Skip to main content
SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

Fragmentation of economic knowledge: The role of narrative and sociological approaches for intradisciplinary dialogue


TERRA ECONOMICUS, Vol. 24, No 2

Citation: Tishkin A. (2026). Fragmentation of economic knowledge: The role of narrative and sociological approaches for intradisciplinary dialogue. Terra Economicus 24(2), 25–40 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2026-24-2-25-40


The article examines a pressing issue in economics: the fragmentation of scientific knowledge. We chose Uskali Mäki’s framework for exploring this issue, distinguishing between pluralism and plurality. Two consequences of either too much or too little plurality are specialization and fragmentation. The latter can potentially harm intradisciplinary dialogue, as a common language for communication is lost, significantly blurring the criteria by which scholars distinguish good from bad research. Several strategies are proposed for overcoming fragmentation, ranging from creating a metalanguage to establishing a new discipline. We believe these approaches can be complemented by tools that allow for a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the potential for dialogue among economic theorists. Primarily, this is a narrative (postmodernist) approach. Knowledge of high-quality narratives can be useful for scholars seeking success and convincing colleagues of their vision. Narratives can also potentially reduce the “burden of knowledge”, the barrier to entry into competing schools of thought. Sociological methods for studying communities can demonstrate scientists’ attitudes toward various types of plurality and reveal the theories authors employ in their articles. Such methods are also important for defining mainstream in economics. Sociological and narrative approaches have several significant shortcomings. Narratives can oversimplify scientific knowledge, while sociological approaches, at a minimum, require careful application. However, we believe both approaches have significant potential for fostering intradisciplinary dialogue.

Keywords: methodology of economic science; pluralism; fragmentation of economic knowledge
JEL codes: B40, B10, B20



References:
  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. (2024). Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity (pp. 53–86). Moscow: AST Publ. (in Russian)
  • Aleskerov, F., Kazachinskaya, A., Karabekyan, D., Semina, A., Yakuba, V. (2021). Economic journals of Russia, their characteristics and network analysis. Journal of the New Economic Association (2), 170–182 (in Russian)
  • Ananyin, O. (2009). For "economic imperialism" without imperial ambitions, or On the forms of interdisciplinary interactions. Social Sciences and Contemporary World (6), 130–139 (in Russian)
  • Ananyin, O. (2024). Economic science: The challenge of fragmentation. Journal of the New Economic Association (2), 193–210 (in Russian)
  • Auzan, A., Maltsev, A., Kurdin, A. (2023). Russian economic education: Image of the near future. Voprosy Ekonomiki (10), 5–26 (in Russian)
  • Balatsky, E. (2022). The new imperatives of economic knowledge: On the way to socionomics. Social Area 8(4), 1–15 (in Russian)
  • Balatsky, E. (2025). On the verge of a new economic science paradigm. AlterEconomics 22(1), 6–21 (in Russian)
  • Bazhenov, G., Maltsev, A. (2018). Modern heterodox directions of the economic theory in the context of the mainstream transformation. Society and Economy (1), 5–21 (in Russian)
  • Blaug, M. (2004). Chapter 16. Conclusions. In: Blaug, M. The Methodology of Economics or How Economists Explain (pp. 357–373). Moscow: Journal Voprosy Ekonomiki Publ. (in Russian)
  • Boldyrev, I. (2006). Economic methodology and postmodernism. Voprosy Ekonomiki (11), 59–78 (in Russian)
  • Buzgalin, A., Glazyev, S. (2022). Russian education in the field of economic theory: An update is needed. Russian Economic Journal (5), 4–21 (in Russian)
  • Buzgalin, A., Kolganov, A. (2023). Economic education: A qualitative renewal is necessary and possible. Voprosy Ekonomiki (11), 141–160 (in Russian)
  • Volchik, V., Maskaev, A. (2021). Narrative economics and qualitative studies of the Russian innovation system. Journal of Economic Theory 18(4), 570–583 (in Russian)
  • Volchik, V., Maslyukova, E. (2018). Narratives, ideas and institutions. Terra Economicus 16(2), 150–168 (in Russian)
  • Volchik, V., Maslyukova, E. (2025). Ideology in economics through the lens of academic discourse. Terra Economicus 23(3), 21–33 (in Russian)
  • Davar, E. (2015). Crisis of economic science: Causes and remedy. Terra Economicus 13(2), 73–83 (in Russian)
  • Kalabikhina, I., Kalyagin, G. (2023). Citation metrics: To refuse or use? Voprosy Ekonomiki (2), 116–126 (in Russian)
  • Kirdina-Chandler, S. (2023). On synthesis and interdisciplinarity in economic theory: A comparison of Russian-language and English-language discourses. AlterEconomics 20(1), 59–78 (in Russian)
  • Kirdina-Chandler, S. (2024). Synthesis and fragmentation in economic theory: Alternative trends? In: Segmentation of Economic Science and Problems of Synthesis: Proceedings of the IV October International Scientific Conference on Problems of Theoretical Economics (pp. 359–383) / ed. by A. Maltsev, O. Slavinskaya. St. Petersburg: Aletheia Publishing House (in Russian)
  • Lebedev, S. (2017). The structure of scientific rationality. Voprosy filosofii [Issues of Philosophy
  • Maloshonok, N., Terentjev, E. (2014). Effects of questionnaire design on data quality in student online surveys. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes 124(6), 15–27 (in Russian)
  • Maltsev, A. (2016). Russian community of economists: main features and perspectives. Voprosy Ekonomiki (11), 135–158 (in Russian)
  • Maltsev, A., Slavinskay, O. (eds.) (2024). Segmentation of Economic Science and Problems of Synthesis: Proceedings of the IV October International Scientific Conference on Problems of Theoretical Economics. St. Petersburg: Aletheia Publishing House (in Russian)
  • Maltsev, A., Shastitko, A. (2025). Where is the nostalgic empiricism of the new new institutionalists leading economics? Voprosy Ekonomiki (12), 5–31 (in Russian)
  • Muravyev, A. (2011). Economic science in Russia through the lens of publications of Russian economists in national and international journals over 2000–2009. HSE Economic Journal (2), 237–264 (in Russian)
  • Orekhovsky, P., Razumov, V. (2020). Carnival time: Russian higher education and science in the postmodern era. Idei i idealy = Ideas and Ideals 12(3-1), 77–94 (in Russian)
  • Orekhovsky, P. (2026). Discussion on the criterion of veritas in the social sciences. Voprosy Ekonomiki (1), 23–41 (in Russian)
  • Polterovich, V. (2011). Formation of general social analysis. Social Sciences and Contemporary World (2), 101–111 (in Russian)
  • Pruzhinin, B. (2005). Applied and fundamental in the ethos of modern science. In: Philosophy of Science. Issue 11: Science at the Turn of the Century (pp. 109–120). Moscow: Institute of Philosophy Publ. (in Russian)
  • Rubinstein, A., Chukovskaya, E. (2026). Scientific activityes in the digital age: Production and dissemination of knowledge. Issues of Economic Theory (1), 7–21 (in Russian)
  • Sokolov, M., Titayev, K. (2013). Provincial and indigenous science. Anthropological Forum (19), 239–275 (in Russian)
  • Tambovtsev, V. (2019). Ideas, narratives and economic change. Terra Economicus 17(1), 24–40 (in Russian)
  • Tambovtsev, V. (2022). Crisis of scientific publications during the neoliberal science policy period. Voprosy Ekonomiki (12), 137–150 (in Russian)
  • Tambovtsev, V. (2023). Claim for pluralism in economics: what is behind it? Journal of Institutional Studies 15(1), 6–22 (in Russian)
  • Tretyakova, O. (2019). Russian economic journals indexed in Web of Science: Current state and the ways of increasing international visibility. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast 12(6), 292–311 (in Russian)
  • Tutov, L., Shastitko, A. (2021). Metalanguage within disciplinary discourse for scientific research programs: Invitation to a debate. Voprosy Ekonomiki (4), 96–115 (in Russian)
  • Shastitko, A., Zyubina, A. (2025). Competition among digital scientometric platforms: Foundations, limitations, and expected effects on Russian economic science. Voprosy Ekonomiki (9), 142–158 (in Russian)
  • Akerlof, G. (2020). Sins of omission and the practice of economics. Journal of Economic Literature 58(2), 405–418. DOI: 10.1257/jel.20191573
  • Christianto, V., Smarandache, F. (2019). Re-reading Wilczek's remark on "Lost in Math": The perils of postempirical science and their resolution. SSRN Working paper № 4694234. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4694234
  • Colander, D. (2005). The making of an economist redux. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(1), 175–198. DOI: 10.1257/0895330053147976
  • Dahlstrom, M. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(supplement 4), 13614–13620. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320645111
  • Davis, J. (2019). Specialization, fragmentation, and pluralism in economics. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 26(2), 271–293. DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2018.1555604
  • Denis, A. (2009). Pluralism in economics education. International Review of Economics Education 8(2), 6–22. DOI: 10.1016/s1477-3880(15)30071-2
  • Gräbner, C., Strunk, B. (2020). Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons. Journal of Economic Methodology 27(4), 311–329. DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2020.1824076
  • Hoover, K. (2016). The crisis in economic theory: A review essay. Journal of Economic Literature 54(4), 1350–1361. DOI: 10.1257/jel.20151338
  • Hossenfelder, S. (2017). Science needs reason to be trusted. Nature Physics 13(4), 316–317. DOI: 10.1038/nphys4079
  • Knudsen, C. (2005). Pluralism, scientific progress and the structure of organization science. In: The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory (pp. 262–286). N.Y.: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199275250.001.0001
  • Lari, T., Mäki, U. (2024). Costs and benefits of diverse plurality in economics. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 54(5), 412–441. DOI: 10.1177/00483931241255230
  • Mäki, U. (1997). The one world and the many theories. In: Salanti, A., Screpanti, E. (eds.) Pluralism in Economics (pp. 37–47). Edward Elgar. DOI: 10.4337/9781781959633.00009
  • Mäki, U. (2012). The failure of economics as a modelling failure. Proceedings of the XII International Conference on Economic Development and Society (pp. 359–365). Moscow: HSE Publishing House.
  • Mäki, U. (2018). Rights and wrongs of economic modelling: refining Rodrik. Journal of Economic Methodology 25(3), 218–236. DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488475
  • Mirowski, P. (1992). Do economists suffer from physics envy? Finnish Economic Papers 5(1), 61–68.
  • Roos, M., Reccius, M. (2024). Narratives in economics. Journal of Economic Surveys. 38(2), 303–341. DOI: 10.1111/joes.12576
  • Shiller, R. (2017). Narrative economics. American Economic Review 107(4), 967–1004. DOI: 10.1257/aer.107.4.967
  • van Strien, M. (2020). Pluralism and anarchism in quantum physics: Paul Feyerabend's writings on quantum physics in relation to his general philosophy of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 80, 72–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.03.006

Publisher: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606












  • Hits: 163