Abstract
In this paper we comparatively explore three claims concerning the disciplinary character of economics by means of citation analysis. The three claims under study are: (1) economics exhibits strong forms of institutional stratification and, as a byproduct, a rather pronounced internal hierarchy; (2) economists strongly conform to institutional incentives; and (3) modern mainstream economics is a largely self-referential intellectual project mostly inaccessible to disciplinary or paradigmatic outsiders. The validity of these claims is assessed by means of an interdisciplinary comparison of citation patterns aiming to identify peculiar characteristics of economic discourse. In doing so, we emphasize that citation data can always be interpreted in different ways, thereby focusing on the contrast between a “cognitive” and an “evaluative” approach towards citation data.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 361-380 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Science in Context |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2019 |
Fields of science
- 502 Economics
- 502049 Economic history
- 504027 Special sociology
- 502027 Political economy
- 506013 Political theory
JKU Focus areas
- Social Systems, Markets and Welfare States