[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/revpoe/v34y2022i1p45-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Different is Heterodox Economists’ Thinking on Teaching? A Contrastive Evaluation of Interview Data

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Mearman
  • Sebastian Berger
  • Danielle Guizzo
Abstract
This paper explores how differently heterodox and mainstream economists think about teaching. It draws on data from interviews with sixteen leading heterodox economists, which we analyse according to the principles of thematic analysis. We find considerable variety in heterodoxy. Further, we find evidence that suggests at least some heterodox economists share some elements with mainstream counterparts: on pedagogical practice, the role of their teachers, and scant explicit knowledge of educational philosophy. However, we discover different heterodox educational goals when compared to mainstream peers, mainly clustered around a concern for more radical open-mindedness and free-thinking. Also, some of our respondents showed a commitment to pluralism and critical approach to reality in teaching. Our interviews suggest that heterodox pedagogy is a reaction against and struggle within a uniquely hierarchical and monist discipline, pointing to the sociology and ideology of the economics profession as a shaping factor. We conclude that these characteristics make heterodox pedagogy better suited to foster understanding of complex real-world economic crises associated with global warming, pandemics, and financial meltdown.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Mearman & Sebastian Berger & Danielle Guizzo, 2022. "How Different is Heterodox Economists’ Thinking on Teaching? A Contrastive Evaluation of Interview Data," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 45-68, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:revpoe:v:34:y:2022:i:1:p:45-68
    DOI: 10.1080/09538259.2020.1869402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09538259.2020.1869402
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09538259.2020.1869402?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:taf:revpoe:v:34:y:2022:i:1:p:45-68. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CRPE20 .

    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.