|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Ran Abramitzky; Lena Greska; Santiago Pérez; Joseph Price; Carlo Schwarz; Fabian Waldinger; Carlo Rasmus Schwarz |
| Abstract: | We explore how socio-economic background shapes academia, collecting the largest dataset of U.S. academics’ backgrounds and research output. Individuals from poorer backgrounds have been severely underrepresented for seven decades, especially in humanities and elite universities. Father’s occupation predicts professors’ discipline choice and, thus, the direction of research. While we find no differences in the average number of publications, academics from poorer backgrounds are both more likely to not publish and to have outstanding publication records. Academics from poorer backgrounds introduce more novel scientific concepts, but are less likely to receive recognition, as measured by citations, Nobel Prize nominations, and awards. |
| Keywords: | academics, socio-economic background, science, U.S. census |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11577 |
| By: | Hurlin, Christophe (University of Orleans); Colliard, Jean-Edouard (HEC Paris); Pérignon, Christophe (HEC Paris) |
| Abstract: | We investigate why economics displays a relatively low level of computational reproducibility. We first study the benefits and costs of reproducibility for readers, authors, and academic journals. Second, we show that the equilibrium level of reproducibility may be suboptimally low due to three market failures: a competitive bottleneck effect due to the competition among journals to attract authors, the public good dimension of reproducibility, and the positive externalities of reproducibility outside academia. Third, we discuss different policies to address these market failures and move out of a low reproducibility equilibrium. In particular, we show that coordination among journals could reduce by half the cost of verifying the reproducibility of accepted papers. |
| Keywords: | research reproducibility; trust in science; peer-review process; confidential data |
| JEL: | C80 |
| Date: | 2024–04–24 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ebg:heccah:1521 |
| By: | Joshua Angrist; Marc Diederichs |
| Abstract: | Elite economics PhD programs aim to train graduate students for a lifetime of academic research. This paper asks how advising affects graduate students’ post-PhD research productivity. Advising is highly concentrated: at the eight highly-selective schools in our study, a minority of advisors do most of the advising work. We quantify advisor characteristics such as an advisor’s own research output and aspects of the advising relationship like coauthoring and research field affinity that might contribute to student research success. Students advised by research-active, prolific advisors tend to publish more, while coauthoring has no effect. Student-advisor research affinity also predicts student success. But a school-level aggregate production function provides much weaker evidence of causal effects, suggesting that successful advisors attract students likely to succeed–without necessarily boosting their students’ chances of success. Evidence for causal effects is strongest for a measure of advisors’ own research output. Aggregate student research output appears to scale linearly with graduate student enrollment, with no evidence of negative class-size effects. An analysis of gender differences in research output shows male and female graduate students to be equally productive in the first few years post-PhD, but female productivity peaks sooner than male productivity. |
| JEL: | A2 A20 A23 I21 I23 |
| Date: | 2024–12 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:33281 |
| By: | John List |
| Abstract: | AEA Presentation 2025. |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:feb:artefa:00800 |