|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Ikeuchi, Rio; Imai, Taisuke |
| 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. |
| Keywords: | open science, transparency, data sharing, computational reproducibility |
| Date: | 2026 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:297 |
| By: | Almeida, Patrícia Albergaria |
| Abstract: | Academic careers are commonly evaluated through temporal norms that privilege continuity, acceleration and cumulative output. Within such regimes, care-related non-linearity is often framed as interruption, absence or reduced productivity. This article develops a feminist conceptual analysis of care, time and academic value, drawing on care ethics, feminist epistemology and scholarship on academic labour, to challenge this deficit framing. Rather than asking only how care constrains academic participation, it examines how care-shaped trajectories expose the assumptions through which productivity becomes academic value. The article advances three arguments. First, it distinguishes care as relational ontology, social practice and epistemic orientation, arguing that care reshapes not only the conditions of academic work but also the forms of attention and knowledge-making it can sustain. Second, it conceptualises academic productivity as a temporal and epistemic value regime that shapes what kinds of knowledge become recognisable and institutionally valuable. Third, it introduces epistemic distance as a temporally produced condition through which assumptions of academic value become available for critique. The article contributes to feminist debates on academic labour by shifting analysis from participation to epistemic recognition, showing how care-related non-linearity reveals what academia is willing, or unable, to know under dominant productivity regimes. |
| Date: | 2026–05–13 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:9yxju_v1 |
| By: | Claudius Gräbner-Radkowitsch (Department of Plural Economics, Europe University Flensburg, Germany; Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria) |
| Abstract: | This chapter examines the coexistence of scholarly and advocacy “registers” within the pluralism-in-economics (PiE) movement and argues that distinguishing between them is both philosophically defensible and strategically necessary. The movement combines academic debates on pluralism, methodology, and epistemology with activist efforts aimed at institutional reform in economics. This dual structure creates two central challenges. The first, termed structural entanglement, refers to the unavoidable intertwining of epistemic and normative arguments in a policy-relevant discipline where the same actors move between scholarly and political roles. The second, epistemic capture, occurs when the authority of scholarly discourse is used to legitimize conclusions whose warrant is primarily normative. Rejecting both positivist claims of value-free science and relativist attempts to collapse the fact-value distinction, the chapter defends a middle position inspired by Veblen, Myrdal, feminist standpoint theory, and perspectival realism. This approach acknowledges the inevitability of value-ladenness in inquiry while maintaining the possibility of evaluating claims according to epistemic standards. Building on this framework, the chapter proposes a “perspectival adequacy assessment” based on procedural openness to criticism and cross-perspectival comparison. Empirically, the chapter discusses examples of blurred scholarly and advocacy functions within and around the PiE movement. As a constructive response, it advocates “register transparency” and a division of labor between scholarly and advocacy functions. The chapter concludes that preserving a distinction between epistemic and normative warrant is essential for maintaining the analytical credibility and transformative potential of pluralist economics. |
| Date: | 2026–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ico:wpaper:181 |
| By: | Pierre Boutros (Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, GREDEG, France); Michele Pezzoni (Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, GREDEG, France; Observatoire des Sciences et Techniques, HCERES, France); Lionel Nesta (Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, GREDEG, France; OFCE, Sciences Po, France; SKEMA Business School, France); Sonia Paty (Université Lumière Lyon 2, CNRS, Université Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne, emlyon business school, GATE (UMR 5824), Lyon, France) |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates the factors predicting the destination choice of mobile researchers. To do so, we use a unique dataset on researchers’ mobility between labs within the largest French public research organization from 2012 to 2022. We find that relational links, namely citation and co-authorship links between mobile researchers and destination lab members, are among the strongest predictors of researchers’ destination choices. Specifically, a citation link prior to mobility between a researcher and a lab is associated with a 3.7 percentage-point higher probability that the researcher chooses that lab as a destination, while a co-authorship link is associated with a 9.8 percentage-point higher probability. We argue that citation and co-authorship links are highly relevant because they serve as information channels to help address substantial information asymmetry between researchers and potential destination labs before mobility. We further find that citation links are better predictors of destination choice when the cognitive distance between the researcher and the lab is high, whereas co-authorship plays a stronger role when the cognitive distance is low. Finally, we find that other lab characteristics, such as the size, productivity, and funding availability, are less relevant to the destination choice. |
| Keywords: | Mobile researchers, Internal labor markets, Information asymmetry, Destination choice |
| JEL: | D83 J61 J24 |
| Date: | 2026–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:gre:wpaper:2026-14 |