Aleksandar Kešeljević


Purpose. This article highlights the notion that methodological normativism of the neoclassical school has consolidated its monopoly position within economics, and significantly reduces our social reality by understanding the economic system as a closed system. The author aims to show that such a misleading picture of the world leads to one single best epistemology, theory, methodology and educational system within economics.

Design/Methodology/Approach. The author explains complaints against such an approach in terms of five different kinds of interrelated and interdependent pluralisms. The comparative and documentary methods ensure maximum openness with regard to the collection of theoretical and empirical papers. The qualitative analysis of “pro et contra” debate is based on a questionnaire completed by students.

Findings. The author believes that understanding different types of pluralism and their interconnectedness is the most appropriate approach to inquiry and teaching in economics. Epistemological pluralism logically follows from ontological by allowing a relatively separate system of paradigms to co-exist as a necessary counterpart to the plurality of the social world. In debates, the author strives for a limited range of complementary theoretical approaches with meaningful methodological standards in order for students to obtain a more anthropocentric and less dogmatic view of the world.

Originality. There have been few attempts to show deeper interdependence among various types of pluralism. The current study addresses this gap in the literature. The testimonials of students show the usefulness of “pro et contra” debate in introducing and promoting more pluralism into the educational process.