Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Organizations and Markets (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Pet Peeve: “Normative Theory”

Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:12
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

| Nicolai Foss |

I have seldom attended a meeting or conference on management research where the notion of “normative theory” hasn’t been brought up. A couple of decades ago when transaction cost economics was making its influence felt in management research, it was frequently dismissed as “just another normative contigency theory.”  Discussants may quizz presenters on whether they are “doing positive or normative theory,” and gravely tell them that they must heed the difference between the two.

While I am all for being upfront about one’s (normative) premises , I am not sure the notion of “normative theory” makes a lot of sense. (There is ethical theory which may be partly falsifiable, but this is usually not what is meant by “normative theory”).  There are theoretically informed statements about what ought to be the case–but these are simply derived from positive theories with the addition of an “ought” clause. To be sure, one can build theory that is designed to help remedy some state in the real world that one considers undesirable. Theorizing (i.e., the construction of theory)  is, of course, shot through with normative considerations, as Gunnar Myrdal famously argued. But, that doesn’t make the theory a “normative theory” per se. A theory can be (should be) 100 % wertfrei although its emergence is entirely explainable in terms of moral, political, etc. considerations.

Theory  can be (should be?)  used as an instrument,  to be sure. Thus, the proponent of a theory may tell decision-makers that if they want to achieve X, they should do Y. That is still not “normative theory,” because the proponent doesn’t tell decision-makers that X is something they ought to pursue.  Fairly simple stuff, to be sure. But, many management scholars apparently haven’t fully absorbed the basic implications of what Hume, Menger and Weber said on these issues. And in today’s method-obsessed graduate programs, they likely won’t.

Filed under: Ephemera



Source:

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.