----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Just a couple of points on Barkley's post: 
 
1. I never stated that I don't see thick history as useful. I see thick histories as very
useful-- and read them with great interest. My point was that such thick histories are not
that which I think fills the missing gap in the current teaching of economics. That's why
I said what is needed is not so much history of thought courses, but simply more context
added to existing courses. Concerning thick histories: I agree with Roy--it belongs in
history of science departments, not in economic departments, and I also agree that
economics departments are not the places for  students to do a thick history  of thought
thesis.
 
2. Thin histories, for me,  are not the same thing as "literature reviews with longer time
horizons." I don't think Roy said that either. Thin histories for me are simply literature
reviews with a broader sense of the literature and the context of the times. A good
literature review places the research one is doing in historical context. They pull things
together that other people haven't pulled together before, rather than digging deeper into
an issue, and thereby shedding light on it. Good thin history is based on thick histories,
which is why I read Roy's work with great interest. I think what Roy was disparaging was a
literature review chapter that was simply filling up space rather than placing an issue in
context. In that I concur with Roy, and I suspect that Barkley would too.
 
So I suspect, as is often the case, that all of us are closer in our views than it seems
at first read.  We like good work that tells us something new and serves a purpose. We're
less happy with work that we don't believe tells us something new,  and that does not
serve the purpose that we are interested in.
 
Dave 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]