Posts filed under ‘Methods/Methodology/Theory of Science’
Heavily Cited, But Wrong
| Nicolai Foss |
Here is an example of the apparent irrationality of citation practices. The example concerns the paper “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization,” by Armen A. Alchian and Harold Demsetz (American Economic Review 62, 1972, 772-95). This is the famous “team-production” paper, one of the first to try to revitalize the Coasian agenda of explaining the “nature” of the firm (why firms exist, what explains their scope and internal organization). It is also one of the first agency theory papers (in what is sometimes misleadingly called “positive agency theory”).
However, the analysis in the paper is flatly errorneous. Here are some points where the paper gets it wrong: (more…)
Citations and Critical Commentary
| Peter Klein |
Yet more on citations. The May 2006 issue of the always-interesting EconJournalWatch — the economics profession’s own watchdog organization — considers the decline of critical commentary in economics journals. Beginning in the 1970s, most top-tier economics journals stopped publishing comments and replies. Robert Whaples blames the Social Sciences Citation Index: regular articles tend to get more citations per page than comments and replies, so journal editors, wishing to maximize their citation counts and impact factors, prefer regular articles to critical commentary and discussion. (I think the same would apply, a fortiori, to book reviews, though they aren’t mentioned here.) Philip Coelho and James McClure add that journal editors care about not only citations to the journal, but also citations to the journal’s own “insiders” (e.g., editors and editorial board members). They provide empirical evidence that comments and replies rarely cite insiders.
Bottom line: academia’s increasing reliance on bibliometric measures of quality and performance has real effects on the kind of research we do, how we package and promote our research, the demographic characteristics of the research community, and so on. Good or bad? Comments are open.
Citation Impact of Entrepreneurship Research
| Peter Klein |
For you citation junkies out there ("bibliometricians"? "citophiles"?), the May 2006 issue of Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice features a symposium on the nature and impact of entrepreneurship research, as measured by citation impact. (The formal title is "Special Issue on Understanding Entrepreneurship Scholarship from a Bibliometric Perspective.") According to the editors, bibliometric analysis suggests that entrepreneurship research contains "multiple but disconnected themes; dominant themes that reflect the disciplinary training and lens of their authors; and considerable dynamism and change in key research themes over time." More, in other words, than a disconnected "potpourri" or "hodgepodge." A fair point, but my sense is that the entreprreneurship literature still has a long way to go before constituting a coherent "field" with a distinct vision, research approach, "paradigm problems," and so on.
The New Bashing of Economics: The Case of Management Theory
| Nicolai Foss |
Where is the place to go for real, hardcore economics-bashing? Anthropology? Sociology? Hardly. At least for the outside observer (i.e., this blogger), these disciplines seem to have become so absorbed in terminological nitty-gritty, paradigm proliferation, and pomo excesses that they seem to have lost much interest in neighbouring disciplines. No, the answer is, management theory.
Cases in point? Check out any of these rather recent papers by management heavyweights: (more…)
We Got a Contract, We Got a Contract!!
| Nicolai Foss |
Peter and I have been working for some time on an idea for a book volume, entitled The Theory of the Firm: Emergence, Synthesis, Challenges, and New Directions.
There are several textbooks that present or make extensive use of the theory of the firm (e.g., Paul Milgrom and John Roberts, Economics, Organization, and Management; George Hendrikse, Economics and Management of Organizations; James Brickley, Clifford W. Smith, and William Zimmerman, Managerial Economics and Organizational Architecture; etc.). There are also lots of readers and reference collections (e.g., Louis Putterman, The Economic Nature of the Firm and Jay Barney and William Ouchi, Organizational Economics).
There is no need for yet another textbook or reader/reference collection. What the literature lacks, however, is a critical synthesis of the various streams in the theory of the firm, one that places these streams in a historical and methodological context, discusses the various controversies that have stimulated internal development in the theory of the firm, and assesses the many critiques that have been leveled at the theory by scholars in sociology, psychology and management.
Peter and I think we can write such a book. Luckily, Cambridge University Press agrees with us, and will offer a contract. (more…)
Is Economics Losing Its Spine?
| Nicolai Foss |
The critique of economics from sociologists, so-called “heterodox” economists, management scholars, etc. used to be that it was too “rigid,” because of a too heavy commitment to fundamental principles, such as strong interpretations of individual rationality (maximization), equilibrium, and so on. As a result, the critics maintained, the central insights of disciplines such as sociology, psychology and anthropology were not only at variance with economics but also much more realistic, applicable, etc. Attempts to apply maximization, stable preferences and equilibrium to neighbouring disciplines only led to disciplinary bastardization in which the essential ideas of these neighbouring disciplines got lost. And so on.
While this kind of critique continues to be made, of course, I believe that the basis for making it is becoming increasingly weak. (more…)
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments