Page 61 - Sustainable Cities and Communities Design Handbook

38 Sustainable Cities and Communities Design Handbook

specific discussion of an alternative philosophical approach to the established
traditional way of seeing science and reality are necessary. Thinking and
reflection are critical in the scientific investigation of reality together with and
related to the basic philosophical assumptions. It is only in this connection that
we can talk about something being true (e.g., correct) or false.
There are economists and business academics who discuss philosophy of
science as it relates to business economics, but only a rare minority make an
impact on the research practice of social science and business or economics
in particular. The problem with most methodological discussions and
theoretical works is that they only discuss “choice” of methods in the context
of methodological considerations and techniques of investigation and
analysis.
It is difficult to find an explicit discussion on connections between phi-
losophy/philosophy of science and methodology, especially focused on
opposing philosophical traditions. In particular, the scholarly discussions lack
epistemological considerations and make assumptions that underlie the very
choice of those methods.
Another problem in traditional social scientific research is the lack of in-
depth discussion of the background of the qualitative methods, especially of
the Lifeworld ontology and everyday life epistemologies. The current con-
ventional objectivism tradition has established positivist and rationalist the-
ories in the functionalistic paradigm, which lack understanding about why the
qualitative methods exist and for which epistemological grounds they are
significant in understanding business actors, actions, and situations.
Furthermore, the objectivist fails to understand in which contexts these
methods appear, and to which contexts they relate or underscore and support
quantitative and statistical methods. Finally, the issue is rarely raised in
business economics as to how do we incorporate qualitative theories and
methods in the production of knowledge to which they can contribute in-depth
understanding?
To a great extent, much of the problems exist because there is a basic lack
of historical consciousness, debate, or concern over the progress of science in
relation to social science (i.e., the theoretical discussions and background of
science) and understanding of different traditions of philosophical thinking.
Hence it must be recognized that the meta-theory of social science must be
philosophy if it is to have any significance. Some scholars may say that the
“quantitative” researchers are not especially conscious of or need to be
directed to the history of science and ideas in their work. They argue that they
do not need to think in terms of philosophical traditions, even though they are
part of a particular tradition themselves and reflect its biases, beliefs, and
assumptions (see Gadamer, 1993). Hence these scholars reflect historical
traditions that presuppose and bias their results under the guise of “well-
established” (usually) quantifiable “facts.” Here we challenge that basic
traditional assumption and argue instead for a new perspective and paradigm