How should economics curricula be evaluated?
Andrew Mearman ()
Working Papers from Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol
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.
JEL-codes: A20 A22 B4 B5 C80 C9 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-edu, nep-hme, nep-hpe and nep-pke
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Journal Article: How should economics curricula be evaluated? (2014)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:uwe:wpaper:20131306
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Papers from Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Felix Ritchie ().