SODAS Data Discussion 18 June 2021
Copenhagen Center for Social Data Science (SODAS) aspirers to be a resource for all students and researchers at the Faculty of Social Sciences. We therefor invite researchers across the faculty to present ongoing research projects, project applications or just a loose idea that relates to the subject of social data science.
Two researchers will present their work. The rules are simple: short research presentations of ten minutes are followed by twenty minutes of debate. No papers will be circulated beforehand, and the presentations cannot be longer than five slides.
Snorre Frid-Nielsen, Postdoc, SODAS
Is Political Science Becoming More Pluralistic? A Bibliometric History
This paper examines the question of pluralism in political science historically and bibliometrically. While existing accounts have tended to focus on specific sub-disciplines or applied descriptive approaches, this paper utilizes large-scale bibliometric data and network analytical methods to systematically map the development of the entire discipline. Where existing bibliometric approaches tend to be limited to shorter time spans, this paper takes a wider historical perspective. Based on a novel data set comprising 347,736 research articles with 5,360,276 citations covering the time span of 1956-2019, the article studies the pluralism (or lack thereof) in Political Science research on three main dimensions. First, it examines the pluralism (or lack thereof) in the intellectual ancestors of political science using Reference Year Publication Spectroscopy which examines the reference frequency of seminal works. Second, it visualizes the rise and fall of research agendas, subfields, interdisciplinary engagements, and methodologies over time through a combination of dynamic network analysis and unsupervised machine learning of journal and author co-citation patterns. Third, it examines the pluralism of political science research in terms of author characteristics in political science journals, notably gender and nationality.
Why Do Students Not Fully Reveal Their Preferences In Admissions Where Truth-Telling Is Weakly Optimal?
Recent literature documents non-truthful preference reporting in strategy-proof mechanisms. In this paper, we analyze who report non-truthfully and why they report non-truthfully. We combine detailed registry data on applicants to higher education with survey answers about the admission process and personality. We provide clear evidence of the theory that students skip prominent programs for which they perceive admission to be unlikely or impossible. In addition, we demonstrate that such non-truthful reporting is driven by lack of feasible choice options, low self-confidence, pessimistic admission beliefs, and difficulties comprehending the admission process. Surprisingly, we find no evidence that age, gender, cognitive abilities or parents' SES affect non-truthful reporting. Finally, we show that non-truthful reporting has limited welfare implications because few of the non-truthful applicants would improve their matching outcome by reporting truthfully. Our results have implications for the modelling of preferences, information acquisition, and subjective admission beliefs in strategy-proof mechanisms.
The SODAS Data Discussion will take place in Zoom from 11.00 am to 12.00 noon.
Time: Jun 18, 2021 11:00 AM Copenhagen
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 645 8983 5036