Conversations between Anthropologists and Economists

Interdisciplinary citation patterns and other indicators of the flow and sharing of academic knowledge suggest that economists and anthropologists do not talk to each other. Previous studies of this puzzling trend have typically attributed the problem to methodological differences between the two disciplines. Although there are significant differences between economics and anthropology in behavioral assumptions and modes of inquiry, similar differences exist between them and other disciplines (some with much heavier volumes of cross-citations with economics or anthropology), suggesting that the source of the problem lies elsewhere. This paper considers the problem at a deeper level by examining systematic differences in the preferences, capabilities, and literary cultures of economists and anthropologists. Adopting a rhetorical perspective, I consider not the firms, households, or tribes as the principal objective of analysis in the two disciplines, but the conversations between these units. These conversations (through non-verbal as well as verbal media) can be grouped into two genres, based on the type of problem they aim to solve. Those in the first genre aim to solve the problem of interest--how to align the incentives of the parties involved. Those in the second genre deal with the problem of knowledge--how to align localized, and dispersed information. Economists are interested and capable of dealing with primarily, if not exclusively, the first genre, and anthropologists focus on the second. This difference has far reaching consequences for how economists and anthropologists conduct their own scholarly conversations with their own colleagues, why they are having difficulty talking to each other across disciplinary boundaries, and what can be done to change the patterns of communication.

Family Court Judges' Training, Background, and Child Development Knowledge: Associations with Child Custody Decision Making

Family court judges are often asked to make inferences about - or directly interview children to ascertain - children's custody preferences and their maturity to express such preferences. These estimates of children's developmental maturity are important to the judges' considerations of children's "best interests" in custody cases. The research literature describing family court judges' background, education, training, and knowledge about child development is scant. With appropriate child development knowledge, judges should be better able to identify the developmental stages at which children have the cognitive and social capabilities to communicate directly their placement wishes or concerns. The current study is the first to examine judges' estimates of - and actual tests of - their child development knowledge, their training/education, and their application of this knowledge to their decisions to involve children as participants in contested custody cases.