Review of 'Teaching Pluralism in Economics' by John Groenewegen

Janice Peterson

English

Research Papers in Economics

109
Teaching Pluralism in
Economics
By Groenewegen,John (ed.),Edward Elgar Publishing:Cheltenham,2007.ISBN
9781845423056 (hb),£59.95 (hb)
Teaching Pluralism in Economics is an ambitious collection of 11 essays addressing the
potential for more pluralistic and interdisciplinary approaches to economic
education.The essays range from those addressing pluralism and interdisciplinarity at
a theoretical level to case studies that apply these principles in particular courses and
institutions.The ﬁrst essay,by the volume’s editor John Groenewegen,introduces and
deﬁnes some of the key concepts and goals of the volume.He states that the volume
is about ‘different schools within the discipline of economics’(theoretical pluralism)
and ‘the relation of economics with other disciplines’(interdisciplinarity),and seeks to
address the ‘implications of pluralism and interdisciplinarity’for teaching economics
(p.1).He believes the fundamental challenge is to present alternative theories to
students in ways that are not confusing but allow for a better understanding of the
‘possibilities and limitations of different schools in economics’and how to proceed
when ‘the boundaries of the economics discipline have been reached and a more
interdisciplinary approach is needed’(p.14).To meet this challenge,the volume offers
‘insights into the question of the content of such a revised curriculum and into the
process of how to get there’(p.15).
Reﬂecting the fact that the literature on ‘pluralism in economics’is itself a pluralistic
one,the 10 contributed essays offer diverse views on what a more
pluralistic/interdisciplinary economic education should look like and how it should
be achieved.Evaluating the contributions of the volume from the perspective of
economic education,several broad themes emerge:1
• In an increasingly complex and changing world,a more
pluralistic/interdisciplinary approach to economic education is necessary to
prepare properly and inform policy-makers.
• History,real-world economic processes and problems,and student engagement
are key components of a more pluralistic/interdisciplinary approach to
economic education.
International Review of Economics Education
108
Soderbaum describes key arguments demonstrating that traditional economics is
inconsistent with sustainable economics and demonstrates his case using a
comparison of orthodox and institutional economics.He argues that ‘meeting the
challenge of sustainable development requires new thinking’and that providing
students with a range of perspectives on environmental issues sets the stage for them
to ‘make their own interpretations and judgments’(p.195).Kennet argues that ‘green
economics is by its nature multi-,inter- and trans-disciplinary’(p.256) and that as such
it represents a new paradigm,ripe for realisation of pluralistic ideals.However,she
suggests thatthe main message of green economics has been ‘usurped and distorted’
(p.258) and offers her interpretation of key core principles before addressing
pedagogic implications.
While the wide range of methods used to offer insights into a pluralistic economics
education may appeal to many audiences,most chapters fall short of discussing
pedagogic practices.These chapters instead focus primarily on content,a trap into
which many who argue for economic education reform fall.As argued elsewhere,
reforms should not neglect pedagogic practice.(McGoldrick and Peterson,2009;
McGoldrick,2009) Additionally,at times authors are so committed to their approach
(one which often focuses on disparaging orthodoxy) that they may undermine the
goal of engaging readers,‘no matter what their ideology’(p.6).
These criticisms notwithstanding,this collection of essays provides a much needed
contribution to the pluralist economics education discussion.The organisational
structure makes the volume accessible to those who are better versed in this approach
toeconomics education as well as those who are novices.The arguments presented
speak to both educators and students,expanding the realm of the conversation
beyond its traditional participants.In short,everyone who is serious about
undergraduate economics education should put this volume on their ‘must-read’list.
References 
McGoldrick,KimMarie (2009) ‘Pluralism and Economic Education,Promoting Change:Past,
Present,and Future’,in Economic Pluralism,Robert Garnett,Erik Olsen and Martha Starr (eds),
Routledge:pp.221–225.
McGoldrick,KimMarie and Janice Peterson (2009) ‘Pluralism and Economic Education:
A Learning Theory Approach’, International Review of Economics Education.
Endnote
1For a detailed description of each of these skills,see Appendix A,AAC&U (2007).
Reviewed by:
KimMarie McGoldrick
Robins School of Business
28 Westhamton Way,Richmond,VA  23060
United StatesTeaching Pluralism in Economics
111
exercises,allowing students to ‘apply the learning’and ‘combine it with their
personal knowledge and experience’(p.149).Educating students in ‘dealing with
new knowledge in a meaningful way’through active pedagogies such as ‘problem
based learning’can help students ‘learn how to learn’and thus ‘increase the
effectiveness of learning’(p.178).
Promoting pluralism and interdisciplinarity in economic education involves costs as
well as beneﬁts.The introductory essay addresses the oft cited concerns about a
‘trade-off between rigour and relevancy’(p.5) and ﬁnding ‘space in the curriculum’
(p.14) for alternative perspectives.Other essays raise the concern that a pluralistic
curriculum might ‘do more harm than good’(p.64) in terms of student understanding
and attitudes.For example,‘excessive pluralism’may lead to ‘bewilderment,
disorientation and cynicism’(p.73),and for some students,interdisciplinarity and
active learning techniques may lead to a ‘postmodern attitude’based on ‘partial
insights’and ‘semi-truths’(pp.184–185).Responses to such challenges include calls for
continued debate about the meanings of pluralism and interdisciplinarity,in addition
to recognising and pursuing the level of institutional,faculty and student
commitment necessary to make such curriculum reform a success.While this is a
large and daunting task,it is presented as a necessary one.As author Rifka Weehuzine
concludes:‘So,either do it well or don’t do it.’The latter however is no option.It is time
that economists at universities take responsibility for what they send out into the
world,both in terms of research and in terms of students and their thinking and
acting as it is shaped by economics education (p.185).
Does the volume achieve its goal of providing insights on a revised curriculum and
how to achieve it,thus assisting economic educators who strive to teach in a more
pluralistic and interdisciplinary way to ‘do it well’? Yes and no.A careful reader with
an interest and background in the ‘pluralism in economics’discussion will ﬁnd much
that is interesting,insightful,perplexing and inspiring in this volume.However,a
reader who is new to this discussion may well get lost in the independence of the
various essays.The volume would be stronger in reaching a wider audience of
economic educators with more consistent attention to the connections between
‘pluralism in economics’and ‘teaching pluralism in economics’across the different
essays,in addition to more discussion of the essays’important similarities and
differences in the Introduction (or perhaps a concluding essay).The volume is,
nonetheless,an important contribution and recommended reading for economic
educators concerned with the outcomes and consequences of their work.
International Review of Economics Education
110
• A pluralistic/interdisciplinary approach to economic education involves costs as
well as beneﬁts and therefore requires a serious commitment from educational
institutions,faculty and students.
These themes,and the extent to which the volume achieves its stated goals,are
brieﬂy addressed below.
The volume opens with a set of essays addressing the question of why a more
pluralistic and interdisciplinary economic education is desirable.Several authors
point to a growing pluralism within modern economics,reﬂecting a ‘notable
diversity of approach’within mainstream economics as well as the evolution of
non-mainstream approaches to the discipline (pp.22–23).Further,real-world
economies are ‘open systems’and pluralistic by nature (p.28),and practitioners in
business and government face problems that are increasingly complex and
interdisciplinary (p.141).A more pluralistic and interdisciplinary economic
education is necessary for preparing policy-makers to exercise ‘judgement’and
‘practical reason’(p.34) and address complexity in a meaningful way.
A number of the essays emphasise the importance of grounding the teaching of
economics in history and applications to real-world problems.Taking a historical
approach facilitates the teaching of ‘methodological awareness’(p.35) and helps
students put ‘mainstream economics in perspective’(pp.79–80).Explaining
economics through historical processes also counters the ‘de-contextualization of the
economics curriculum’(p.97) and promotes an economics that can ‘not only explain
itself but also explain the world we live in’(p.100).Focusing on real-world economic
processes and problems – ‘confronting theory with practice’– promotes ‘thinking
twice’and keeping ‘an open mind’with respect to alternative approaches (p.58).
‘Student engagement’2 is deepened through these approaches,as students
become engaged in the context of economics (through the consideration of
multiple paradigms and disciplines),the practice of economics (through its
application to real-world problems),and the consequences of economics (through
answering ‘the age old dilemmas of economics themselves’,p.58).Several essays
call for changes in pedagogy as well content,illustrating how engaging students
through active,experiential learning can support a more pluralistic,
interdisciplinary economics curriculum.For example,introducing multiple
paradigms through ‘discovery-based learning,’where students ‘actively and
collaboratively participate in the problem solving process,’results in a ‘deeper level
of understanding’of both current economic problems and the pluralistic nature of
economics (p.133).The integration of multiple disciplines to address real-world
business problems is facilitated through the use of case studies and role playInternational Review of Economics Education
112
Notes
1 This is not to say that these ‘themes’represent all of the views of all of the authors,
but provide a way to think about the important insights into the content and
pedagogy of a more pluralist and interdisciplinary economic education presented in
this volume.
2 See Bowen,S.(2005) ‘Engaged Learning Are We All on the Same Page?’
Peer Review,7(2):4–7.
Reviewed by:
Janice Peterson
5245 North Backer Ave
M/S PB20
Fresno
CA 93740
United States

Bowen,S.(2005) ‘Engaged Learning Are We All on the Same Page?’ Peer Review,7(2):4–7. Reviewed by:

Pluralism and Economic Education,Promoting Change:Past, Present,and Future’,in Economic Pluralism,Robert Garnett,Erik Olsen and Martha Starr (eds),

Review of "Teaching Pluralism in Economics"

http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree/v8n2/peterson_review.pdf

Review of "Teaching Pluralism in Economics"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics