What’s the relationship between theories and the world to which theories meant to apply? Are there ultimate truth which can be obtained through a series of scientific validation and falsification? Is critical relativism appropriate for scientific research (marketing or consumer research in particular)? Those are some critical questions raised by this week’s readings that centered on the topic of rationality and relativism. Several authors provide different insights on answering those above questions as follows:
Initially, the debate between Cooper and Anderson introduced the controversial issue of whether scientist or consumer researcher should adopt the perspective of critical relativism. Cooper rejected the critical relativism saying that it holds a casual attitude towards truth and reality. Then he listed three main epistemological events that lead to the eventual dismissal of logical positivism. Cooper argued that we should recognize the important difference between practical impediments to seeking truth and the relativistic notion that there is no truth worth seeking. Anderson responded to cooper’s assertion by attacking two forms of realisms to which cooper’s concept of truth relies on: convergent realism and motivational realism. He then directly defended the critical relativism by refuting the assertion that critical relativism adopt a casual attitude towards truth and reality and by proving that critical relativism do not eschew the empirical testing. On the contrary, Siegel argued that Anderson’s assertion on critical relativism is internal inconsistence and self-contradicted. Critical relativism suffers from self-refutation problems because the standards which critical relativist relies on to make judgement of knowledge claim should not exist based on relativism’s own doctrine. Siegel also pointed out that critical relativism is confusing and untenable because it makes normative judgements and at the same time tries to be a descriptive methodology. This has created inconsistencies in critical relativism since the nature of studies can’t be both normative and descriptive. Chalmers seems to take a mild standing in the two opposite views of critical relativism and realism. He presented the problems of instrumentalism and commonsense notion of truth. For example, he stated theories could lead to novel predictions and science constantly changes whereas the world does not. In an effort to reconcile the fact that some theories do not correspond to facts, but were considered to be successful in a certain period of history. The author came out with his own rationale: the unrepresentative realism. He indicated that current theories are applicable to the world to some degree. The aim of scientific research is to establish the limits of applicability of current theory and to develop new theories with greater applicability to the world and greater approximation to …show more content…
He also criticized Anderson and Peter’s arguments on relativism and proposed a weak form of relativism.
Through this week’s reading, I have further developed the conceptualization of relativism and realism and identified their main differences. To my understanding those two opposite scientific philosophies are ultimately arguing about the nature and existence of true as well as the relations between the scientific theories and the world to which they meant to explain. Some of my personal reflections are as …show more content…
This notion of symbolic interaction between customers and marketers creates the source of innovation and affect customer valuation reminds me of signaling theory and its application in management research. Basically signaling theory describing the behavior when two parties have access to different information. More specifically, senders must choose how to communicate that information and receivers must decide how to interpret the signal. To my understanding the symbol that marketer intends to convey to the consumer is one form of signals and how the consumer perceived that signal could potentially affect the valuation of product and service. The feedback that the sender of symbolic signals received from the receiver is the symbolic interaction in nature. Symbolic interactions not only exist between consumers and marketers but also in many other two parties like managers and employees (in the domain of human resource management), investors and entrepreneurs (in the domain of entrepreneurship), two strategic partners(in the domain of strategic management) firms and foreign partners (in the domain of international business). In conclusion, based on the logic of signaling theory future research could apply symbolic interaction conception into other business fields besides consumer research and see how it could affect organizational performance and innovation.
Initially, the debate between Cooper and Anderson introduced the controversial issue of whether scientist or consumer researcher should adopt the perspective of critical relativism. Cooper rejected the critical relativism saying that it holds a casual attitude towards truth and reality. Then he listed three main epistemological events that lead to the eventual dismissal of logical positivism. Cooper argued that we should recognize the important difference between practical impediments to seeking truth and the relativistic notion that there is no truth worth seeking. Anderson responded to cooper’s assertion by attacking two forms of realisms to which cooper’s concept of truth relies on: convergent realism and motivational realism. He then directly defended the critical relativism by refuting the assertion that critical relativism adopt a casual attitude towards truth and reality and by proving that critical relativism do not eschew the empirical testing. On the contrary, Siegel argued that Anderson’s assertion on critical relativism is internal inconsistence and self-contradicted. Critical relativism suffers from self-refutation problems because the standards which critical relativist relies on to make judgement of knowledge claim should not exist based on relativism’s own doctrine. Siegel also pointed out that critical relativism is confusing and untenable because it makes normative judgements and at the same time tries to be a descriptive methodology. This has created inconsistencies in critical relativism since the nature of studies can’t be both normative and descriptive. Chalmers seems to take a mild standing in the two opposite views of critical relativism and realism. He presented the problems of instrumentalism and commonsense notion of truth. For example, he stated theories could lead to novel predictions and science constantly changes whereas the world does not. In an effort to reconcile the fact that some theories do not correspond to facts, but were considered to be successful in a certain period of history. The author came out with his own rationale: the unrepresentative realism. He indicated that current theories are applicable to the world to some degree. The aim of scientific research is to establish the limits of applicability of current theory and to develop new theories with greater applicability to the world and greater approximation to …show more content…
He also criticized Anderson and Peter’s arguments on relativism and proposed a weak form of relativism.
Through this week’s reading, I have further developed the conceptualization of relativism and realism and identified their main differences. To my understanding those two opposite scientific philosophies are ultimately arguing about the nature and existence of true as well as the relations between the scientific theories and the world to which they meant to explain. Some of my personal reflections are as …show more content…
This notion of symbolic interaction between customers and marketers creates the source of innovation and affect customer valuation reminds me of signaling theory and its application in management research. Basically signaling theory describing the behavior when two parties have access to different information. More specifically, senders must choose how to communicate that information and receivers must decide how to interpret the signal. To my understanding the symbol that marketer intends to convey to the consumer is one form of signals and how the consumer perceived that signal could potentially affect the valuation of product and service. The feedback that the sender of symbolic signals received from the receiver is the symbolic interaction in nature. Symbolic interactions not only exist between consumers and marketers but also in many other two parties like managers and employees (in the domain of human resource management), investors and entrepreneurs (in the domain of entrepreneurship), two strategic partners(in the domain of strategic management) firms and foreign partners (in the domain of international business). In conclusion, based on the logic of signaling theory future research could apply symbolic interaction conception into other business fields besides consumer research and see how it could affect organizational performance and innovation.