Comments on: The Missing Literature Review http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/12/15/the-missing-literature-review/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:31:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: srp http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/12/15/the-missing-literature-review/#comment-8850 srp Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:34:28 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/12/15/the-missing-literature-review/#comment-8850 Most scientists ignore the secondary literature on the history and philosophy of their fields when they discuss research strategies, etc. Maybe they cite Kuhn or Popper but probably haven't read them. Formal work in methodology is seen as sissy stuff for people who don't have good research ideas. This tendency sometimes leads to reinvention of the wheel or commission of various fallacies and solecisms, but I think it's actually more interesting to find out what's really going on inside the heads of prominent researchers than it is to read their attempts at methodological scholarship. Rubenstein practically lays down on the couch and spills out all his night thoughts in that article, which is entertaining and thought-provoking in a way that a scholarly treatement wouldn't be. Most scientists ignore the secondary literature on the history and philosophy of their fields when they discuss research strategies, etc. Maybe they cite Kuhn or Popper but probably haven’t read them. Formal work in methodology is seen as sissy stuff for people who don’t have good research ideas. This tendency sometimes leads to reinvention of the wheel or commission of various fallacies and solecisms, but I think it’s actually more interesting to find out what’s really going on inside the heads of prominent researchers than it is to read their attempts at methodological scholarship. Rubenstein practically lays down on the couch and spills out all his night thoughts in that article, which is entertaining and thought-provoking in a way that a scholarly treatement wouldn’t be.

]]> By: Bob V http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/12/15/the-missing-literature-review/#comment-8124 Bob V Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:49:50 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/12/15/the-missing-literature-review/#comment-8124 My current (but everchaning) view on the need for literature review sections is that science attempts to produce cumulative knowlede, and without positioning the paper relative to prior works, there is no cumulation possible, and the paper is not doing science. Is it possible that Rubinstein doesn't see his contribution as a scientific one? My current (but everchaning) view on the need for literature review sections is that science attempts to produce cumulative knowlede, and without positioning the paper relative to prior works, there is no cumulation possible, and the paper is not doing science.

Is it possible that Rubinstein doesn’t see his contribution as a scientific one?

]]> By: Tom http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/12/15/the-missing-literature-review/#comment-8087 Tom Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:27:19 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/12/15/the-missing-literature-review/#comment-8087 I'm inclined to agree. The same thing could be largely said with Milton Friedman's brief adventure into economic methodology. There seems to be a dissonance between economists and their (philosophical) methodology that is greater than any other field. The occasional article by a mainstream economist on methodology always ignores prior literature. Despite this observation, which is the same as yours, I am clueless of *why* this occurs. Are economists only aware of economic methodology after some bewilderment in their career? I’m inclined to agree. The same thing could be largely said with Milton Friedman’s brief adventure into economic methodology. There seems to be a dissonance between economists and their (philosophical) methodology that is greater than any other field. The occasional article by a mainstream economist on methodology always ignores prior literature.

Despite this observation, which is the same as yours, I am clueless of *why* this occurs. Are economists only aware of economic methodology after some bewilderment in their career?

]]>