Lets start with a first fact: Most of economics is boring. No, I don’t mean this in the way that the public at large means it; on the contrary, I think that economics done well can be beautiful and fascinating. What I mean is that most writing on economics is boring because: (1) It does not address interesting questions; (2) It has nothing new to add that is itself important; or (3) Even if the researcher does in fact have something new and important to say, the researcher does such a poor job of articulating this that the reader has little chance of figuring this out.

An excerpt from Don Davis’ “Ph.D. Thesis Research: Where do I Start?“.

He is a Columbia economics prof. It is short to read and I agree with pretty much everything. It is equally applicable to junior faculty, MA theses, and pretty much any other social science. Read it.

Here he is on “What Makes for a Successful Paper and Seminar?“

Here you go. The authors are Berk Ozler, David McKenzie, Jed Friedman, and Markus Goldstein, in order of how good looking they are. (But yes, note that I did not tell you whether the order is ascending or descending.)
They are some of my favorite development economists. The blog records their musings on many matters, from policy to field work to technical issues. Here is David on how to get a lot of learning out of a few firms, Berk on stuff you can’t randomize, Jed on small sample studies, and Markus being less than encouraging.
And there are guest bloggers. Here are the Deans of development (Karlan and Yang) advising students on how to engage with an NGO.
I was sadly unable to add to the guest blog, mainly because it is taking everything within my power not to post baby pictures three times a day. But see my earlier advice to students interested in quantitative field research in the field.

Man I love xkcd.