IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v100y2018i2p381-391..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Should I Believe Your Applied Economics?

Author

Listed:
  • Scott M Swinton

Abstract

In an era of rising skepticism about science, this article explores what agricultural and applied economists can do to advance knowledge. If knowledge is what is believed by the preponderance of a community, then the key to advancing knowledge is to build substantive arguments—ones that are persuasive. To evaluate the substantiveness of an argument, this article develops a framework based on validity, topic, and audience. Applying that framework to two highly-cited articles, this article concludes that validity is a necessary condition for a substantive argument, but relevance (of topic to audience) is the sufficient condition. Applied economists are well-positioned to build compelling, objective arguments by fitting appropriate theory and methods to relevant, important topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott M Swinton, 2018. "Why Should I Believe Your Applied Economics?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(2), pages 381-391.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:100:y:2018:i:2:p:381-391.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aax096
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Josephson, Anna & Michler, Jeffrey D., 2018. "Viewpoint: Beasts of the field? Ethics in agricultural and applied economics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-11.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:ajagec:v:100:y:2018:i:2:p:381-391.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.