|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Eberhardt, Markus (University of Nottingham); Facchini, Giovanni (University of Nottingham); Rueda, Valeria (University of Nottingham) |
| Abstract: | Is the top of the economics profession becoming more insular? We study the placement of top PhD graduates over the past quarter-century matching them to their advisors. Three trends point towards greater openness: graduates increasingly place outside academia, outside the US, and into a tech sector recruiting broadly across gender, ethnicity, and program prestige. The disaggregated picture is less reassuring: the Emerging South is largely sidelined in the global job market, East Asians face persistent gaps in top academic placement, and elite advisors continue to confer substantial advantages within academia. Tech placement, meanwhile, is dominated by a single employer. |
| Keywords: | gender, ethnicity, diversity, economics, job market |
| JEL: | J16 A11 D9 |
| Date: | 2026–08 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp18868 |
| By: | Breznau, Nate (German Institute for Adult Education) |
| Abstract: | Empirical research produces findings that are influenced by the preferences of the researchers. Researchers choose their research question, how they collect or manipulate data and which models they employ. Every decision is an opportunity for a researcher’s preferences to enter the research production function. Recent ‘many analysts’ studies shed light on this phenomenon whereby researchers given the same data to test the same hypothesis arrive at different results. This chapter reviews types of bias in the research process stemming from researchers’ preferences. For example, desires, prior worldviews, motives, ideologies and learned behaviors can all influence the rational pursuit of knowledge. Some preferences are incentivized in the competitive academic market for science others stem from political motives. The process is complex as different preferences can interact with one another in the research process. The chapter concludes with recommendations for consumers of research findings and institutions of science. |
| Date: | 2026–08–11 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:metaar:7rcn2_v1 |
| By: | Lorenzo Cappellari; Tommaso Colussi; Marco Ovidi |
| Abstract: | We study how committee dynamics affect the recognition of academic excellence and its consequences in the labour market. Using administrative records from a major Italian university and exploiting exogenous variation in the gender composition of graduation committees, we show that equally prepared female graduates are significantly less likely to receive laude honors when evaluated by male-majority committees, while males are unaffected. The effect is concentrated among students advised by female or early-career faculty and disappears when a woman chairs the committee, pointing to the role of authority and influence in deliberations. We show pre-defense gender gaps in adivsors' official laude requests in male-majority committees, consistent with nominations responding to expected committee support. Gaps in academic distinction translate into meaningful entry-wage penalties, contributing to gender gaps at labor-market entry. |
| Keywords: | Gender bias, academic evaluation, labor market outcomes |
| JEL: | J16 I23 J24 |
| Date: | 2026–07 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:crm:wpaper:26194 |
| By: | Animesh Ray |
| Abstract: | Economic stability and progress in modern technological societies depend on vigorous and independent public funding of science and engineering research. When peer review or funding decisions are perceived as politically directed, scientists, funding agencies, and the public react in coupled and conflicting ways. We an evolutionary game-theoretic model to analyze how perceived political interference in science funding affects the interrelated behaviors of scientists, funding agencies, and the public. The model simulates scientists choosing to refuse peer reviews and retaliate, agencies responding by adopting AI-assisted review and altering reviewer pay, and the public accepting or rejecting these AI systems. Through numerical simulations, five principal findings are identified: (1) Operational capacity and institutional legitimacy are governed by separate conditions and can fail independently. (2) Legitimacy of the process is bistable, meaning final states are determined by the public's acceptance of AI. (3) Since the career cost for researchers refusing to review is generally low, resistance/retaliation cascades can readily ignite, leading identical institutions to entirely opposite fates. (4) Increasing reviewer pay only stabilizes participation within a strict budget-solvency frontier, and emergency pay can paradoxically erode the legitimacy it aims to protect. (5) Finally, finite-population simulations reveal that baseline scenarios partition into either legitimacy recovery without capacity or joint failure, confirming that the fundamental separation of capacity and legitimacy outcomes is a dominant structural feature driven primarily by initial scientific resistance and politicization levels. This theoretical work quantifies issues for future work in science policy. |
| Date: | 2026–07 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2607.26091 |
| By: | Eizmendi-Iraola, Maider; Peña-Fernández, Simón (University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)) |
| Abstract: | Public communication of science has become a central component in the relationship between science and society. However, the media exposure of research staff has given rise to new forms of hostility, especially in digital environments. The study Experiences of researchers who interact with the media and social networks in Spain [Science Media Centre Spain, 2024] investigates — via a survey (N=237) — the incidence and typology of these attacks in the Spanish context. More than half of the research staff (51.05%) reported experiencing negative incidents, with a higher prevalence among women (56.9%) than men (46.2%). The attacks differ by gender: women face more challenges regarding their scientific capacity and sexist remarks, whereas men are more frequently targeted over their professional integrity. These dynamics reveal structural gender biases that affect the wellbeing and legitimacy of female scientists, emphasising the need for institutional policies with a gender perspective. |
| Date: | 2026–07–07 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:uzs7h_v1 |
| By: | Rhodes, Stan (Colorado State University); Crabtree, Stefani; Freeman, Jacob |
| Abstract: | Social science does not use the word hierarchy consistently. The term may be used to describe qualitatively different social relations and systems such as rank and prestige, nested organizational structures, and top-down control structures; placing all of these meanings under one term causes misunderstandings and misinterpretations. We use a computer-aided systematic quantitative literature review to identify social science papers that define hierarchy, then analyze that set of definitions (n = 1, 121) to identify whether they fall within a pre-existing control-nest-rank ontology of hierarchy or some other type. We find that the control-nest-rank typology provides valid coverage for definitions of hierarchy across the social sciences, but is better seen as three different dimensions of hierarchical structure. Few definitions (1%) lay outside these dimensions—mostly network measures. We also find that in most fields the majority of definitions of hierarchy are unclear, obscuring what authors are emphasizing and leaving uncertain foundations for further inquiries. Nearly all the definitions of hierarchy we extracted referred to one or more distinct dimensions of social relationship—rank, nested, or control relations—that have specific meanings. Analysis of words that co-occur with particular definitions of hierarchy shows that different sets of terms support control, nest, and rank as distinct dimensions of hierarchy even when they are mixed in particular definitions. Thus, we recommend that researchers use the control-nest-rank ontology to explicitly identify the hierarchical relations of interest in their work and increase the consistency and clarity of their work within and between social science fields. |
| Date: | 2026–07–14 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:vmutd_v1 |