In a recent interview, Jonathan Haidt made note that the only social science that has any degree of substantive intellectual diversity is economics. He makes this argument based on the liberal/conservative ratio of about 3:1 found in several studies of economists.
Even with economists, however, the data tell us that motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are serious problems. In a paper found on Econ Journal Watch, Randazzo and Haidt (2015) tell us just how big a problem motivated reasoning is...even in a “diverse” discipline.
Collectively, this data shows that economists’substantive conclusions about the workings of the economy are suspiciously correlated with their moral values. We cannot prove causation with our survey design, but given everything else we know about the power of motivated reasoning (Nickerson 1998; see review in Haidt 2012, ch. 4), causal effects are quite likely.
Translation: Randazzo and Haidt found that the moral values of economists predicted really, really strongly, their views on specific economic policies.
Will this pattern hold for criminologists?
From the data I collected it is fair to say “yes.” More on this latter but my initial calculations are startling.
John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi
Professors of Crime and Criminology