How has Mainstream changed?
To understand the reasons of this work and, eventually, its scientific relevance a premise is necessary. Economics as a discipline presents very strong social norms and a very hierarchical structure. As a result, it is possible, and quite easy, to identify a small group of journals in which the scholars in the top US departments often publish (Dusansky & Vernon, 1998; Ellison, 2003; Heck & Zaleski, 2006; E. H. Kim et al., 2006, 2009; Card & DellaVigna, 2013; Hamermesh, 2013). Those are the same journals that are able to assure a scholar the tenure in the very same departments, by publishing one of their papers (Heckman & Moktan, 2020). In other words, there is a group of journals (the Top5 or the Blue Ribbon Eight) which are liked (and managed) by those who are generally liked (and cited and funded) by the discipline. This concentration of power and, as consequence, prestige has inevitably created a notion of prestige in every aspect of the discipline: there are more prestigious theories, more prestigious research topics, more prestigious departments and so on. But it happens quickly, in the underfunded academia, that the most prestigious alternatives become the only alternatives, inducing conformism and, as a matter of necessity, excluding less prestigious theories from scientific debate. nd thus well-funded) position, a profession of faith is required of every (young) scholar.
Area: Young Scholar Seminar
Keywords: Mainstream
Please Login in order to download this file