Publishing, ranking, and the future of heterodox economics

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of the “Introduction” is to provide the motivation and context for the articles of this special issue and an overview and summary of the contributions that follow.Design/methodology/approachThe paper provides an overview and summary of the contributions in the special issue.FindingsIt is argued that heterodoxies had gained a considerable and growing influence on research orientations, methodologies, and critical reflections, also on the mainstream publishing practices, even in the mainstream. This has been widely acknowledged as “hip heterodoxy” recently. Thus, many heterodox economists have developed optimistic expectations for the future of the profession. However, that influence has left the main mechanisms of reproduction of the mainstream untouched. These are mass teaching, public advising, journal policies, and faculty recruitment. Above that, the last decade has seen something like a “counterattack” to safeguard these mainstream reproduction mechanisms. The means used for this seem to be journal (and publisher) rankings based on purely quantitative citation measures and “impact factors”. These have an obvious cumulative “economies‐of‐scale” effect which triggers a tendency towards reinforcement and collective monopolization of the dominating orientation. Department rankings and individual faculty evaluations are then based on journals rankings. As a result, there are observable tendencies towards the cleansing of economics departments in a number of countries.Originality/valueThe paper also discusses potential reasons and methods for alternative approaches to measure citation interrelations, networks, cooperation, and rankings among heterodoxies (journals and departments), and for alternatives of publishing and the future of heterodoxies in general. Finally, it draws the picture of the present situation and the foreseeable future of heterodoxies as it emerges from the 11 contributions of the special issue.

The Pluralism Debate in Heterodox Economics

“…However, in none of the articles do the supporters actually provide any evidence-names of heterodox economists and their actions, policies of current heterodox associations and journals, or decisions made by heterodox economic departments-that support the charge of anti-pluralism and intolerance.20 The basis for this claim is found inLee (2006Lee ( , 2009 andLee and Elsner (2008).at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on October 11, 2014 rrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from…”

Taylorizing business school research: On the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists

“…Central to such game playing are efforts to define and legitimize preferentially rewarded research space (see Marsden, 1993;Bedeian, 2004). So, for example, to the extent that a list elevates an established, North American-dominated, set of journals as 6 the benchmark of `top-notch' research, a particular, neo-positivist research agenda is deemed to yield the highest `quality' publications (see, for example, Lee and Elsner, 2008).…”

Forum: Assessing economic research and the future of heterodox economics. Failures and alternatives of journals, departments, and scholars rankings

“…When we did the introduction of a special issue of On the Horizon in 2008, we disagreed with some critical economists like S. Dow, J. Davis, T. Lawson, R. Backhouse, and D. Colander who suggested that there is and will be more pluralism emerging in economics and that the mainstream somehow is fragmenting and dissolving (as cited in Lee/Elsner 2008). Our pessimistic view of an ongoing counterattack, in contrast, was based on the fact that even a relative dominance of heterodoxy in terms of research questions, approaches, and methodologies over the last, say, 25 years would have not spilled over into the areas of funding and recruitment for heterodox economists, of the curricula of mass teaching and the advice business, and would leave untouched the mainstream's and its allies' general world view.…”

“…Countless other critical declarations of economists have come out since the burst of the giant fi nancial bubble. One shall just be mentioned: David Colander, Hans Foellmer, Alan Kirman and other wellknown complexity and evolutionary economists have launched the so called Dahlem-Report in February 2009, ›Th e Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics.‹ Despite these severe and fundamental failures, over the last three decades the ruling forces of mainstream economics and their allies in politics, public administration and in the organizations of big business utilize rankings as a power device to rule, to direct research funds to their own ranks, to make or destroy careers of critical economists, to up-and downgrade journals and departments, and, particularly, to elbow out of academic research, teaching, and advice their potential competitors of the diverse heterodox approaches (Lee/Elsner 2008, Lee 2009, Butler 2010, Katzner 2010.…”