Obtaining a PhD after twenty years as a professor? Frank Hartmann, professor in Business Economics, managed. To answer some fundamental questions about the uses of the social sciences, Hartmann looked for answers in philosophy.

After twenty years’ tenure as a professor, Frank Hartmann (57) got an itch to explore. The business economist -specialised in accounting- felt that it was time to try something new; more importantly: something different. ‘I became a professor at a relatively young age, at 32; that certainly played a part. A career in the sciences lasts a long time, and pensions are further and further away these days. That’s why I thought it would be nice to look for a different challenge.’

‘It can be very difficult to find something you really enjoy in the sciences. It may seem open-ended, but at a certain point you become specialised in a field, at which point you tend to stay in that field for a long time. You should make sure that your specialisation doesn’t devolve to a simple trick; that is a very real danger.’

That is why, in addition to his work as a professor in Accounting, Hartmann started a new PhD six years ago; this time, he opted for philosophy. Today marks the end of Hartmann’s PhD track. ‘I’ve always had some philosophical leanings; it’s been a hobby of mine for a long time. At some point, I realised I needed to take it seriously while time was still on my side. That is when I submitted my proposal to Marc Slors (professor of Philosophy of Mind, eds.), whose response was quite positive.’

Were you afraid of getting stuck, if you hadn’t done this new PhD track?

‘Honestly, yes. A good football player doesn’t switch to volleyball at the drop of a hat; they’ll stick to football. Recalibration and rejuvenation are very important to me.’

‘Additionally, I am quite critical of current developments in the social sciences. I had to do something with that. This thesis is a way for me to respond in a reasonably positive, constructive manner.’

What exactly are you critical of?

‘That’s a very in-depth subject; it concerns fundamental questions which I felt received insufficient attention in the various areas of research. I was quite dissatisfied with the state of empirical research, for example. Not just in my own field, but more broadly across the social sciences. I find a lot of current research pseudo-empirical.’

‘Some hypotheses and theories being tested are so simple and common as to be trivial. Using lots of numbers to do research and concluding that ‘our hypothesis is confirmed’. That is typical of the management- and social sciences, despite the fact that these should be foregone conclusions. To be honest, I found a lot of management science to be very trivial.

Could you give an example?

‘Do rewards encourage people to work harder? With that question the answer should be obvious: yes, otherwise it wouldn’t be much of a reward. If a reward makes people work less hard, then it’s not a reward. That turns it into more of a language philosophy issue; there’s a theory hidden in the word usage itself. That was one of my scientific frustrations.’

This must have been an unusual circumstance for Marc Slors, having a professor for a PhD candidate.

‘Yes, I think so too. Funnily enough, we’re practically the same age. We were both born in 1966; Marc is two months older than I am. In hindsight, I think it was very brave of him to agree to do this, because it’s a pretty big deal. Professors tend to be quite stubborn and harder to convince. That usually worked out fine, but there were one or two discussions that had him shaking his head. A younger PhD candidate is more flexible, more malleable.’

‘Professors tend to be quite stubborn’

‘But, at the same time I feel I was very receptive to new material. I took a lot of courses and even returned to the classroom.’

Your dissertation is about the limits of the social sciences in their exploration of human behaviour. Why is it so hard to make use of social scientific knowledge?

‘First of all, it is important to know that, when I talk about the social sciences, I mainly focus on the so-called ‘action sciences’: economics, psychology, and socio-cognitive neuroscience. These are sciences that focus on actions and behaviour, whose aim include influencing said behaviour. Through a greater understanding of human behaviour, the social scientist hopes to motivate people to improve their behaviour.’

‘At the same time, those sciences each have a separate image of humanity. The psychologist considers the human being to be a complex, emotional creature; the economist considers them to be rational; the neuroscientist mainly understands human actions through their related brain activity. This all begs the question: can these images coexist, or do they conflict with each other? I think it’s the latter.’

What does that mean, concretely speaking?

‘Let’s say you read the results of one of these studies; how does that help the average person? You could argue that it gives them something to keep in mind, but how? For example, an economist claims that research shows that people who act rationally tend to have higher interest rates on their investments. Someone reading that might go “I want higher interest rates, so I should act more rationally.” But how should they do that?’

‘Additionally, we’re making a lot of statements on behaviour based on what happens in the brain, but the brain is a part of the individual. One might think “did my brain cause this, or did I do it?” That’s an important theme in my thesis. If I had to explain my behaviour to others, could I use the brain? Nowadays there are a lot of people who ascribe all sorts of behaviour to their brain.’

Can you give examples?

‘There was a major case some twenty years ago. The financial director of a large American corporation, ENRON, was jailed for fraud. Now he’s out of prison, and he gives lectures. At a certain point in one of those lectures, he says “My brain told me I was doing the right thing.”‘

‘Obviously, the man blames his brain. His statement regarding his behaviour tried to absolve him of blame, and that happens quite often. You often hear people say “Sorry, I lost my head for a minute.” Mostly harmless, but it’s not scientifically accurate. This is also an important issue for accountants.’

Do you include people who use psychiatric diagnoses to explain their behaviour? ‘I can’t help being impulsive, I have ADHD brain’, for example?

‘That’s a good example, because nowhere in your brain does it say that you have ADHD; it’s a behavioural descriptor. To be more precise: it is a normative interpretation of “deviant” behaviour. You can imagine tribes of people living in the jungle where they wouldn’t diagnose people like that as deviant.”

‘Nowhere in your brain does it say that you have ADHD; it’s a behavioural descriptor’

‘Another example: say I bump into you with my car, and I try to excuse it, saying “Sorry, my brain was processing something else.” What am I even saying? Am I responsible, or aren’t I?’

‘What does it mean if I explain my behaviour to others, using scientific insights about myself? How can you reconcile those varying explanations? I find these issues very fascinating, even as an accountant.’

What use do you see for the social sciences?

‘I believe their usability is much more limited than we think. That’s an unpopular message, but I truly believe it.’

In psychology, for example, researchers look for new therapeutic methods to better help people. Isn’t that useful?

‘I think the success of many different therapies depends on paying attention to someone’s issues: listening to someone’s existential expressions and responding to them adequately and in a humane manner. But it is not self-evident that this is aided by everything empirical researchers claim to have discovered. I’m not saying it’s useless, that would be a bizarre statement. However, I feel that much of what we currently call science is very trivial.’

Now that you’ve finished your PhD, how do you reflect on the past six years?

‘I found it to be a fantastic journey, and I heartily recommend it to anyone with doubts about science. I think a long-term project, that allows you to go in-depth in a topic for a few years, can be very beneficial; even to people who may not realise it.’

‘But we must rid ourselves of the ‘publish or perish’ mindset. I feel that intellectuality is under pressure. If you choose an academic career, don’t hide behind small research with a experiment here or there. Try to build larger narratives. I think that’s something we’ve lost sight of in the social sciences.’

Translated by Jasper Pesch