How to Maximize Your Scientific Impact as an Economist

Tyler Cowen has an interesting post on how to read a CV.  He mentions the idea of a portfolio interpretation, and I certainly agree with him on that. One has to exhibit a coherent and progressive research program.  But I think there is also another issue that matters.  Go to any top 10 department and look at the CVs of the associate and full professors.  Often what you will find is a lower quantity of output, but significant placement in top tier journals.  Now go to schools in the 20-50 range and what you will find is often high quantity, but also publications in top journals.  Why aren't the associate and full professors in those top 10 departments?  Many times they actually are more productive in terms of number of journal publications, but somehow they haven't been able to break into the top departments.

We cannot attribute it completely to educational background.  Look at a scholar such as John List at U of Chicago.  His PhD is from Wyoming, his first job was at Central Florida, yet he climbed and climbed until he was a full professor at U of Chicago.  Every young scholar with ambitious professional aspirations ought to look closely at John's career and try to mimic it.  John had a passion, pursued it, and succeeded against all the odds.

If you look closely at what separates those in the top 10 or top 20, and those who occupy positions in the rest of the PhD research and education universe, my hypothesis is that it is not just publication in the top journals.  That is necessary, but not sufficient.  Instead, the question of whether one's work is viewed as a productive input into the scholarly production process of others.  Those who secure the best positions in the short-run (and since tenure actually locks individuals in sometimes it is a short-run that becomes a long-run position!) are the one's whose work gets in the top journals and is useful to other scholars in top 20 or top 10 departments in their research.  It is this that, I hypothesize, which separates scholars.

Now the trick is, you never know what will take off as a field or as a technique. So you cannot orchestrate your ambitions, you just have to pursue your passions and try to do the best work you can that is interesting to you (and hopefully to others).  However, this is not an excuse to be disengaged from the professional conversation ---- lone wolf scholars will forever remain a lone wolf.  Which is not good for your ambitions to obtain a top 10 appointment.

So young Austrian economists --- read what Tyler is saying.  Track truth first and foremost.  And be willing to live with the consequences of wherever the chips may lay professionally.  If you are doing history of thought, do it well, but don't expect to get an appointment at a PhD institution.  If you are doing economic history, then work your butt off and do good work, but recognize again that it is a "thin market".  If you do political economy, then recognize that besides working with the writings of Hayek and Buchanan, you need to be conversant in the contemporary scholarship of Weingast, Shleifer and Acemoglu among others.  If you pursue a more traditional field such as IO, Money or Public, then again the idea much be to track truth but to do so by bringing the ideas of Mises, Hayek, Buchanan, etc. to the contemporary conversation in the economics profession.

So your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to be that type of researcher whose work is viewed as a productive input into the scholarly production process of other scholars.  And also to do the type of research that has lasting impact --- 'shelf life' beyond the next journal article.  It is my sincere hope that the next generation of young scholars in the Austrian tradition, take up this mission and succeed professionally beyond anyone's expectations.  Despite my not so hidden reference to Mission Impossible, this isn't mission impossible, it is however mission difficult.  Good luck.

Comments

[Jacob]

Hey Pete,

Very good advice! And of course "Mission Difficult" cannot be left entirely to a new generation fo scholars, ; still plenty of time to embark flesh out new ideas and do good work, and surely the best way to inspire a new generation is the sort of high quality scholarship that will attract students.

Speaking of which, what are you researching these days Pete?

[Pedro P Romero]

Pete, best post ever! Great advice for grad students.

[Jonathan Bathgate]

There are exceptions to all this... Look at P. Boettke; he does history of ecoonmic thought, has never done any technical work in top journals, and yet he is in a Ph.D. granting institution...

[vilfredopareto]

Pete,

What you are saying is that to be on top, you have got to be good, this judgment being made through the criteria of those with whom you are (perhaps) going to work.

This is surely true, but not very helpful. Clearly, if you want to have a good appointment, your work has to be original and insightful, you have to be prolific (to some extent) and write in top-ranked journals. OK.

The examples you gave are revealing: you refer to history of economic thought, economic history and political economy. No doubt, all those topics are interesting.

But, look at this link to the PhD program of Chicago:
http://economics.uchicago.edu/about_lit_grad_areas.shtml
The same applies to MIT's.

As we can see, only one course on economic history. I reiterate what I said some weeks ago. What lots of econ departments do is simply different from what Austrians do. So, two ways out: either the majority makes the effort to read Austrians, or Austrians make the effort to read the Majority.

And let's be realistic: it is surely better for the future of the Austrian students (and for Austrian econ more generally) to read what the majority does and to try to take it into account to develop the Austrian framework (which is developing rather slowly BTW...). Everyone of us knows that LOTS of contemporary works are very close to the Austrian vision (think of evolutionary GT for example). Hayek is still a well refered economist.

One can be proud of it and say: 'look, they are doing what we use to do for 50 years!!' It may be right, but that s not the point after all.

If one wants to "Maximize his Scientific Impact", I think that there is only one strategy: respect the criteria drawn by others, even if you find them unsufficient. No other choice. If you want to be inside, you have to use the insiders' way of working or of exposing their work. Remark that I dont say that you have to share the way they think:)

That s just an illustration of the "filth of the majority" (filth is perhaps too strong an adjective no?). You can be a romantic warrior and face the number: it would be heroic, lordly, but useless. Or you can act strategically: it would be opportunistic, dowdy, but, one can hope, more efficient for your advancement.

[Mario Rizzo]

In the final analysis, one ought to be doing what one finds interesting and rewarding. Otherwise, why not make more money in some other occupation? So Pete's advice is useful at the margins (especially the point about engaging the broader professional discussions) but if your heart is not in the particular kind of academic work that you find yourself pursuing or think you ought to pursue, then do something else. (Like make money and give it to worthy Austrian economists.)

[Bogdan Enache]

Ambroise Vollard, the famous French art-dealer of the early twenty of century, recounts in his book of portraits of impressionists and post-impressionists masters a story that Paul Cézanne told him regarding a visit made to the high-society saloon of his now famous and well-off childhood friend, the novelist Émile Zola. Cézanne - who could not sell a painting (and sometimes he would even throw in anger in the fields some of those canvases of Mont Saint-Victoire that are now worth some tens of millions)- was somewhat annoyed by the pompous mannerism in Zola's house and, breaking all manners with characteristic provincial insolence and pride, he tells his old friend that his last novels are boring, arid, uninteresting an so on: what happened to pursuing art? he asks etc. To which Zola replied something like this: "Well, my friend Paul, I grew up: we all start as artists, but then we end-up as labourers"...I don't know exactly what the moral of the story is, although I think there is one in there, but maybe art(or science) should be more of a vocation and less of an industry.

[Peter Boettke]

Mario is 100% correct ... pursue your passion and what interests you. And why everyone reads my advise as being "strategic" and not "truth seeking" is beyond me, since the very first thing I said was be a "truth seeker". I am not advising students to be opportunitistic, but I am suggesting they think of how to maximize opportunities.

The bottom line, you cannot be a conventionally measured successful scientist in this day and age unless your work is viewed as a valuable and productive input into the production process of the research economists at the higher ranked programs. That is my hypothesis --- I could be wrong, can you provide evidence to the contrary?

If you choose not to attempt to be a top tier researcher, my emphasis would be invest in your teaching skills. Become a great economics teacher and excite young minds about the discipline. Write what you love, teach what you are passion about, and seek truth.

Otherwise, as Mario suggests, there are plenty more lucrative professions than being an academic economist.

Pete

[Bogdan Enache]

Dear professor Boettke, in case you have interpreted my parable-comment as proposing a "strategic" instead of "truth seeking" reading of your advice, I feel compel to say right the way that the intention was quite the contrary. Both Zola and Cézanne were, in the end, exceptional creators and their work had tremendous influence on the later generations of writers and painters.