Qualitative Economics—A Perspective on Organization and Economic Science


Focus in this paper is on building a science of economics, grounded in understanding of organizations and what is beneath the surface of economic structures and activities. As a science Economics should be concerned with its assumptions, logic and lines of arguments, and how to develop theories and formulate ideas of reality. There is a disconnection between a science of economics focuses on structures and universal laws from what is experienced in everyday of life of business activity. The everyday of life of business is processual, dynamic and contradictional. This discussion of how to understand the everyday economic life is the central issue and is discussed from the perspective of interactionism. It is a perspective developed from the Lifeworld philosophical traditions, such as symbolic interactionism and phenomenology, seeking to develop the thinking of economics. The argument is that economics first of all is about two things; it is about interaction and it is about construction. If we are not able to understand and describe how people interact and construct, we cannot develop any theory of economics or understand human dynamics. So there are two issues to reflect upon: the object of thought and the process of thinking, e.g. the ontology and the epistemology.

Share and Cite:

Fast, M. and Clark II, W. (2012) Qualitative Economics—A Perspective on Organization and Economic Science. Theoretical Economics Letters, 2, 162-174. doi: 10.4236/tel.2012.22029.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] A. Comte, “Om Positivismen,” Korpen, G?teborg, 1991.
[2] Durkheim, “Sociologins Metodregler,” Korpen, G?teborg, 1991.
[3] W. Woodrow II and M. Fast, “Qualitative Economics: Towards a Science of Economics,” Coxmoor Publishing Company, Chipping Norton, 2008.
[4] L. von Bertalanffy, “General System Theory,” Allen Lane, The Pen-guin Press, London, 1971.
[5] I. Kant, “Critique of Pure Reason,” Macmillan, Hong Kong, 1929.
[6] C. Bjurwill, “Fenomenologi,” Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1995.
[7] J. D. White, “Phenomenology and Organizational Development,” Administrative Science Quaterly, Vol. 28, 1990, pp. 331-496.
[8] A. Schutz, “Hverdagslivets Sociologi,” Hans Reitzel, K?benhavn, 1973.
[9] E. Husserl, “Ideas,” Macmillan, New York, 1962.
[10] M. Heidegger, “Being and Time,” Blackwell, Oxford, 1992.
[11] A. Schutz, “The Phenomenology of the Social World,” Heinemann Educational Books, London, 1972.
[12] H.-G. Gadamer, “Truth and Method,” Sheed & Ward, London, 1993.
[13] G. H. Mead, “Mind, Self, & Society—From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist,” The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962.
[14] H. Blumer, “Symbolic Interaction—Perspective and Method,” Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1969.
[15] R. P. Hummel, “Applied Phenomenology and Organization,” Administrative Science Quaterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1990, pp. 10-17.
[16] R. H. Brown, “Bureaucracy as Praxis: Towards a Political Phenomenology of Formal Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1978, pp. 365-382. doi:10.2307/2392415
[17] R. Jehenson, “A Phenomenological Approach to the Study of the Formal Organization,” In: G. Psathas, Ed., Phenomenological Sociology—Issues and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978.
[18] K. E. Weick, “The Social Psychology of Organizing,” Addison-Wesley Inc., New York, 1979.
[19] J. M. Bartunek, “Changing Interpretive Schemes and Organizational Restructuring: The Example of a Religious Order,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1984, pp. 355-372. doi:10.2307/2393029
[20] A. Schutz, “Collected Papers I: The Problem os Social Reality,” Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1990.
[21] K. E. Weick, “Sensemaking in Organizations,” Sage Publications, Los Angeles, 1995
[22] K. E. Weick, “Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1988, pp. 305-317. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00039.x
[23] K. E. Weick, “That’s Moving—Theories That Matter,” Journal of management Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1999, pp. 127-133. doi:10.1177/105649269982005
[24] H. Garfinkel, “Studies in Ethnomethodology,” Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1967.
[25] G. Morgan and R. Ramirez, “Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Social Change,” Human Relation, Vol. 37, No. 1, 1984, pp. 1-27. doi:10.1177/001872678403700101
[26] P. Singelmann, “Ex-change as Symbolic Interaction: Convergences between Two Theoretical Perspectives,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 37, 1972, pp. 414- 424. doi:10.2307/2093180
[27] A. M. Rose, “A Systematic Summery of Symbolic Interaction Theory,” In: A. Rose, Ed., Human Behavior and Social Processes—An Interactionist Approach, Routledge & Kegan, Paul, London, 1962.
[28] P. L. Berger and T. Luckmann, “The Social Construction of Reality—A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge,” Doubleday & Company, New York, 1966
[29] J. K. Benson, “Organizations: A Dialectical View,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1977, pp. 1-21. doi:10.2307/2391741
[30] I. Arbnor and B. Bjerke, “Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge,” Sage, Los Angeles, 1997/1981.
[31] D. Sims, S. Fineman and Y. Gabriel, “Organizing and Organizations,” Sage Publications, London, 1993.
[32] A. Schutz, “Reflections on the Problem of Relevance,” Yale University Press, New Haven, 1970.
[33] N. Chomsky, “Reflections on Language,” Pantheon Books, New York, 1975.
[34] N. Chomsky, “Rules and Representations,” Columbia University Press, New York, 1980.
[35] C. Moustakas, “Phenomenological Research Methods,” Sage, Los Angeles, 1994.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.