Discussion: Five Neophytes in Search of a Mentor

Abstract

LANCE DAVIS: Some years ago, in commenting on Association's dissertation session, our president elect, William Parker, discussed similarity between students' dissertations and research interests of their major professors. While almost no one would deny that there is some truth in this observation, it tends to cloud more than it illuminates. If statement is accepted uncritically, it is difficult not to conclude that economic history is foreordained to status quo. Given preponderance of evidence, however-evidence readily available in pages of JOURNAL-that conclusion is quite unacceptable. In fact, few subjects have undergone so thorough a revolution (this is not to argue that new state of affairs is better than old-only different). Without question, in past decade economic history has become more quantitative, more theoretical, and more concerned with economic as opposed to political and social problems. How can this conflict be resolved, if we are all in our maker's image? From what source does change come? First, economics is essentially a technical subject, and that technology is changing. Each year's students have better technical training than did group year before, and all are infinitely better trained than their major professors (in fact, we should all recognize threat of technological unemployment). If there are among you some who doubt truth of this generality, I challenge you to pass a set of today's preliminary examinations despite your accumulated years of research experience. Certainly Professor McCloskey's study of growth of British iron and steel industry reflects long-term interests of Professor Gerschenkron in process of European industrialization, but can you really imagine Alex using the price dual of Solo's residual method as a tool of analysis? Second, while students do tend to follow interests of their mentors, composition of that latter group is subject to continuous change. Four years ago, session heard reports from students of Professors Parker, Gerschenkron, North, Cameron, and Kemmerer. While all except lastnamed are still training Ph.D.'s (and students of both Gerschenkron and Cameron are among present lot), this year's group includes students of Fogel and Fishlow-both very new Ph.D.'s four years ago. Moreover, it is likely that next year's group will include students who have written their dissertations with one of participants in that first session. Given these pressures for change within system, it is not surprising that a comparison of dissertations presented in this session reflects changes in direction and focus of research as well as something of successes and failures of this work. Despite my personal commitment to quantification, these observations have not been subject to rigorous statis-