What I learned about research strategies and authorship
Before I came to Berkeley, I consulted my cousins, my
professors and my friends on the secrets for success in PhD programs. Most
suggested that you have to work hard, but not too hard, and you must have a
life. They also emphasized that achievement in class is important, but the most
important thing is to write and publish good papers. But what are the strategies
one should follow when writing papers? What about authorship and publication
outlets? After many years of experience, I have some ideas that I would like to
share.
Papers start with inspiration, the process that stimulates
you to do something creative. I believe that economists may be inspired by
reality (desire to answer a specific problem or general puzzle that they
encounter), literature, and data. Some of them are motivated by issues and
others by methodology. I will explain the three approaches – reality,
literature and data – based on my experience. I tend to be inspired by reality,
maybe because my first serious job as an adult was a computer programmer and
system analyst responsible for a payroll system. In that job, clients present
you with problems (for example, how to pay certain employees a premium for unique
effort), and you need to figure out the best solution.
When I came to Berkeley, I was assigned as a research
assistant on a project that analyzed the impacts of new animal waste regulation
in California. I was asked to suggest a basic research strategy. I found that there was very little literature
on the economics of animal waste, which was good because if we were creative
then we would be noticed. Animal waste wasn’t my dream topic, but it presented
an opportunity. We met with dairymen and farm advisors to learn their
perspectives. I realized that they were very diverse in their technologies and banks
wouldn’t provide credit for improvement of their animal waste practices. That
led us to develop a rough mathematical model assessing the impact of the regulation;
and Professor Ethan Hochman refined the model and linked it with the
literature. We obtained farm-level data, applied the models, and after a few
rejections from journals (an essential element of the publication process), we
were able to publish several papers that actually helped me get my job at Berkeley.
I have followed this strategy most of my career. When
someone asked me to assess the potential of drip irrigation in California, I
started with a literature review (it was minimal), met with farmers and realized
that people mostly used drip as a way to improve the water-holding capacity of
their soil. I built a conceptual model based on this knowledge, and got data to
help explain adoption patterns and estimate their implications. More recently,
when I learned that governments intended to support the use of corn to produce
biofuel, I started analyzing the impact of these biofuel policies on fuel and
food prices and other factors, which made some noise. I realized too that when
you start looking at a problem, you may need to team up with experts who
complement your knowledge. For example, when I studied pesticide regulation, I
collaboration Andy
Gutierrez, an entomologist, and Bob Spears, a
public health expert. Now that I study supply chains, I reached out to Tom Reardon who has studied
the transformation of food systems around the world.
Many important scholars have been inspired by the
literature. They may identify a major shortcoming in a body of knowledge and
suggest an alternative. For example, Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and the
late Amos Tversky found major important shortcomings in the economic literature
on decision making under risk and laid
the foundation to modern behavioral economics. The recent Nobel Laureate in
Economics, Richard Thaler, built on their work, found further shortcomings in
current mainstream economics, and expanded the range of issues covered in
behavioral economics by developing a new policy approach based on “nudging”.
Similarly, Paul Romer, the chief economist of the World Bank, found that the
traditional model of economic growth didn’t give sufficient attention to innovation
and learning. He developed the endogenous growth theory that emphasizes the
role of positive feedback and spillover among innovations, and the important role
of supporting research, development, and education in fostering economic
growth. Many applied economists are inspired by availability of new sources of
data. Availability of fine-scale weather data over space and time enabled Shlenker and
Roberts to creatively estimate the impacts of climate on crop
yields. Availability of data from a national testing program of Israeli
elementary school students in Israel enabled Angrist
and Lavy to write a classic paper showing that lower class size improved students’
performance. Of course, many research ideas are inspired by multiple factors –
for example, a combination of a literature that cannot explain the changing
reality or availability of data to solve puzzles in the literature, etc.
Over the years I realized that I do not like to do research
by myself, I like to work with others: argue about modeling, discuss potential research
strategies, and have fun. In this regard, the Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics at Berkeley has been a great place for me to be. When I arrived to Berkeley, we had a coffee-room
where students and faculty exchanged ideas that led to joint papers benefiting
everybody. One of the professors, Andy Schmitz, was very good at generating
ideas and writing narratives, and his partners contributed to the technical
aspects. Some mocked these collaborations as “the blind leading the deaf” but they
resulted in many beautiful papers and launched successful careers. I felt blessed
to collaborate with dozens of students, post docs and faculty members. It
enabled me to achieve much more than I could have otherwise, established
lasting friendships and helped my collaborators build their skills and become
better scholars. Single authorship is of course fine – but do not make it a
norm. I observed over the years that students with a few good papers, strongly
supported by their co-authors, are likely to succeed in the job market just as
much as anyone.
The issue of authorship has been with us forever. When I was
a student, I realized there are many benefits to co-authoring with other students
and there is nothing wrong in having a co-authored ‘job market’ paper. Now, job
market presentations should naturally have only one author, with
acknowledgements to co-authors. Furthermore, sometimes job market presentations
may rely on multiple papers if they are related, and present a coherent vision.
The most important rule I learned is that it is important to acknowledge
partners generously and to avoid ignoring an important contributor. I was born
a “Z,” which some academics consider as a curse but it really served me well in
the army where being last relieved me from, or delayed, unpleasant tasks. If
people contribute more or less equally, I believe in alphabetic ordering of
authorship. Sometimes it is worthwhile to mention authors’ contributions in a
footnote. Most importantly, when I write a letter of recommendation for a
student and they did much of the work, I make sure everyone knows it. I always
admired the professors that did the same for me.
Finally, where should one publish to have an impact and get
noticed? In economics, we always have the Top Five[1]---mainstream,
high-prestige journals in which everyone strives to publish. I was fortunate to
have a few publications in some of these journals, which undoubtedly helped.
But I realized that some of the best and most influential publications in
specific fields, like agricultural or environmental economics, are actually
published in field journals – like AJAE, JEEM, JAERE, and many more. The wider
adoption of citations provides alternative measures to assess impact and
suggest that the Top Five do not have a monopoly on quality. I actually find
that economic work on important issues may have larger policy and academic
impacts when published in non-economic and specialized journals, such as Science,
Nature Biotechnology, and Global Change Biology, to name a few.
In one of our papers, we observed that people select their
career in pursuit of Fame, Fortune and Freedom. The extent that academic jobs
bring you fame and fortune is questionable – but I have no doubt that one big
advantage is the extra freedom to pursue your own ideas. But there is also
another ‘F’ – fun – that doing research can bring. So in retrospect, it doesn’t
matter that much if you do it by yourself or with a group, if you publish in a
leading general or field journal, but a good research strategy should allow you
to reach your potential, and to pursue the beneficial and the enjoyable.
[1]
American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Econometrica, and Review of Economic Studies
No comments:
Post a Comment