Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBloch, Harry
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T11:56:52Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T11:56:52Z
dc.date.created2013-03-14T20:00:38Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationBloch, Harry. 2012. An uneven playing field: rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010. Economic Papers. 31 (4): pp. 418-427.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/16639
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1759-3441.12004
dc.description.abstract

In the evaluation of research quality conducted under Excellence in Research for Australia 2010, the sub-disciplines of econometrics and theory were rated more highly than the sub-disciplines of applied economics and other economics. The rating in each sub-discipline was benchmarked against a world standard, so the results suggest that Australian economists produce relatively better econometric or theory research than applied or other economics research. However, closer examination of the processes on which the ratings were based suggests built-in biases that favour theory and econometric research over applied and other economics research, leaving the relative quality of research in the various sub-disciplines open to question.

dc.publisherEconomic Society of Australia
dc.subjectresearch evaluation
dc.subjectrankings
dc.subjecteconomics
dc.titleAn uneven playing field: rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volume31
dcterms.source.number4
dcterms.source.startPage418
dcterms.source.endPage427
dcterms.source.issn08120439
dcterms.source.titleEconomic Papers
curtin.department
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record