Deze samenvatting is gebaseerd op het studiejaar 2013-2014.

Chapter A

The basic question in philosophy of science is why scientific knowledge is more trustworthy than everyday knowledge. If we get told that something is based on scientific knowledge we immediately assume that it is true. We trust that something scientific is always true for every situation. Science has a lot of authority, but what exactly makes it more trustworthy than everyday knowledge?

Science and scientific knowledge aims to create knowledge of patterns, regularities, structures and laws. Scientific theories do not state something about one specific company or one specific example of successful management.

In the management studies we aim to create knowledge about certain kinds and types of knowledge which leads to successful business. Thus, the claims of science and the knowledge it creates should be generalizable.

Generalizability is important for science due to the fact that it helps achieve science’s main goal which is to:

Understand phenomena that are being observed.

Explain phenomena that are being observed.

Science searches for general claims about mechanisms that look like laws that help us to understand and explain processes, events and phenomena. But how can we know that a claim is valid? When claimed to be true, a certain theory can earn the title “scientific” when the evidence it presents can be tested by other scholars of the same field. Scrutiny is very important in science: scholars must be able to repeat the research of colleagues to test whether the results are valid. Trustworthiness requires controllability, and controllability requires repeatability in order to test the “scientific” evidence.

Scientific knowledge is defined by five features which are meant to guarantee the trustworthiness of the results:

• Generalisability: allows explaining and understanding phenomena.

• Controllability: therefore research has to be transparent and repeatable.

• Objectivity: scientific research should be independent of external pressures and influences in order for the results to be trustworthy.

• Methodology: research methods that are used (eg. Surveys, analysis of documents, field research, interviews, conceptual analysis) have to be accepted by scholars of the same discipline and obey the scientific criteria of the same discipline. The Methodology must always be justified and true in belief. Scientific knowledge is only produced if the research is methodologically sound.

• Clarity and simplicity: scientific research aims at a clear and simple models of explanation. That enhances the exploratory power of a theory and makes it possible to test the theory in cases that are different from the cases which were used to build up the theory. This phenomenon is explained in the principle of parsimony: the simplest explanation that explains the greatest number of observations is preferred over more complex explanations.

If the scientific research and its resulting theories display the above mentioned five characteristics then we have sufficient reasons to trust the validity of the scientific claims and results. However the trust comes in certain degrees and is not “all or nothing”. Scientific results present the facts as they are. Even so, the idea that science is in search of solid facts and that management science can only be taken seriously if the results are based on facts, is the source of two great misconceptions regarding the nature and methods of research in management sciences.

Two misconceptions about science and research

The first misconception is that only empirical research can be regarded as scientific. It is a misunderstanding that statistical analysis should be at the core of scholarly activities. The analysis of concepts with which we try to grasp the data and the reality it represents is as important as the gathering and statistical analysis of the data. Without thorough conceptual analysis, there is not thorough scientific research. There is no way of studying any phenomenon without a discussion of theoretical concepts with which we describe and grasp that phenomenon. In science, careful reasoning is as important as adequate observation. Scientific research is more than gathering and analysing empirical data.

By good thinking and reasoning, one may reach results that are much harder to obtain by empirical research. The philosophy of science shows that empiricism has always been a strong tradition in science, but that it is deeply flawed. Empirical data cannot have meaning outside of a conceptual framework. As we will see later on, the “positivists” think of empiricism as the only correct position, but most philosophers of science agree that positivism is quite flawed.

The second misconception is about the fact that scientific research is believed to be only descriptive and never prescriptive or normative. It can only describe what reality really is and cannot prescribe what reality should be. We cannot say anything objectively about what should be. Thus management sciences should limit themselves to what the facts are and not pretend to be able to say something about what is right or what is good.

This line of thinking may sound correct but it is not. On the basis of thorough research, some scholars may conclude what is the best way or the most effective way to perform a certain action or deal with a certain issue. Such a conclusion has immediate normative consequences, if we hold that the most effective way of dealing with a certain issue is considered the best way. The management sciences aim at offering well-founded answers to questions about what are the best strategies at addressing a problem or, perhaps, dealing with change, or what are the most effective forms of stirring complex organisational processes.

Scientists want to know the truth both in the factual sense and the normative sense when conducting their research.

Good reason model of truth

The so called good reason model of truth, according to which a claim is true, if it is supported by the balance of reasons. A claim will be (is) supported if the reasons in favour outweigh the reasons against it. Sometimes the reasons for a claim may be decisive or conclusive by themselves, which means that no other reasons are needed to support the claim, and if there are countervailing reasons, they are most likely outweighed but the conclusive reason. But mostly we will have to weight various reasons in order to justify or falsify a claim. Also, when trying to make a claim normative, scholars must consider, if based on past experience, if the claim will hold true in the future.

Bad reasoning would be that something holds true because there is little or no arguments or proofs that it will not be true. It is also considered a form of a classical fallacy or argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Also, many arguments contain circularity or petitio principii, meaning that the claim that one has to prove is taken for granted in one of the premises.

Another sophism is the so called “false dilemma” or “false trilemma”. This occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires the target to pick only one of the given. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices that can serve to falsify the argument. Fallacies are defects in an argument which cause an argument to be invalid, unsound or weak.

When one asks the question whether a given reason is a good reason, one is actually asking the question “What is reasonable to believe?” The question “What is reasonable?” is understood in three ways in the philosophy of science:

• It can be understood in a way which asks what the correct research and argumentation methods are. Then it is considered to be a methodological question.

• It can be understood as a question about the status of acquired scientific knowledge. Then it is taken as an epistemological question. (“Episte” in Greek means knowledge)

• It can be seen as a question that regards the nature of reality. This kind of question is considered an ontological question. (“Ontos” in Greek means “that what is”)

Methodological question

The main concern here is about research methods.

In every scientific discipline the question what are the best research methods is of the utmost importance. In social sciences there is a long standing battle between adherents of quantitative methodological approaches and qualitative methodological approaches.

Quantitative methodology uses statistical analysis and data about the behaviour and opinions of people. However, most people reason according to the representativity heuristic: they take it that the more a person or situation seems to represent the features of a particular type, the higher the chance that the person or situation indeed is of such a type, without looking at the statistical distribution of chances. In most cases this is an effective reasoning shortcut.

Reasoning shortcuts allow to arrive at a conclusion faster in some cases. In cases where it is very difficult to get some idea about how the base rate is built up, stereotype reasoning may be a rational second best. Intuition can provide a reliable answer when reasoning becomes too complex. However, an appeal to intuition does not amount to results that can be controlled by others. Overall, the idea of a good reason in science is closely connected to what can be recognised as a valid research method.

Epistemological questions

Of utmost importance in thinking about what is reasonable and rational in science is the epistemological question: “what is the status of the knowledge that we have acquired?” Most scientists hope that the explanation of a phenomenon will provide them with the possibilities to come up with many reliable predictions. Unfortunately, such hope is often false.

Economists are sometimes very good at predicting the behaviour of consumers. However, the models of the human psyche they use are grossly unrealistic. They perceive humans as homo economicus. This means the rational egoist: the economical human seeks a maximum of preference satisfaction, his preferences are fully ordered and he is able to calculate exactly which choice in the market will result in maximal preference satisfaction. If one perceives a person solely as homo economicus one may be able to predict market behaviour, but does one really know what is going on in the market exactly?

This epistemological question is important because it is a question about the reasonableness of one’s theoretical assumptions. As such it is a question about the rationality of the arguments which are based on that theoretical assumption.

Ontological questions

Ontological assumptions are those assumptions that assume something about the nature of reality: i.e. in what way do entities and phenomena exist in reality? Are the presuppositions about their nature warranted? The philosophy of the management sciences questions the ontological presuppositions in organisational theory.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim (1558-1617) said that social structures and institutions are real and exist on their own. He believed that what an organization is and does is more than what all individuals in the organization are and do.

Whereas, another sociologist and philosopher, Max Weber (1864-1920) disagreed with him and denied that collectives like organizations can be looked at as organisms.

The nature of money is an ontological presupposition. A 50 euro bill is only worth 10 euro cents because of the printing. However, it represents a much greater value. So how is it possible that a 50 euro bill is really worth 50 euros? Money is a reality that is founded on mutual agreements, conventions, social structures and economical institutions. But how real is such a reality?

Idealism versus realism

Idealism is the position that, ontologically speaking, all natural phenomena, are nothing more than mental representations and that objects and phenomena only exist given that they can be observed or experienced. They are all just ideas that are created by people, not objects or phenomena that exist really and in reality. This is a view adopted by some philosophers.

But also, there is a view that states that objects and phenomena exist in a reality that is independent of us, but which objects and phenomena we can distinguish is dependent on the structure of our minds. We distinguish and order phenomena and events in a particular way. This is a position of realism, but one which acknowledges that reality is observed in a pre-shaped way.

According to Kant (1781) objective knowledge is only possible because our mind moulds and orders our observations in a certain way. This is linked to the way we observe phenomena along the time and space continuum in our minds that amounts to an epistemological position. Not an ontological one however, but connected close to a particular ontological position. Upon the basis of space and linear time we observe the world and try to grasp reality. It is through observation that we gain knowledge about the world and what we know is always pre-shaped by the mental categories of time, space and causality.

We are only in contact with reality if we understand it in a spatio-temporal framework. At the same time there is a dimension that escapes our understanding. This is visible in paradoxes like the big bang and what came before it. We cannot conceptualise it because we cannot place it in space and time since that is when space and time began.

The lesson to be learned here is that we need more than one look at things and from more than one perspective that exists in reality when studying it. It is not true that only one approach will give us a realistic picture of the phenomenon.

When we look in a particular way we do not see everything. Thus we need to be ecumenical: we need different perspectives on things when viewing social reality.

Chapter B

Positivism was introduced by Auguste Comte at the start of the twentieth century, who wanted to develop a “positive science” for the study of social phenomena, in order to resolve social problems in a scientific way. Such a science should only be based on ‘positive facts’: observable phenomena and events. Positivism preached an entirely empirical epistemology: only knowledge based on observation and experience can be considered scientific knowledge. Claims that go beyond the empirically testable are therefore considered to be nonsense. Historically it is very understandable why positivism emerged but the idea that scientific research should just be empirical and descriptive is much too limited.

Rationalism and empiricism

Modern science originates in the period of the Enlightenment in Western thought in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Kant, the father of Enlightenment, formulated the slogan that is characteristic of Enlightenment: sapere aude! Dare to think! This marked the democratisation of the acquirement of knowledge. In the Reformation movement this democratisation also played a central role. Luther preached the emancipation of the ordinary believer: they could gain knowledge about the truth of faith without needing a clergy. In the Renaissance period, intellectuals developed theories by being liberated from the authority of the church. This was the origin of modern science. This movement of emancipation lead to Kant’s critical rationalism: knowledge that can only be attained by way of critical reflection about the possibilities and limits of thinking itself.

According to Kant we conclude to causality if we think about the way we observe and experience this world. Therefore, according to rationalism, we can have a priori knowledge of the world. This means preceding experience and observation. We cannot observe causality, but we observe a sequence of events. We give meaning to this sequence by presupposing causality. So we have a priori knowledge of causality: knowledge which is not based on observation. However, does priori thinking really result in knowledge? Analytic a priori knowledge can really add something: this means knowledge gained without consulting experience. Rationalists do not only believe that we can gain analytic a priori knowledge, but also synthetic a priori knowledge: knowledge which transcends what is implied by a strict analysis of concepts and definitions, and which is not dependent upon observation, but only on pure thinking. In other words, rationalists think that behind most phenomena a sequence of cause and effect is hidden and that we can come to know that mechanism , even if we cannot observe this mechanism.

Rationalists thought that the goal of science was to unravel the complete configuration of causal mechanisms, which cannot be observed or experienced directly, which is hidden behind the appearances. These hidden mechanisms can be unveiled by relying on one’s capacity to think rationally.

Kant was not a radical rationalist: he believed that knowledge that we gain independently of our experience and observation of reality is limited, but essential.

The philosopher Hume said that in reality there is no such thing as causality, because causality cannot be observed. Distinguishing in the sequence of events particular causes and effects is nothing more than a psychological association. There is no reality beyond the appearances, because the appearances are all we can empirically observe, and there is no reality beyond what we can observe. Empiricism reached conclusions that were in conflict with religion, and this culminated in positivism.

Positivism

Positivism is an extreme form of empiricism that holds that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on actual sense experience and observation. A paper published by the members of the Vienna Circle in 1929 (considered to be the main supporters of positivism), claimed that empirical experience is the only source of knowledge, and what cannot be observed or cannot be based on an observation does not exist. They believed only in synthetic claims a posteriori: claims directly or indirectly based on empirical observations.

Ernst Mach (1838-1916) was a positivist (radical empiricist) and he said that the world exists only of elements that we can observe like coldness, warmth, softness, hardness, certain forms, tones, tunes and colours. He believed that when terms are used to refer to objects one is using that term as a thought-symbol which in shortened form refers to the sensory experiences. Though-symbols can be visualised by concepts such as form and shape, colour and warmth of something. Such symbols are handy auxiliaries that summarize an entire network of experiences in one word. He claimed that laws of nature are also nothing more than summaries of an endless series of observations.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), who was also a positivist, added a valuable insight for the positivists based on Mach’s views. He contemplated that the objects and laws that we construct upon the basis of our sensory experiences are more than just psychological auxiliaries and that we can be certain such laws are true if they are constructed in a logically sound way. Only knowledge that can be traced back to observational data can be qualified as scientific knowledge. This is called logical positivism.

Positivism proposes that science should be based exclusively on experience and observation and that observation is what makes a statement true or false and that science should be based on facts. The idea that only empirical data is a good reason for backing up a scientific claim, results in the induction problem.

The induction problem

Induction is the opposite of deduction. Deduction is a form of reasoning in which one deduces from general claims or laws more particular conclusions. There is a basic deductive scheme of reasoning called the syllogism. A famous example of this is: ‘all humans are mortal’ (major premise), ‘Socrates is a human’ (minor premise), so ‘Socrates is mortal’ (conclusion). Science wants to discover such general principles or laws which can be used to derive particular claims. This ideal is called the deductive-nomological model of science. Positivists propose and defend this model.

However, there exists a problem that asks the question: where do we start with finding general laws and principles to start an argument? The induction problem says that out of a limited set of observations we can never with full certainty infer a general principle or law, however large the set may be. However, one might say after observing a great amount of phenomena, the majority of which has the same characteristic, that it is at least probable that most of these phenomena have that observed characteristic. But in order to draw a valid conclusion about probabilities, we also need to know the features of the whole set of phenomena of the same type. Concluding, induction is possible but general laws or probabilities resulting from an inductive argument should not be counted as knowledge, but as wishful thinking or faith. This is against the view of positivists. So instead of a model of truth, nowadays the good reasons approach is used more often.

Correspondence model of truth

The correspondence model of truth used by positivists states that a claim is true if it corresponds exactly with reality. This can only be confirmed empirically.

Two issues can be addressed when using the correspondence model of truth:

• One is that it is often not easy or clear to determine whether the content of a claim matches with what is considered that is really happening in reality.

• The second problem is that it is difficult to show a connection or link between the observations and the occurrence of a phenomenon which cannot be referred to in terms of observational concepts but in theoretical concepts.

The problem with a correspondence theory of truth is that there is no automatic connection between the phenomena that we would like to examine (like egoism or recessions) and the phenomena that we can observe. These connections can only be referred to in theoretical terms. There are three criteria about what makes a theoretical concept a good concept for grasping non-observable phenomena:

1. Robustness: a concept should be useable in more than one context.

2. Fit: the claims that one makes using these concepts, should fit into a more general theory.

3. Predictability: with the concept one should be able to make a trustworthy prediction about the occurrence of the phenomenon.

Coherence model of truth

The coherence model of truth states that there are many reason-giving considerations that support the truth of a claim. A claim is true if the observations, theoretical explanations and predictions that are positively related to that claim are sufficiently connected and if they mutually reinforce each other. Coherence is a function of cohesion and mutual support.

The coherence model avoids the induction problem. Because general claims can only be supported by a limited range of observations, the coherence model searches for other reasons which may give the general claim extra support. The truth of a scientific claim is more than observation and experience.

According to the coherence model there is no big difference between analytic and synthetic claims. Analytic claims are true if they can be derived from various other claims on various levels of abstraction. Synthetic claims are true when they correspond with reality. But this requires the involvement of a whole set of definitions, descriptions and background theories.

The standard model of science

The coherence model of truth forms the basis of the standard model of science. This model proposes a kind of empirical cycle which combines phases of induction and deduction. The process is as following: based upon observation, one tries by means of induction and generalisation to detect empirical regularities and laws. Then the regularities and laws should be explained by relating them to other regularities, laws and general theories which explain what is going on. Then a theory out of these observations and generalisations can be formulated. To test whether this theory is plausible, one can derive from the theoretical insights new hypotheses that must be the case given what the theory says. These hypotheses can be tested by performing experiments. One examines if the observations in such an experiment conform with what would be expected given the empirical regularity. If the observations conform with what is expected, then the hypothesis is supported and therefore the theory is supported.

Popper’s critical rationalism

The critical rationalist Popper said that the induction problem is not really tackled by the coherence model of truth. He said that upon the basis of particular observed cases one can say nothing about the non-observed cases (unless one knows the whole set). Also, the pursuit of the highest degree of assurance will lead to claims with a limited content. Because the less one claims, the greater the chance that one’s claim is true. But according to Popper this is not the goal of science.

It was Popper’s idea that the main goal of science should not be to try and perfectly confirm and prove a theorem by looking for ultimate evidence in its support, but science should attempt to falsify those theories. Scientists should not focus on confirmation but on falsification.

Popper’s approach is called critical rationalism. One critically searches for reasons to falsify a theory, instead of looking for support for a theory. Accordingly, good scientific research requires that the researcher is as critical as possible towards his own theories. When a theory survives all attempts to be falsified then it can be considered “trustworthy”. However, we can never exclude the possibility that we will find evidence that falsifies the theory. Therefore, according to Popper, scientific knowledge is unreliable. Falsifiability is the only criterion that distinguishes scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge.

But if Popper thinks that observation can never lead to confirmation of a claim because of the induction problem, how can he be sure that observations may lead to falsification of a claim? So Popper’s critical rationalism poses the same problem as positivism: whether an observation really falsifies a claim cannot be determined independent of supplementary theoretical considerations. Confirming or falsifying a theory is a more complex process than the empirical cycle.

Kuhn’s paradigm theory

Kuhn discovered that the growth of scientific knowledge is not a gradual process but a process by fits and starts. In the first phase of the development of a scientific discipline there is a lot of discussion about the methods used, and about ontological and epistemological presuppositions. The disagreement on this issues usually cause the emergence of different schools of thought, which all contain different ways of answering the fundamental methodological, epistemological, and ontological presuppositions. Different schools will produce theories until a breakthrough discovery is made. This discovery usually functions as a paradigm.

A paradigm includes:

• Fundamental theories that all scientists agree to.

• More breakthroughs, which will also function as exemplars of new theories.

• Shared scientific values.

• Shared methodological prescriptions.

if this broadened paradigm functions well, we are in a situation of normal science. In such a situation there is a steady growth of scientific knowledge. The broadened paradigm is taken for granted as the basis of scientific work and scientists do not try to falsify or verify its claims.

However, scientists within a dominant paradigm can also be confronted with an anomaly. Usually, scientists try to solve the anomaly within the framework of the existing paradigm. If all efforts fail, new ways of looking at the anomaly are investigated and this may lead to a scientific revolution.

Different paradigms can exist next to each other and the idea that we should seek one unified theory is left more and more behind.

Chapter C

Nature of analyses in social science

The type of research that is conducted in the social sciences depend on two questions:

1. At which level is the analysis being performed: the level of individual actions or the level of organisation, system or institution?

2. What is the nature of the research we conduct: do we want to explain phenomena or do we want to understand phenomena.

When research is conducted at the micro level the characteristics, preferences, actions, positions, and interactions between individuals will be taken as the variables in the research and studied further for patterns. This approach is called methodological individualism and encompasses the notions that individuals and their action determine the formation of the society. This is based on an ontological individualism approach, which comprises the idea that in reality no supra-individual entities (organisations, nations etc) exist. Only individuals and individual actions are real.

There is also a difference in the character of research. The perspective of the spectator can be taken: the behaviour of individual actors at the micro level are examined, for example looking at causes for their behaviour or searching for a statistical link between their behaviour and other phenomena. The other perspective is the perspective of the participant. This means trying to understand the behaviour of individuals, so which intentions and which reasons they had for their behaviour.

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics were introduced by a philosopher called Dilthey (1833-1911). It is the art of interpretation and the art of understanding meanings. It is described as the craft of interpreting, understanding and conceptualising the meanings of social phenomenon. It understands the reasons and causes for social phenomena and attempts to create meaningful explanations for them in order to help understand the social reality.

Scientific knowledge requires more than predictions based on statistics, it is also examining underlying motives for consumer behaviour. The goal of science is not only to predict, but also to understand people’s behaviour. Therefore the perspective of the participant should be assumed and examine what the meaning is of phenomena.

However, it is very difficult to find the reasons of why people are doing certain things. This is why scientists limit themselves to the perspective of the spectator and assume that people’s actions are determined by particular reasons and motives.

Rational choice theory

The rational choice theory is an approach from the perspective of the spectator that assumes knowledge and motives without taking on the perspective of the participant. It is also a way of applying methodological individualism. It is a method that helps us to understand social institutions and social changes as resulting from the actions and interactions of rational individuals. Rational individuals are individuals who try to optimise their own preferences to the fullest.

Rational choice theory describes the so called “rationality of people” and believes that all individuals will act as perfectly rational beings when facing economic situations. This theory assumes that people order their preferences according to a certain priority of desire, and that people will have perfect knowledge of all available options and that they will be capable of rationally choosing the best mix of results. When choosing the optimal option, the expected utility should be calculated for every available option.

Game theory is an application of the rational choice theory. It models and analyses people’s interactions. Game theory analyses situations in which the individuals’ choices are interdependent: an individual should consider what he expects the other to choose and their own behaviour depends on this. For this one makes use of strategic rationality: you anticipate others’ choices as best as you can, because in some situations there is a level of strategic uncertainty about which choice the other will make.

As an example of game theory, imagine two individuals walking towards each other in a small corridor, both carrying a heavy package. They can pass each other by both keeping left or right, if they do not, they will collide with one another. The options they have can be put in a matrix.

Both prefer to tune their choice to one another’s (priority 1). Non-tuned choices lead to a collision (priority 2). So the priorities for both are exactly the same. So they watch out for signals to see what the other one will choose. They are involved in a problem of coordination. In game theory this is called a coordination game. This involves at least two individuals and two options. The results can be rendered as levels of utility or priorities in succession. The Nash equilibrium is when all players will get to the same solution and no choice can be changed to the benefit of any one of the players. Pareto optimal results are those combinations of choices in which none of the players can benefit from changing their choice without harming one of the other players. (left, left) and (right, right) are both a Nash equilibrium and Pareto optimal results here.

So conventions have come into use in our society because these rules serve everyone’s interest by coordinating individuals’ behaviour. Conventions and agreements have to be supported by sanctions and the government. Many game theoreticians assume a conflict model: people’s interests may coincide, which makes them willing to cooperate in their mutual interest, but when able to benefit at the cost of others, people will seize the opportunity to do so. However, it is also possible to cooperate without the threat of sanctions, because people have learnt to trust each other.

Agents and actors

The main disadvantage of the rational choice theory is that it analyses and tests the behaviour of individuals from the point of view of an independent spectator. But also, it aims to link to those concepts many different conclusions on what is preferred by individuals as their first person perspective when viewing an event. Rational choice theory can only make claims about the behaviour of agents, but at the same time it draws conclusions about actors.

Rational choice theory regards every agent as exactly similar to every other agent. Thus all agents are perfectly rational, have a set of preferences, is fully informed about all possible outcomes and is fully competent at making probability calculations. so rational choice theory introduces a far-reaching reduction of the human psyche. According to rational choice theory one cannot have reasons to reject particular preferences, it is just that this person has preferences that outweigh other preferences. However, the satisfaction of some preferences do not necessarily make a person happy.

This is the case in welfare economics. In welfare economics, subjects aspire an optimal realisation of their wishes, because this results in a maximum of satisfaction and thus of wellbeing. People’s preferences can be determined by studying their market behaviour: the amount of money they are willing to spend on something reveals how much they like it. However, welfare economists are wrong in thinking this. They use the concept of preference in two different and incompatible ways. When they study the choices of subjects, they use a behaviourist conception of preference: subjects choose what they prefer, so their choices reveal their preferences. But when they examine what gives people most satisfaction or wellbeing, then they use a mentalist conception of preference: subjects prefer what they find most agreeable and what gives them most pleasure. However, it is thus not true that people will choose what gives them most pleasure, you cannot mix these two conceptions up. What we want in a behaviourist sense is not always identical to what we desire in a mentalist sense. However, rational choice theory seems to deny this fact. We do not always choose what brings most benefit.

So rational choice theory is a valuable way of analysing individual behaviour and the social phenomena that result from this, as long as an awareness of the limitations of this approach is taken into consideration.

Concluding, there are four types of research:

Chapter D

In this chapter, instead of methodological individualism, we take the perspective of methodological collectivism which is based upon ontological holism: individual actions are determined by what is available in the contextual whole. Sociologist Durkheim explained it as following: a society is not to be viewed as a sum of individuals, but as a reality that has a life of its own. Individual behaviour is explained by the structure and culture of society. So applying holism to management sciences, it means that a company’s actions are not determined by individual choices, but by the structure and culture of a company.

Functional explanation

Functional explanations are explanations of social phenomena in which the function or goal of a phenomenon provides for the explanation of the phenomenon. Therefore, functionalistic explanations are focused around the system a given problem operates in and on the specific action or goal that problem exhibits within that system.

Functionality is especially important in biology: organisms and their features are always explained in terms of their functions. For example, a functionalistic explanation of singing birds is that they sing in order to reproduce and thus for their species to survive. Singing is explained because its goal is to allow the species to survive. The functional explanation does not examine the cause of the birds singing, but what they can achieve by singing. There is a difference between functionality and causality. Causality assesses events preceding a phenomenon and functionality assesses the goal a phenomenon serves.

However, if one explains a phenomenon in terms of functionality, one has to make clear who ‘owns’ this goal. Functionalistic explanations are always system explanations: they ask what is necessary for the system to survive and function well, and explain individual behaviour by showing how such individual behaviour serves this systemic goal.

According to Durkheim, crime has an important function in society to keep societies together. When a society is drifting apart because of differences in prosperity and disproportional individualism, crime will prosper. Sensational press should blow up small incidents into big stories so that people will feel uncomfortable about crime. Criminals should also be pictured as evil and different than the rest. In this way a ‘we’ against ‘them’ attitude is created, which causes society to exhibit solidarity which nourishes social integration. Crime is functional: it is needed to keep our society together.

However, functionalist explanations meet two main problems. The first problem is that Durkheim presupposes an organic view without proving it. Take the crime example. The goal of crime is according to Durkheim to strengthen solidarity and countervail fragmentation and disintegration in social systems. He assumes that every society is on the pursuit of unity and balance. But his ideas about mechanisms seeking for balance should be more regarded as ontological assumptions that make a functional explanation possible, than as having an independent empirical basis.

The second problem is about functionalism explaining phenomena by assessing the goal these phenomena serve. These explanations are teleologically metaphysical: they asses the goal of a phenomenon as the explanation for a phenomenon to exist. Causal explanations are causally metaphysical: they asses preceding causes as the explanation for the emergence of a phenomenon. The problem is that teleologically metaphysical explanations are useless, if we cannot point out causality of a phenomenon. So we should not only explain why a system functions as it does (what is its goal?), but also how such a system functions as it does (which causal links are at play?).

Symbolic interactionism

When trying to examine the functions behind social interactions and phenomena one always assumes the third person position, the spectator point of view. Symbolic interactionism considers the perspective of the participants and tries to understand social phenomena by assessing the symbolic interactions that bring them about. Reasons for social phenomena are often related to the social meanings and norms within a group. So the motivations of individual actors within a group are largely determined by meanings and social values within that group. Such values can be influenced by individuals, but they can never be created by them. They are created by a group, but not dependent on a collective decision or democratic debate.

Symbolic interactionism examines the rules that are followed by people when they attempt to correctly speak a foreign tongue or look for the most fashionable clothes to wear. These observations are not already stated somewhere. Social researchers have to join social practices to find out what people consider to be important.

So the premise of social interactionism is that people’s choices and behaviour are determined by norms within a group, even though people’s choices and behaviour also contribute to the production and development of these norms. Reasons are rules and are determined at a supra-individual level.

Following rules

Philosopher Wittgenstein showed that there is an important difference between following rules (rule-following behaviour) and acting in accordance with rules (regular or patterned behaviour). A certain habit is acting in accordance with rules. You can only be guided by a rule, if this rule is a reason for you to act in a certain way. Rules only function as norms if you can fail to obey them: normativity presupposes fallibility. Patterned behaviour is not to be understood as behaviour guided by a rule. You just make up new rules describing your behaviour. There is no normativity in these rules because you cannot fail in applying these rules.

Interpretation

But how do we find the correct rule? When you only have a finite number of examples of the application of the rule, it is difficult to distil the content of the underlying rule. Also a problem is that a finite number of examples can be interpreted as the application of an infinite number of rules. However, some rules seem more appropriate because they seem to be more natural. We also have pre-shaped ways of observation in order to quickly grasp the meanings of signs, gestures, facial expressions, figures and written language. These meanings are shared by other members of your language group, tradition, or culture. So the central question of symbolic interactionism is: how do we come to understand the correct code or rule? This is done by unravelling the norms behind what is considered to be normal.

Chapter E

If our behaviour is influenced by social norms and meanings, are the truth of claims of science also relative to a particular society or culture? But science cannot be dependent on culture. Science aims at revealing the truth about the natural and social reality, not what people in different cultures think about the natural and social reality. So how can we explain that scientists are part of a particular group and culture, which social meanings determine their beliefs, but also that scientific knowledge is universally valid?

To answer this, three forms of cultural relativism have to be distinguished. Cultural relativism is the ability to view the beliefs and customs of other peoples within the context of their culture rather than one's own. We identify three distinct forms of cultural relativism: descriptive relativism, methodological relativism, and normative relativism.

Descriptive relativism points out and pictures the deep differences between cultures, and the way people in different cultures give meaning to things. People in different cultures use different explicit or implicit criteria to distinguish what they regard as normal or abnormal. Individual acts originate their full meaning from the social role that individuals fulfil and individuals derive their identity completely from their place and role in the group. So does this mean that there is no one truth, but only truth indexed for culture?

The problem with such an indexation of truth is that it assumes that people from different cultures do not understand each other when they use a term like “individual”, because that term has a fundamentally different meaning to them. However, between cultures there are always common bridgeheads of shared basic beliefs and inferential norms , which makes it possible to have meaningful dialogues about differences and disagreements because there is a background of massive agreement about many things. In all cultures people give more or less the same meaning to the main moments of passage in life such as birth, marriage and death. Also, in all cultures people have to deal with the same natural reality.

If people seek to know the truth about things, it might be presupposed that, irrespective of their cultural background, they see the same because they want to know whether what they think about the world and about each other is correct. They want to know how things really are not just how things are according to their culture. But, people do not only seek to know how things really are for pragmatic reasons, they have an explorative mind that wants to know how thing are and is not satisfied with what is considered to be typical or obvious.

Descriptive relativism is not only questionable because it pictures cultures to much as isolated isles; it also denies that people have the ability to critically question their own cultural truths.

Methodological relativism suggests that cultures are not to be regarded as isles of meaning and that fruitful and productive communication across cultures is possible. People can talk about each other’s beliefs and understand one another and even convince one another of the other’s belief. Even so, methodological relativism holds that the distinction between the truth and falsehood is itself an unsound distinction because we have no practical method to make such a distinction.

According to postmodernists, there is not one great story about reality, but only different, competing, and partly overlapping fragments of stories and pictures, which are not true or false, but attractive or unattractive on other grounds, or simply inescapable because of the powers that keep us locked into these pictures and stories.

According to the French postmodernist Baudrillard (1929-2007), the current state of civilization of western humanity is marked by the fact that our thoughts and facts are completely dominated by stories and pictures. We have completely lost sight of reality, he says. The pictures we see do not represent anything anymore. Baudrillard tries to imply that our picture of truth is wrong, there is no likelihood to find out how things really are, because the division between real and unreal, between reality and illusion is itself an illusion.

Baudrillard believes that it’s impossible to distinguish true from false images of reality because there is no real reality; and that there are only images. Reality is its own simulacrum: a perfect copy of which there is no original.

But if one claims that truth is an illusion because we cannot distinguish true from false, we cannot determine whether this claim itself is true or not. This kind of criticism is applicable to most postmodernists.

Postmodernist Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998) said that there is no knowledge at all.

We only have information and information is a service that we can buy if we like it and ignore if we find the information less useful.

Normative relativism is derived from both descriptive relativism and methodological relativism.

It suggests that we have to accept that different people in different cultures have different images of reality and that all culture-relative truths are equally valuable.

This form of cultural relativism says that you cannot assume that one system or approach is better than another and that we should acknowledge that there is no one dominating set of convincing reasons and therefore we must respect, value and admire others beliefs, even those who are drastically different from our beliefs. This approach undermines itself because it denies that there are universal truths but at the same time it poses a universally valid norm: be tolerant!

Science and values

What is a correct scientific world view is not determined by what is considered meaningful and important within a particular culture. We strive for the most trustworthy view on the natural and social reality because of pragmatic reasons but also because of our curiosity. In order for scientific knowledge to be trustworthy is has to obey to requirements like transparency, generalizability of results, and the use of acknowledged methods of research. The content of these requirements are determined on a supra-individual level.

Weber said that science should be non-normative, which means that it should function independent of special interests, commercial concerns or political goals. So science should be value-independent but it is value-relevant: what is being examined is never a value-neutral question. But the commercialisation of research has increased, because scientific results often have a great impact on business and politics.

The choice of one’s research object and the methods of research one uses may also touch upon contested values and strong political interests. The choice of the subject of research is often not a neutral one. The choice that a researcher makes for a particular method of research can also be significant for politicians, industries and interest groups who can put the researcher under pressure.

Contested concepts have it in them that their application is always under discussion. Scientists have to make choices between particular definitions and specifications of such contested concepts, which gives them great responsibility. Scientists’ main responsibility concerns the results of their research: how are the results used and what are the consequences of the conclusions of research projects? Ideas and new findings can be abused by industries, governments, and special interests groups, and scientists should be aware of this.