DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31063/2073-6517/2021.18-4.3
For citation:
Provolovich, T. O. (2021). Interdisciplinary Synthesis in Economics. Zhurnal Economicheskoj Teorii [Russian Journal of Economic Theory], 18(4), 512-525. https://doi.org/10.31063/2073-6517/2021.18-4.3
Abstract:
The paper aims to identify the factors that influence the methods and outcomes of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary synthesis in economics, in particular with natural science, social studies and humanities. Our analysis focused on neuroeconomics resulting from an interdisciplinary synthesis of economics and neuroscience. We also considered the multidisciplinary economic socio-cognitive-neurobiological synthesis of Peter C. Whybrow and Matthew D. Lieberman. Third, we analyzed the multidisciplinary synthesis of psychology, economics and sociology by Y. I. Alexandrov and S. G. Kirdina-Chandler.
We compared these cases of modern interdisciplinary synthesis and showed that the experimental ideal of the natural sciences which neuroeconomics is oriented at creates methodological constraints for the research of socio-economic processes, aspects of human society and culture. In other words, these processes and phenomena are reduced to biological or physical ones. Thus, neuroeconomics can serve as an example of ‘unequal interdisciplinary relation’.
The multidisciplinary synthesis of Wybrow and Lieberman is more successful. It provides a comprehensive description of both the economic agent and the social reality in which it resides and it explains economic interactions within a broader perspective. However, this synthesis is still at the initial stage, since most of the statements are hypothetical and require additional experimental verification.
We believe that the multidisciplinary synthesis of Alexandrov and Kirdina-Chandler (Alexandrov, Kirdina, 2012) is the most promising for economic research. We distinguish two main factors for the success of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary synthesis in economics: either none of the sciences involved in the synthesis dominates or the synthesis is based on the general picture of the world, including objects and methods from different sciences and relies on a single meta-methodology or paradigm methodology.
Aleksandrov, Yu. I. & Kirdina, S. G. (2012). Tipy mental’nosti i institutsional’nyye matritsy: mul’tidistsiplinarnyy podkhod [Mentality types and institutional matrices: a multidisciplinary approach]. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya [Sociological research], 8, 3–13. (In Russ.)
Ariely, D. (2010). Predskazuyemaya irratsional’nost’: skrytyye sily, opredelyayushchiye nashi resheniya [Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions]. Moscow, Russia: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 290. (In Russ.)
Baars, B. & Gage, N. (2014). Mozg, poznaniye, razum: vvedeniye v kognitivnyye neyronauki [Cognition, brain, and consciousness: Introduction to cognitive neuroscience]. In 2 Volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow, Russia: BINOM. Laboratoriya znaniy, 467. (In Russ.)
Bazhanov, V. A. (2019). Mozg — kul’tura — sotsium: kantianskaya programma v kognitivnykh issledovaniyakh [The brain — Culture — Society. A Kantian Research Program in Cognitive Science]. Moscow, Russia: Kanon+ ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”, 288. (In Russ.)
Balakhonskiy, V. V. (2020). Tendentsiya integratsii mezhdistsiplinarnogo nauchnogo znaniya: vazhneyshchiye napravleniya i determinanty [The Tendency of the Integration of the Interdisciplinary Scientific Knowledge: the Main Directions and Determinants]. Sintez mezhdistsiplinarnogo nauchnogo znaniya kak faktor razvitiya sovremennoy nauki: sbornik statey Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii [Synthesis of interdisciplinary scientific knowledge as a factor in the development of modern science: a collection of articles of the International Scientific and Practical Conference]. Petrozavodsk, Russia: Mezhdunarodnyy tsentr nauchnogo partnerstva “Novaya Nauka”, 59–62. (In Russ.)
Blaug, M. (2004). Metodologiya ekonomicheskoy nauki, ili kak ekonomisty ob’’yasnyayut [Methodology of Economics, or How Economists Explain]. Moscow, Russia: “Zhurnal Voprosy ekonomiki”, 416. (In Russ.)
Boldyrev, I. A. (2011). Ekonomicheskaya metodologiya segodnya: kratkiy obzor osnovnykh napravleniy [Economic Methodology Today: a Review of Major Contributions]. Zhurnal Novoy ekonomicheskoy assotsiatsii [Journal of the New Economic Association], 9, 47–70. (In Russ.)
Boldyrev, I. A. (2008). Ontologiya ortodoksal’noy ekonomicheskoy nauki: problemy postroyeniya i interpretatsii [Ontology of Orthodox Economics: Problems of Construction and Interpretation]. Voprosy ekonomiki [Voprosy ekonomiki], 7, 100–111. DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2008–7-100–111. (In Russ.)
Varkhotov, T. A. (2018). Ob’’yektivnost’ «ob’’yektivnosti»: istoriograficheskaya model’ L. Daston i P. Galisona i epistemologicheskaya istoriya nauki [The Objectivity of “Objectivity”: L. Daston and P. Galison’s Historiographic Model and the Historical Epistemology of Science]. Uchenyye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo universiteta imeni V.I. Vernadskogo. Filosofiya. Politologiya. Kul’turologiya [Scientific Notes of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Philosophy. Political science. Culturology], 4(3), 3–13. (In Russ.)
Vakhshtayn, V. C. Epistemicheskiye interventsii. 7 faktov o “voyennykh deystviyakh” mezhdu distsiplinami [Epistemic interventions. 7 facts about “military actions” between disciplines]. Retrieved from: https://postnauka.ru/faq/27198 (Date of access: 23.07.2021) (In Russ.)
Gabriel, M. (2020). YA ne yest’ mozg: Filosofiya dukha dlya XXI veka [I am not Brain: Philosophy of Mind for the 21st Century]. Moscow, Russia: URSS, 304. (In Russ.)
Danilkina, D. S. (2019). Neyroekonomika: novyy mezhdistsiplinarnyy podkhod k issledovaniyu ekonomicheskogo povedeniya [Neuroeconomics: a new interdisciplinary approach to the study of economic behavior]. Filosofiya khozyaystva [Philosophy of economy], 3, 188–199. (In Russ.)
Dehaene, S. (2018). Soznaniye i mozg. Kak mozg kodiruyet mysli [Consciousness and the Brain. Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts]. Moscow, Russia: Kar’yera-Press, 416. (In Russ.)
Dow, S. (2006). Matematika v ekonomicheskoy teorii: istoricheskiy i metodologicheskiy analiz [The Use of Mathematics in Economics]. Voprosy ekonomiki [Voprosy ekonomiki], 7, 53–72. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2006–7-53–72.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (2005). Prinyatiye resheniy v neopredelennosti: Pravila i predubezhdeniya [Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases]. Khar’kov, Russia: Gumanitarnyy tsentr, 632. (In Russ.)
Kirdina, S. G. (2014). Institutsional’nyye matritsy i razvitiye Rossii. Vvedeniye v KH-Y-teoriyu [Institutional Matrices and Development in Russia: an Introduction to Х&Y theory]. Saint Petersburg, Russia: Nestor-Istoriya, 468. (In Russ.)
Kirdina-Chandler, S. G. (2021). Paradoksy sinteza v ekonomicheskoy teorii [Paradoxes of synthesis in economics]. Terra Economicus, 19(3), 37–52. (In Russ.)
Kovalevskaya, M. S. (2020). Status modeli v ekonomicheskoy teorii: rol’ predposylok [The status of the model in economic theory: the role of prerequisites]. Dissertation of Cand. Sci. (Econ.): 08.00.01. Moscow, Russia: Lomonosov Moscow State University, 164. (In Russ.)
Koshovets, O. B. (2019). Otvergaya “sub’’yektivizm”, zabyvaya “ob’’yektivnost’”: ekonomicheskaya nauka i standarty nauchnosti [Rejecting “subjectivism”, forgetting “objectivity”: economic science and scientific standards]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka: zabytyye i otvergnutyye teorii: Sbornik materialov 1-y Oktyabr’skoy mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii po problemam teoreticheskoy ekonomiki, Moskva, 3–5 oktyabrya 2019 g. [Economic science: forgotten and rejected theories: Proceedings of the 1st October International Scientific Conference on Theoretical Economics: October 3–5, 2019]. In V. S. Avtonomov, A. Y. Rubinstein (Eds.). Moscow, Russia: Institute of Economics of the RAS, 108–110. (In Russ.)
Koshovets, O. B. & Varkhotov, T. A. (2020). Naturalizatsiya predmeta ekonomiki: ot pogoni za yestestvenno-nauchnymi standartami k obladaniyu zakonami Prirody [Naturalizing the subject of economics: from following the norms of natural science to owning the laws of nature]. Logos, 30(3), 21–54. DOI: 10.22394/0869–5377–2020–3-21–50. (In Russ.)
Koshovets, O. B. & Frolov, I. E. (2013). Ontologiya i real’nost’: problemy ikh sootnosheniya v metodologii ekonomicheskoy nauki i vozmozhnost’ postroyeniya nauchno-realizuyemoy ontologii [Ontology and reality: problems of their correlation in the methodology of economic science and the possibility of building a scientifically implemented ontology]. Teoreticheskaya ekonomika: ontologii i etika: Sbornik [Theoretical Economics: Ontologies and Ethics: A collection]. Moscow, Russia: Institut ekonomiki Rossiyskoy akademii nauk, 27–111. (In Russ.)
Koshovets, O. B., Frolov, I. E. & Chusov, A. V. (2015). Ontologicheskiy analiz otnosheniya teorii i real’nosti v metodologii ekonomicheskoy nauki [The ontological analysis of the relation between theory and reality in economic methodology]. Filosofiya i obshchestvo [Philosophy and Society], 1–2, 156–176. (In Russ.)
Kravchenko, L. A. & Sil’chenko, Yu. O. (2018). Mezhdistsiplinarnyy sintez v sovremennykh ekonomicheskikh issledovaniyakh [Interdisciplinary synthesis in modern economic research]. Stanovleniye i razvitiye novoy paradigmy innovatsionnoy nauki v usloviyakh sovremennogo obshchestva: sbornik statey Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii [Formation and development of a new paradigm of innovative science in the conditions of modern society: collection of articles of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Saratov, April 29, 2018]. Saratov, Russia: Obshchestvo s ogranichennoy otvetstvennost’yu “Omega Sayns”, 71–74. (In Russ.)
Nikiforov, A. A. Problemy sinteza nauchnykh issledovatel’skikh programm: kontseptual’nyy aspect [Problems of synthesis of scientific research programs: conceptual aspect]. Retrieved from: https://www.econ.msu.ru/ext/lib/Article/x22/x6e/8814/file/Thesis_Nikiforov_Rudakova.doc (Date of access: 23.07.2021) (In Russ.)
Orekhov, A. M. (2018). Mezhdistsiplinarnyy sintez i sotsial’no-gumanitarnyye nauki: k voprosu o proyasnenii nekotorykh kontseptov i vektorov issledovaniya [Interdisciplinary synthesis and social-humanitarian sciences: on the question of clearing some concepts and vectors of research]. Sotsium i vlast’ [Society and Power], 3, 91–97. (In Russ.)
Orekhov, A. M. (2009). Metody ekonomicheskikh issledovaniy. Ucheb. Posobiye [Methods of economic research. Study guide]. Moscow, Russia: INFR — M, 392. (In Russ.)
Peskova, A. V. & Kovalevskaya, M. S. (2016). Neyroekonomika i povedencheskaya ekonomika: istochniki sinteza [Neuroeconomics and Behavioral Economics: Synthesis Sources]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika i menedzhment [Bulletin of the South Ural State University, Series “Economics and Management”], 10(3), 18–25. DOI: 10.14529/em160302. (In Russ.)
Rakviashvili, A. A. (2015). Neyrobiologiya i novyye vozmozhnosti eksperimental’noy ekonomiki [Neurobiology and New Opportunities for Experimental Economics]. Voprosy ekonomiki [Voprosy ekonomiki], 12, 124–137. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2015–12–124–137
Rodrik, D. (2015). Ekonomika reshaet. Sila i slabost’ “mrachnoy nauki” [Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science (an excerpt)]. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya [Economic Sociology], 16(4), 39–59. (In Russ.)
Smith, V. (2008). Eksperimental’naya ekonomika [Experimental economics]. Moscow, Russia: IRISEN; Mysl’, 808. (In Russ.)
Thaler, R. (2020). Novaya povedencheskaya ekonomika: pochemu lyudi narushayut pravila traditsionnoy ekonomiki i kak na etom zarabotat’ [Misbehaving: the Making of Behavioral Economics]. Moscow, Russia: Eksmo, 384. (In Russ.)
Trofimov, G. Yu. (2006). Ekonomika i neyronauka — na puti sinteza [Economics and the neuroscience — on the way of synthesis]. Ekonomika i matematicheskiye metody [Economics and Mathematical Methods], 42(4), 3–16. (In Russ.)
Whybrow, P. (2016). Mozg: Tonkaya nastroyka. Nasha zhizn’ s tochki zreniya neyronauki [The Well-Tuned Brain: Neuroscience and the Life Well Lived]. Moscow, Russia: “Al’pina Pablisher”, 352. (In Russ.)
Fedorova, O. A (2014). A i b sideli na trube, ili mezhdistsiplinarnost’ kognitivnykh issledovaniy [A and B were Sitting on a Pipe, or Interdisciplinarity of Cognitive Studies]. Logos, 1, 19–34. (In Russ.)
Filatova, A. A. (2018). Neyronauka i gumanitaristika: ideologicheskiye osnovaniya i metody distsiplinarnoy kolonizatsii [Neuroscience and Humanities: the ideological foundations and the methods for disciplinary colonization]. Istoriya i filosofiya nauki v epokhu peremen: Sbornik nauchnykh statey. V 6 tomakh [The history and philosophy of science in the era of change: A collection of scientific articles. In 6 volumes]. Moscow, Russia: Interregional Public Organization “Russian Society of History and Philosophy of Science”, 26–29. (In Russ.)
Filatova, A. A. (2020). Chto nam delat’ s neyronaukami? Ot epistemologii podozreniya k epistemologii zaboty [What Should We Do with Neuroscience? From the Epistemology of Suspicion to an Epistemology of Care]. Sotsiologiya vlasti [Sociology of Power], 32(2), 18–47. (In Russ.)
Foley, D. (2012). Matematicheskiy formalizm i politekonomicheskoye soderzhaniye [Mathematical Formalism and Political-Economic Content.]. Voprosy ekonomiki [Voprosy ekonomiki], 7, 82–95. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2012–7-82–95. (In Russ.)
Alexandrov, Yu. I. & Kirdina, S. G. (2013). Toward Integration of Social Mental and Institutional Models: Systemic Approach. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 9(1), 7–16.
Antonietti, A. & Iannello, P. (2011). Social sciences and neuroscience: a circular integration. International Review of Economics, 58(3), 307–317.
Bazhanov, V. (2019). Subject of Cognition from a Cultural Neuroscience Perspective. Axiomathes, 29, 599–606.
Buchanan, J. M. (2003). Public Choice: The Origins and Development of a Research Program. Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University, Fairfax: Virginia, USA, 1–7.
Davis, J. B. (2016). Economics Imperialism versus Multidisciplinarity. History of Economic Ideas, 24, 77–94.
Forsythe, R. & Lundholm, R. (1990). Information Aggregation in an Experimental Market. Econometrica, 58(2), 309–347.
Glimcher, P. (2011). Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 488.
Gul, F. & Pesendorfer, W. (2008). The Case for Mindless Economics. The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 3–41.
Hogarth, R. M. (2005). The challenge of representative design in psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 253–263.
Koshovets, O. B. & Varkhotov, T. A. (2019). Neuroeconomics: new heart for economics or new face of economic imperialism? Journal of Institutional Studies, 11(1), 6–19.
LeDoux, J. E. (2012). Rethinking the Emotional Brain. Neuron, 73(4). 653–676.
LeDoux, J. E. (1998). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 384.
Lieberman, M. (2012). A geographical history of social cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage, 61(2), 432–436.
Lieberman, M. (2000). Intuition: a social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological bulletin, 126(1), 109–137.
Lieberman, M. (2007). Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085654.
Lieberman, M., Jarcho, J. & Satpute, A. B. (2004). Evidence-based and intuition-based self-knowledge: an FMRI study. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(4), 421–435.
Lucas, R. (1981). Studies in Business-Cycle Theory. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 300.
Pop, N. A. & Iorga, A. M. (2012). A new challenge for contemporary marketing — neuromarketing. Management & Marketing, 7(4), 631–644.
Sarapultsev, A. & Sarapultsev, P. (2014). Novelty, Stress, and Biological Roots in Human Market Behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 4(1), 53–69.
Sugden, R. (2002). Credible Worlds. The Status of Theoretical Models in Economics. Fact and Fiction in Economics. Models, Realism, and Social Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 107–136.
Swedberg, R. (1990). Economics and Sociology. Redefining Their Boundaries: Conversations with Economists and Sociologists. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 361.
Vromen, J. (2010). On the Surprising Finding That Expected Utility Is Literally Computed in the Brain. Journal of Economic Methodology, 17(1), 17–36.
Weintraub, R. (2002). How Economics Became a Mathematical Science. Durham, London: Duke University Press, 328.