Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dow, S. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © Cambridge Political Economy Society

other

Mainstream economic methodology

Sheila C. Dow*

*University of Stirling Scotland

Abstract

This is a survey of mainstream economic methodology, both in the sense of mainstream methodology and of mainstream economics. Tensions are identified in methodology resulting from an increasing preference for descriptivism over prescriptivism, and in economics resulting from an increasing preference for fragmentation over axiomatisation. The increasing attention of methodologists to the actual practice of economists, and of economists to possibilities outside the traditional axiomatic strictures, are both welcome. But, still being based in a dualistic mode of thought, these developments threaten to go too far, denying methodology any constructive role and removing any focus on the foundations for theorising. Non-mainstream methodology is shown to offer a non-dualistic solution which could resolve current tensions.

Manuscript received July 4, 1994; final version received May 22, 1995.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Marketing TheoryHome page
A. Shankar, J. Whittaker, and J. A. Fitchett
Heaven knows I'm miserable now
Marketing Theory, December 1, 2006; 6(4): 485 - 505.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
R. McMaster and C. Watkins
Economics and underdetermination: a case study of urban land and housing economics
Camb. J. Econ., November 1, 2006; 30(6): 901 - 922.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.