IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v115y2018p13228-13233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Persistence of false paradigms in low-power sciences

Author

Listed:
  • George A. Akerlof

    (McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057)

  • Pascal Michaillat

    (Economics Department, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912)

Abstract

We develop a model describing how false paradigms may persist, hindering scientific progress. The model features two paradigms, one describing reality better than the other. Tenured scientists display homophily: They favor tenure candidates who adhere to their paradigm. As in statistics, power is the probability (absent any bias) of denying tenure to scientists adhering to the false paradigm. The model shows that because of homophily, when power is low, the false paradigm may prevail. Then, only an increase in power can ignite convergence to the true paradigm. Historical case studies suggest that low power comes either from lack of empirical evidence or from reluctance to base tenure decisions on available evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • George A. Akerlof & Pascal Michaillat, 2018. "Persistence of false paradigms in low-power sciences," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(52), pages 13228-13233, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:13228-13233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13228.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dirk Bergemann & Marco Ottaviani, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2296, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Richard Startz, 2020. "How Research Goes Astray: Paths And Equilibria," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1845-1854, October.
    3. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Juste Raimbault, 2019. "Exploration of an interdisciplinary scientific landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 617-641, May.
    5. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2020. "How the Publish-or-Perish Principle Divides a Science : The Case of Academic Economists," Discussion Paper 2020-020, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Andrew Y. Chen & Tom Zimmermann, 2022. "Publication Bias in Asset Pricing Research," Papers 2209.13623, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    7. Jay Bhattacharya & Mikko Packalen, 2020. "Stagnation and Scientific Incentives," NBER Working Papers 26752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    9. Varanya Chaubey, 2020. "Treating Research Writing: Symptoms and Maladies," Papers 2012.07787, arXiv.org.
    10. Andrew Y. Chen & Alejandro Lopez-Lira & Tom Zimmermann, 2022. "Does Peer-Reviewed Research Help Predict Stock Returns?," Papers 2212.10317, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    11. Christoph Carnehl & Johannes Schneider, 2021. "A Quest for Knowledge," Papers 2102.13434, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    12. Leonid Tiokhin & Minhua Yan & Thomas J. H. Morgan, 2021. "Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 857-867, July.
    13. Gradstein, Mark, 2019. "Misallocation of talent and human capital: Political economy analysis," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 148-157.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:13228-13233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.