|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2006‒11‒25
nine papers chosen by Jonas Holmstrom Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | S. STREMERSCH; I. VERNIERS; C. VERHOEF |
| Abstract: | Why do some articles become building blocks for future scholars, while many others remain unnoticed? We aim to answer this question by contrasting, synthesizing and simultaneously testing three scientometric perspectives – universalism, social constructivism and presentation – on the influence of article and author characteristics on article citations. To do so, we study all articles published in a sample of five major journals in marketing from 1990 to 2002 that are central to the discipline. We count the number of citations each of these articles has received and regress this count on an extensive set of characteristics of the article (i.e. article quality, article domain, title length, the use of attention grabbers and expositional clarity), and the author (i.e. author visibility and author personal promotion). We find that the number of citations an article in the marketing discipline receives, depends upon “what one says” (quality and domain), on “who says it” (author visibility and personal promotion) and not so much on “how one says it” (title length, the use of attention grabbers, and expositional clarity). Our insights contribute to the marketing literature and are relevant to scientific stakeholders, such as the management of scientific journals and individual academic scholars, as they strive to maximize citations. They are also relevant to marketing practitioners. They inform practitioners on characteristics of the academic journals in marketing and their relevance to decisions they face. On the other hand, they also raise challenges towards making our journals accessible and relevant to marketing practitioners: (1) authors visible to academics are not necessarily visible to practitioners; (2) the readability of an article may hurt academic credibility and impact, while it may be instrumental in influencing practitioners; (3) it remains questionable whether articles that academics assess to be of high quality are also managerially relevant. |
| Keywords: | scientometrics, citation analysis, cite, referencing, impact. |
| Date: | 2006–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rug:rugwps:06/422&r=sog |
| By: | Monteiro, Henrique; Ferreira Lopes, Alexandra |
| Abstract: | In this work we compare the undergraduate Economics majors and their underlying structure in the top-ranked Economics departments of Europe and the United States. We identify the fundamental courses usually included in an Economics major by means of a cluster analysis. We further distinguish between those courses which are required and those which are usually offered as electives. We find striking differences between the USA and Europe, especially regarding the nature of the main electives offered. The insights from this comparative study could be especially useful for the ongoing restructuring of undergraduate Economics majors in some European countries caused by the Bologna Process. |
| Keywords: | Undergraduate Economics Major; Bologna Process; Cluster Analysis; United States; Europe. |
| JEL: | A12 A22 |
| Date: | 2006–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:771&r=sog |
| By: | Monteiro, Henrique; Ferreira Lopes, Alexandra |
| Abstract: | In this article we perform a comparative analysis of the study plans of Economics undergraduate degrees between Portugal and the best European institutions, for the school year 2004-2005. The analysis indicates a lower flexibility of Portuguese undergraduate courses, with a greater proportion of required disciplines and less electives offered. The study provides significant evidence on the essential courses to include in the study plans of future undergraduate Economics degrees in Portugal, with a reduced length of three years and about their required or optional nature. |
| Keywords: | Economics Education; Bologna Process; Study Plans' Flexibility; Portugal; Europe |
| JEL: | A12 A22 |
| Date: | 2005–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:770&r=sog |
| By: | Görling, Stefan |
| Abstract: | As triple-helix like research funding is growing in popularity, the need for evaluating the success of such programs is growing. During the last 30 years, a number of attempts have been made to assess whether certain technology funding has been successful or not. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of these attempts as well as suggest that we must look beyond simple valuemeters as patent creation rate in order to fully understand the process of technology transfer. |
| Keywords: | technology transfer, assessment, patent, innovation management |
| Date: | 2006–11–15 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhb:pinkwp:31&r=sog |
| By: | Klein, Daniel B. (George Mason University and Ratio Institute, Stockholm.); Stern, Charlotta (Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University) |
| Abstract: | ABSTRACT: In a recent Public Opinion Quarterly article “Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?,” John Zipp and Rudy Fenwick pit themselves against “right-wing activists and scholars,” citing our scholarship (Klein and Stern 2005a; Klein and Western 2005). Here we analyze Zipp and Fenwick’s characterization of our research and find it faulty in three important respects. We then turn to their “liberal v. conservative” findings and show they concord with our analysis. If one feels that it is a problem that humanities and social science faculty at four-year colleges and universities are vastly predominantly Democratic voters, mostly with what may called establishment-left or progressive views, then such concerns should not be allayed by Zipp and Fenwick’s article. <p> This Reply was submitted to Public Opinion Quarterly on October 16, 2006, except that the submission did not include the Summary and without Appendix 1 that appear here at the end of the paper. |
| Keywords: | - |
| Date: | 2006–10–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:sofiwp:2006_007&r=sog |
| By: | Donna K. Ginther; Shulamit Kahn |
| Abstract: | Many studies have shown that women are under-represented in tenured ranks in the sciences. We evaluate whether gender differences in the likelihood of obtaining a tenure track job, promotion to tenure, and promotion to full professor explain these facts using the 1973-2001 Survey of Doctorate Recipients. We find that women are less likely to take tenure track positions in science, but the gender gap is entirely explained by fertility decisions. We find that in science overall, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor after controlling for demographic, family, employer and productivity covariates and that in many cases, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor even without controlling for covariates. However, family characteristics have different impacts on women's and men's promotion probabilities. Single women do better at each stage than single men, although this might be due to selection. Children make it less likely that women in science will advance up the academic job ladder beyond their early post-doctorate years, while both marriage and children increase men's likelihood of advancing. |
| JEL: | J4 J71 |
| Date: | 2006–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:12691&r=sog |
| By: | Keith A. Bender; John S. Heywood |
| Abstract: | Using the Survey of Doctoral Recipients, the magnitude and consequences of job mismatch are estimated for Ph.D.s in science. Approximately one-sixth of academics and nearly one-half of nonacademics report some degree of mismatch. The influence of job mismatch is estimated for three job outcomes: earnings, job satisfaction and turnover. Surprisingly large and robust influences emerge. Mismatch is associated with substantially lower earnings, lower job satisfaction and a higher rate of turnover. These results persist across a variety of specifications and hold for both academics and nonacademics. Estimates of the determinants of mismatch indicate that older workers and those in rapidly changing disciplines are more likely to be mismatched and there is a suggestion that women are more likely to be mismatched. |
| JEL: | J24 J28 J44 |
| Date: | 2006–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:12693&r=sog |
| By: | Cyrus C. M. Mody |
| Abstract: | Longstanding debates about the role of the university in national culture and the global economy have entered a new phase in the past decade in most industrialized, and several industrializing, countries. One important focus of this debate is corporate involvement in academic scientific research. Proponents of the academic capitalism say that corporate involvement makes the university leaner, more agile, better able to respond to the needs of the day. Critics say that corporate involvement leaves society without the independent, critical voices traditionally lodged in universities. I argue that a science and technology studies perspective, using case studies of research communities, can push this debate in directions envisioned by neither proponents nor critics. I use the development and commercialization of the scanning tunneling microscope and the atomic force microscope as an example of how research communities continually redraw the line between corporate and academic institutions. |
| JEL: | N8 O17 O3 O31 O33 Z1 Z13 |
| Date: | 2006–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:12700&r=sog |
| By: | Baldini, Nicola |
| Abstract: | Starting from a review of more than 50 papers, this work will present a detailed overview of threats stemming from university patenting activity, then it will draw some policy implications and it will conclude with some suggestions for further research. |
| Keywords: | university patents; entrepreneurial university; open science; secrecy |
| JEL: | O31 |
| Date: | 2006–03–27 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:853&r=sog |