By Duncan Watson
Supporting Reading
This topic is covered in a series of papers, but the following source provides a good introduction to some of the major issues:
| Citation | Watson, D., Parker, L. and Cook, S. (2017). Real world economics: the peculiar case of applied economics provision in England and Wales, International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 8(3): 286-299 |
| Abstract | This paper examines the teaching of applied economics and questions whether it could be seen as a trendsetter providing a pluralist perspective via robust policy analysis. This is achieved through three elements. Initially by reviewing the characteristics of applied economics teaching in England and Wales we find very little variation in undergraduate pedagogy. Subsequently, we explore how the symbiotic development of economics and mathematics narratives could contribute to this rigidity. The results show an inherent idealism that inhibits and destabilises any value applied economic analysis could contribute to the pluralist position. Finally, we introduce Lakoff’s cognitive linguistics to explain how applied economics could impede the exploration of heterodox ideas. We conclude that applied economics teaching, as presently practiced in England and Wales, has less to contribute to the education of economists than typically asserted. Unless there is a conscious intent of highlighting pluralist implications in applied economics, we recommend a refocus on the study of the history of economic thought. |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPEE.2017.088764 |
Takeaway Message: Economic pluralism is often restricted to being seen as a stunted curricula. Thus, it is argued that there is over-fixation on neoclassical economics. This then suggests that Economics teaching gives a slanted view of the discipline, often simultaneously leading to the accusation of the creation of technicians who are not adept at using economics in real-world problem-solving. We argue that this viewpoint generates an ideological dilemma, where the instructor’s bias risks replacing one orthodoxy with another. Instead, in delivering a pluralist perspective, the attention should be focused on teaching methods. Rather than providing a rigid pedagogy which attempts to instruct ‘truth’, there should be an emphasis on allowing students to pursue alternative perspectives. The dictatorial teacher should be replaced with the non-didactic guide who supports student autonomy and the genuine choices that are available within the extensive and various resources of economic analysis.
Background
As described purposely by Denis (2009, 7), Economics is a discipline that is comprised of “not one but many sciences of economics”. Economists do not think alike. There are multiple schools of thought, regularly producing inconsistent stories as explanation for economic phenomena. The student therefore should realise that economics cannot be understood through the adoption of one perspective. It is by comparing and contrasting various economic schools of thought, whilst engaging with related disciplines in the social sciences, that economists can be creative in their enquiry. Given this, there is no justification to teach economics as if a consensus exists. Such an assumption would seemingly serve no purpose and result only in the student being deprived of the rich debate within the discipline. In short, a pluralist teaching approach- whereby the instructor and learner consider the different ways of understanding economic phenomena- is seen as the natural outcome which all economics education should pursue.
We therefore have to ask why, given these apparent advantages, the debate between monism and pluralism is still on-going? Neoclassical economics continues to dominate undergraduate curricula and pluralist techniques are often relegated to specific sub-disciplines. For some, this reflects constraints imposed on the higher education sector. Wilson and Dixon (2009, 98), for example, highlight the consequences of the targeting of research:
“The targeting of research…made a more liberal, pluralistic approach to the provision of undergraduate economics seem to many in the academy a luxury that could no longer be afforded.”
Pedagogical developments, according to this viewpoint, are driven by simple concerns over opportunity costs. With research central to the academic’s career progression, there is an incentive to adopt a less sophisticated programme design with core orthodox curricula reiterated again and again through-out individual module provision. This approach is often preferred by academics that prioritise concise formal representation through mathematical formulae, as they frequently seek the most convenient avenue to minimise learning and teaching workloads.
In contrast, rather than referring to the evolution of economics as a result of general higher education developments, we could highlight the characteristics of the individual academic. Freeman (2009, 24) notes that, for economics, “pluralism has been misrepresented as a synonym for heterodoxy”. How can we explain this tendency to blur the definition of two distinct terms? Are there perhaps characteristics specific to Economics that could make pluralist methods more difficult to apply? This paper offers an insight into such imprecision by inspecting the discipline through the lens of Foucault and Barthes. It posits that it is the pursuit of an inadequate and obsolete economic pedagogy that has limited the delivery of pluralism. We will show that the notion of a ‘pluralist pedagogue’ is a paradox, representing a contradiction in terms. Whilst the pedagogue represents the old-fashioned, autocratic teacher, the development of pluralism is innately limited. For it to evolve fully requires a fundamental shift in the relationship between academic and student. The instructor must cede his hierarchical position and become the enlightened navigator. In the next section we defend this position. This is then succeeded by two case studies offered with two purposes in mind: to elaborate on the specific characteristics presented by a pluralist economic education and to illustrate what is meant by an enlightened navigator. Innovative assessment should be placed at the heart of a successfully pluralist education, shifting the emphasis placed on the ‘teacher’ as distributor onto the students themselves. Thus, pluralism is not simply about curriculum design but also the mode of teaching. These concepts are typically discussed separately, rather than being suitably integrated.
Examples of Pluralist Modules
(i) Intermediate Microeconomics
Intermediate Microeconomics typically adopts a standard curriculum. It will often start with a vague separation of analysis between two types of economic agents: the consumer and the firm. Similar mathematical tools will be used to explain how these economic agents behave, using the assumption of rationality to derive an understanding of general equilibrium and welfare. This will then allow discussion of numerous potential barriers to the delivery of economic efficiency: imperfect competition, externalities, public goods and asymmetric knowledge problems. There is therefore a tendency to see Intermediate Microeconomics as simply a “diagram plus” experience, where the analysis into Introductory Microeconomics is repeated with more complexity. One reaction to this regimentation, particularly as a rejection of its monist nature, is to attempt the inclusion of heterodox content. As described in Mearman (2007), there are three common strategies: an orthodox-plus approach; replacing the orthodox analysis but shifting towards a heterodox perspective; and adopting a ‘compare and contrast’ parallel perspectives approach. There will likewise be a key choice over the textbook chosen by the instructor. A good example of a text that allows comparison of schools of thought is Himmelweit et al. (2001), offering comparison of neoclassical and institutionalist perspectives to enable the student to appraise elements of orthodox microeconomic analysis. A more radical departure is Elsner (2012). This book offers an evolutionary perspective and pitches itself as an ideal ‘non-toxic’ choice. The idea of toxic textbooks originates from the post-autistic economics movement. They did not hold back in terms of their disapproval for the current textbooks on offer:
“Every year these “mainstream” books serve to indoctrinate millions of students in a quaint ideology (perfect rationality of economic agents, market efficiency, the invisible hand, etc.) cunningly disguised as science. This mass miseducation deprives society of the moral and intellectual capacities it needs in order to design and maintain the support systems required by market economies.”
The obvious concern here is that this is really just a call for the replacement of one orthodox with a preferred intellectually superior alternative. To avoid such binary oppositions that potentially undermine pluralism, it is therefore arguably better to adopt a parallel approach, often shifting from a topic-based to problem-based approach.
The primary problem encountered by the instructor will be time constraints. The call to cover alternative paradigms can provoke the anxieties of ambiguity detailed earlier, where constraints are so severe that students become dispirited as breadth necessarily overpowers depth and they flounder in superficial content with little more than superficial references as inadequate entrances to complex schools of thought. Consider, for example, the issue of market power. The orthodox position will typically build on a basic ‘big is bad’ outlook. Analysis generally commences by confirming the extent of deadweight loss. Critique of that approach is then only provided by the shift from a static outlook to a dynamic one that introduces innovation. There is then only a negligible ambiguity as the student is required to question the extent to which market power harms the innovation process. To proceed any further demands answering a vital question: which alternatives should be considered? Is it sufficient to simply compare the orthodox approach with a heterodox alternative such as Schumpeterian ‘creative destruction’? For pluralism to genuinely exist and not merely be acknowledged in passing there should be references to multiple other issues. Perhaps this would begin with reference to how new institutionalism can be used to strengthen neoclassical stance. It may also include business history analysis, such as Chandlerian analysis which provides a compelling link between organisational and technical innovations. There is also room for more general analysis into innovation theory, providing a plethora of approaches that could arguably fill a module’s curriculum by themselves. There is simply too much material to cover and the instructor will be forced to deliberately restrict it, thus making a selective choice that silences the remainder and possibly reflects his own biases.
There are learning methods which can reduce the impact of these choices. One used extensively is ‘flipping the classroom’. Championed by Walvoord and Anderson (1998), this promotes the idea of flipping home study and lecture time. Originally this endorsed a pre-lecture assignment, where students provide work prior to the lecture and receive feedback through the classroom activities. The idea is straight-forward: the classroom can be focused on synthesizing, analysing and problem-solving. Within the framework of a study of economics (e.g. Lage et al. 2000; Mazur and Crouch 2001) there is a focus on providing the material traditionally given in the lecture beforehand. This will often be technologically based, such as the use of screencasts which cover the material covered in the orthodox textbook. The lecture is then freed to focus on more conceptual questions. Technology will often also be used within these lectures, such as the use of student response systems to ensure a more interactive ‘debating’ environment. Such a format arguably suits the pluralist agenda. There is no need to reiterate the orthodox position in the lecture. Pre-lecture videos detailing this position can, within the lecturing environment, be compared with alternative approaches. The student can therefore be offered choice and the interactive systems can be used to encourage students to critique and, where necessary, dismiss.
Does this ‘flipping the classroom’ approach work? There is growing evidence that it can indeed produce significant learning gains (Deslauriers et al. 2011), but they are not automatic (Webb et al. 2021). In particular, shifting away from ‘talk and chalk’ can significantly improve student engagement. For the interests of pluralism, however, the combination of pre-lecture videos with lectures designed to focus on the debate within the discipline can ensure a structured learning environment which avoids claims of superficial delivery. In addition, consider the quote from Bransford et al. (2000, 18):
“A ‘metacognitive’ approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them”
Thus, by ensuring an environment where the student is able to question the orthodox and heterodox approaches in an environment where there is open dialogue between herself and the instructor, they are able to recognise how the debate is furthering their understanding of the various economic approaches.
Despite the undoubted gains to be had from ‘flipping the classroom’ and how this can eliminate student disengagement from a module often seen as just adding complexity to introductory theory, our earlier analysis now exposes the shortcoming: this process is not actually delivering pluralism. It is merely a structured means of questioning the orthodox position. Even with these ‘flipping’ techniques, there are still severe constraints on what can be covered. Except in very specific problem-based exercises, the instructor will still be forced to dictate which theoretical concepts will be covered and which will be ignored. This creates an outcome which should be alien to the pluralist agenda: the student is simply being encouraged to accept that the instructor’s theoretical preferences are appropriate. For pluralism to be liberated we therefore propose that this ‘flipping’ approach to teaching must be combined with careful use of assessment. Here, we argue that the attention must be shifted away from the instructor and towards peer review.
The importance of assessment feedback has been raised by numerous pedagogical sources. Brown (2007), for example, calls feedback “…the oil that lubricates the cogs of understanding”. We propose that, for pluralism within an intermediate microeconomics context, this feedback should also involve peer review. Peer review, although undoubtedly a powerful feedback mechanism, is often focused on the evaluation of individual student contributions within team-based assessment. It can, however, provide a crucial means to support the student’s learning experience. Consider, for example, the use of peer review across students at different levels of study: i.e. Year 3 or 4 students helping Year 2 students in their Intermediate Microeconomics study. Rather than merely commenting on what has been achieved, Year 3 students can also provide suggestions for what is missing or what could be done next. It is therefore a process through which Year 2 students can acquire essential feedback on how to improve their work prior to the submission of their assignments. Students are able to use their experience to pass on knowledge to students at lower levels of study.
We propose that this peer review provides also a means to significantly aid the pluralist agenda. In particular, rather than inter-level peer review, we propose inter-discipline (and even inter-university) interactions. The only constraint on these interactions is that there is some common ground over learning outcomes. For example, consider the impact of union bargaining on labour market outcome. Theoretical study will start by understanding the determinants of labour supply and labour demand. This will allow documentation of proposed disemployment effects but also show, through the introduction of the various sources of monopsony, how the trade union can increase both wages and employment. All of these aspects can be discussed in full in the ‘flipping’ environment. However, by adding peer review with students in other disciplines (politics, industrial relations, human resource management etc.), the influence of the single authoritative instructor on the conclusion can be reduced. The student is confronted by students with different perspectives who have encountered material provided to them by an alternative instructor, often who have very different research backgrounds. This provides a forum for the mutual exchange of compatible knowledge across the different student populations. It allows students to consider the different tools and techniques used in the alternative discipline, providing a means to further assist student understanding and interpretation. The instructor, within this process, necessarily becomes a guide within an assessment system which promotes student critical appraisal skills and encourages the idea of fungible knowledge, where the student is able to understand how their academic specific knowledge can be applied to more general topics. To borrow the words of Foucault, the teacher becomes a ‘node in a network’, and this takes on a more pertinent meaning when one considers that it is indeed internet based.
(ii) The Dissertation Module
The pluralist commitment to the learner’s intellectual autonomy naturally encourages the support for the undergraduate dissertation. Consider, for example, Ethridge’s (2004) summary of the basic research methods that are applied in the learner’s pursuit of a dissertation:
- Interdisciplinary Research: “Thus, while economics is a separate discipline much of what we eventually do with it -its applications- become multidisciplinary subject matter work.”
- Problem-solving Research: “Problem-solving Research is designed to solve a specific problem for a specific decision maker. [It] often results in prescriptions or recommendation on decisions or actions.”
The learner is immersed in the discovery of open-ended ideas and, through their willingness to undertake semi-autonomous enquiry, they embrace the ideal of ‘thinking like an economist’. However, there are two hazards that require consideration when liberating what has become the pluralist agenda. First, there are continued concerns over the methodology which is being enforced; particularly with the focus on technical analysis encouraging a quantitative approach which then relegates qualitative study as a second-rate alternative. Second, as with other aspects of delivery, we have to consider the instructor-student hierarchy; in particular, the role of supervision within the dissertation writing experience.
To introduce our concerns over the research methodology typically encouraged in economic dissertation study, consider the following quote from Lazear (2000, 99):
“Economics is not only a social science, it is a genuine science. Like the physical sciences, economics uses a methodology that produces refutable implications and tests these implications using solid statistical techniques.”
Thus, compared to the other social sciences, the economist’s ability to quantify and to evade insipid conclusion is considered crucial to their value; a value which, rather than encouraging the economist to learn from the other social sciences, will lead to orthodox economic study increasingly dominating the discourse.
This position is incompatible with pluralism. This is not to say that empirical investigation should somehow be ignored. Indeed, it is the indecisiveness of the empirical process and the continued hypothetical importance of multiple stances which first encouraged pluralism in economics (Caldwell 1982). However, it does arguably highlight that an inflexible estimation of the importance of empirical investigation will skew learning towards an analytical outlook which necessitates that the dissertation author is focused entirely on delivering the single correct answer. As discussed in Garnett and Reardon (2012), this can be to the detriment of critical thinking (“making judgments in the context of uncertainty”). Indeed, there is arguably a fundamental conflict that complicates the movement towards pluralism in economics that is created by the very fact that economists convey meaning using both numbers and words. These are inherently different vehicles. Numbers cannot be plural. Individually they hold no inherent ambiguities. They are a-historical, cannot convey emotion, contain trauma or hold biases. They are not subject to the difficulties of translation and are not touched by cultural or national differences. They do not evolve or change with time. Certain numbers do not fall out of use or mean differently according to location and/or time. A single number is always what it is. Words are nowhere near as fixed in the way they communicate meaning and yet it is with language that we describe patterns in a group of numbers. With these unstable words we attempt to fix an absolute meaning. This is the paradox that surely necessitates that the economist be pluralistic in his responses, for to abstain from pluralism would surely require that language be silent and numbers left to stand alone and speak for themselves.
At the very least this demands a shift in the research methods prioritised for to the undergraduate student. Numerical formulae should not automatically be given precedence; applied econometric work should not automatically be marked higher than the ability to manage and measure conflicting and extensive ideas discursively. To allow such a result is assuredly a limitation of pluralism and another manner of advancing monism by indicating ‘one methodology, one truth’.
We now turn to our second issue: the role of the supervisor. The pluralist agenda’s focus on intellectual autonomy should encourage a skills-set which stimulates elevated levels of thinking. In Garnett’s (2009, 63) words, the learner is “propelled to each higher stage by the realisation that the subject matter ‘encompasses meaningful uncertainty’”. However, inherently within the term supervision there is the risk of over-direction and restriction. To Smith in the Economic Network’s Handbook for Economics Lecturers, “the provision of good supervision is crucial to the success of the dissertation”. Todd et al. (2004), referring to periods of ‘chaos’ and ‘cosmos’, argue that supervision is vital to the process of smoothing the transition to self-directed learning. However, Lea and Street (1998, 169) note the following:
“There is a dynamic within the feedback genre, for instance, which works both to construct academic knowledge and to maintain relationships of power and authority between novice student and experienced academic.”
This hierarchical relationship can therefore stunt student empowerment, with the success of the dissertation ultimately depending on the extent that the student has listened and can replicate the arguments provided by the academic.
It is this potential problem that encouraged us to eliminate the supervisor from the equation. Instead, we adopt a system which celebrates a collaborative environment where students themselves are at the centre of discovery-based learning. Thus, dissertation support groups are constructed with students investigating independent, but related research questions. These groups are directed by the students themselves, whilst the academic acts as a mentor who strictly plays only a guiding role. These groups will typically only meet their mentors in half of the meetings. The un-mentored meetings are for productive and genial exchange governed by the following principles: to solicit comments on their research ideas and progress, to seek suggestions for improvement; to brainstorm ideas relating to both conceptual and practical aspects of their research; sharing ideas to help formulate an appropriate research design and methodology, involving constructive but critical review of their analysis; seeking constructive solutions to any difficulties that they are encountering; and collectively agreeing an agenda to take to the next mentored group meeting. Mentored group meetings are thus student driven and structured to address the issues that have previously been ‘thrashed out’ and collated in peer-group meetings. Through this framework the students receive the external guidance required to meet their research objectives without retreating to or needing to recreate the ‘supervisory boss’ that is encouraged by traditional dissertation methods.
References
Bransford J.D., Brown A.L., and Cocking R.R. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Brown, S. 2007. Feedback & feed-forward. Bulletin, No. 22, Centre for Bioscience.
Denis, A. 2009. Editorial: Pluralism in Economics Education. International Review of Economics Education, 8(2):6-22.
DesLauriers, L., Schelew, E., and Wieman, C. 2011. Improved learning in a large-enrolment physics class. Science, 332: 862-864.
Elsner, W. 2012. Microeconomics of Interactive Economies: Evolutionary, Institutional and Complexity Perspectives, Edward Elgar.
Ethridge, D.E. 2004. Research Methodology in Applied Economics, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Freeman, A. 2009. The Economists of Tomorrow: the Case for a Pluralist Subject Benchmark Statement for Economics. International Review of Economics Education. 8(2): 23-40.
Garnett, R.F. (2009). Rethinking the pluralist agenda in economics education. International Review of Economics Education, 8(2): 59-71.
Himmelweit, S., Simonetti, R. and Trigg, A. 2001. Microeconomics: Neoclassical and Institutional Perspectives on Economic Behaviour, Cengage Learning.
Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J., and Treglia, M. 2000. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31: 30-43.
Lazear, E.P. 2000. Economic Imperialism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1): 96-146.
Mazur, E. 2009. Farewell, Lecture? Science, 323: 50-51.
Mearman, A. 2007. Teaching Heterodox Economic Concepts’, in: Handbook for Economics Lecturers, Economics Network.
Todd, M., Bannister, P., & Clegg, S. 2004. Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: perceptions and experiences of final-year social science students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3): 335-355.
Walvoord, B.E., and Anderson, V.J. 1998. Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Webb, R., Watson, D., Shepherd, C. & Cook, S., 2021, Flipping the classroom: Is it the type of flipping that adds value?, Studies in Higher Education. 46(8): 1649-1663.
Wilson, D. and Dixon W. 2009. Performing Economics: A Critique of Teaching and Learning. International Review of Economics Education, 8(2): 91-105.