The Financial Times has a column about the recent twitter (X) discussion concerning our paper Social Media and Job Market Success: A Field Experiment on Twitter, by Jingyi Qiu, Yan Chen, Alain Cohn, and Alvin E. Roth.
That twitter-up concerned whether it is ethical to do field experiments in economics, in which some argued that the benefits that might accrue to treated market participants may disadvantage untreated market participants, including those not involved in the experiment and from whom consent was not obtained. (The FT column has a paragraph in which Douglas MacKay*, a bio-ethicist from UNC considers ethical issues that might arise if the market "is a zero sum competition.")
Here's the FT article, and the snippet that covers our paper.
When is it OK for economists to experiment on people? A recent study has raised ethical questions about research. by Soumaya Keynes, Financial Times.
"While most economic debates are about as spicy as boiled potatoes, others generate a bit more heat. A recent stir fell into the second category, in response to a new study of junior academics angling for jobs in economics.
...
"Alvin Roth, one of the authors of that experiment, says: “I can’t imagine economists thinking of a market as zero sum.” Perhaps a social media post could alert someone to a candidate so impressive that they persuade their university to make an extra position available. He points out that plenty of people share papers on social media, adding: “It seems to me that things that aren’t unethical to do shouldn’t be unethical to study to find out their effect.”
Here's my earlier post, of the paper, with some thoughts on the ethics of experimenting.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment