With jobs being automated and knowledge being devalued, business and education need to prioritise proven tools that support flexible thinking. In the words of Charlotte Blease “we need people who are prepared to ask, and answer, the questions that aren’t Googleable.” Of ancient Greek origin, the word ‘philosophy’ itself explains why it matters to humanity. The first part, philo, means ‘love’. The second part, from the word sophia, means ‘wisdom’. Together, philo-sophy is literally ‘the love of wisdom’.
As long as philosophy has existed, there have been people who have hated, despised or dismissed its study. In the popular book ‘Grand Design’, Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawkings (2010) boldly declared philosophy as dead; that modern science should instead be relied upon for the progression of knowledge. The authors found support in many other anti-philosophy scientists such as Neil de Grasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins and Lawrence M. Krauss. Anti-philosophical criticism can also be unearthed in business, by many who claim philosophy has lost its ability to engage people in real world problems.
The prevalence of philosophy
I declare it outside of my scope here to explain on balance whether science has contributed more or less to our understanding of the business world. Yet I do share evidence of the active employ of philosophy in business research ,and declare not only its importance to date, but argue for its increasing employ in Education and Business 4.0.
A google scholar search using key terms “relevance philosophy in business” provides 985,000 results returns, listing high is the connection between philosophy and business ethics. The Harvard Business Review, with its heavily subscribed business research and practitioner following, returns 2,420 results. Articles range from Brendal (2014) whose coaching combines philosophical reasoning and positive behavioural changes, through to the more recent Martin & Golsby-Smith article ‘Management Is Much More Than a Science’. The latter is explicit about the limitations of a purely scientific approach, which narrows strategic options, shuts down innovation, and is ineffective at evaluating possibilities.
Resurgence of interest in philosophy
The currency of philosophy in business is backed by a resurgence of interest from business students. More business schools are integrating philosophy into the curriculum beyond Ethics. Yolllin (2014) and Blackburn et al. (2017) report on an increased take up of philosophy courses. US graduate law, medical and management schools consistently put philosophy at, or near to, the most successful and desirable of majors. The London School of Economics, an institution firmly focused on producing research that ‘solves world-problems, promotes philosophy’s key role in posing challenging questions on how business decisions are being made.
The book industry is also filling philosophy/business hybrid shelves. Amazon.co.uk returns just over 29000 results for “philosophy in business”. Tsang (2016) explains since the 80s there has been a growing number of management literature that have employed philosophy to tackle methodological problems. In Helin et al. (2014) scholars document 34 philosophers and social theorists who have connected ideas from process philosophy to present and future challenges in organisational studies.
Recurring themes in a business case for philosophy
My sample review across the aforementioned literature provides 4 recurring themes:
- Philosophy is key in supporting the methodological rigour of business research
- Different philosophical perspectives/lenses add value
- Reliance on science alone is risky
- Philosophy promotes critical and logical thinking
Theme 1: Philosophy is key in supporting the methodological rigour of business research
Whilst researchers themselves do not agree about one best philosophy (Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2003), proponents of research philosophies such as Saunders et al. (2009), Knowlton & Phillips (2009) and Easterby-Smith (2012), all encourage an ontological, epistemological, and axiological stance be declared. Even acknowledging the confusing plethora of classifications and categorisation of paradigm (Mkansi & Acheampong 2010), there is agreement a declared research philosophy states important assumptions about the way in you view the world, assisting in exposing biases, values, perceptions and predispositions, which work right through the work to the conclusions. If not considered, the researcher may be blinded to aspects of the inquiry or certain phenomena, since they are implicitly assumed (Flowers, 2009). Increased rigour and greater explanation of the basis of a piece of research allows practitioners to make a judgement of its applicability and usefulness.
Philosophy deals directly with aporia … and is pivotaI to business research, opening up discussion and disagreement – Jones & ten Bos (2007)
Theme 2: Different philosophical perspectives/lenses add value
Whilst scientific unificationists exist (Saunders et al, 2009), pluralists recognises each research paradigm, including qualitative approaches representing a different and distinctive ‘way of seeing’ organisational realities (Morgan 1986); This insight helps explain the actions of individuals within organisational settings (Johnson, 2014). According to Siedman (2010), philosophy can also be used as a burning platform in business, exploring deep and broad questions. This would span from how our business institutions should relate to society, to the more complex interdependent issues confronted in the global marketplace that require an understanding of how political, financial, environmental, ethical, and social interests influence each other.
Pondering questions beyond the scope of business can broaden the reflectivity-horizon of future business leaders to help them manage complexity and make sound decisions – Poulson (2013)
Theme 3: Reliance on science alone is risky
Without trawling through history to evidence philosophy’s contributions, history has proven that over time scientific ‘facts’ are provisional; vulnerable to massive paradigm shifts (Hobbs, 2010). Some scholars go further and criticise the reliability of scientific research. Take Ioannidis (2005), whose work reveals that in modern research, false findings may be the vast majority of published research, claiming science easily and commonly veers away from the truth, by way of bias, error, and outright fraud.
Over-enthusiasm for science can mask the attention that should be paid to human social issues that are too complex for science to solve neatly and swiftly – Kitchner (2012)
Theme 4: Philosophy promotes critical and logical thinking
Grey (2013) states that the critical thinking classes taught by philosophers teach students about logic, in addition to providing practice problems that can improve their critical thinking skills. All of which should help thwart the Dunning-Kruger (aka cognitive bias) effect. Tsang (2016) suggests that business research could learn more from philosophy e.g. picking fights and engaging in more robust critiquing of approaches adopted. Whilst improved statistical or scientific techniques might suggest significant relationships between variables it will no further explain whether the assumptions implied in the model employed are actually realistic; this is the remit of philosophy.
Philosophers are pretty good at spotting where claimants to knowledge have put their name to some piece of quasi-scientifc speculation – Norris (2011)
Demystifying, informing, and method facilitating
The aforementioned statistics and ideas indicate philosophical interest and approach continues to have traction in business and management research. In fact, philosophy continues to provide three key functions: demystifying, informing, and method facilitating (Lawson, 2004). Potentially there is more room for a stronger philosophical orientation in our businesses, in our education, in our research: as means to re-question the purposes, presuppositions and prejudices on which our theories, models and strategies have been based to date.
I believe philosophy will become an increasingly important subject in the future. As per my earlier blog on the concerns of the demise of the natural curiosity so richly endowed in the young, Ponder, Puzzle, Pose: the case for curiosity, I intend to actively harness the spontaneous philosophical instinct of my own young, and will continue to work to influence the mindset of my own learners.
The philosophy of science without scientific input is empty, while science without philosophical guidance is blind – Norris (2013) adaption on Kant
Blease, C. (2017) Philosophy can teach children what Google can’t [blog]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/philosophy-teach-children-schools-ireland [Retrieved 30th May 2019].
Brendel, D. (2014) How Philosophy Makes You a Better Leader, Harvard Business Review September 19, 2014 [online]. Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/09/how-philosophy-makes-you-a-better-leader [Retrieved 27th December 2017].
Clegg, S., Berti, M. & Jarvis, W.P. (2017) Future in the Past: A Philosophical Reflection on the Prospects of Management. In Wilkinson, A., Armstrong, S.J. & Lounsbury, M. (2017) (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Management, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. a& Jackson, P. (2012) Management research, 4th Edition, Sage Publications: London.
Flowers, P. (2009) Research Philosophies – Importance and Relevance Issue 1 (Jan’09)[online]. Available at: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/files/cesphd/flowers_2009.pdf Retrieved 26th December 2017.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Sage: London.
Hawking, S. & Mlodinow, L. (2010) The Grand Design:new answers to the ultimate questions of life Reprint Edition, Bantam Book: USA.
Helin, J., Hernes, T., Hjorth, D. & Holt, R. (2016)(eds) Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy and Organization Studies, Oxford University Press: New York.
Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P. & Gershenson, C. (2006) Complexity and Philosophy In Bogg, J. & Geyer, R. (eds.) Complexity, Science and Society, Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford.
Hobbs, A. (2010) Hawking [online] Available at: https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/drangiehobbs/tag/hawking/ [Retrieved 28th December 2017].
Ioannidis J.P.A. (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, PLoS Medicine, August 2005, 2 (8), pp. 696-701.
Johnston, H. (2010) M-theory, religion and science funding on the BBC,8 September 2010 [online]. Available at: http://blog.physicsworld.com/2010/09/08/by-hamish-johnstonstephen-hawk/ [Retrieved 20th December 2017].
Kitcher, P. (2012) The Trouble with Scientism [blog]. Available at: https://newrepublic.com/article/103086/scientism-humanities-knowledge-theory-everything-arts-science [Retrieved 30th May 2019] .
Knowlton, L.W. & Phillips, C.C. (2009) The Logic Model Guidebook – Better strategies for great results, Sage publications: London.
Lawson, T. (2004) Philosophical under-labouring in the context of modern economics: Aiming at truth and usefulness in the meanest of ways. In J. B. Davis, A. Marciano and J. Runde (2004) (eds.) The Elgar companion to economics and philosophy: Edward Elgar: Northampton pp. 317–338.
Loke, A. (2014). The benefits of studying philosophy for science education, Journal of the NUS Teaching Academy, 4(1), pp. 27-35.
Martin, R.L. & Golsby-Smith, T, (2017) Management Is Much More Than a Science, HBR, Sept-Oct Issue [online]. Available at: https://hbr.org/2017/09/management-is-much-more-than-a-science [Retrieved 28h December 2017].
Mkansi, M. &Acheampong, E, A. (2012) Research Philosophy Debates and Classifications: students’ Dilemma, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 10 (2) pp.132- 140.
Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organization, Sage: London.
Morgan, G (2011) Reflections on Images of Organization and Its Implications for Organization and Environment, Organisations and Environment, 24 (4), pp 459-478.
Noë, A. (2011) A Little Philosophy Is A Dangerous Thing, NPR [online]. Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/02/04/133363055/a-little-philosophy-is-a-dangerous-thing [Retrieved 1st January 2018].
Norris, C. (2011a) Hawking contra Philosophy, Philosophy Now, 82 [online]. Available at: https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy [Retrieved 30th December 2017].
Norris, C. (2011b) Philosophy Outside-In: A Critique of Academic Reason Philosophy Outside-In: A Critique of Academic Reason, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.
Poulson, A. (2013) Why Future Business Leaders Need Philosophy [online]. Available at: http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy [Retrieved 30th December 2017].
Saunders, M. Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed., Financial Times Prentice Hall: Harlow.
Snowden, D. (2016) Intention [online]. Available at: http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/intention/ [Retrieved 28th December 2017].
Tsang, E.W.K. (2016) The Philosophy of Management Research, Routledge: Oxon.
Tsoukas, H. & Knudsen, C. (2003)The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical Perspectives, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
One Reply to “Philosophy vs. Google: The Value of Philosophy to Business and Education”