We are proud to announce that several DR2 members will be present at the 17th Annual Conference of STOREP (Associazione Italiana per la Storia dell’Economia Politica || Italian Association for the History of Economic Thought). This is now a well-established tradition, as DR2 was at STOREP Conference already in 2018 and in 2019.
In particular, DR2 members and the PRIN project Has economics finally become an immature science? Mapping economics at an epoch of fragmentation, by combining historical perspectives and new quantitative approaches organized a joint session on Quantitative methods in the history of ideas — October 2, 2020, from 9:00 to 11:00 (Central European Standard Time).
– – – – –
Check the conference program for more details.
We are pleased to announce that a new paper by DR2 co-founders Guido Bonino and Paolo Tripodi, together with another DR2 affiliate member, Paolo Maffezioli, has been published on Synthese: “Logic in analytic philosophy: a quantitative analysis”.
Abstract: Using quantitative methods, we investigate the role of logic in analytic philosophy from 1941 to 2010. In particular, a corpus of five journals publishing analytic philosophy is assessed and evaluated against three main criteria: the presence of logic, its role and level of technical sophistication. The analysis reveals that (1) logic is not present at all in nearly three-quarters of the corpus, (2) the instrumental role of logic prevails over the non-instrumental ones, and (3) the level of technical sophistication increases in time, although it remains relatively low. These results are used to challenge the view, widespread among analytic philosophers and labeled here “prevailing view”, that logic is a widely used and highly sophisticated method to analyze philosophical problems.
We are pleased to announce and to share the publication of this joint paper, written by three DR2 members: “Reclutamento accademico: come tutelare il pluralismo epistemico? Un modello di simulazione ad agenti”, Carlo Debernardi, Eleonora Priori e Marco Viola, Sistemi Intelligenti, https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1422/97367.
(Abstract ENG): According to some authors (e.g. Gillies 2014, Viola 2017), when researchers are called to express a judgment over their peers, they might exhibit an epistemic bias that make them favouring those who belong to their School of Thought (SoT). A dominant SoT is also most likely to provide some advantage to its members’ bibliometric indexes, because more people potentially means more citations. In the long run, even the slight preference for one SoT over the others might lead to a monopoly, hampering the oft-invoked pluralism of research. In academic recruitment, given that those who recruited to permanent position will often become the recruiter of tomorrow, such biases might give rise to a self-reinforcing loop. However, the way in which this dynamics unfolds is affected by the institutional infrastructure that regulates academic recruitment. To reason on how the import of epistemic bias changes across various infrastructures, we built a simple Agent-Based Model using NetLogo 6.0.4., in which researchers belonging to rival SoTs compete to get promoted to professors. The model allows to represent the effect of epistemic and bibliometric biases, as well as to figure out how they get affected by the modification of several parameters.
Following the posts of the past few weeks, today we present an interesting website – and peer-reviewed journal – on the same wake.
That is Programming Historian, a useful, multilingual and open access collection of tutorials about computational tecniques for humanities. Almost one hundred guides, ranging from the most simple and introductory to advanced topics such as text mining, big data and network analysis. Definitely worth a look!
A new entry of the Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization (IEKO) has been published. This contribution – by Eugenio Petrovich – is an in depth review of Science Mapping. It is also a must-read for anyone who wants to approach the core concepts of bibliometrics without reference to the formal machinery.
The entry is publicly available here.
By Emiliano Tolusso
Maps are a pleasant and handy way of visualizing spatial data. Choropleths especially are widely employed in the visual description of spatial phenomena. However, as much as traditional maps are a popular solution, they suffer from a fundamental, insurmountable flaw: they conceived as ways to represent static objects, well-contained into some arbitrary border. How can we trace on a map something that is actually in motion across these borders?
Flow maps are a versatile hybrid between a traditional map and a flowchart. As such, flow maps are a well-fitted solution to display the motion of different objects in space in an orderly fashion.
Flow maps, as a matter of fact, are directed, georeferenced networks! They can virtually represent the motion of every kind of object on a plan surface: migrations, trade routes, money transfer. Getting more creative, and more on point with our focus on distant reading, flows may represent citations among geographically recognizable institutions retrieved from a set of papers. All you need is a couple of coordinates (X, Y; Long, Lat), and any flow can be effectively charted.
Flowmap.blue is a useful resource to quickly build a flow map from scrap. It offers many advantages:
- You don’t need to write a single line of code or to open a GIS system.
- It is based on Google sheets.
- The maps are pretty cool!
Let’s see how it works.
By Eugenio Petrovich
In the last decades, the number of retractions of scientific articles has significantly grown in all disciplines (Steen et al., 2013). Even prestigious journals such as Science are not immune to such growth (Wray & Andersen, 2018). The spread of the phenomenon, as well as its accelerating pace, gives rise to concern in the scientific community, as a rising proportion of retractions are due to the manipulation of data, the use of fabricated or fraudulent data, plagiarism, and other types of research misconduct (Fang et al., 2012). Some striking cases have even reached the large public, such as the infamous article by Jeremy Wakefield about a connection between vaccines and autism, that was published in The Lancet in 1998 and retracted only twelve years later. Such cases are particularly troublesome since they risk to mine seriously the trust of society in science.
With this interview we open the series of the “DR2-Interviews”, a new section of this blog dedicated to questions and answers about the use of quantitative methods.
A few months ago one of our members, Paolo Babbiotti, was in Cambridge as a Visiting Student and interviewed Peter De Bolla, Professor of Cultural History and Aesthetics and Director of the Cambridge Concept Lab: https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/people/Peter.De_Bolla/
Here you can read the entire interview and we thank Professor De Bolla for the answers to our questions.
One month ago we announced that the papers presented by DR2 members Eugenio Petrovich, Guido Bonino and Paolo Tripodi have been accepted at the ninth annual conference of the Society for the Study of the History of Analytic philosophy.
The meeting is now postponed to July 2021.
As earlier announced on this blog, Prof. Arianna Betti (University of Amsterdam) is going to teach a History of Ideas course at the University of Turin during the second semester of the Academic Year 2019/2020 (starting at the end of April).
Due to the current restrictions on face-to-face academic activities, the course moves online (using Webex).
More information on this blog as soon as possible.