Piketty and me

My attempts to cut down on my compulsion to read everything that pops up in my twitterfeed, or from the ToC alerts which I have yet to cancel, has been scuppered by Professor Piketty.

At the time of the first attention paid to him by the media I pondered whether to make his tome my summer reading. I received an invitation to join a group of colleagues planning to read and discuss and the work over the summer and picked up a copy of the book in a bookshop to feel its weight: it seemed remarkably light for its page count and I concluded that this was because of the flimsiness of the paper. Perhaps I wasn't taking Piketty seriously enough. Possibly a fairly flimsy reason for deciding instead to spend the summer reading fiction but I *am* retired. After all, I could probably hold my own in any Piketty related conversation by just reading the helpful distillation in the Economist

Then last week's FT headlines grabbed my attention again. The debate about Piketty's conclusions had veered sharply away from ideological and political positions to focus on the data. Although my first degree was in economics, it was long ago: our allotted text was the first edition of Lipsey and it was viewed as something new and radical (this was at Manchester where students are currently campaigning for changes to the economics curriculum...). We did some fairly basic stats but my understanding has faded over the years with my developing focus on qualitative research methods. So the more technical arguments about Piketty's underlying data are not what interests me: it's the broader picture, the opening up of a debate about the interpretation of data, which I find very refreshing.

The availability of Piketty's data for scrutiny made this possible and this remains relatively unusual (but see this interesting blog).  Ben Goldacre aside, there is very little critical discussion in the media about how research studies are conducted. Very often there is not even a link in an article to the underlying study discussed. and even if there is, many academic articles are very difficult to read, even for other academics. (This is why I like this Wharton web site so much: in this article, for example, the researcher explains the core findings of his study in a way that easy to understand but you can also follow the link to the detailed paper.)

Numbers are very beguiling. They look so solid and incontrovertible and, in many ways, reassuring. But they often hide a multitude of judgements and estimates. Some understanding of the *limitations* of numbers is vital for us all.

Then I read Andy Haldane's latest speech and felt greatly cheered. He writes so clearly and gets to the heart of the subject in a penetrating analysis which still manages to be very readable. I reckon he reads a lot, too: he cites Colin Mayer's excellent book.

So I shall probably carry on for a while yet, trying to pick out the important bits from the flood of material that seems never-ending. Thanks to all those who tweet so helpfully about corporate governance (and special thanks to Maja for her help this week).

Asking questions at conferences

Found this on Twitter, via@AcademicsSay (well worth following). It should be handed out in the conference pack at every academic conference, although the people who really need it won't of course take any notice...