IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/abg/anprac/v28y2024i21629.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discourse on the Method in Finance: Between Epistemological Dominance and Possible Resistance Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Pereira Alves de Abreu
  • Ana Paula Paes de Paula

Abstract

Objetive and Provocation: work in finance has historically had a great affinity with positivist and functionalist approaches, as well as alignment with utilitarian and neoliberal ideologies. The objective of this provocation is to reflect on the predominant epistemes in the field of finance, as well as the limitations of such approaches for the development of studies in the area, provoking about the emergence of a movement that has been establishing resistance strategies that can change the status quo of the finance field. Conclusion: bringing new epistemological and methodological approaches, in addition to pointing out more critical approaches and supportive, sustainable and cooperative alternatives to financial and economic issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Pereira Alves de Abreu & Ana Paula Paes de Paula, 2024. "Discourse on the Method in Finance: Between Epistemological Dominance and Possible Resistance Strategies," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 28(Vol. 28 N), pages 240007-2400.
    • Handle: RePEc:abg:anprac:v:28:y:2024:i:2:1629
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rac.anpad.org.br/index.php/rac/article/view/1629
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://rac.anpad.org.br/index.php/rac/article/view/1629/1988
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Toporowski, 2018. "Marx, Finance and Political Economy," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 416-427, July.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guo, Dongmei & Hu, Yi & Wang, Shouyang & Zhao, Lin, 2016. "Comparing risks with reference points: A stochastic dominance approach," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 105-116.
    2. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    3. Mayag, Brice & Bouyssou, Denis, 2020. "Necessary and possible interaction between criteria in a 2-additive Choquet integral model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 308-320.
    4. von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Hommel, Ulrich & Prokesch, Tobias & Wohlenberg, Holger, 2016. "Testing weighting approaches for forecasting in a Group Wisdom Support System environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4081-4094.
    5. Bradley, Ian, 2003. "The representative bettor, bet size, and prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 409-413, March.
    6. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:797-815 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Salmon, Timothy C. & Iachini, Michael, 2007. "Continuous ascending vs. pooled multiple unit auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 67-85, October.
    8. Lin, Hongcan & Saunders, David & Weng, Chengguo, 2017. "Optimal investment strategies for participating contracts," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 137-155.
    9. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    10. Matyska, Branka, 2021. "Salience, systemic risk and spectral risk measures as capital requirements," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    11. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    12. Michael R. CARTER & Alain de JANVRY & Elisabeth SADOULET & Alexandros SARRIS, 2014. "Index-based weather insurance for developing countries: A review of evidence and a set of propositions for up-scaling," Working Papers P111, FERDI.
    13. John Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2009. "Noise and bias in eliciting preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 213-235, December.
    14. Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2015. "Cooling Off in Negotiations: Does it Work?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(4), pages 565-588, December.
    15. Sangil Lee & Chris M. Glaze & Eric T. Bradlow & Joseph W. Kable, 2020. "Flexible Utility Function Approximation via Cubic Bezier Splines," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(3), pages 716-737, September.
    16. Haim Levy & Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2012. "Two Paradigms and Nobel Prizes in Economics: a Contradiction or Coexistence?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 18(2), pages 163-182, March.
    17. Macdonald, Bobbie & Vivalt, Eva, 2017. "Effective strategies for overcoming the naturalistic heuristic: Experimental evidence on consumer acceptance of “clean” meat," OSF Preprints ndtr2, Center for Open Science.
    18. Yam, Sheung Chi Phillip & Yang, Hailiang & Yuen, Fei Lung, 2016. "Optimal asset allocation: Risk and information uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 554-561.
    19. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Meikle, Sarah, 2016. "Uptake and usage of cost-reflective electricity pricing: Insights from psychology and behavioural economics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 455-467.
    20. Anna Conte & Peter G. Moffatt & Mary Riddel, 2015. "Heterogeneity in risk attitudes across domains: A bivariate random preference approach," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-10, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    21. Song, Jingjing & Bi, Xiuchun & Li, Rong & Zhang, Shuguang, 2017. "Optimal consumption and portfolio selection problems under loss aversion with downside consumption constraints," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 299(C), pages 80-94.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:abg:anprac:v:28:y:2024:i:2:1629. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Information Technology of ANPAD (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://anpad.org.br .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.