Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:02:39.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where Else Would you Look? Constructivism and the Historiography of Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Ross B. Emmett
Ross B. Emmett
Affiliation:
Augustana University College; Camrose Alberta, T4V 2R3, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Eleven years ago, at my first HES conference, I attended a session on the historiography of economics. In my naiveté and brashness (not a good combination!) as a grad student, I asked why so much of the conversation about how to do historical work in economics was dominated by reference to methodological categories provided by philosophers of science like Lakatos, Popper, and Kuhn. I enjoyed my own investigations in the philosophy of economics, and was starting to write about Frank Knight, who was certainly not naive philosophically, but I wanted a different reference point as a historian of economics. I remember one member of the panel looking at me somewhat puzzled and asking, “Where else would you look?”

Today, we gather to reflect, once again, on the historiography of economics. This time, we are asked to reflect on a new reference point for our work: the sociology of scientific knowledge or science studies. Jan Golinski has provided us with an excellent survey of work in this field, and a synopsis of its relevance over the past fifteen years or so to the history of the natural sciences. His book is not a rallying cry for constructivism, but rather a careful analysis of the benefits and costs to historians of science if they choose to adopt constructivist techniques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 261 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Collins, Randall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, John. 1997. “The Economics of Scientific Knowledge.” Guest Editorial, HES List. < http://www.eh.net/HE/hes_list/Editorials/jdavis.php>. 02 21..+02+21.>Google Scholar
Emmett, Ross B. 1997a. “Reflections on ‘Breaking Away’: Economics as Science and the History of Economics as the History of Science.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 15: 221–36.Google Scholar
Emmett, Ross B. 1997b. “‘What is Truth’ in Capital Theory: Five Stories Relevant to the Evaluation of Frank H. Knight's Contributions to the Capital Controversy.” In Davis, John B., ed., New Economics and Its History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 231–50.Google Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 1997. “Conjectures and Reputations: The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and the History of Economic Thought.” History of Political Economy 29: 695–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollinger, David. 1989. In the American Province: Studies in the History and Historiography of Ideas. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S. and Rutherford, Malcolm, eds. 1998. From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neo-classicism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret, and Morgan, Mary S.. 1999. “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Morgan, Mary and Morrison, Margaret, eds. Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Mary S. and Morrison, Margaret, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, Peter. 1988. That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Andrew. 1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1984. “The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres.” In Rorty, R., Schneewind, J. B., and Skinner, Q. eds., Philosophy in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1988. “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” In Tully, James, ed., Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 20–67.Google Scholar
Yonay, Yuval. 1998. The Struggle Over the Soul of Economics: Institutionalist and Neoclassical Economists in America Between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar