|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Rio Ikeuchi; Taisuke Imai |
| Abstract: | Public sharing of data and analysis code enables independent verification of published findings, yet systematic evidence on such sharing in sociology remains scarce, even as audits have been conducted in psychology, economics, and political science. We examine 730 empirical articles published between January 2019 and June 2024 in three leading general-interest journals: American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, and Social Forces. For each article, we record whether a publicly accessible replication package is provided, and for those that share materials, we attempt to computationally reproduce the main-text tables and figures. Across the sample, 9.9% of articles provide replication packages, with substantial variation across journals (5.2% to 22.9%) and research types (0% for qualitative studies, 30% for experiments). These rates fall well below those reported for political science and economics. Among 72 packages examined in detail, more than half cannot be verified due to missing or incomplete materials. At the same time, no article is wholly non-reproducible, and 22% are fully or largely reproducible. Sociology is not unusually prone to errors when materials are shared and runnable—it simply shares them far less often. We discuss implications for journal policies and for transparency standards that reflect the field’s methodological diversity. |
| Date: | 2026–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1312 |
| By: | Etheridge, Mollie; Smih, Molly; Abel, Lara; Hampton, Jessica; Ciampi, Luisa; Beggs, Allison; Tal-Perry, Noam (University of Oxford); Birkett, ARRC - Debbie; Collier, Marie; Dawson, Katherine M. |
| Abstract: | Across European research systems, there is growing policy interest in improving what has come to be known as research culture. While poor research culture, particularly that experienced by postdoctoral researchers, has been linked to negative wellbeing outcomes, bullying and overwork, there remains limited clarity around what “good” research culture is, how it is experienced and how it is produced. In this article, we explore how postdocs define and conceptualise contributions to “good” research culture by reviewing postdoc nominations of their principal investigators (PI) or research group to a celebratory event for good practice. Inductive analysis of nomination and interview data suggest that “good” research culture and supervision taps into affective, relational and structural dimensions, with postdocs reporting how they value feeling safe, respected and as though their PI has accepted some responsibility for their career development and prospects. Interviews with the nominated PIs also highlight the challenges they experience in balancing the needs of their postdocs with the parameters for academic success and progression set by institutions and the structures of project-based work. By identifying how value systems that prioritise competition can define researcher priorities, expectations and the identification of what feels good, the paper contributes to debates around policy and theory, and highlights the difficulties associated with evaluating “good” research “culture” to raise questions about the direction and implementation of research culture initiatives. |
| Date: | 2026–05–07 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:h7yzv_v1 |