An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010
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 t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Working Paper |
| Published: |
Centre for Research in Applied Economics
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/24974 |
| _version_ | 1848751577638109184 |
|---|---|
| author | Bloch, Harry |
| author_facet | Bloch, Harry |
| author_sort | Bloch, Harry |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T07:54:56Z |
| format | Working Paper |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-24974 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T07:54:56Z |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publisher | Centre for Research in Applied Economics |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-249742017-01-30T12:46:02Z An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010 Bloch, Harry research evaluation economics Australia 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. 2012 Working Paper http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/24974 Centre for Research in Applied Economics fulltext |
| spellingShingle | research evaluation economics Australia Bloch, Harry An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010 |
| title | An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010 |
| title_full | An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010 |
| title_fullStr | An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010 |
| title_full_unstemmed | An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010 |
| title_short | An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010 |
| title_sort | uneven playing field: rankings and ratings for economics in era 2010 |
| topic | research evaluation economics Australia |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/24974 |