Since I'm asking you to blog on a weekly basis, I will try to do that too, though nobody is giving me a grade for it and my compensation for the course doesn't depend on it. I believe that a good part of teaching is modeling, so my aim in these posts will be to model - style-wise mostly, perhaps content-wise too. Then it is also true that the previous label, about extending the class session, doesn't help much if we haven't yet discussed the issue at all face to face, so I need a label to make posts that are new to our discussion.
In this first post about the course I want to do a few things: (1) talk a little about my philosophy in regard to what economics to learn, (2) pose an issue about what to do when the class seems divided, and (3) give a little direction about the next two weeks so you can better focus your efforts.
Economics/Philosophy
One possible approach to teaching an econ course is to take the point of view of true believer - I love economics so you should too. Having co-taught some core courses, I know some of my colleagues would argue that you should teach as a true believer even if you aren't one in your inner being and if you have some serious criticisms of the profession as a whole. The argument for this is that students are too immature to take a more nuanced view. If instead of true believer one offers an approach with both affirmation of economics and criticism of it, the worry is that students will pounce on the criticism and use it as an excuse not to learn the affirmative parts of the subject. To the extent that students are immature (and adults too are immature more frequently than they care to admit) there is validity to this position.
Nonetheless, it is not the way I want to teach because it is not the way I think. So I will offer both affirmation and criticism and quite frequently I won't feel it my job to resolve the muddle. It is only my job to show you that there is more than one approach to think about an issue.
Here is a concrete example to illustrate. The week after next we will talk about M&R chapter 2 and consider seriously their hypothesis (they didn't invent it, but do they do articulate it) that economic efficiency is an important goal of any organization. We will spend some time on that and on the math of what economic efficiency means. But then I'd like us to consider various critiques. One quite practical and close to home criticism can be found in this essay by Michael Berube, written in the late 1990s, but quite relevant for now. Berube is now a Professor at Penn State (unfortunately for him, he holds the Joe Paterno Chair in English, or something else with a similar name) but he was a faculty member on our campus when he wrote that piece. Berube argues that Universities should not be efficient. Is this just a language thing - with a reinterpretation of words he would argue for efficiency? Or is it more than that and if so does it suggest that other organizations also shouldn't be inefficient? How would M&R respond to Berube? How would I respond?
Readings other than the textbook
While from a pure ego point of view I want you to think of my course as quite signficant, truthfully I think it more important that you develop the habit of independent reading on your own, so my main goal of introducing pieces of that sort (the Berube piece is from the Chronicle of Higher Education - not some economics journal) is to encourage that sort of reading habit and to encourage the intellectual disposition that if you read something that disagrees with the position your hold, that disagreement offers an opportunity for learning.
In this particular case, at the time of the Berube piece I was leading an organization involved in Online Learning and we were engaged in Efficiency Projects, so Berube's critique had some personal aspects to it. On the one hand I felt assaulted by the piece. On the other hand, and you should judge yourself by how our course is conducted, I've embraced some of the ideas he advocates for in the piece, updated to our current circumstance.
I can't consistently pick outside readings that have such an intimate history with me, but I will try through the remainder of the semester to choose provocative pieces that I hope will engage you and encourage you to think harder about what we are studying.
Next Week (and beyond)
At this point the survey has 14 responses, and that doesn't include me testing it out. Do note I take it seriously. I believe in the student voice impacting what the class does. However, knowing the evidence doesn't necessarily suggest a unique way to proceed. Particularly on the question of doing economics only or a mixed approach, the results are:
Stick with economics approaches to organizations.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Stick with economics approaches to organizations.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Stick with economics approaches to organizations.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
Do a mixture of non-economic and economic approaches.
So at present the majority is for a mixture but there are a few who want to stick with the econ only approach. In part, but not in full, this question was asked as an indirect way of getting at whether people know what they are voting for and why they do so. I could have taken one extreme or the other. On the one hand, economics is becoming more interdisciplinary, either as a a matter of survival or because other disciplines offer perspective economists are interested in. So other approaches are interesting in the same way Berube's piece is interesting. Can we reconcile that with what we are already talking about or not? On the other had, economics is about taking a certain method. Does the method get lost if we start to ask certain questions that the method is ill suited to answer, which is likely to happen if we bring in other disciplines?
The Bolman and Deal book, which I am requiring and unabashed about that, has reframing in the title. Their approach suggests that as a manager or as a leader there is a loss of perspective by considering only one frame. I think that remains true as an economics student - particularly when asking the question: why did the organization do x? A lot of good economics is positive - it explains what happened. But as a discipline economics doesn't have a monopoly on offering up explanations. Things happen for non-economic reasons, on occasion, perhaps more frequently than that. My view is not to dismiss those alternative explanations, a priori.
For example, one of my big things is the issue of intrinsic motivation - which is mainly curiosity. Can you discuss economic incentives without considering intrinsic motivation? I don't think so. Can you ignore economic incentives as long as intrinsic motivation is present? I don't believe that either, at least not as a long run proposition.
Let me leave with one last point. There is a tab on the Web site about comments. Of course you are free to comment on anything on the site. But I would especially appreciate comments about posts with this label, so I can learn whether what I've written resonates with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment