Search
Search

Working Paper No. 53. How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence from Six Fields

PublicationWorking paper
Akademiker, Charlotta Stern, Daniel Klein, Företagandets villkor, Ideologi, Mångfald, Politiska partier, Politiskt lärande, Republican, Röstning

Abstract

In Spring 2003, a large-scale survey of American academics was conducted using academic association membership lists from six fields: Anthropology, Economics, History, Philosophy (political and legal), Political Science, and Sociology. This paper focuses on one question: To which political party have the candidates you’ve voted for in the past ten years mostly belonged? The question was answered by 96.4 percent of academic respondents. The results show that the faculty is heavily skewed towards voting Democratic. The most lopsided fields surveyed are Anthropology with a D to R ratio of 30.2 to 1, and Sociology with 28.0 to 1. The least lopsided is Economics with 3.0 to 1. After Economics, the least lopsided is Political Science with 6.7 to 1. The average of the six ratios by field is about 15 to 1. Our analysis and related research suggest that for the the social sciences and humanities overall, a “one-big-pool” ratio of 7 to 1 is a safe lower-bound estimate, and 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 are reasonable point estimates. Thus, the social sciences and humanities are dominated by Democrats. There is little ideological diversity. We discuss Stephen Balch’s “property rights” proposal to help remedy the situation.

Related content: Political Diversity in Six Disciplines

Klein, D. & Stern, C. (2004). How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence from Six Fields. Ratio Working Paper No. 53.

Similar content

Sociology and Classical Liberalism in Dialogue. Freedom is Something We Do Together
BookPublication
Rojas, F. & Stern, C.
Publication year

2024

Published in

Lexington Books.

Abstract

The motivation for Sociology and Classical Liberalism in Dialogue: Freedom is Something We Do Together is based on two observations: first, sociology as a field is populated with scholars on the left and second, (few but still) classical liberals and libertarian scholars are found in neighboring social science fields, such as economics, political science, and political philosophy. Can scholarship benefit if sociology and classical liberal ideas are in dialogue? To answer the question, the book gathers sociologists, criminologists, demographers, and political scientists that care about classical liberal ideas, or are willing to engage their sociological thinking with classical liberal ideas. Not all authors would identify themselves as classical liberals. These contributors discuss sociological topics through the lens of classical liberalism, asking how issues such as class, gender, or race relations can be viewed with a different perspective. Chapters also delve into the intersection of sociology and classical liberalism, exploring where viewpoints conflict and where they align.

Managers on balancing employment protection and what’s good for the company: Intended and unintended consequences of a semi-coercive institution
Article (with peer review)Publication
Stern, C., & Weidenstedt, L.
Publication year

2022

Published in

Economic and Industrial Democracy.

Abstract

Sweden’s institutionalized employment protection legislation, ‘LAS’, is interesting theoretically because parts of it are semi-coercive. The semi-coerciveness makes it possible for firms and unions under collective agreements to negotiate departures from the law. Thus, the law is more flexible than the legal text suggests. The present study explores intended and unintended consequences of LAS as experienced by managers of smaller manufacturing companies. The results suggest that managers support the idea of employment protection in principle but face a difficult balancing act in dealing with LAS. From their point of view, the legislation’s institutional legitimacy is low, producing local cultures of hypocrisy and pretense. The article gives insights into how institutions aimed at specific, intended behavior sometimes end up producing unintended consequences fostering the opposite.

The article in total can be read here.

Sex differences and occupational choice. Theorizing for policy informed by behavioral science.
Article (with peer review)Publication
Stern, C., & Madison, G.
Publication year

2022

Published in

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 202, 694-702.

Abstract

Occupations are segregated with respect to sex, even in modern, egalitarian societies. There are strong pressures to eliminate segregation and therefore strong reasons to correctly theorize why segregation persists. The dominant view underpinning most public policies is essentially that environmental factors nudge women and men into different occupational paths. Nudging, however, ignores research suggesting that psychological traits that influence occupational choice differs between women and men, on average.

Some of the most well-documented and persistent average sex differences between men and women suggest that the taken-for-granted assumption that an egalitarian society would exhibit a more or less equal distribution of men and women across the occupational landscape may be mistaken. Rather, models of occupational choice informed by individual differences in preferences, broadly understood, would help us better explain how men and women behave in the labor market. Differences in occupational preferences will affect choices. Therefore, differences in proportions of women and men across professions may be in line with an egalitarian society and the well-being and best interest of both men and women in society.

The article can be read here.

Show more