Economics is the only social science that is considered
a STEM field by the NSF. I believe the reason for this is the study of
Economics at the graduate level and most economic research is highly
quantitative. In my opinion this is the only thing that truly separates
economics from the other social sciences. Other social sciences look more at
the big picture- economists typically believe that everything can be quantified
and most answers to common day problems can be found through the statistical
analysis of large data sets and when abnormalities within data arise there are
statistical tools that can adjust the abnormalities from the data. Other social
scientists consider these abnormalities to be caused by various theories in
which their disciplines support or have created, and often times they focus on the
data abnormalities to form new theories that are supported
with qualitative/ historical/ cultural/ etc facts rather
than quantitative methods- while economists do this as well their
theories are typically further supported with more quantitative tools.
I think that cross-disciplinary research has the
potential to be significant in my field. If economists could provide their
statistical/ quantitative skills to cross-diciplinary research
projects I think that both Economics and other social science disciplines could
be strengthened. However while I believe research, as a whole would be
strengthened I also think the lines that divide
the disciplines would start to blur even more. Sometimes I wonder, if
I had gone into another social science sociology for example and
I received a PhD in sociology and a PhD or masters in mathematics
would my research in sociology be so quantified to the extent that it could be
published in economic journals? Would some of my found or proposed theories be
more similar to those of economists?
An article that touches on these
aforementioned ideas can be found at the following links:
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=105f5b9b-f63c-4371-ac14-38d407946515%40sessionmgr11&vid=4&hid=19
I will probably look back on this post when I
finish my degree and laugh because I am sure that (other than the
"quantitativeness" of economics) there are some VERY significant
divides/boundaries between Economics and other social sciences that I am
not yet aware of, citing previous posts I have made- I am still learning how to
define my discipline and do not believe I fully know what it/
entails, what the boundaries of it are and what is actually
considered economics and what is not considered economics. When I know a little
bit more about my discipline maybe this post and considerations into
inter-diciplinary/ cross-diciplinary research will be relevant to my life and
research. For now I see the "potential", but I do not think I am informed
or knowledgeable enough to have a definitive answer on the political, social
and economic impact of cross-diciplanary research within my field.
Patrese Anderson
Food for thought: I do not know who coined it, but it is almost a cliche now that the Nobel Prize in Economics should be names the Nobel Prize in Capitalism. Where quantification and drawing theories from large data sets can be insightful, what is lost is the possibility of "new," "different," and/or "transformed" data sets. The basis of the above "joke" is that the most prominent economists only work within the framework of capitalism because capitalism determines their data. However, what if data-collection/analysis was informed by an alternative theory of economics (or social justice) that came from Marxism, Critical Race Theory, or Evolutionary Psychology (to name a few)? What if a work of art imagined the implementation of a economic/social theory that inspired "real world" economic analysis?
ReplyDeleteTake-away: Data-sets do not have imaginations.