Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the current research approaches in asset management (AM), to evaluate some of the prevalent research methods in AM studies and to summarize the result into a building-block research that may provide design guidelines in AM studies. Design/methodology/approach AM publications were selected for this study using by online search engines and the publications were classified based on the appropriate research approaches. The results will be discussed and a suitable building-block research for AM studies will be constructed based on the identified research approaches. Findings The paper identifies, analyses and validates the research approaches found in a sample of online AM publications. The research-approaches and their associated methods will be discussed to develop understanding of the context of these approaches in AM research. Research limitations/implications The paper limits the study in publications within the AM field in the petroleum industry. However, the research methods that are presented covers the most common research methods found in publications. Thus, although the sample of publications may not represent the entire population, the same approach and result can be used in similar topics and conditions. Originality/value Researchers or practitioners can benefit from the building blocks of research to develop a research design for AM studies. Moreover, the paper also provides information on common research methods and data gathering techniques that can be used for similar studies.
Mechanism-based explanations are widely discussed in contemporary social science. A virtue of mechanism-based explanations is that they can tell us how social and psychological factors are related to each other and in addition provide explanatory depth. I will argue against an argument which contends that to describe underlying mechanisms at the individual level do not contribute to improve macro-explanations at the social level. However, the critics of the mechanism approach are right that under certain conditions there can be successful explanations without mentioning underlying mechanisms. Although the mechanism approach is a reductive strategy, it does not entail that the social sciences will lose their descriptively and explanatory autonomy. The debate about reductionism and explanation often take place at an abstract philosophical level, but it is argued that to what extent the mechanism approach will influence the autonomy of the social sciences is an empirical problem and cannot be decided a priori.
Russellian monism is any view that proposes that we cannot solve the mind-body problem because natural science cannot tell us about the aspects of physical reality that are necessary to know to explain consciousness. I argue that Russellian monism should be combined with the Heil-Martin theory about dispositions. However, this combination becomes a theory with some profound epistemic pessimistic consequences, namely that we cannot bridge the explanatory gap between physical and conscious states and that we cannot solve the other minds problem. However, this epistemic pessimism does not constitute an unacceptable kind of “mystery-mongering” because we can also find analogous results in the well-established sciences. This may make it easier to accept Russellian monism’s epistemic pessimism.
The "mechanism approach" to scientific explanation is to explain a phenomenon by showing how it is generated through the interactions among its constituents; that is, the explanation elucidates the internal causal structures of what is to be explained. The paper argues that the mechanism approach to explanation may function as a framework for constructing neuropsychoanalytic explanations. One important virtue of the mechanism approach is that it helps us see how different levels, such as the neuroscientific and psychoanalytic levels, are integrated with each other. It is argued that the mechanism approach does not entail reductionism or do away with meaning and understanding. Based on the preceding discussion, the paper touches briefly upon some challenges facing neuropsychoanalysis, such as its supposed clinical irrelevance, the relation between neuropsychoanalysis and psychology, and the future of psychoanalysis in view of the continuously growing knowledge about mind-brain processes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.