IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uwe/wpaper/20131306.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How should economics curricula be evaluated?

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Mearman

    (University of the West of England, Bristol)

Abstract

This paper explores the evaluation of economics curricula. It argues that the dominant approach in economics education, experimentalism, has serious limitations which render it an unsuitable evaluation method in some cases. The arguments against experimentalism are practical, ethical and also rest on a view of the world as a complex, open system in which contexts are unique and generalised regularities are unlikely. In such an environment, as often found in educational contexts, alternative methods are advisable, at least as part of a suite of approaches in a realistic, case-based, mixed-methods approach to evaluation. Thus, economics curricula should be evaluated using a method or set of methods most appropriate to the particular object case. As such, there is no single answer to the question posed.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Mearman, 2013. "How should economics curricula be evaluated?," Working Papers 20131306, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwe:wpaper:20131306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.uwe.ac.uk/faculties/BBS/BUS/Research/Economics13/1306.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salvador Contreras & Frank Badua & Mitchell Adrian, 2012. "Peer Effects on Undergraduate Business Student Performance," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 11(1), pages 57-66.
    2. June Lapidus, 2011. "But which theory is right? Economic pluralism, developmental epistemology and uncertainty," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 82-95.
    3. Paul Downward & Andrew Mearman, 2007. "Retroduction as mixed-methods triangulation in economic research: reorienting economics into social science," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 31(1), pages 77-99, January.
    4. Richard McIntyre & Robert Van Horn, 2011. "Contending perspectives in one department," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 69-81.
    5. Cher Ping Lim, 1998. "The Effect of a Computer-Based Learning (CBL) Support Package on the Learning Outcome of Low-Performance Economics Students," Computers in Higher Education Economics Review, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 12(1), pages 19-26.
    6. Siakantaris, Nikos, 2000. "Experimental Economics under the Microscope," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 24(3), pages 267-281, May.
    7. Peter Davies & Ross Guest, 2010. "What effect do we really have on students' understanding and attitudes? How do we know?," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 9(1), pages 6-9.
    8. Ruzita Mohd Amin & Mohamed Aslam Haneef, 2011. "The quest for better economics graduates: reviving the pluralist approach in the case of the International Islamic University, Malaysia," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 96-113.
    9. Iwan Barankay & Magnus Johannesson & John List & Richard Friberg & Matti Liski & Kjetil Storesletten, 2013. "Guest Editors’ Preface to the Special Symposium on Field Experiments," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(1), pages 1-2, January.
    10. Charles Barone, 2011. "Contending economic perspectives at a liberal arts college: a 25-year retrospective," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 19-38.
    11. Stephen Resnick & Richard D. Wolff, 2011. "Teaching economics differently by comparing contesting theories," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 57-68.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.
    2. Katarzyna Gruszka & Annika Scharbert & Michael Soder, 2016. "Changing the world one student at a time? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics Papers ieep7, Institute of Ecological Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Mearman, 2012. "Pluralist economics curricula: do they work; and how would we know?," Working Papers 20121203, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    2. Robert Garnett & Andrew Mearman, 2011. "Contending Perspectives, Twenty Years On: What Have Our Students Learned?," Working Papers 201104, Texas Christian University, Department of Economics.
    3. Andrew Mearman & Tim Wakeley & Gamila Shoib & Don J. Webber, 2011. "Does Pluralism in Economics Education Make Better Educated, Happier Students? A Qualitative Analysis," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 50-62.
    4. Andrew Mearman, 2006. "Critical realism in economics and open-systems ontology: A critique," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(1), pages 47-75.
    5. Agnes Baeker & Mario Mechtel, 2013. "The Role of Task Meaning on Output in Groups: Experimental Evidence," IAAEU Discussion Papers 201308, Institute of Labour Law and Industrial Relations in the European Union (IAAEU).
    6. Jackson Emerson Abraham, 2017. "Theoretical and Methodological Context of (Post)-Modern Econometrics and Competing Philosophical Discourses for Policy Prescription," Journal of Heterodox Economics, Sciendo, vol. 4(2), pages 119-129, December.
    7. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Annika Lorenz & Michael Raven & Knut Blind, 2019. "The role of standardization at the interface of product and process development in biotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1097-1133, August.
    9. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.
    10. Yannick Gabuthy & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2013. "Analyse économique du droit et méthode expérimentale," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-00746617, HAL.
    11. Viktor Skyrman, 2023. "An Antidote for Securitization? How Covered Bonds Fuel Household Indebtedness in Sweden’s Financialized Growth Model," Working Papers PKWP2314, Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
    12. Irene van Staveren, 2012. "An Evolutionary Efficiency Alternative to the Notion of Pareto Efficiency," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-6, July.
    13. Martha A. Starr, 2014. "Qualitative And Mixed-Methods Research In Economics: Surprising Growth, Promising Future," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 238-264, April.
    14. Pires Gonçalves, Ricardo, 2008. "Consumer Behavior: Product Characteristics and Quality Perception," MPRA Paper 11142, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Andrew Mearman & Aspasia Papa & Don Webber, 2014. "Why do Students Study Economics?," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 19(1), pages 119-147, March.
      • Andrew Mearman & Aspasia Papa & Don J. Webber, 2013. "Why do students study economics?," Working Papers 20131303, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    16. Chassagnon, Virgile & Dubrion, Benjamin, 2015. "Responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise et manipulation des salariés au travail : un éclairage institutionnaliste à partir d’une analyse de la littérature sur les codes de conduite," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 17.
    17. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    18. María Caamaño-Alegre & José Caamaño-Alegre, 2019. "Economic experiments versus physical science experiments: an ontology-based approach," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 1-30, May.
    19. Uskali Maki, 2005. "Models are experiments, experiments are models," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 303-315.
    20. Steinmo, Marianne & Rasmussen, Einar, 2018. "The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1964-1974.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate
    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology
    • B5 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches
    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwe:wpaper:20131306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jo Michell (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seuweuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.