Two articles contributing to the experimental research about incomplete contracts are analyzed in this paper. Especially interesting is their use of the terms 'firms' and 'workers', although the experiments were performed on students only given information that they were participating in general market experiments. A framework based on Mki (2004) is used both to emphasize what we aim to explain, and by which we explain. Also the concepts of internal and external validity are important. By showing that the articles refer to an external validity which they are not capable of achieving at this moment, their use of 'firms' and 'workers' is found to be questionable. But the two articles are still good examples of experimental research about incomplete contracts.

The Stern Review, Stern (2007), received a lot of attention upon its release. It also resulted in an intense and interesting debate within climate change economics. One of the central issues has been the question of the appropriate discount rate to use and more generally the proper role of ethics in an economic analysis of this kind. Some have argued against incorporating ethical considerations at all, while others argue that Stern did not involve ethics enough. There are also those who question whether Stern provided an economic analysis at all. This paper analyzes Stern (2007) and the surrounding debate from a methodological point of view. Basically three conclusions are reached. First, Stern involves a number of different kinds of interdisciplinarity based on the Mäki (2007) characterization of interdisciplinarity. Second, the interaction of economics and ethics is unavoidable within climate change research. Third, Stern uses a modified version of the standard economic approach to climate change and the deviations are well motivated (i.e. it is still a valuable economic analysis).