Learning to Think Like an Economist without Becoming One: Ambivalent Reproduction and Policy Couplings in a Masters of Public Affairs Program

IF 7.1 1区社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY

American Sociological Review Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1177/00031224241231985

Tim Hallett, Matthew Gougherty

{"title":"Learning to Think Like an Economist without Becoming One: Ambivalent Reproduction and Policy Couplings in a Masters of Public Affairs Program","authors":"Tim Hallett, Matthew Gougherty","doi":"10.1177/00031224241231985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, sociologists have labored to understand how economists have gained influence over policymaking. We extend this research by shifting focus from the matter of influence to the matter of policy training. Granted that economists already have influence, how do future policy professionals learn economic rationales? How is this mindset transmitted to hesitant students? By asking these questions, we bring socialization back into institutional research on “new” professionals. Utilizing data from an ethnography of a Masters of Public Affairs program, we find that students learn economics through a process of “ambivalent reproduction”: they learn to “think like an economist without becoming one.” They remain skeptical and reject the notion that they are economists, and when they use economics in their future policy work they do so in limited ways. Nonetheless, ambivalent reproduction sustains the policy status-quo and allows economics to remain influential without true belief. Ambivalent reproduction provides a new means for understanding the loosely coupled influence of economics on policy, and it contributes to the sociology of economics, inhabited institutionalism, and professional socialization.","PeriodicalId":48461,"journal":{"name":"American Sociological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224241231985","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, sociologists have labored to understand how economists have gained influence over policymaking. We extend this research by shifting focus from the matter of influence to the matter of policy training. Granted that economists already have influence, how do future policy professionals learn economic rationales? How is this mindset transmitted to hesitant students? By asking these questions, we bring socialization back into institutional research on “new” professionals. Utilizing data from an ethnography of a Masters of Public Affairs program, we find that students learn economics through a process of “ambivalent reproduction”: they learn to “think like an economist without becoming one.” They remain skeptical and reject the notion that they are economists, and when they use economics in their future policy work they do so in limited ways. Nonetheless, ambivalent reproduction sustains the policy status-quo and allows economics to remain influential without true belief. Ambivalent reproduction provides a new means for understanding the loosely coupled influence of economics on policy, and it contributes to the sociology of economics, inhabited institutionalism, and professional socialization.

查看原文本刊更多论文

学会像经济学家一样思考而不成为经济学家：公共事务硕士课程中的矛盾再生产与政策耦合

近年来，社会学家一直在努力了解经济学家是如何获得对决策的影响力的。我们扩展了这一研究，将重点从影响力问题转向政策培训问题。既然经济学家已经拥有影响力，那么未来的政策专业人士是如何学习经济学原理的？如何将这种思维方式传递给犹豫不决的学生？通过提出这些问题，我们将社会化重新带入了对 "新 "专业人士的机构研究中。利用对公共事务硕士课程进行人种学研究的数据，我们发现学生是通过 "矛盾再生产 "的过程来学习经济学的：他们学会了 "像经济学家一样思考，但又不会成为经济学家"。他们对自己是经济学家的概念保持怀疑和排斥，当他们在未来的政策工作中使用经济学时，也只是以有限的方式使用。然而，矛盾再生产维持了政策现状，使经济学在没有真正信仰的情况下仍然具有影响力。矛盾再生产为理解经济学对政策的松散耦合影响提供了一种新方法，它对经济社会学、居住制度主义和职业社会化都有贡献。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American Sociological Review SOCIOLOGY-

CiteScore

13.30

自引率

3.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The American Sociological Association (ASA) is a non-profit membership association established in 1905. Its mission is to advance sociology as a scientific discipline and profession that serves the public good. ASA is comprised of approximately 12,000 members including faculty members, researchers, practitioners, and students in the field of sociology. Roughly 20% of the members work in government, business, or non-profit organizations. One of ASA's primary endeavors is the publication and dissemination of important sociological research. To this end, they founded the American Sociological Review (ASR) in 1936. ASR is the flagship journal of the association and publishes original works that are of general interest and contribute to the advancement of sociology. The journal seeks to publish new theoretical developments, research results that enhance our understanding of fundamental social processes, and significant methodological innovations. ASR welcomes submissions from all areas of sociology, placing an emphasis on exceptional quality. Aside from ASR, ASA also publishes 14 professional journals and magazines. Additionally, they organize an annual meeting that attracts over 6,000 participants. ASA's membership consists of scholars, professionals, and students dedicated to the study and application of sociology in various domains of society.