|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Imai, Taisuke (Osaka University); Toussaert, Séverine (University of Oxford); Baillon, Aurélien (EMLYON Business School); Dreber Almenberg, Anna (Stockholm School of Economics); Ertaç, Seda (Koc University); Johannesson, Magnus (Stockholm School of Economics); Neyse, Levent (DIW Berlin); Villeval, Marie Claire (CNRS) |
| Abstract: | The open science movement has gained significant momentum over the past decade, with pre-registration and the use of pre-analysis plans being central to ongoing debates. Combining observational evidence on trends in adoption with survey data from 519 researchers, this study examines the adoption of pre-registration in experimental economics. Pooling statistics from 19 leading journals published between 2017 and 2023, we observe that the number of papers containing a pre-registration grew from seven per year to 190 per year. Our findings indicate that pre-registration has now become mainstream in experimental economics, with two-thirds of respondents expressing favorable views and 86% having pre-registered at least one study. However, opinions are divided on the scope and comprehensiveness of pre-registration, highlighting the need for clearer guidelines. Researchers assign a credibility premium to pre-registered tests, although the exact channels remain to be understood. Our results suggest growing support for open science practices among experimental economists, with demand for professional associations to guide researchers and reviewers on best practices for pre-registration and other open science initiatives. |
| Keywords: | pre-registration, pre-analysis plans, experimental economics, open science |
| JEL: | A14 C12 C18 C80 C90 I23 |
| Date: | 2025–04 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17821 |
| By: | Hochleitner, Anna (Norwegian School of Economics at Bergen (NHH)); Tufano, Fabio (University of Leicester); Facchini, Giovanni (University of Nottingham); Rueda, Valeria (University of Nottingham); Eberhardt, Markus (University of Nottingham) |
| Abstract: | We study the gendered impact of recommendations at different stages of the hiring process. First, using a large sample of reference letters from the academic job market for economists, we document that women receive fewer `ability' and more `grindstone' letters. Next, we conduct two experiments --- with academic economists and a broader, college-educated, population ---analyzing both recommendation and recruitment stages. These confirm that recommendations are gendered and impact recruitment. We elicit gender views and beliefs about the effectiveness of different letter types, uncovering that gender attitudes and strategic behavior based on erroneous beliefs explain referees’ choices. Finally, we decompose gender recruitment gaps into two components: one capturing differences in treatment of candidates with identical qualities, the other reflecting recruiters’ failure to account for gendered patterns in recommendations. We show that recruiters' failure to recognize the gendered nature of reference letters undermines visible efforts to improve diversity in hiring. |
| Keywords: | gender, recruitment, diversity, experiments |
| JEL: | J16 A11 D9 |
| Date: | 2025–03 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17813 |
| By: | Antman, Francisca M. (University of Colorado, Boulder); Qu, Sheng (University of Colorado, Boulder); Weinberg, Bruce A. (Ohio State University); Logan, Trevon D. (Ohio State University) |
| Abstract: | We conduct a long-run evaluation of one of the oldest professional mentoring programs for underrepresented groups in economics, the American Economic Association Mentoring Program (AEAMP). The AEAMP was established to address the underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority groups by mentoring doctoral students and new Ph.D.s in economics. We compare professional outcomes of mentees with similar individuals from the same Ph.D. cohort who did not participate in the program. While there are no differences for many outcomes, mentees are more likely to hold a tenure-track or tenured position. Our results point to the potential for mentoring programs to address persistent racial/ethnic disparities. |
| Keywords: | mentoring, underrepresented minority groups |
| JEL: | J15 I23 |
| Date: | 2025–04 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17829 |
| By: | Marc Diederichs (ROCKWOOL Foudation Berlin); Joshua Angrist (MIT) |
| 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 attributes 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. |
| Date: | 2025–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:crm:wpaper:2501 |
| By: | Margaret Samahita (Department of Economics and Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin); Martina Zanella (Department of Economics, Trinity College Dublin) |
| Abstract: | This paper examines the gender influence gap in an academic setting, focusing on the Irish Economic Association (IEA) Conference review process. Using data from 2017 to 2023, we analyze whether organizers follow the recommendations of male and female reviewers equally and whether any difference can be attributed to a gender gap in the confidence of reviewers. Our findings reveal that organizers' decisions more closely align with male reviewers', particularly when the reviewer's confidence is high and when they have experience in the profession. The influence gap cannot be explained by female reviewers being less confident than males, which is the traditional explanation in the literature. Contrary to expectations, female reviewers report higher confidence than males. We explore potential mechanisms and find suggestive evidence that female reviewers strategically overstate their confidence in anticipation of discriminatory treatment by organizers. |
| Keywords: | discrimination; confidence; economics; strategic response |
| JEL: | J16 A14 D91 |
| Date: | 2025–04 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tcd:tcduee:tep0325 |