Filed under: Uncategorized
J’ai toujours pensé que les économistes vivait dans un autre monde que le nôtre et que l’enseignement qu’on donne aujourd’hui en économie est trop orthodoxe pour être en mesure de permettre à l’étudiant de bien comprendre la réalité dans sa totalité sociale et communiquer efficacement dans un langage économique leur compréhension du monde qui les entoure. De façon intéressante, une récente étude ne me donne pas tord!
En effet, les économistes se percoivent eux même comme incapable de communiquer avec le public, ils croient que leur public n’a pas changé depuis 15 ans (ainsi que les réalités qu’ils prétendent expliquer), que leur recherche est inutile pour le business ou les industries, que la profession est largement représentée par un corps professionel d’hommes blancs (ce qui limitent la variété des perspectives et contraint l’économie à demeurer une science occidentale servant à expliquer ses propres réalités , donc reproduire le même modèle).
Blackwell Synergy – Am J Economics & Sociology, Volume 66 Issue 2 Page 267 – April 2007 (Full Text):
To summarize the survey results, respondents express a strong weighted opinion with moderate to strong degrees of consensus on the following:
• Agreeing that the quality of research by economists varies significantly.
• Agreeing that economists are ineffective in communicating with the public.
• Agreeing that economists are writing for the same audience as 15 years ago.
• Disagreeing that economic research in nationally recognized journals is useful for individuals in business or industry, or for teachers of college-level principles of economics courses.
• Agreeing that economic research in nationally recognized journals is useful for professional economists engaged in research and for graduate students studying economics.
• Agreeing that mathematical exposition, author recognition among economists, and school or business affiliation are factors used by editors and reviewers at nationally recognized journals for determining what to publish.
• Agreeing that a “good-old-boy” network in the economics profession influences which articles are published in nationally recognized economics journals.Statistically significant differences of opinion across economists’ backgrounds for certain propositions also suggest:
• Female economists generally perceive the profession’s predominantly Caucasian male composition as an influential factor in shaping economists’ preferences for what topics are appropriate to study and how they are actually studied. Consequently, female economists generally perceive no spillover benefits from producing research on those topics.
• Nonacademic economists generally believe that economic science has not improved its explanatory capacity over the last several years; therefore, economic research is published for reasons other than scientific contribution and thus does not generate spillover benefits.
• Full professors of economics who are actively engaged in publishing, particularly those in doctoral-granting departments, generally believe that economic science is improving in explaining behavior and events. As a result, they generally believe publishing in nationally recognized journals generates spillover benefits.
• Status as a reviewer for a nationally recognized economics journal is perceived by nonacademic and/or junior academic economists as important for an individual’s chances that his or her work will be published in that journal. Full professors generally have an opposing view.
Laisser un commentaire jusqu'à présent
Laisser un commentaire
