Economists as subjects: Toward a psychology of economists
Economists can reflect on their own field of research and themselves in a number of ways. The philosophy of science has long been the dominant way to reflect on the work of scientists, to be joined in more recent times by both the sociology of science and the rhetoric of science. In this paper I do not argue that these approaches are wrong, but I do argue that they should be complemented with a study of the individual scientist. A psychology of economists, in other words, is called for. One important theory in recent psychological literature (social learning/cognitive theory) is introduced as an instance to indicate what kind of suggestions concerning the reflective position of individual scientists might be derived. It would be preferable from this perspective that scientists set high standards for themselves, have an open mind to what happens in different disciplines, and set high standards by which to judge others. Then follows a discussion where some potential objections to the approach in general, or to the specific psychological theory in particular, are refuted.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 30 (2001)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: http://socialeconomics.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://link.springer.com/journal/12143|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nelson, Julie A., 1992.
"Gender, Metaphor, and the Definition of Economics,"
Economics and Philosophy,
Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(01), pages 103-125, April.
- Nelson, J.A., 1990. "Gender, Metaphor, And The Definition Of Economics," Papers 350, California Davis - Institute of Governmental Affairs.
- McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
- Robert H. Frank & Thomas Gilovich & Dennis T. Regan, 1993. "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 159-171, Spring.
- Hausman, Daniel M, 1989. "Economic Methodology in a Nutshell," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 115-127, Spring.
- Esther-Mirjam Sent, 1999. "Economics of science: survey and suggestions," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 95-124.
- Wilfred Dolfsma, 2001. "Metaphors of Knowledge in Economics," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(1), pages 71-91.
- Joseph J. Cordes & Arjo Klamer & Thomas C. Leonard, 1993. "Academic Rhetoric in the Policy Arena: The Case of Capital Gains Taxation," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 459-479, Fall. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:fosoec:v:30:y:2001:i:2:p:77-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.