|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2006‒01‒24
five papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Alexander Harin (Modern University for the Humanities) |
| Abstract: | This is a paper in honor of EconWPA and of those who have supported it. The role of EconWPA in creating and developing the feasible future scientific revolution in one or more fields of economic theory is reviewed. |
| Keywords: | scientific revolution, scientific evolution, bank, market, industry, development, investment, risk |
| JEL: | C D E G C7 D81 |
| Date: | 2005–12–31 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wpa:wuwpmh:0512003&r=sog |
| By: | Almunia, Miguel; Dolado, Juan José; Felgueroso, Florentino |
| Abstract: | This paper describes the gender distribution of research fields chosen by the faculty members in the top 50 Economics departments, according to the rankings available on the Econphd.net website. We document that women are unevenly distributed across fields and test some behavioural implications from theories underlying such disparities. Our main findings are that the probability that a woman chooses a given field is positively related to the share of women in that field (path-dependence), and that the share of women in a field at a given department increases with the sizes of the department and field, while it decreases with their average quality. However, these patterns seem to be changing for younger female faculty members. Further, by using Ph.D. cohorts, we document how gender segregation across fields has evolved over the last four decades. |
| Keywords: | gender segregation; men and women economists; path dependence; research fields; tobit and probit models |
| JEL: | A11 J16 J70 |
| Date: | 2005–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:5421&r=sog |
| By: | Marcos Gallacher |
| Abstract: | This paper discussed advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of "admission tests" as predictors of performance in undergraduate studies programs. The paper analyzes performance of economics and business administration students. This performance is linked to admission tests results. The paper also analyzes aspects of performance related to (i) differential progress through time, and (ii) differences in the extent to which students have "areas of interest/ability". The paper concludes that admission tests are a usefull tool even when predictions derived from them are far from perfect. |
| JEL: | I2 J24 |
| Date: | 2005–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cem:doctra:312&r=sog |
| By: | Fullerton, Don; Stavins, Robert |
| Abstract: | On a topic like the environment, communication among scholars from different disciplines in the natural and social sciences is both important and difficult, but such communication has been far from perfect. Economists themselves may have contributed to some rather fundamental misunderstandings about how economists think about the environment, perhaps through our enthusiasm for market solutions, perhaps by neglecting to make explicit all of the necessary qualifications, and perhaps simply by the use of jargon that has specific meaning only to other economists. In this brief essay, we seek to clarify some of these misunderstandings and thus to improve future interdisciplinary communication. We hope that natural scientists and other non-economists will take economic analysis and prescriptions more seriously when they see tempered enthusiasm, explicit qualifications, and better definitions. Our method is to posit a series of prevalent "myths" regarding how economists think about the natural environment. We then explain how each myth might have originated from statements by economists that were meant to summarize a more qualified analysis. In this way, we hope to explain how economists really do think about the natural environment. |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-98-29&r=sog |
| By: | Philippe JEANNIN (LEREPS-GRES); Mathilde BOUTHORS (Collège de France, Paris) |
| Abstract: | This contribution aims at coming up with serious grounds for an evaluation of French research published in scientific journals in the field of Education Science. A reliable method consists in criss-crossing the various databases which play an authoritative part – those of the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) and others -, in listing the titles of journals they retrieve, and in asking the scientific community what its position is. Hence the scientificity of a journal: a journal is scientific when considered as such by the scientists of its community. In this contribution, a case study is built in Education Science. Some major journals are studied and some conclusions raised. |
| Keywords: | Educational Research, Evaluation, France, Psychology, Sociology, Sociology of Science, Scientific Journals, Scientometrics |
| JEL: | A14 I20 N34 |
| Date: | 2006 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:grs:wpegrs:2006-04&r=sog |