|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Maren Duvendack; Richard W. Palmer-Jones; W. Robert Reed (University of Canterbury) |
| Abstract: | This study reports on various aspects of replication research in economics. It includes (i) a brief history of data sharing and replication; (ii) the results of the authors’ survey administered to the editors of all 333 “Economics” journals listed in Web of Science in December 2013; (iii) an analysis of 155 replication studies that have been published in peer-reviewed economics journals from 1977-2014; (iv) a discussion of the future of replication research in economics, and (v) observations on how replications can be better integrated into research efforts to address problems associated with publication bias and other Type I error phenomena. |
| Keywords: | Replication, data sharing, publication bias |
| JEL: | A1 B4 |
| Date: | 2014–12–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cbt:econwp:14/26&r=sog |
| By: | Hervas Oliver,Jose Luis; Gonzalez,Gregorio; Caja,Pedro |
| Abstract: | The industrial district and cluster literature has generated an extraordinary quantity of articles, debates, and topics for discussion, and encompasses one of the most vibrant lines of research in the field of economics, geography, management and related disciplines. The literature, however, is fairly fragmented. In this paper, bibliometric methods are used to analyze cluster literature published between 1957 and 2014 in order to explore prospective research priorities through the method of bibliographic coupling. Beyond focusing on foundational works in the past, this approach shifts the focus away from the practice of analyzing co-citations and seminal contributions to one of looking at current and emerging trends in the literature. Using the ISI-Web of Knowledge (Web of Science) as a database, examination of two samples of 3,955 and 2,419 articles is made. Results reveal the existence of sub-fields of inquiry that are following their own particular research agendas, which remain distinct yet interconnected to one another. |
| Keywords: | cluster, industrial district, bibliometric analysis, Web of Science, bibliographic coupling |
| JEL: | R1 |
| Date: | 2014–11–27 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ing:wpaper:201409&r=sog |
| By: | Lutter, Mark; Schröder, Martin |
| Abstract: | Prior studies that try to explain who gets tenure and why remain inconclusive, especially on whether non-meritocratic factors influence who becomes a professor. On the basis of career and publication data of virtually all sociologists working in German sociology departments, we test how meritocratic factors (academic productivity) as well as non-meritocratic factors (ascription, symbolic, and social capital) influence the chances of getting a permanent professorship in sociology. Our findings show that getting tenure in sociology largely depends on scholarly output, as previous studies have shown. Improving on existing studies, however, we show specifically that each refereed journal article and each monograph increases a sociologist’s chance for tenure by 10 to 15 percent, while other publications affect one’s likelihood for tenure only marginally and in some cases even negatively. Regarding non-meritocratic factors, we show that network size and individual reputation matter, while international experience and the reputation of one’s university do not directly affect the likelihood of tenure. Women need on average 23 to 44 percent fewer publications than men to get their first permanent position as university professor. Thus, all else being equal, they are about 1.4 times more likely to get tenure than men. The article contributes to a better understanding of the role of meritocratic and non-meritocratic factors in achieving scarce and highly competitive job positions. |
| Abstract: | Bei der Frage, wer eine Professur bekommt, sind sich bisherige Studien insbesondere über den Einfluss nichtmeritokratischer Faktoren unschlüssig. Auf Basis von Lebenslauf- und Publikationsdaten fast aller an soziologischen Instituten in Deutschland beschäftigten Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen und Sozialwissenschaftlern testen wir, wie meritokratische (wissenschaftliche Produktivität) und nichtmeritokratische Faktoren (Askription, symbolisches und soziales Kapital) die Chance beeinflussen, auf eine Soziologieprofessur berufen zu werden. Es zeigt sich, dass eine Berufung vor allem von der Anzahl wissenschaftlicher Publikationen abhängt. Mit jedem referierten Zeitschriftenaufsatz und jeder Buchpublikation steigt die Chance auf eine Berufung um 10 bis 15 Prozent an, während andere Publikationsarten sie nur moderat oder sogar negativ beeinflussen. Unter den nicht-meritokratischen Faktoren zeigen sich insbesondere Netzwerkfaktoren wie auch individuelle Reputation als relevant. Internationale Erfahrung sowie das Prestige der Herkunftsinstitution weisen keine direkten Effekte auf. Frauen, so das weitere Ergebnis der Untersuchung, benötigen im Schnitt 23 bis 44 Prozent weniger Publikationen als Männer, um einen Erstruf zu erhalten. Unter sonst gleichen Faktoren liegt ihre Chance auf eine Professur um das 1,4-fache höher als die ihrer männlichen Kollegen. Insgesamt leistet die Studie einen Beitrag zur Beantwortung der Frage, wie und wie stark meritokratische und nichtmeritokratische Faktoren die Chancen auf sehr knappe, zugleich hoch kompetitive Berufspositionen beeinflussen. |
| Date: | 2014 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:mpifgd:1419&r=sog |
| By: | Paul David (Stanford University) |
| Abstract: | In most modern economies scientific and technological research activities are conducted in two distinct organizational modes: commercially oriented R&D based upon proprietary information, and noncommercial “open science.” When taken together and kept in proper balance, these form a complementary pair of institutionally differentiated sub-systems. Each can work to amplify and augment the productivity of the other, thereby spurring long-term economic growth and improvements of social welfare in knowledge driven societies. This paper considers the difference between historical origins of open science and its modern, critically important role in the allocation of research resources. The institutional structure of ‘The Republic of Open Science’ generally is less well understood and has less robust self-sustaining foundations than the familiar non-cooperative market mechanisms associated with proprietary R&D. Although they are better suited for the conduct of exploratory science, they also remain more vulnerable to damages from collateral effects of shifts in government policies, particularly those that impact their fiscal support and regulatory environments. After reviewing the several challenges that such policy actions during the 20th century’s closing decades had posed for continued effective collective explorations at the frontiers of scientific knowledge, the discussion examines the responses that those developments elicited from academic research communities. Those reactions to the threatened curtailment of timely access to data and technical information about new research methods and findings took the form of technical and organizational innovations designed to expand and enhance infrastructural protections for sustained open access in scientific and scholarly communications. They were practical, “bottom-up” initiatives to provide concrete, domain relevant tools and organizational routines whose adoption subsequently could be, and in the event were reinforced by “top-down” policy guidelines and regulatory steps by public funding agencies and international bodies. The non-politicized nature of that process, as well as its largely effective outcomes should be read (cautiously) as positive portents of the future vitality of the Republic of Open Science – and of those societies that recognize, protect and adequately support this remarkable social innovation. |
| Keywords: | science and technology policy, open science, new economics of science, evolution of institutions, patronage, asymmetric information, principal-agent problems, common agency contracting, social networks, ‘invisible colleges,’ scientific academies, intellectual property rights, anti-commons, contractual construction of commons |
| JEL: | D8 H4 O3 |
| Date: | 2014–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:sip:dpaper:13-037&r=sog |
| By: | Braga, Michela; Paccagnella, Marco; Pellizzari, Michele |
| Abstract: | This paper estimates the impact of college teaching on students' academic achievement and labor market outcomes using administrative data from Bocconi University matched with Italian tax records. The estimation exploits the random allocation of students to teachers in a fixed sequence of compulsory courses. We find that the academic and labor market returns of teachers are only mildly positively correlated and that the professors who are best at improving the academic achievement of their best students are not always also the ones who boost their earnings the most, especially for the least able students. |
| Keywords: | higher education; teacher quality |
| JEL: | I20 M55 |
| Date: | 2014–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:10283&r=sog |