Dear Mr. Popkov,
Thank you very much for your thoughful comment. I acknowledge that the critical question when proposing an inquiry for ‘proper observations’ in economics would be ‘what are proper observations?’. I am still working on clarifying the challenges and opportunities of using mixed-method methodology (MMM) in economic research. I, myself, believe that MMM doesn’t suit every purpose or every research aims and objectives. Instead, the selection of research methods should be based on the research problems, by asking what are the best available reseach tools to address that research problem, which could be either a theoretical or empirical issue. Therefore, it really depends on the merit of the case.
Regarding your comment, mentioning economic constructivism, and scientific progress, I think we talk from two different perspectives. My essay agues for a direction, which possibly brings economic research closer to social reality, rather than toward the scientific side. Bearing in mind that between positivism/empiricism and constructivism, we have a range of other philosophical paradigms/schools/positions. In this paper, I cited critical realism, which should be treated distinctively from constructivism. In my understanding, critical realism on the ond hand acknowledges the external being of social reality regardless of human minds, and at the same time, it emphasizes the significance of interpretation process and social construction.
And I agree with you that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ when we talk about philosophy. For me, philosophy is all about the logic of thinking. It’s OK for those considering the scientific path in economic research, we couldn’t deny the contribution of modelling and mathematics to economics. However, for those who want to investigate our surrounding social reality, to explore the economic and social phenomena in real world, I strongly recommend them to think differently, outside the traditional toolboxs of economics.