Intitulé du colloque :
The social logics of economics.Power, knowledge and practices between academia, the economy and society
Intitulé de la communication :
The sexual division of scientific labor in economics : evidences from a socio-morphological approach to students’ epistemic orientations
Résumé de la communication :
What Young (1974) described four decades ago still holds true today : sociologists of science have hitherto neglected the sociology of science education. To study empirically the current logics of economics, as an academic discipline, scholars have conducted historical and prospographical research on the institutionalization of the field (e.g. Coats 1993 ; Fourcade 2009), ethnographic inquiries on its scientific and professional culture (e.g. Lebaron 1996 ; Yonay & Breslay 2006), applied bibliometric analysis of the publications (e.g. Goyal 2006 ; Bosquet, Combes & Linnemer 2010 ; Kossi, Lesueur & Sabatier 2013), administered questionnaires to members of its learned societies (e.g. Mayer & Wasmer 2010 ; Maio 2013), examined the networks of doctoral committees invitations (e.g. Godechot 2011) etc. However, moving the focal point away from the knowledge producers, or the process of knowledge production, towards its transmission, and more especially the college students who are socialized into the dominant norms of a disciplinary paradigm (Kuhn 1962) is far less common in the literature. In this exposé, we will analyze the epistemic orientations of more than 300 students in economics, based on a survey conducted on ten different graduate programs in France in 2012, which will provide us with new insights on the sexual division of scientific labor in this discipline. First, we will briefly review both the economical and sociological literature on the teaching of economics. Then, we will present our own results and we will show how the sub-fields and the scientific methodologies of economics appear to be highly gendered (see figure and table 1, hereinafter). These findings will permit us to investigate the hierarchical structure of the standard paradigm and raise questions about the implications it carries on the definition of legitimate research, how social issues are selected and addressed by the discipline.