lOMoARcPSD|15781725
POS 1: What is it?
Philosophy of science is about:
- What is science
- How does science work
- The logic through which we build scientific knowledge
-> no easy way to distinguish science-non science
Epistemology = The way we do research
Ontology = How do we view reality, our view of the world. What did we make up as
humans (social reality, such as the concepts of organizational structure) and what is
physically there.
Sumantra Goshal (2005) claims that bad management theories are destroying good
management practices. The pretense of knowledge + ideology-based gloomy vision
= cause of economic failures at the turn of the century (frauds, e.g. Enron)
Pretense of knowledge: Management theories are mainly causal or functional in
explanation, which takes away ethical/moral debates. It's the belief that past
occurrences can explain all aspects of corporate performance. Positivism +
determinism
Ideology-based gloomy vision: The assumption on human behaviour that people
are self-serving and opportunistic. Multiple theories have emerged from this
assumption, such as agency theory, Transaction-cost economy, Porter's 5 forces.
It's a pessimistic view of human nature. It is mostly based on ideology, and not on
facts. Theory has focused on preventing bad people from doing harm, instead of
enabling good people to do good.
We tend to explain animal behaviour causally, by referring to instincts. However,
human behaviour is usually explained with intentional explanations.
Philosophical intuitions about human intentions and behaviour:
Free will (metaphysics)
Uniquely provided with reason (but what is reason?)
, lOMoARcPSD|15781725
Under normal conditions, we are morally responsible.
This raises the question; should we understand human behaviour causally, or
intentionally?
Types of explanation
Causal explanation:
X is assumed to be an affect of cause Y.
-> In social science, this is applied in a counterfactual way: If X causes Y, and only if X
has occurred, Y also occurs. If X has not occurred, Y also not.
-> We just want to find out the cause
e.g. in business:
Cause: Advance of streaming technology
Effect: Demise of video stores
Explanation: The advancement of streaming technology causes the demise of video stores
because...
Correlation does not mean causality! There must be a valid explanation.
Functional explanation:
Myopic & opportunistic, used in biology.
X is an affect of Y when:
- X is advantageous to some subject
- Y contributes to the continuations of X
- There is no intended relationship between X and Y
Explains the existence of something from its function, and it assumes the existence
and influence of some kind of higher order regulative system (e.g. pumping around
blood -> heart). It also usually disregards the individual level and only looks at a
collective level. See e.g. bathtub model that also includes individual level.
Functional explanations confuse cause and effect.
Cause: Giraffe has a long neck
Effect: Higher chance of survival
Functional explanations are admissible only when a general causal feedback
mechanism exists. This makes the functional explanation redundant, as there is now
a causal explanation for the same phenomenon.
, lOMoARcPSD|15781725
Causal feedback mechanism example:
In business: Economic competition and sociological legitimation are (general) causal
feedback mechanisms
Intentional explanation:
Directed to distant future. e.g. one step backwards, two steps forward.
X is a human action/product. Y consists of desires, intentions or beliefs.
-> We want to find out the intentions
The building blocks of social sciences are individual action guided by some
intention.
Social reality only exists in so far we accept it to exist in everyday reality. Whether
or not we accept social reality is dependant on our understanding/interpretation of
it. (double hermeneutic).
Double hermeneutic = Hermeneutic means interpretation. In natural sciences,
scientists understand and theorise about the way the natural world is structured. It
is one-way; while we want to understand chemicals/etc, those chemicals/etc don't
seek to understand us. This is a single hermeneutic. In social sciences, people and
society and studied, but the way we do so is different. For example, scientists study
how people understand their world and how it shapes their practice. This is the
double hermeneutic; there is a two-way relationship. We create reality through our
assumptions.
Ontological questions: Are humans and social reality deterministic in the same way
that we believe physical reality to be?
Epistemological questions: Can we study social reality in the same way as physical
reality?
Social ontology question -> Are concepts and theories in management about
reality, or do they create reality instead?
POS 1: What is it?
Philosophy of science is about:
- What is science
- How does science work
- The logic through which we build scientific knowledge
-> no easy way to distinguish science-non science
Epistemology = The way we do research
Ontology = How do we view reality, our view of the world. What did we make up as
humans (social reality, such as the concepts of organizational structure) and what is
physically there.
Sumantra Goshal (2005) claims that bad management theories are destroying good
management practices. The pretense of knowledge + ideology-based gloomy vision
= cause of economic failures at the turn of the century (frauds, e.g. Enron)
Pretense of knowledge: Management theories are mainly causal or functional in
explanation, which takes away ethical/moral debates. It's the belief that past
occurrences can explain all aspects of corporate performance. Positivism +
determinism
Ideology-based gloomy vision: The assumption on human behaviour that people
are self-serving and opportunistic. Multiple theories have emerged from this
assumption, such as agency theory, Transaction-cost economy, Porter's 5 forces.
It's a pessimistic view of human nature. It is mostly based on ideology, and not on
facts. Theory has focused on preventing bad people from doing harm, instead of
enabling good people to do good.
We tend to explain animal behaviour causally, by referring to instincts. However,
human behaviour is usually explained with intentional explanations.
Philosophical intuitions about human intentions and behaviour:
Free will (metaphysics)
Uniquely provided with reason (but what is reason?)
, lOMoARcPSD|15781725
Under normal conditions, we are morally responsible.
This raises the question; should we understand human behaviour causally, or
intentionally?
Types of explanation
Causal explanation:
X is assumed to be an affect of cause Y.
-> In social science, this is applied in a counterfactual way: If X causes Y, and only if X
has occurred, Y also occurs. If X has not occurred, Y also not.
-> We just want to find out the cause
e.g. in business:
Cause: Advance of streaming technology
Effect: Demise of video stores
Explanation: The advancement of streaming technology causes the demise of video stores
because...
Correlation does not mean causality! There must be a valid explanation.
Functional explanation:
Myopic & opportunistic, used in biology.
X is an affect of Y when:
- X is advantageous to some subject
- Y contributes to the continuations of X
- There is no intended relationship between X and Y
Explains the existence of something from its function, and it assumes the existence
and influence of some kind of higher order regulative system (e.g. pumping around
blood -> heart). It also usually disregards the individual level and only looks at a
collective level. See e.g. bathtub model that also includes individual level.
Functional explanations confuse cause and effect.
Cause: Giraffe has a long neck
Effect: Higher chance of survival
Functional explanations are admissible only when a general causal feedback
mechanism exists. This makes the functional explanation redundant, as there is now
a causal explanation for the same phenomenon.
, lOMoARcPSD|15781725
Causal feedback mechanism example:
In business: Economic competition and sociological legitimation are (general) causal
feedback mechanisms
Intentional explanation:
Directed to distant future. e.g. one step backwards, two steps forward.
X is a human action/product. Y consists of desires, intentions or beliefs.
-> We want to find out the intentions
The building blocks of social sciences are individual action guided by some
intention.
Social reality only exists in so far we accept it to exist in everyday reality. Whether
or not we accept social reality is dependant on our understanding/interpretation of
it. (double hermeneutic).
Double hermeneutic = Hermeneutic means interpretation. In natural sciences,
scientists understand and theorise about the way the natural world is structured. It
is one-way; while we want to understand chemicals/etc, those chemicals/etc don't
seek to understand us. This is a single hermeneutic. In social sciences, people and
society and studied, but the way we do so is different. For example, scientists study
how people understand their world and how it shapes their practice. This is the
double hermeneutic; there is a two-way relationship. We create reality through our
assumptions.
Ontological questions: Are humans and social reality deterministic in the same way
that we believe physical reality to be?
Epistemological questions: Can we study social reality in the same way as physical
reality?
Social ontology question -> Are concepts and theories in management about
reality, or do they create reality instead?
