IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i4d10.1007_s11192-022-04623-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How academic opinion leaders shape scientific ideas: an acknowledgment analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Malte Doehne

    (University of Zurich)

  • Catherine Herfeld

    (University of Zurich
    University of Zurich)

Abstract

In this paper, we examine how a research institution’s social structure and the presence of academic opinion leaders shaped the early adoption of a scientific innovation. Our case considers the early engagement of mathematical economists at the Cowles Commission with John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern’s Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. We argue that scholars with administrative leadership functions who were not only scientifically but also organizationally central—in our case Jacob Marschak, the director of research at Cowles—played a crucial role in promoting the early adoption of the Theory of Games. We support our argument with a scientometric analysis of all acknowledgments made in 488 papers published from 1944 to 1955 in the two main research paper series at the Cowles Commission. We apply blockmodeling techniques to the acknowledgments network to reconstruct the formal and informal social structure at Cowles at the time. Our case study emphasizes the importance of formal and informal social structures and the research agendas of academic opinion leaders to explain the early engagement with and adoption of innovative scientific ideas. Studies of the early adoption of scientific theories can benefit from complementary perspectives on the role of academic opinion leaders and scientists in explaining theory adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Malte Doehne & Catherine Herfeld, 2023. "How academic opinion leaders shape scientific ideas: an acknowledgment analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2507-2533, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04623-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04623-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04623-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04623-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivan Moscati, 2016. "Retrospectives: How Economists Came to Accept Expected Utility Theory: The Case of Samuelson and Savage," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 219-236, Spring.
    2. Giocoli, Nicola, 2006. "Do Prudent Agents Play Lotteries? Von Neumann's Contribution to the Theory of Rational Behavior," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 95-109, March.
    3. Joel Isaac, 2010. "Tool Shock: Technique and Epistemology in the Postwar Social Sciences," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 133-164, Supplemen.
    4. Erickson, Paul & Klein, Judy L. & Daston, Lorraine & Lemov, Rebecca & Sturm, Thomas & Gordin, Michael D., 2013. "How Reason Almost Lost Its Mind," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226046631, September.
    5. Alberto Baccini & Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Normative versus strategic accounts of acknowledgment data: The case of the top-five journals of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 603-635, January.
    6. Robert W. Dimand & Mary Ann Dimand, 1992. "The Early History of the Theory of Strategic Games from Waldegrave to Borel," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 24(5), pages 15-27, Supplemen.
    7. Erickson, Paul, 2015. "The World the Game Theorists Made," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226097039, September.
    8. Christ, Carl F, 1994. "The Cowles Commission's Contributions to Econometrics at Chicago, 1939-1955," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 30-59, March.
    9. Carl Kaysen, 1946. "A Revolution in Economic Theory?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15.
    10. Alexander Oettl, 2012. "Reconceptualizing Stars: Scientist Helpfulness and Peer Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1122-1140, June.
    11. Herfeld Catherine & Malte Doehne, 2018. "Five reasons for the use of network analysis in the history of economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 311-328, October.
    12. Béatrice Cherrier, 2010. "Rationalizing Human Organization in an Uncertain World: Jacob Marschak, from Ukrainian Prisons to Behavioral Science Laboratories," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 443-467, Fall.
    13. Robert W. Dimand, 2000. "Strategic Games from Theory to Application," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 32(5), pages 199-226, Supplemen.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kirtchik, Olessia & Boldyrev, Ivan, 2024. "“Rise And Fall” Of The Walrasian Program In Economics: A Social And Intellectual Dynamics Of The General Equilibrium Theory," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Bjerkholt, Olav, 2015. "Trygve Haavelmo At The Cowles Commission," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 1-84, February.
    3. Cherrier, Beatrice & Saïdi, Aurélien, 2019. "A century of economics and engineering at Stanford," SocArXiv adtbj, Center for Open Science.
    4. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    5. Peter N. Ireland, 2021. "Edward Nelson: Milton Friedman and economic debate in the United States, 1932–1972 (volumes 1 and 2)," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 56(2), pages 101-105, April.
    6. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    7. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    8. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/65v9ag2jfn865abjgaljmq2qi9 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Tat Y. Chan & Jia Li & Lamar Pierce, 2014. "Learning from Peers: Knowledge Transfer and Sales Force Productivity Growth," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 463-484, July.
    10. Franz Dietrich & Antonios Staras & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Savage’s response to Allais as Broomean reasoning," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 143-164, April.
    11. Han Bleichrodt & Chen Li & Ivan Moscati & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Nash was a first to axiomatize expected utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 309-312, September.
    12. Christopher L. Gilbert & Duo Qin, 2005. "The First Fifty Years of Modern Econometrics," Working Papers 544, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    13. Molina-Domene, Maria, 2018. "Labor specialization as a source of market frictions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Conference presentations and academic publishing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 228-254.
    15. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    16. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Khanna, Rajat, 2021. "Aftermath of a tragedy: A star's death and coauthors’ subsequent productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    18. Stephanie Cheng & Pengkai Lin & Yinliang Tan & Yuchen Zhang, 2023. "“High” innovators? Marijuana legalization and regional innovation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(3), pages 685-703, March.
    19. Sylvain Lenfle & Christoph Loch, 2017. "Has Megaproject management lost its way ? Lessons from History," Post-Print hal-03640779, HAL.
    20. Wen Lou & Jiangen He & Lingxin Zhang & Zhijie Zhu & Yongjun Zhu, 2023. "Support behind the scenes: the relationship between acknowledgement, coauthor, and citation in Nobel articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5767-5790, October.
    21. Liu, Meijun & Hu, Xiao, 2021. "Will collaborators make scientists move? A Generalized Propensity Score analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).

    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:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04623-z. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.