In this paper, the authors formulate an interdisciplinary referential framework. Their main interest is related to the epistemological complexity of the economic research methodology in explaining the meaning of socio-economic consequences of globalization and transition. The paper shows that all the terms used in social sciences are changeable social constructions rather than forever defined givenness. Terms are social products and their meanings are changed in symbolic and other forms of interaction among people and communities. The root of economics is a rational individual (homo oeconomicus) that strives to maximize one's personal gains. However, that is not enough. The aim is to show that research hypotheses cannot be replacements for theories and values, such asa body cannot be a replacement for spirituality. Research perspectives should be thoroughly, not superficially presented and explained in the light of "small details" that do not fit into the dominant story or discourse. Facts, events, and phenomena must be presented in their relation to other facts, events, and phenomena. Facts mean nothing outside reflectively and critically mediated knowledge and specific context. A popular method of data collection or attitude research, by means of a public opinion survey, may become absurd if one day, under the influence of the social media and poor education, most subjects lose their ability of balanced thinking and judgment. Hypothetically speaking, this is possible. The aim of the paper is to show the tendencies for minimizing the importance of theoretical work and of book reading and eliminating thoughtful studying from lectures and research process, all in the name of "pleasure" or in the name of creating the global knowledge society. We argue in favour of phronetic interdisciplinary research that might contribute to responsible dialogue and practice of rethinking these tendencies, which is the most important result of this paper.
