4 december 2009 - Fel debat tussen economen in de USA over de vraag of reputatie, rankings en salarisniveau’s in het HO en onderzoek logisch samenhangen. Gerard Pfann (UM) heeft met Daniel Hamermesh uit Texas de nek uitgestoken. “The quantity of output has no or even a negative effect on each of a number of proxies for reputation, and very little evidence that a scholar’s most influential work provides any extra enhancement of reputation.”
Hun onderzoek kent de volgende samenvatting:
'We develop a theory of the market for individual reputation, an
indicator of regard by one's peers and others. The central
questions are: 1) Does the quantity of exposures raise reputation
independent of their quality? and 2) Assuming that overall quality
matters for reputation, does the quality of an individual's most
important exposure have an extra effect on reputation?
Using evidence for academic economists, we find that, conditional
on its impact, the quantity of output has no or even a negative
effect on each of a number of proxies for reputation, and very
little evidence that a scholar's most influential work provides any
extra enhancement of reputation. Quality ranking matters more than
absolute quality.
Data on mobility and salaries show, on the contrary, substantial
positive effects of quantity, independent of quality. We test
various explanations for the differences between the determinants
of reputation and salary.'
Het stuk zelf vindt u hier als
pdf.