================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
The question of whether historians of economics should 
break away from economics and embrace history of 
science seems, at least to me, a personal one.  One would 
have to subjectively assess the costs and benefits of such a 
move and act accordingly.  However, Roy's entreaty for 
historians of economics to maintain appropriate standards 
for "proper" historical analysis is a separate issue.  I am in 
complete agreement with Roy.  The discipline of history, as 
with all disciplines and traditions, is also riven with 
differences and dissension, but it does place a greater 
emphasis on standards of historiography.  But my question 
is how are economics students, like myself, expected to 
learn such standards?  There are absolutely no incentives to 
pursue the history of economics, let alone approach its study 
with the type of rigor and standards found in the discipline 
of history.  I attended the New School for my MA not only 
because of its strong HES tradition, but also because I could 
pursue an interdisciplinary approach to economics that 
included history and philosophy.  There were no incentives 
to pursue my degree in this fashion (even at the New 
School!), and it has certainly not enhanced my chances for 
acceptance to a doctoral program in economics (and heaven 
forbid I should mention the history of economic thought in 
my personal essay!).  For good or for bad, the positive 
incentives that exist within the discipline of economics guide 
students into adopting formal, mathematical methods of 
study to the exclusion of all else.  This is certainly not a new 
or profound revelation by any means.  But the issue of 
raising the standards of historical scholarship in the history 
of economics is a moot one until the messages and 
incentives that are conveyed to students are changed. 
 
Jonathon E. Mote 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]