|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2006‒12‒09
five papers chosen by Jonas Holmstrom Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Stremersch, S.; Verniers, I.; Verhoef, P.C. (Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), RSM Erasmus University) |
| 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: | 2006–11–28 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:eureri:30009135&r=sog |
| By: | John F. Geweke (University of Iowa); Joel L. Horowitz (Northwestern University); M. Hashem Pesaran (CIMF, University of Cambridge and IZA Bonn) |
| Abstract: | As a unified discipline, econometrics is still relatively young and has been transforming and expanding very rapidly over the past few decades. Major advances have taken place in the analysis of cross sectional data by means of semi-parametric and non-parametric techniques. Heterogeneity of economic relations across individuals, firms and industries is increasingly acknowledged and attempts have been made to take them into account either by integrating out their effects or by modeling the sources of heterogeneity when suitable panel data exists. The counterfactual considerations that underlie policy analysis and treatment evaluation have been given a more satisfactory foundation. New time series econometric techniques have been developed and employed extensively in the areas of macroeconometrics and finance. Non-linear econometric techniques are used increasingly in the analysis of cross section and time series observations. Applications of Bayesian techniques to econometric problems have been given new impetus largely thanks to advances in computer power and computational techniques. The use of Bayesian techniques have in turn provided the investigators with a unifying framework where the tasks of forecasting, decision making, model evaluation and learning can be considered as parts of the same interactive and iterative process; thus paving the way for establishing the foundation of "real time econometrics". This paper attempts to provide an overview of some of these developments. |
| Keywords: | history of econometrics, microeconometrics, macroeconometrics, Bayesian econometrics, nonparametric and semi-parametric analysis |
| JEL: | C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 |
| Date: | 2006–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp2458&r=sog |
| By: | Madeleine Akrich (CSI - Centre de sociologie de l'innovation - [CNRS : UMR7120] - [Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris]); Riel Miller (DTI - Danish Technology Institute - [Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation]) |
| Abstract: | This text is a draft version of the synthesis report based on the work of the High Level Expert Group on the Future of <br />Research Actors (RA) in the European Research Area (ERA). This group was set up by the Technology Foresight Group, DG Research, European Commision. Many of the conclusions of this synthesis report are fully consistent with the directions of <br />current research policies. The work of the group highlights the importance of <br />efforts, already well underway, to reinforce the functioning of the ERA as an integrated base <br />that overcomes a wide range of geographic, institutional and disciplinary barriers to the both <br />the competition and sharing of knowledge. Knitting together the different European research <br />actors into a more transparent and diversified whole would seem to be one of the best ways <br />to create a stronger platform for knowledge creation and diffusion. A less anticipated <br />conclusion, and less part of the existing consensus, is that simply pursuing the ambition of <br />multiplying the number of effective research platforms in Europe may miss a key part of <br />tomorrow's research agenda. The in-depth expert papers on the eight different research <br />actors of the ERA, the insights arising from the synthesis developed in this paper, and the <br />analytical results of a rare scenario pooling exercise, all point very clearly to the risk that <br />current policies are excessively technology centric and may miss crucial emerging attributes <br />of research and research actors in the knowledge society. Thus, over and above the value- <br />added for assessing the direction and implementation of current approaches to improving the <br />production and use of research in Europe, this report recommends new policies aimed at <br />accelerating the development of emergent forms and sources of research. The policy <br />message is that Europe must move beyond industrial-era challenges to embrace those of the <br />knowledge society. <br />Further opening, expanding and integrating the European Research Area requires: <br />1) Policies that put into practice expanded criteria for designing and funding research <br />programmes for the European Research Area to include user-centred technological, <br />organisational and social innovation. <br />2) Policies that initiate experiments that validate (quality/trust/transparency) new forms and <br />producers (including individual independent researchers) of knowledge. <br />3) Policies, both budgetary and regulatory, that create and facilitate both new collaborative <br />environments for research, including user-centred research, and new governance <br />processes.<br />4) Policies to enhance the capacity of policy makers (including at the regional level) to <br />recognise and facilitate new forms of research and particularly new approaches to the <br />governance of research processes. <br />5) Policies to abolish national borders for researchers and for students both within Europe <br />and outside Europe. <br />6) Policies to strengthen the autonomy of universities, including areas so far strictly <br />controlled by most governments such as a university's strategic profile and selection of <br />specialisations. <br />7) Further research is required regarding the relationship between the changing nature of <br />research and intellectual property rights (IPR). <br />8) Further research is required regarding the functional division of labour amongst different <br />research actors in the context of the emerging “open innovation model”. <br />9) Further research is required in order to describe and analyse the contribution of civil <br />society to research and innovation. <br />10) Further research is required on how to establish trust in highly complex and diversified <br />knowledge societies. <br />11) Further research is required to define and measure new forms of innovation, particularly <br />with respect to the innovation related research occurring in the service sector, SMEs and <br />the community (social innovation) that point towards new models of innovation. |
| Keywords: | RESEARCH ORGANIZATION; UNIVERSITIES; CIVIL SOCIETY; MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES; SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES; NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS; REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS; RESEARCH POLICIES; RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS; FORESIGHT; EUROPE |
| Date: | 2006–11–27 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:papers:halshs-00116775_v1&r=sog |
| By: | Arnaud Chevalier (Royal Holloway University of London, London School of Economics, University College Dublin and IZA Bonn); Joanne Lindley (University of Sheffield) |
| Abstract: | During the early Nineties the proportion of UK graduates doubled over a very short period of time. This paper investigates the effect of the expansion on early labour market attainment, focusing on over-education. We define over-education by combining occupation codes and a self-reported measure for the appropriateness of the match between qualification and the job. We therefore define three groups of graduates: matched, apparently over-educated and genuinely over-educated; to compare pre- and post-expansion cohorts of graduates. We find the proportion of over-educated graduates has doubled, even though over-education wage penalties have remained stable. This suggests that the labour market accommodated most of the large expansion of university graduates. Apparently over-educated graduates are mostly undistinguishable from matched graduates, while genuinely over-educated graduates principally lack non-academic skills such as management and leadership. Additionally, genuine over-education increases unemployment by three months but has no impact of the number of jobs held. Individual unobserved heterogeneity differs between the three groups of graduates but controlling for it, does not alter these conclusions. |
| Keywords: | over-education, skills |
| JEL: | J24 J31 I2 |
| Date: | 2006–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp2442&r=sog |
| By: | Leslie S. Stratton (Virginia Commonwealth University and IZA Bonn); James N. Wetzel (Virginia Commonwealth University) |
| Abstract: | The Student Right-to-Know Act requires colleges to provide institution-specific information on graduation rates for students initially enrolling full-time in the fall term. Not all students, however, initially enroll full-time or in the fall term. We use longitudinal data on academic, degree-seeking students from the 1996/2001 Beginning Post-Secondary Survey to identify those students for whom statistics are and are not reported under the Act and to track their relative progress at two- and four-year institutions. We also examine the intra-institution correlation between reported and unreported students’ progress to determine if the published statistics will at least allow relative comparisons. Our results indicate that the published progress rates are substantially higher than the progress rates for the unreported populations. Furthermore, while these rates are relatively comprehensive for and comparable across four-year institutions, they are neither for two-year institutions. Policy makers and prospective students will not make efficient decisions using such unreliable information. |
| Keywords: | efficiency, resource allocation, graduation |
| JEL: | I28 |
| Date: | 2006–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp2448&r=sog |