Grounded Theory and Heterodox Economics
Main Article Content
Abstract
The dominant theory in the discipline of economics, known as neoclassical economics, is being challenged by an upstart, known as heterodox economics. The challengers face many obstacles, the most significant of which is the actual creation of an alternative economic theory. However heterodox economists have not settled on what the methodology of theory creation should be. The aim of this paper is to advocate that the method of grounded theory is the best set of guidelines for theory creation. In addition, I shall argue that the grounded theory method results in the creation of heterodox economic theories that are historical in structure, content and explanation.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Annells, M. 1996. “Grounded Theory Method: Philosophical Perspectives, Paradigm of Inquiry, and Postmoderism.” Qualitative Health Research 6 (August): 379 - 393.
Atkinson, G. W. and Oleson, T. 1996. “Institutional Inquiry: The Search for Similarities and Differences.” Journal of Economic Issues 30 (September): 701 - 718.
Betz, H. K. 1988. “How Does the German Historical School Fit?” History of Political Economy 20.3 (Fall): 409 – 430.
Bigus, O. E., Hadden, S. C., and Glaser, B. G. 1994. “The Study of Basic Social Processes.” In More Grounded Theory Methodology: A reader, pp. 38 - 64. Edited by B. G. Glaser. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Boland, L. 1989. The Methodology of Economic Model Building: Methodology after Samuelson. London: Routledge.
Boylan, T. and O’Gorman, P. 1995. Beyond Rhetoric and Realism in Economics: Towards a reformulation of economic methodology. London: Routledge.
Burawoy, M. 1991. “The Extended Case Method.” In Ethnography Unbound, pp. 271 – 287. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burawoy, M. 1998. “The Extended Case Method.” Sociological Theory 16.1 (March): 4 – 33.
Carrier, D. 1992. “A Methodology for Pattern Modeling Nonlinear Macroeconomic Dynamics.” Journal of Economic Issues 26 (March): 221 – 242.
Charmaz, K. 1983. “The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation.” In Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings, pp. 109 - 126. Edited by R. M. Emerson. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Coates, J. 1996. The Claims of Common Sense: Moore, Wittgenstein, Keynes and the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conrad, C. F. 1978. “A Grounded Theory of Academic Change.” Sociology of Education 51 (April): 101 - 112.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. 1990. “Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria.” Qualitative Sociology 13 (Spring): 3 - 21.
Dey, I. 1999. Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.
Diesing, P. 1971. Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences.
New York: Aldine.
Dupre’, J. 2001. “Economics Without Mechanism.” In The Economic World View: Studies in the Ontology of Economics, pp. 308 – 332. Edited by U. Maki. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14.4: 532 - 550.
Ellis, B. 1985. “What Science Aims to Do.” In Images of Science, pp. 48 – 74. Edited by P. M. Churchland and C. A. Hooker. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Emigh, R. J. 1997. “The Power of Negative Thinking: The Use of Negative Case Methodology in the Development of
Sociological Thinking.” Theory and Society: 26: 649 – 684.
Finch, J. H. 1999. “The Methodological Implications of Post Marshallian Economics.” In Contingency, Complexity and the Theory of the Firm: Essays in honour of Brian J.
Loasby, pp. 156 - 177. Edited by S. C. Dow and P. E. Earl. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Finch, J. H. 2002. “The Role of Grounded Theory in Developing Economic Theory.” Journal of Economic Methodology 9.2: 213 – 234.
Fusfeld, D. R. 1980. “The Conceptual Framework of Modern Economics.” Journal of Economic Issues 14 (March): 1 - 52.
George, A. L. 1979. “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison.” In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy, pp. 43 - 68. Edited by P. G. Lauren. New York: The Free Press.
Glaser, B. G. 1992. Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. 1994. “Case Histories and Case Studies.” In More Grounded Theory Methodology: A reader, pp. 233 - 245. Edited by B. G. Glaser. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Goulding, C. 2002. Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. London: SAGE Publications.
Hodgson, G. M. 2001. How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science. London: Routledge.
Hunt, S. D. 1994. “A Realist Theory of Empirical Testing: Resolving the Theory-Ladenness/Objectivity Debate.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24.2 (June): 133 – 158.
Israel, G. 1981. “’Rigor’ and ‘Axiomatics’ in Modern Mathematics.”
Fundamenta Scientiae 2: 205 – 219.
Israel, G. 1991. “Volterra’s ‘Analytical Mechanics’ of Biological Associations.” Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 41.127: 307 – 352.
Konecki, K. 1989. “The Methodology of Grounded Theory in the Research of the Situation of Work.” The Polish Sociological Bulletin 2: 59 - 74.
Maki, U. 1998. “Aspects of Realism about Economics.” Theoria 13.2: 310 – 319.
Maki, U. 2001. “The Way the World Works (www): Towards an Ontology of Theory Choice.” In The Economic World View: Studies in the Ontology of Economics, pp. 369 – 389. Edited by U. Maki. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCullagh, C. B. 2000. “Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation.” History and Theory: Studies in the Philosophy of History 39.1: 39 – 66.
Megill, A. 1989. “Recounting the Past: ‘Description,’ Explanation, and Narrative in Historiography.” American Historical Review 94: 627 - 653.
Morrison, M. and Morgan, M. S. 1999. “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, pp. 10 – 37. Edited by M. S. Morgan and M. Morrison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orum, A. M., Feagin, J. R., and Sjoberg, G. 1991. “Introduction: The Nature of the Case Study.” In A Case for the Case Study, pp. 1 - 26. Edited by J. R. Feagin, A. M. Orum, and G. Sjoberg. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Pentland, B. T. 1999. “Building Process Theory with Narrative: From Description to Explanation.” Academy of Management Review 24.4 (October): 711 – 724.
Runde, J. 1998. “Assessing Causal Economic Explanations.” Oxford Economic Papers 50: 151 - 172.
Sayer, A. 1992. Method in Social Science: A realist approach. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Smith, L. M. 1998. “Biographical Method.” In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, pp. 184 - 224. Edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Spiethoff, A. 1952. “The ‘Historical’ Character of Economic Theories.” The Journal of Economic History 12.2 (Spring): 131 – 139.
Spiethoff, A. 1953. “Pure Theory and Economic Gestalt Theory: Ideal Types and Real Types.” In Enterprise and Secular
Change: Readings in Economic History, pp. 444 – 463. Ed. By F. C. Lane and J. C. Riemersma. Homewood: Richard
D. Irwin.
Stake, R. E. 1998. “Case Studies.” In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, pp. 86 - 109. Edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Strauss, A. L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1994. “Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 273
- 285. Edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tosh, J. 1991. The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History. 2nd ed. London: Longman.
Tsang, E. and Kwan, K.-M. 1999. “Replication and Theory Development in Organization Science: A Critical Realist Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 24.4: 759
– 780.
Turner, B. A. 1981. “Some Practical Aspects of Qualitative Data Analysis: One Way of Organising the Cognitive Processes Associated with the Generation of Grounded Theory.” Quality and Quantity 15: 225 - 247.
Turner, B. A. 1983. “The Use of Grounded Theory for the Qualitative Analysis of Organizational Behaviour.” Journal of Management Studies 20.3: 333 - 348.
Vaughan, D. 1992. “Theory Elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis.” In What is a Case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry, pp. 173 - 202. Edited by C. C. Ragin and H.
S. Becker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weintraub, E. R. 1998a. “From Rigor to Axiomatics: The Marginalization of Griffith C. Evans.” In From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism, pp. 227 – 259. Edited by M. S. Morgan and M. Rutherford. Durham: Duke University Press.
Weintraub, E. R. 1998b. “Controversy: Axiomatisches Mi.verstandis.” The Economic Journal 108 (November): 1837
– 1847.
Weintraub, E. R. 2001. “Measurement, and Changing Images of Mathematical Knowledge.” In The Age of Economic
Measurement, pp. 303 – 312. Edited by J. L. Klein and M.
S. Morgan. Durham: Duke University Press.
Weintraub, E. R. 2002. How Economics Became a Mathematical Science. Durham: Duke University Press.
Wieviorka, M. 1992. “Case Studies: History or Sociology?” In What is a Case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry, pp. 159 - 172. Edited by C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilber, C. K. and Harrison, R. S. 1978. “The Methodological Basis of Institutional Economics: Pattern Model, Storytelling, and Holism.” Journal of Economic Issues 12 (March): 61 - 89.
Wisman, J. D. and Rozansky, J. 1991. “The Methodology of Institutionalism Revisited.” Journal of Economic Issues 25 (September): 709 - 737.
Yin, R. K. 1981a. “The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers.” Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (March): 58 - 65.
Yin, R. K. 1981b. “The Case Study as a Serious Research Strategy.” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 3 (September): 97 - 114.
Yin, R. . 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd.
ed. London: Sage Publications.