Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T15:40:41.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Models at Work—Models in Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2014

Ekaterina Svetlova
Affiliation:
University of Constance E-mail: Ekaterina.Svetlova@uni-konstanz.de
Vanessa Dirksen
Affiliation:
University of Constance E-mail: Vanessa.Dirksen@uni-konstanz.de

Extract

In recent years, research on modeling in both the philosophy of science and the social studies of science and technology has undergone an acute transformation. Philosophers and social scientists have begun to realize that science, in the words of Carrier and Nordmann, has increasingly shifted its focus from “epistemic or truth-oriented” research to “application-dominated” research. “Science is viewed today as an essentially practical endeavor” (Carrier and Nordmann 2011, 1) and should be considered in the context of its application. In accordance with this re-orienting of science, research on modeling has also changed. Still considering models as genuinely scientific tools, philosophers and social scientists promoted the “practice turn” that suggests a sharper focus on pragmatic issues and the performative and productive role of modeling. Application of models for the resolution of practice-related problems is viewed as an extension of science.

Type
Topical Section: Models at Work – Models in Decision Making
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexandrova, Anna. 2008. “Making Models Count.” Philosophy of Science 75:383404.Google Scholar
Appadurai, Arjun. 1990. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” Public Culture 2 (2):124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beunza, Daniel, and Stark, David. 2010. “Models, Reflexivity and Systemic Risk: A Critique of Behavioral Finance” Working paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1285054 (last accessed May 5, 2011).Google Scholar
Beunza, Daniel, and Stark, David. 2012. “From Dissonance to Resonance: Cognitive Interdependence in Quantitative Finance.” Economy and Society 41 (3):383417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, Graig, and Cohen, Jonathan. 2006. “There Is No Special Problem about Scientific Representation.” Theoria 55:6785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, Michel. 1998. “Introduction: The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics.” In The Laws of the Market, edited by Callon, Michel, 157. Oxford and Madlen MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carrier, Martin, and Nordmann, Alfred. 2011. “Science in the Context of Application: Methodological Change, Conceptual Transformation, Cultural Re-Orientation.” In Science in the Context of Application, edited by Carrier, Martin and Nordmann, Alfred, 17. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1989. Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, ed. 2000. Biographies of Scientific Objects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Den Butter, Frank, and Morgan, Mary. 2000. Empirical Models and Policy Making: Interaction and Institutions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 2001. Limited Inc. Wien: Passagen.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 1915. “The Logic of Judgments of Practice.” Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 12 (19):505523.Google Scholar
Egmond, Stans van, and Zeiss, Ragna. 2010. “Modeling for Policy: Science-Based Models as Performative Boundary Objects for Dutch Policy Making. Science Studies 23 (1):5878.Google Scholar
Evans, Robert. 1999. Macroeconomic Forecasting: A Sociological Appraisal. Routledge Studies in the Modern World Economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, Robert. 2000. “Economic Models and Economic Policy: What Economic Forecasters Can Do for Government.” In Empirical Models and Policy-Making, edited by den Butter, Frank and Morgan, Mary S., 206228. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
von Foerster, Heinz. 2003. Understanding Understanding: Essay On Cybernetics and Cognition. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 2004. “How Models Are Used to Represent Reality.” Philosophy of Science (Symposia) 71:742752.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2007. Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconcious. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Todd, Peter M.. 1999. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1969. “Where the Action Is.” In Where the Action Is: Three Essays, edited by Goffman, Erving, 107206. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gramelsberger, Gabriele. 2011. “Generation of Evidence in Simulation Runs: Interlinking With Models for Predicting Weather and Climate Change.” Simulation & Gaming 42 (2):212224.Google Scholar
Gramelsberger, Gabriele, and Feichter, Johann, eds. 2011. Climate Change and Policy: The Calculability of Climate Change and the Challenge of Uncertainty. Heidelberg/Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Greenberger, Martin, Crensson, Mathew, and Crissey, Brian. 1976. Models in the Policy Process. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel. 1992. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howlett, Peter, and Morgan, Mary S., eds. 2011. How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizens Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41 (3):223244.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1996. The Creativity of Action. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Keynes, John M. [1936] 2012. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Reprinted in Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, edited by Johnson, Elizabeth and Moggridge, Donald, vol. 7. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keynes, John M. 1973. Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, vol. 14: The General Theory and After: Part II. Defence and Development. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1997. “Sociality with Objects: Social Relations in Post-Social Knowledge Societies.” Theory, Culture & Society 14:130.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 2001. “Objectual Practice.” In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by Schatzki, Theodore R., Cetina, Karin Knorr, and von Savigny, Eike, 175188. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 2007. “Culture in Global Knowledge Societies: Knowledge Cultures and Epistemic Cultures.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 32 (4):361375.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 2009. “The Synthetic Situation: Interactionism for a Global World.” Symbolic Interaction 32 (1):6187.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, Tarja. 2005. “Models, Representation, and Mediation.” Philosophy of Science 72:12601271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knuuttila, Tarja. 2011. “Modeling and Representing: An Artefactual Approach.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42:262271.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, Tarja, Merz, Martina, and Mattila, Erika. 2006. “Computer Models and Simulations in Scientific Practice.” Science Studies 19 (1):311.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, Tarja, and Merz, Martina. 2009. “Understanding by Modeling: An Objectual Approach.” In Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by de Regt, Henk W., Leonelli, Sabina, and Eigner, Kai, 146168. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Stuart N., Landström, Catharina, and Whatmore, Sarah J.. 2011. “Imagining Flood Futures: Risk Assessment and Management in Practice.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369:17841806.Google Scholar
Lengwiler, Martin. 2008. “Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology: Historical Origins and Current Practices in Critical Perspective.” Science, Technology and Human Values 33:186200.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’.” Public Administration Review 19 (2):7988.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald. 2003. “An Equation and Its Worlds: Bricolage, Exemplars, Disunity and Performativity in Financial Economics.” Social Studies of Science 33:831868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald. 2006. An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald. 2007. “Is Economics Performative? Option Theory and the Construction of Derivatives Markets.” In Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics, edited by MacKenzie, Donald, Muniesa, Fabian, and Siu, Lucia, 5486. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mackett, Roger L. 1998. “Role of Travel Demand Models in Appraisal and Policy-Making.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 16 (2):9199.Google Scholar
Mäki, Uskali. 2009. “MISSing the World: Models as Isolations and Credible Surrogate Systems.” Erkenntnis 70 (1):2943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansnerus, Erika. 2012. “Understanding and Governing Public Health Risks by Modeling.” In Handbook of Risk Theory, edited by Roeser, Sabine, Hillerbrand, Rafaela, Sandin, Per and Peterson, Martin, 213237. London, New York, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1985. “Galilean Idealization.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16:247273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikes, Anette. 2009. “Risk Management and Calculative Cultures.” Management Accounting Research 20:1840.Google Scholar
Mikes, Anette. 2011. “From Counting Risk to Making Risk Count: Boundary-Work in Risk Management.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 36 (4–5):226245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Mary S., and Morrison, Margaret, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, Leszek. 1980. The Structure of Idealization: Towards a Systematic Interpretation of the Marxian Idea of Science. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nowak, Leszek. 1989. “On the (Idealizational) Structure of Economic Theories.” Erkenntnis 30:225246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, Arthur C. 2008. “The Practice of Climate Simulation and Its Social and Political Context.” Netherlands Journal of Geoscience 87 (3):219229.Google Scholar
Pickering, Andrew. 1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Shackley, Simon. 1998. “Introduction to Special Section on the Use of Models in Appraisal and Policy-Making. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 16 (2):8189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackley, Simon. 2001. “Epistemic Lifestyles in Climate Change Modeling.” In Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance, edited by Miller, Clark A. and Edwards, Paul N., 107133. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackley, Simon, Risbey, James, Stone, Peter, and Wynne, Brian. 1999. “Adjusting to Policy Expectations in Climate Change Modeling: An Interdisciplinary Study of Flux Adjustments in Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models.” Climatic Change 43:413454.Google Scholar
Smith, Ron. 1998. “Use of Quantitative Models in UK Economic Appraisal and Policy-Making.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 16 (2):105114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Charles W. 2011. “Coping with Contingencies in Equity Option Markets: The ‘Rationality’ of Pricing.” In The Worth of Goods: Valuation & Pricing in the Economy, edited by Beckert, Jens and Aspers, Patrik, 272294. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Star, Susan L., and Griesemer, James R.. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19:387420.Google Scholar
Suárez, Mauricio. 2003. “Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17:225244.Google Scholar
Suárez, Mauricio. 2004. “An Inferential Conception of Scientific Representation.” Philosophy of Science (Symposia) 71:767779.Google Scholar
Svetlova, Ekaterina. 2008. “Framing Complexity in Financial Markets: An Example of Portfolio Management.” Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 4 (2):115130.Google Scholar
Svetlova, Ekaterina. 2012. “On the Performative Power of Financial Models.” Economy and Society 41 (3):418434.Google Scholar
Svetlova, Ekaterina. 2013. “De-idealization by Commentary: The Case of Financial Valuation Models.” Synthese 190 (2):321337.Google Scholar
Van den Bogaard, Adrienne. 1999. “Past Measurement and Future Prediction.” In Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, edited by Morgan, Mary S. and Morrison, Margaret, 282325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks [u.a.]: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Weick, Karl E. 2001. Making Sense of the Organization. Malden/Oxford/Victoria MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weick, Karl E., and Sutcliffe, Kathleen M.. 2001. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar