Academic superstars: competent or lucky?

Citation data:

Synthese, ISSN: 0039-7857, Vol: 194, Issue: 11, Page: 4499-4518

Publication Year:
2017
Usage 159
Downloads 157
Abstract Views 2
Captures 15
Readers 15
Social Media 270
Shares, Likes & Comments 224
Tweets 46
Citations 2
Citation Indexes 2
Repository URL:
http://repository.cmu.edu/philosophy/675; http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/14840; http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/12459
DOI:
10.1007/s11229-016-1146-5
Author(s):
Heesen, Remco
Publisher(s):
Springer Nature; Springer; Springer (Springer Science+Business Media B.V.)
Tags:
Arts and Humanities; Social Sciences; Philosophy of science; Social structure of science; Formal epistemology; Social epistemology; Network formation; Philosophy
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
article description
I show that the social stratification of academic science can arise as a result of academics’ preference for reading work of high epistemic value. This is consistent with a view on which academic superstars are highly competent academics, but also with a view on which superstars arise primarily due to luck. I argue that stratification is beneficial if most superstars are competent, but not if most superstars are lucky. I also argue that it is impossible to tell whether most superstars are in fact competent or lucky, or which group a given superstar belongs to, and hence whether stratification is overall beneficial.