"Philosophy, Politics, and Economics" is a well-known combination from teaching and a growing area of research. But little attention has been given to the question of how to theorize in this intersection. The normative arguments of philosophers, the empirical studies of political scientists, and the rational choice models of economists arguably build on rather different premises. Our planned workshop brings together PPE scholars with a methodological interest to ask questions such as: which of the methodologies should be guiding when? How to deal with lack of methodological alignment? How can the strengths of the three approaches be productively combined?
There is currently a lot of momentum for the PPE disciplines to collaborate. But to do interdisciplinary research well, it is crucial to understand what different methodologies bring to the table and how to integrate them, not only to do sound research, but also to have a solid basis for policy advice. Within political theory, the methodological turn towards "realist" (e.g. Baderin 2014) or "grounded" (e.g. Ackerly et al. 2021) approaches has opened doors towards interdisciplinary collaborations. But how do these relate to methods used in political science and economics, e.g. rational choice modeling, lab experiments, or large-scale data analysis? And what should theorists do with evidence from empirical sciences when the goal is normative?
We will invite scholars from the three disciplines who are familiar with, and interested in, methodological discussions in their own field and beyond. We use a mix of classical and experimental formats, e.g. presentation of methodological arguments and joint discussion of case studies (for example, how do the different disciplines approach the relationship between democracy and economic inequality). This might also inspire future research collaborations.
By fostering dialogue and collaboration, the workshop seeks to raise the awareness for methodological questions in the PPE realm and to provide answers to some of the challenges that currently mark the collaborations between scholars with different methodological backgrounds, but who are interested in the same urgent societal problems.
Ackerly, Brooke et al. 2021. 'Unearthing grounded normative theory: practices and commitments of empirical research in political theory." Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 27 (2):156-182.
Baderin, Alice. 2014. ‘Two Forms of Realism in Political Theory’. European Journal of Political Theory 13 (2): 132–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885113483284.
1: How can PPE develop sound integrated methodologies?
2: How can the strengths of different disciplines reinforce each other, and for which issues is this most needed?
3: How to deal with the tensions in the assumptions about human behavior in different methodologies?
4: Can an integrated PPE methodology provide a stronger basis for policy advice?
5: How can political science as a whole benefit from the methodological insights and innovations of PPE?
1: Methodological arguments from P, P, or E and their relevance for the intersection of PPE
2: Methodological innovations bringing together the PPE disciplines
3: Reflections on the tensions between background assumptions and goals of the PPE fields
4: Arguments on how insights gained through different methodologies should (not) be brought to bear on each other
5: Case studies of integrative approaches to PPE problems
6: Arguments or discussions of case studies on how combining different methodologies leads to better policy advice
