Dear fellow HES subscribers,
 
The study of HET and Economic History is being threatened in Australia. 
 
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is revising its research
classifications. Effective from 2008 they are removing from the
Economics listings the fields History of Economic Thought and Economic
History. These will no longer be considered as legitimate research
fields in economics. Instead "Economic history" and "history of economic
thought" will be "relocated" into a category of "History, Archeology,
Religion and Philosophy". It is also proposed that in any future
revision HET and Economic History will be eliminated entirely.
 
This has dire implications for tenure, promotion, research funding and
even our academic positions.
 
The effect of this, of course, is to legitimate the view that the study
of the history of economics is not itself a part of economics.
 
We are asked to provide feedback by 12 September but as can be seen
below  the ABS person responsible for this says "The Economic History
and History of Economic Thought group will not be reinstated". It's a
done deal. This defeats the whole purpose of getting feedback. Note also
the tone, saying in effect - we are lucky to be classified anywhere, in
the next revision we will be totally eliminated. 
 
There is additional information below. First is a letter that Tony
Aspromourgos has sent and on the public record indicating his dismay at
this development. Then the ABS person responsible for this
reclassification, David Brett, provides his justification for the
deletion of HET and Economic History in a public letter to Alex Millmow,
President of HETSA. 
 
If you feel moved to complain about this, and support your HET
colleagues in Australia, please email your concerns to:
 
[log in to unmask]
 
 
You might also like to let your colleagues in Economic History know
about this.
 
Thanks for your help.

John Lodewijks




 
 
______________________________________
 
From: Tony Aspromourgos
Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 8:48 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: URGENT: ABS REVISION OF FIELD OF RESEARCH CODES

 

Warwick Dawson

Director,

Research Office

[log in to unmask] 

Dear Warwick,

It has just been drawn to my attention -- from a source external to the
University -- that the ABS has released a set of proposals for revising
the classification system for research activity and outputs. It appears
that they expect all feedback to come via the universities, rather than
directly from individual researchers. That is why I am writing to you.

There are a number of evidently disturbing aspects to this revision; but
I limit my feedback here to that aspect which covers my main scholarship
and research expertise, the history of economic thought. It is proposed
to remove "history of economic thought" [along with "economic history"]
entirely from under the Economics umbrella, and place it, renamed, under
a "Philosophy, History, Archaeology ..." grouping. This must be opposed
by the University.

I limit myself to two key reasons.

1) Easily the most authoritative database and classification system for
Economics literature in the world today (and for some decades) is the
Journal of Economic Literature, and associated with it in electronic
form, EconLit. That classification system for Economics very expansively
includes "history of economic thought", via the following
classifications [summarily stated]:

B SCHOOLS OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND METHODOLOGY

B1 History of Economic Thought through 1925 [under this, there are 7
sub-classifications]

B2 History of Economic Thought since 1925 [under this, also 7
(different) sub-classifications]

B3 History of Thought: Individuals [2 sub-classifications] ...

>From a global standpoint, this confirms the appropriateness of including
the study of the history of economics within the Economics field. I
might add, on a more provincial note, that the Australian University
Business Dean's recently released document of journal rankings for
Economics, Business and Management -- prepared with a view to the coming
RQF process -- also lists a number of specialist history of economics
journals.

2) If this ABS exercise were merely a piece of bureaucratic nonsense of
no practical consequence, one might merely shrug one's shoulders and
forget about it. But to the extent that, in the future, these Field of
Research codes [FOR] will play a crucial role in research grant
applications [and perhaps the RQF], the matter gains greater
significance. Researchers in the history of economics, working within
Economics academic units -- or more generally, within business-related
Schools and Faculties -- in applying for research funds, likely will be
forced to have recourse to humanities FOR codes. This is likely to
seriously compromise their ability to gain a considered hearing for
their projects.

Shockingly, the apparent cut-off date for feedback to the ABS is 12
September. I would therefore ask you to include these views in your
response to the ABS by this date, on behalf of the University. If you
have received no other feedback on this issue from other parts of the
University, then I would ask you to ensure that my feedback is sent. Do
not hesitate to contact me further to this, if you wish.

Yours,

Tony Aspromourgos

Professor of Economics

_______________________________________________________

[log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thu 8/30/2007 9:02
AM 

To: [log in to unmask]

Cc: 

Subject: Telephone query regarding ASRC revision [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 

Attachments: 

Dr. Millmow,

I understand that you contacted Ian Crettenden regarding the ASRC
revision yesterday. I am responsible for the revision of the Fields of
Research classification within the ASRC. Would it be possible for you to
email your comment to us at [log in to unmask] ? Alternatively, I
am happy to discuss this over the phone. 

Regards,

David Brett 

--------------------------------------------------------

Dr. David Brett

Innovation & Technology NSC

Australian Bureau of Statistics

(02) 6252 5619 

________________________________________________________

 

From: [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thu8/30/2007 1:32 PM 

To: [log in to unmask]

Cc: 

Subject: Proposed relocation and merger of History of Economic Thought
in the Fields of Research classification [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 

Dr. Millmow, 

Thankyou for your interest in the revision of the Australian Standard
Research Classification. As we discussed over the phone, I will give an
overview of the reasons for the proposed relocation and merger of
History of Economic Thought. 

The Australian Standard Research Classification comprises of three
classifications: Type of Activity, Fields of Research (FOR) (formerly
Research Fields, Courses and Disciplines (RFCD)), and Socio-Economic
Objectives (SEO). These classifications serve different purposes. 

The Type of Activity classification categorises research as pure or
strategic basic research, applied research or experimental development;
The Fields of Research categorises research by the processes used, and;
The Socio-Economic Objectives categorises research by the subject matter
of the research.

During the early stages of the revision it was noted that the RFCD
lacked consistency in the use of processes as a classification tool,
consequently in the preliminary version of the FOR compiled prior to
expert consultation a number of relocations were undertaken to improve
this. One change was the relocation of codes relating to history or
philosophy of specific subject areas to one location, in the then
proposed History, Archaeology, Religion and Philosophy division. History
of Economic Thought and Economic History were two codes that were
included in this process. 

Expert consultation for the Economics division was conducted through the
Academy of Social Sciences, however we did not receive any response
regarding this change during this process. The Academy of the
Humanities, who managed the expert consultation relating to the history
and philosophy of specific fields, recommended the two economics codes
be merged into one code entitled "History and Philosophy of Economics". 

The changes to History of Economic Thought are summarised in the
following table: 
RFCD 1998
FOR 2008
Division
Economics
Philosophy, Religion and Culture
Discipline (1998)/Group (2008)
Economic History and History of Economic Thought
History and Philosophy of Specific Fields
Subject (1998)/Field (2008)
History of Economic Thought
History and Philosophy of Economics

The reasons for the relocation and merger are as follows: 

Classification consistency with regards to the use of processes as the
key driver of classification location.

This assumes that the processes used in History of Economic Thought are
primarily historical and philosophical rather than economic. This is the
critical issue from the perspective of a classification and a rule that
has been widely applied throughout the classification, although there
are some exceptions in the draft currently being circulated. These will
be rectified in the next draft. 

Groups (formerly disciplines) which are not useful for describing either
the breadth of R&D or how spending is apportioned, were restructured. 

The discipline Economic History and History of Economic Thought only
contained two codes, which is not sufficiently broad. It also
represented only 1.2% of all public sector R&D in economics in 2004 (the
most recent data available), thus is too narrow to be useful for
understanding where economics R&D expenditure occurs. 

Low level of reported activity.

Less than $1M of R&D expenditure was recorded against each of the codes
for Economic History and History of Economic Thought in 2004, and the
amounts have been declining across the surveys available to us. Both
codes are above the level where we would consider deletion at this
revision, however unless there is an upswing in recorded activity in
these fields both would most probably be deleted at the next revision.
The merger should ensure the future viability of a code describing these
research areas for the medium term. 

If this change is undesirable to your research community, we can
contemplate undoing these changes on the following grounds: 

Evidence that R&D activity is significantly underreported or anticipated
to significantly increase in the near future (to effect a demerger)
Evidence that the assumption that History of Economic Thought R&D
primarily involves processes that are historical and philosophical is
false (to effect a relocation to another division) Should you argue for
returning this field to Economics we will also require a suggested
location within this division. The Economic History and History of
Economic Thought group will not be reinstated, however we can consider a
replacement for it. 

I hope this information is of use to you. The email address for your
members to send any comments to us is [log in to unmask] 

Regards,

David Brett 

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Dr. David Brett

Innovation & Technology NSC

Australian Bureau of Statistics

(02) 6252 5619