The Art and Practice of Economics Research: Lessons from Leading Minds.

Colander, David

The Art and Practice of Economics Research: Lessons from Leading Minds, edited by Simon W. Bowmaker, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012.

Simon Bowmaker has put together a great book of interviews with top economists about their views on research and the research process. It is meant to complement his book of interviews with top teachers of economics (Bowmaker, The Heart of Teaching Economics: Lessons from Leading Minds, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010). In his latest book Bowmaker interviews 25 economists of different ages, providing readers with a composite picture of the way top modern economic researchers see themselves and the economics profession.

Each interview begins with a short biography of the interviewee, including their major publications. Then Bowmaker asks a similar set of questions to all--what attracted them to economics, their general thoughts on research, how they generate research ideas, what makes a good paper, what do they do when they hit an impasse in their research, what aspect of the writing process they find most difficult, how they work with co-authors, how they use research assistants, how important networking is, where they decide to send their research, what they think of the referring process, and how they manage their time. He ends each interview with a question asking how they would describe the state of economics today.

All the interviewees are top economists, although some will be more recognizable than others to the average economist or to the lay public. Five have won the John Bates Clark Medal for the best US economist under 40 and four have won Nobel Prizes--more are likely to do so in the future. While they are diverse in their views and interests, they are not diverse in their training and their networks. All have some connection to the nexus of ten or so programs that define the research agenda for the economics profession and which are the "peer" in the peer reviews for the top five journals. They do top work, or they wouldn't have gotten where they are, and because of where they are, they also define what is top work, which means that their beliefs are in many ways self-confirming.

Unlike many of the natural sciences, economics is very much an academic profession at the top. All except one (Ellen McGrattan, who works at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis) are located at top universities. Twenty are men; five are women. Interviewees include Daron Acemoglu (MIT), Janet Currie (Princeton) Steven Levitt (U. of Chicago), Ariel Pakes (Harvard) and Randall Wright (University of Wisconsin, Madison). Most work in standard fields, by which I mean theoretical and empirical micro, macro, and econometrics. The outliers are Douglas Irwin (Dartmouth) whose work is in economic history, and Roy Weintraub (Duke) whose work is in the history of economic thought. Both outliers are top in their subfield, but, because of their subfields, would be slightly less likely to be in most mainstream economist's list of top economic researchers than the others.

Throughout the interviews one sees significant social and working connections to the others in the group and to their teachers, especially among those in the same field. That suggests that, to make it to the top, it strongly helps to be part of the top group. This doesn't seem to be because of any bias in favor of top economists in the reviewing process--indeed, the book includes many stories about the difficulties these top economists have had getting their work through the reviewing process. Instead, I suspect the reason is that being in the network puts you in on the ground floor and makes it more likely that your name will be associated with an idea. Being in with the in-group gives one a better sense of which way the research winds are blowing, allowing you to trim your research accordingly. You can try sailing outside those prevailing winds as some of the interviewees, such as Charles Manski, did. But doing so makes it harder to publish within the top five journals, a goal that most, especially the younger interviewees, were most focused on. Some were far less concerned where they published; they felt that quality research will surface independent of where it is published.

All the interviewees were incredibly hard working; many had multiple--10 or 20 or more--research projects going on simultaneously. The top of the research profession is not a place for slackers. Most had a large number of collaborators. All in all, it is an impressive group that does the economics profession proud.

The book is great fun to read, and it highlights for the reader much more than just leading economists' research approaches. It conveys a picture of the economics profession, and of the profession's view of itself, at least the view from the top. So what is that view?

The first thing that comes through is, despite popular claims to the contrary, the profession is not in crisis. It is doing quite well, thank you. The second thing that comes through is the fun and excitement about research. These are economists who are excited about what they do and have fun doing it; it isn't a job for most of them--it is their life. The third thing that comes through is that the profession is much more diverse than it is often portrayed by outsiders. There is no single methodology these researchers follow, and the view of research they have, and their approach to it, differs significantly among interviewees.

For example, Steven Levitt believes "the fetishistic infatuation with technicality and mathematical difficulty is extremely unhealthy" (pg. 246) and he states that if he were ambitious, which he doesn't see himself as, he would "want to change the way people think about theory and data." On the other hand Randall Wright thinks that "the mathemization of macroeconomics has been an enormous boom." He states that because of that mathemization, "macro is no longer just a bunch of sloppy assumptions and equations" (pg. 488) The way they approach and blend empirical work and theoretical work also differs. Despite the differences, the important theme that comes through in all of the interviews is that they all believed that they were trying to answer questions using the tools of economics, and most were passionate about their quest.

None of the economists here would have any problem getting published--the issue for them is not publication, but where to publish. When one limits the publishing outlets to a small number of journals, getting published becomes much harder. Just about all had stories about rejections.

All the interviewees had tenure or a secure position so they did not have to worry about implications of where they published for tenure or formal advancement. Despite this, many of the younger interviewees tend to see anything less than a top 5 journal publication as meaningless. Others had quite different views, and focus their research publication on wherever they think it will get the most readership.

All came across as extremely bright--and fun; there was not one that I would not like sharing a beer with. Most are mathematical types, but not in the sense that they did high level math, but in the sense that they were comfortable with a mathematical approach, using what they considered appropriate mathematical and statistical tools to answer questions. Thinking clearly about issues is valued by them much more highly than technical expertise, although implicit in that is a belief that the researcher has the technical fire-power to answer the question if they felt it was necessary.

Most of the interviewees wanted to be economists from early on, although a number of them started in math or physics, and moved on to economics because it offered more impact on policy. A few had quite different second best careers; Charles Manski wanted to be a pilot, and Randall Wright wanted to be a rock musician. (His picture in the book is of him playing a guitar in a quite non-economist fashion; I put him down for two beers, not just one.)

As I stated at the beginning, the book tells the reader not only about economists' research, but also about the economics profession. Reading this book is a great way to get a window on how mainstream economics sees itself--it is a very positive self view. Despite this, the picture the interviews provide is much more nuanced than is the picture often presented by self-described heterodox economists, who tend to characterize all mainstream economists as the same and reflective of an ideological position. That characterization will find little support in this book. The interviews convey a diversity in research approaches and views. All in all, the book was a great, fun, read.

Let me, however, end with one caveat to readers. This is not a "how to do research" book for the large majority of economists. The research concerns of these economists are quite different than the research concerns of most economists. They are not worried about publishing for publishing, advancement, or tenure's sake. They are worried about publishing as a way of advancing their ideas which they see as important and right. They are asking: What will advance my ideas, not can I get the publications I need for tenure, advancement or that show that I am doing research?

The book considers research within the top group. It doesn't explore how they got into this group, and the degree of path dependency and positive feedback it involves. Getting into the in group makes an enormous difference in one's approach and view of research. Outside the group, it is much harder to maintain the passion, and the publishing concerns are quite different. Each school has its own research culture, and those cultures define the research issues and approach at the school where one is. If this were a "how to" book for the average economist, it would not have interviews with only top researchers. Instead, it would have interviews with a random selection of economists from various level institutions. I suspect that such a set of interviews would have provided a quite different picture of economic research.

DAVID COLANDER

Department of Economics

Middlebury College