Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBloch, Harry
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T12:46:02Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T12:46:02Z
dc.date.created2012-04-17T20:01:23Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationBloch, Harry. 2012. An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010, Centre for Research in Applied Economics Working Paper Series: no. 04042012, Curtin University of Technology, School of Economics and Finance.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/24974
dc.description.abstract

In the evaluation of research quality conducted under ERA 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.publisherCentre for Research in Applied Economics
dc.subjectresearch evaluation
dc.subjecteconomics
dc.subjectAustralia
dc.titleAn uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010
dc.typeWorking Paper
dcterms.source.volume04042012
dcterms.source.seriesCentre for Research in Applied Economics Working Paper Series
curtin.departmentSchool of Economics and Finance
curtin.accessStatusOpen access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record