natural, positivist sciences not only limits its understanding but leaves it with an abrasive and distorting impact. In the same manner, critiques of rational choice theory argue that it is a reductionism that does not account for a significant proportion of human actions and motives. What seems to be advocated for is a sort of social science method that addresses the shortcomings of the scientific method applied to social phenomena and employs a more robust model of human action that supersedes the rational choice model. This paper however posits that rationalist assumptions or rational choice theory is not peculiar to social scientism but lies at the foundation of modern and contemporary science and its method. We trace out the centrality of individual rationality assumptions in the general epistemology of the scientific method and social scienticism within the context of the centuries-old debate on the limitations of the scientific method in the social sciences. Our thesis hints at the impossibility of a modern and contemporary scientific model of either nature (physics) or society that does not assume individualist or subjective rationality.

Suggested Citation

  • Bongo Adi & Kenneth Amaeshi & Suminori Tokunaga, 2005. "Rational Choice, Scientific Method and Social Scientism," Method and Hist of Econ Thought 0509001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpmh:0509001
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/mhet/papers/0509/0509001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Metcalfe, J S, 2001. "Institutions and Progress," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 561-586, September.
    2. Paul A. David, 2004. "Understanding the emergence of 'open science' institutions: functionalist economics in historical context," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 571-589, August.
    3. William T. Ganley, 1995. "Institutional Economics and Neoclassicism in the Early Twentieth Century: The Role of Physics," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 397-406, June.
    4. Paul J. Zak, 2005. "The Neuroeconomics of Trust," Experimental 0507004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Stefano Brusoni, 2003. "Authority in the Age of Modularity," SPRU Working Paper Series 101, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. J. Doyne Farmer & Martin Shubik & Eric Smith, 2005. "Economics: the next physical science?," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1520, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 1991. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 40-57, February.
    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. Rao, Yanchao & Zhu, Xiuli & Sun, Yulan & Qian, Xiyue, 2024. "CEOs' knowledge integration， entrepreneurship, and corporate innovation: Evidence for China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Duniesky Feitó Madrigal & Alejandro Mungaray Lagarda & Michelle Texis Flores, 2016. "Factors associated with learning management in Mexican micro-entrepreneurs," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 32(141), pages 381-386.
    3. Ankita Tandon & Unnikrishnan K. Nair, 2015. "Enactment of knowledge brokering: Agents, roles, processes and the impact of immersion," Working papers 183, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    4. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    5. Alvesson, Mats & Sveningsson, Stefan, 2011. "Management is the solution: Now what was the problem? On the fragile basis for managerialism," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 349-361.
    6. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    7. Frédéric CREPLET, 2004. "Les Portails d’entreprise : une réponse aux dimensions de l’entreprise « processeur de connaissances »," Working Papers of BETA 2004-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    8. Kun Pu & Wei Liu, 2023. "Is absorptive capacity the "panacea" for organizational development? A META analysis of absorptive capacity and firm performance from the perspective of constructivism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-24, February.
    9. Louie Rivers & Tamara Dempsey & Jade Mitchell & Carole Gibbs, 2015. "Environmental Regulation and Enforcement: Structures, Processes and the Use of Data for Fraud Detection," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-29, December.
    10. Mohajan, Haradhan, 2016. "Sharing of Tacit Knowledge in Organizations: A Review," MPRA Paper 82958, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Jun 2016.
    11. Xiao Zhang & Luqun Xie & Jiatao Li & Li Cheng, 2022. "“Outside in”: Global demand heterogeneity and dynamic capabilities of multinational enterprises," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(4), pages 709-722, June.
    12. Cristina Páez-Avilés & Esteve Juanola-Feliu & Islam Bogachan-Tahirbegi & Mónica Mir & Manel González-Piñero & Josep Samitier, 2015. "Innovation And Technology Transfer Of Medical Devices Fostered By Cross-Disciplinary Communities Of Practitioners," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(06), pages 1-27, December.
    13. Fioretti, Guido, 2009. "From men and machines to the organizational learning curve," MPRA Paper 19392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Dupouet, Olivier & Yildizoglu, Murat, 2006. "Organizational performance in hierarchies and communities of practice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 668-690, December.
    15. Gyewan Moon & Suk Bong Choi & Shaikh Javed Fardin, 2016. "Organisational factors for effective knowledge sharing: an empirical study of Korean learning teams," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 102-120.
    16. Maarten B.T. de Groot & Oli R. Mihalache & Tom Elfring, 2022. "Toward a Theory of Family Social Capital in Wealthy Transgenerational Enterprise Families," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(1), pages 159-192, January.
    17. Prencipe, Andrea & Tell, Fredrik, 2001. "Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1373-1394, December.
    18. Parjanen, Satu & Hyypiä, Mirva, 2019. "Innotin game supporting collective creativity in innovation activities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 26-34.
    19. Mike Bartholomaei, 2005. "To Know is to Be: Three Perspectives on the Codification of Knowledge," SPRU Working Paper Series 131, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    20. Ronnie Ramlogan & Davide Consoli, 2007. "Knowledge, Understanding and the Dynamics of Medical Innovation," European Journal of Economic and Social Systems, Lavoisier, vol. 20(2), pages 231-249.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • B - Schools of Economic Thought and 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:wpa:wuwpmh:0509001. 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: EconWPA The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask EconWPA to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.