I am Alessandro Tacconelli, a PhD candidate at the Center for Law and Economics at ETH Zurich. I am a member of Professor Alexander Stremitzer's Law, Economics and Business Group. In addition to taking courses and assisting with research projects, I also work as a lecturer, teaching some courses. For example, in the last term, I co-taught a class on contract theory and contract design, and this term I am co-teaching a class on business strategy and corporate governance.
Regarding the Center, I would say that it is a diverse group of people with different backgrounds at ETH. The Center is part of the Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences here at ETH and brings together three professors and a very eclectic diverse range of postdocs, Ph.D. students, scientific and research assistants. Our research focuses on IP law, contract law, experimental and behavioral law & economics, political economy, law & tech, and legal applications of machine learning. So, a diversified range of topics. In general, we try to answer legally and economically relevant questions, through the use of a diverse array of scientific tools. In my group, we primarily use experimental methods, conducting social experiments to provide empirically based answers to legally relevant questions. We apply the instruments of experimental economics to the legal field and analyze legal issues using experiments.
Walk me through your experience applying for this program?
Even before moving to the US, when I used to work in a law firm in Milan, I had heard about the work at the Center, since I was very interested in behavioral science and experimental economics. I remember reading some papers published by people at the Center, so I started digging deeper into this work and landed on the page of ETH, where I found out about this program. While studying in the US at MBDS, then, I started to think about the possibility of continuing into academia and continuing my education by getting a PhD degree. I also wanted to be involved in teaching. I started checking out PhD programs in the last two semesters at Penn and, since I knew about the program at ETH, I decided to apply.
The application procedure at ETH is less centralized, so to say, than other PhD applications. What I mean is that here the direct contact between the potential candidates and their supervisors is even more relevant than in other universities. Of course you have to go through some bureaucracy, but I would say that, contrary to elsewhere, we do not have stringent deadlines to abide by or comprehensive application procedures putting together tons of other applicants. It's a more personal application process that somehow reminds me of a standard job application procedure that you can have in the private industry or even international organizations.
How did you get into Behavioral science and how did you find a connection between law, behavioral science and economics?
As it usually happens in life, I would say by chance. My first exposure to behavioral science dates back to my third year of law school at Bocconi University. When pursuing a law degree, probably learning about behavioral and decision sciences is not the first thought that goes through your mind, right? Today, I understand that this should not be the case, but back then this was my opinion as well. Well, in my third year of law school, I took a course on law and economics. The course covered core concepts of economic analysis of law, and it was during this course that I first heard of nudges, becoming acquainted with the work of Thaler and Sunstein. From there it was a continuous flow, honestly. I started to read a lot about behavioral science, about social norms, biases, how to design behaviorally informed interventions to achieve prosocial goals. I was so into behavioral science that I decided to write my final dissertation on the analysis of the main behavioral biases affecting parties’ decisions in lawsuits and the potential biasing role of lawyers. I then pursued a master's degree in decision sciences at Penn and continued my education in this field here at ETH.
As to the connection between law and behavioral science, here probably the answer relates more to how someone could define behavioral science. For instance, in my case, I believe that behavioral science should not be taught as a separate subject from anything else. And this is why I honestly struggle whenever people ask me to describe what behavioral science is, because I don't believe that behavioral science is indeed a specific field of science. What I do believe is that behavioral science is a methodology, an approach if you want, that aims at putting human life at the center of any possible equation that you can apply in any possible field. Now, if you adopt this perspective and you agree with it, then the connection between law and behavioral science should be clear. Since the law is created by people; and legal decision making is a process that involves people; and every legal matter that you can think of can be reduced to a matter in which two or more people come together to try to solve an issue, behavioral science is of course relevant.
For instance, Michael Hallsworth once said that one of the final goals of behavioral science should be to be built into organizations. So, rather than setting up dedicated behavioral science teams, we should focus more on ensuring that a behavioral-science approach becomes the rule in an organization’s processes. Well, I couldn’t agree more, and I believe this is true even for academia. So, going back to the question, if you believe that behavioral science should be an approach, a methodology to ask questions or tackle problems, then the application of such a method even in the legal field should be clear.
Could you tell me more about your ongoing research projects and how they relate to your broader interest?
In general, I work at the intersection of law, economics and behavioral science. My focus is on using experimental methods to provide empirically rigorous answers to legally relevant questions. In other words, instead of merely speculating about how people will react in a specific legal setting or how the law should address some questions, I try to either use existing data or collect new ones to inform my answers. I believe this field has a lot of potential for growth especially in Europe and especially in the legal field, when it can positively contribute to what some people like to call the ‘common good’ in societies.
Currently, I am working on my research proposal for my PhD. In addition, I am also working on more advanced projects. One of those is a project with my supervisor and the rest of our team. The project is focused on the use of AI tools in the medical field and how it impacts liability for medical professionals.
What do you think are the most important skills or traits to be a successful PhD student?
I think enthusiasm. Somebody could say this is a pretty easy answer, but I strongly believe that enthusiasm should be something on which you should really invest when you try to pursue a PhD or, more in general, continue down the academic career path. You know, in academia there’s something called “second-year blues.”' When you arrive as a PhD candidate in the first year, you're extremely happy and thrilled about what lies ahead. But then academia sometimes can be very problematic in keeping this enthusiasm burning. And so, when you approach your second year, after you have defined your research proposal, you have attended some classes, and you have to start working on your research or other research projects, encountering several of the typical obstacles of doing research, it can be that your enthusiasm starts to decrease. So, in order not to give up and in order to keep things going and to get on, you should try to focus on your enthusiasm and remember the original feeling that you felt when you applied. I believe that enthusiasm should be a skill that you will have to have.
The second thing is that you have to be extremely patient for a series of reasons. It could be in terms of interpersonal relationships, waiting, and time management. Again, sometimes working on a research project entails investing a lot of time and waiting a lot before getting the results. Sometimes, then, those results will not even be the ones you were expecting or – let’s be honest – the ones you were hoping for. And that’s ok! In all those circumstances, having patience is honestly the best skill that you can have.
How many more years do you have to complete?
In my case, officially, the PhD takes 3 years to complete. This is also something that I would say is a pro for PhD programs here in Europe compared to the US. Now, I'm currently still in my first year, so, theoretically, after this year, I will have two more years. But realistically, what happens really varies case by case. In order to successfully complete your PhD, the best approach to adopt is to have a constant conversation with your supervisor, understand how things are going and what time is necessary to get the best result you can, and then decide accordingly. On average, I would say that most of the PhDs, at least here, take 4 and half years to be completed, but really this is an extremely relative estimation.
Did having a master’s degree help?
Definitely, having a master's degree helped a lot. Even though I know that some institutions do not ask for a Master degree as a necessary requirement, I really struggle to see how this could be the case. PhD applications have become such competitive processes that of course starting with a lower education degree compared to the other applicants is a huge disadvantage. In my case, I held not only one but two master degrees when I applied: the law degree at Bocconi and the Master at Penn. Both, I would say, helped present my profile as a complete one. On the one hand, the law degree showed a complete education in the legal field. On the other one, the degree at Penn helped me fill some of the quantitative research methods gaps that I had on my CV coming from a legal background.
What are some biggest challenges in your PhD journey so far and how did you overcome them?
In terms of working as a PhD and, more in general, doing research, one of the biggest challenges is the ability to understand how to operationalize research ideas that you may come up with in your mind. The academic rigor always requires a very long process. Once you have found an interesting question, you will have to figure out how to practically operationalize the question, and this sometimes can be a challenge. Sometimes, you find yourself thinking of so many different things, but when you have to sit down and actually come up with a research plan and research proposal, translating those ideas into facts can be very frustrating. You may not know where to start and how to proceed.
The second big challenge, in my opinion, is maybe a more holistic one. I believe that you should always remember that research, for the sake of mere research, is somehow limited. I say this to myself all the time. Often, I find myself lost in asking questions, imagining theories that are difficult to translate into practical ‘useful’ implications. When you do research, try to understand why asking those questions should be relevant, and even more, whether finding the answers to those questions is worth it. Don't get me wrong: I think theory is very important. I'm a passionate theorist, and I firmly believe that theory is still the main contributor to human knowledge. But theories are rarely enough.
What is one piece of advice you would give to someone who started their career in behavioral science, based on either your personal or professional experience?
First of all, I would say: do it because it's a great field. Behavioral Science is a growing field, and it can help a lot from very different perspectives. My second piece of advice, though, is exactly what we were saying before: try to understand that behavioral science should be an approach, should be a methodology. It should not be necessarily a subject per se. This will also help you to find your own path: try to quit the idea of becoming necessarily a ‘behavioral scientist,’ because it would be very difficult to qualify and identify yourself as such. Rather, start thinking that, with your behavioral science background and a proper education in the sector, you could contribute into different fields. This view is also very stimulating for your career, because you can work in several different sectors, applying behavioral science as a method, as an approach. So, forget about the qualification of ‘behavioral scientist’ and focus on being a ‘scientist’ first and foremost - a scientist who uses scientifically credible methods to achieve behavioral outcomes.
Aahh, what you said reminded me of what Matt Wallaert said. Behavioral science, behavior as an outcome, science as a process.
----------
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Alessandro and I had this chat on 04/13/2023.
You can connect with him on his Linkedin