Résumé
On observe une tendance accrue en science économique à favoriser les méthodes formelles, car elles sont selon certains plus « rigoureuses », et (donc) plus « scientifiques » (Lawson 1997; Fullbrook 2004). Mais cela ne va pas de soi. Cette tendance est plutôt préoccupante, pour plusieurs raisons. En effet, l’attribution a priori d’un statut supérieur à une méthode donnée crée un climat anti intellectuel peu favorable au progrès scientifique. Par ailleurs, l’orientation méthodologique en question se propage auprès des autres sciences sociales. Si les questions de méthodologie, bien que centrales pour le bon avancement de la science, sont trop souvent reléguées au domaine de la philosophie des sciences, ceci est l’occasion de pointer à nouveau leur importance. Dans cet article, je propose d’examiner 1) quelles peuvent être les limites de l’usage des méthodes formelles en sciences sociales, d’après les apports du Réalisme Critique et/ou de la Cambridge School, et 2) l’étendue du phénomène méthodologique en question, tenant compte de sa composante dogmatique. Enfin, j’encourage la communauté scientifique à (re)trouver une démarche réflexive en matière de méthodologie, et à constituer des alliances interdisciplinaires visant à préserver la liberté intellectuelle qui sous tend tout progrès scientifique.
Plan
- Introduction
- The spread of formalism
- The influence of economics
- Methods and ontology
- Contesting voices
- Concluding comments
Article
[L’article peut être lu en intégralité sur Cairn]
Bibliographie
- En ligneAl-Amoudi, Ismael and Hugh Willmott. 2011. “Where constructionism and critical realism converge: interrogating the domain of epistemological relativism”. Organization Studies, vol. 32 n°1, pp. 27–46.
- En ligneBigo, Vinca. 2006. “Open and Closed Systems and the Cambridge School”. Review of Social Economy, vol. 64 n°4, pp. 493–514.
- Bigo, Vinca. 2008. “Explaining Modern Economics (as a Microcosm of Society)”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 32 n°4, pp. 527–554.
- Bigo, Vinca and Ioana Negru. 2008. “From Fragmentation to Ontologically Reflexive Pluralism”. Journal of Philosophical Economics, Special issue on Pluralism guest edited by Andrew Mearman, vol. 1 n°2, pp. 127–150.
- En ligneBigo, Vinca and Ioana Negru. 2011. “Theorising care: a possible defence of interdisciplinarity in economics”. International Journal of Green Economics, vol. 5, n°2, pp. 109–125.
- Bhaskar, Roy. 1975. “A Realist Theory of Science”. London: Version, 1997.
- Bhaskar, Roy. 1979. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. 3rd Edition, London: Routledge, 1998.
- Bhaskar, Roy. 1998. “General introduction”. In Critical realism: Essential readings, ed. Margareth S. Archer, Roy Bhaskar, Andrew Collier, Tony Lawson and Andrew Norrie, p. ix–xxiv. London: Routledge.
- En ligneContu, Alessia and Hugh Willmott. 2005. “You Spin Me Round: The Realist Turn in Organization and Management Studies”. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 42, n°8, pp. 1645–662.
- Curtis, R. 2008. “Concrete Organization: Researching the University in Ruins”, 28thStanding Conference on Organizational Symbolism. July. University of Manchester, UK.
- En ligneCzarniawska, B. 1995. “Narration or Science? Collapsing the Division in Organization Studies”, Organization, vol. 2, n°1, pp. 11–33.
- Davidsen, Bjørn-Ivar. 2008. “Methodology and the practice of economists – a philosophical approach”. The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. II n°1, pp. 55–75.
- En ligneDavis, John. B. 2010. “Book Review, William A. Jackson: Economics, culture and social theory”. Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 34, n°3, pp. 237–240.
- Duncan, Simon. 2000. “Challenging Rational Action Theory”. Paper presented at the ESRC Research Group on Care, Values and the Future of Welfare, University of Leeds.
- Drechsler, Wolfgans. 2011. “Understanding the problems of mathematical economics: A ‘continental’perspective”. Real-World Economics Review, vol. 55, pp. 45–57.
- Fullbrook, Edward (ed.). 2004. A guide to what’s wrong with economics. London: Anthem Press.
- Gellert, Uwe and Eva Jablonka. 2007. Mathematisation and Demathematisaton: Philosophical, Sociological and Educational Ramifications. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
- Groff, Ruth. 2008. “Situating Critical Realist Philosophy”. http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pa34/GROFF.pdf, accessed 15 th January 2013.
- Hedoin, Cyril. 2010. “Le réalisme critique de Tony Lawson: apports et limites dans une perspective institutionnaliste”. Cahiers d’économie politique, n°58, pp. 103–131.
- Horst, Steven. 2000. “Laws, Idealization, and the Status of Psychology”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology, New York.
- Hudson, Michael. 2010. “The Use and Abuse of Mathematical Economics”. Real-World Economics Review, vol. 55, pp. 2–22. Accessible online http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue55/Hudson255.pdf, accessed 15th January 2013.
- En ligneJackson, William A. 2009. Economics, culture and social theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
- Latour, Bruno. 1999. “Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies”. Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture, n°12, pp. 12–25.
- En ligneLawson, Tony. 1985. “The Context of Prediction (and the Paradoxes of Confirmation)”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 36, pp. 393–407.
- En ligneLawson, Tony. 1997. Economics and reality. London and New York: Routledge.
- Lawson, Tony. 2003. Reorienting Economics. London and New York: Routledge.
- Lawson, Tony. 2012a. “Mathematical Modelling and Ideology in the Economics Academy: competing explanations of the failings of the modern discipline?”. Economic Thought, vol. 1 n°1.
- En ligneLawson, Tony. 2012b. “Ontology and the Study of Social Reality: Emergence, Organisation, Community, Power, Social Relations, Corporations, Artefacts and Money”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 36 n°2, pp. 345–386.
- En ligneLee, Frederic S. 2002. “Theory Creation and the Methodological Foundation of Post Keynesian Economics”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 26, pp. 789–804.
- Machlup, Fritz. 1956. “The inferiority complex of the social sciences”. In On freedom and free enterprise, ed. Mary Sennholz, pp. 161–172. Princeton: Van Nostrand. Accessible online https://mises.org/daily/5712/The-Inferiority-Complex-of-the-Social-Sciences, accessed 20 th January 2013.
- Martin, Thierry. 1999. “Buffon et l’arithmétique politique”. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, vol. 37, n°148, pp. 5–30.
- Martin, Michael and Lee C. McIntyre (eds.). 1994. Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- En ligneMartins, Nuno. 2011. “Can neuroscience inform economics? Rationality, emotions and preference formation”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 35 n°2, pp. 251–267.
- Mirowski, Phillip. 2004. “Modelling Rational Agents: From Interwar Economics to Early Modern Game Theory”. The Economic Journal, n°114: pp. 544–546.
- Morgan, Jamie. 2012. “Forecasting, prediction and precision: a commentary”. Economic Thought, vol. 1 n°2, pp. 55–64.
- En ligneMueser, Peter. 1990. “A rhetoric in defense of formalism in the social sciences: Comment on McCloskey”. The American Sociologist, vol. 21 n°1, pp. 20–21.
- Nadeau, Robert L. 2009. “Brother, Can You Spare Me a Planet? Mainstream Economic Theory and the Environmental Crisis”. S.A.P.I.EN.S., vol. 2.1. 2 n°1, pp. 1–8.
- En ligneNichols, David P. 1993. “Outgrowing physics envy: Reconceptualizing social research”. Contemporary Family Therapy, vol. 15, pp. 51–72.
- En ligneNowak MA. 2006. “Five rules for the Evolution of Cooperation”. Science, n°314 (5805), pp. 1560–1563.
- Oxford Online Dictionary, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/formalism?q=formalism, accessed 10 th January 2013.
- Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. 2005. London: Blackwell Publishers
- En ligneWillmott, Hugh. 1993. “Breaking the Paradigm Mentality”. Organization Studies, vol. 14 n°5, pp. 681–719.
- En ligneWillmott, Hugh. 1996. “A meta-theory of management: Omniscience or obfuscation? A comment”. British Journal of Management, vol. 7, n°4, pp. 323–327.
- Willmott, Hugh. 2005. “Theorising Contemporary Control: Some Post-structuralist Responses to Some Critical Realist Questions”. Organization Studies, vol. 12 n°5, pp. 747–780.
Mots-clés
Méthodologie, Formalisme, Idéologie, Sciences sociales, Pluralisme