Search results

This chapter will focus on the use of evaluative research in higher education policy analysis. The approach will be illustrated by reference to higher education policy in Scottish higher education, with particular reference to the longitudinal evaluative research of support of teaching and learning (T&L) (the Quality Enhancement Framework or QEF). The chapter will discuss the features of the research process which are shaped by evaluation theory. We adopt a theoretical position on policy research which foregrounds the situated experience of policy as a core research focus. Policy is depicted as being underscored by an implicit theory of change which is used to structure and orientate the research focus. The design of the research is characterised by the involvement of potential users of the research output, with implications on the way in which findings are articulated, presented and ultimately used, along with aspects of the evaluative research design. The case study of the QEF will be contextualised, and the intersection between the design features and theoretical approaches, and the use and usability of research outputs, will be established.

The Austrian theory of the business cycle (henceforth ABC) frequently has been a target for critics of Austrian economics. In particular, a number of economists who are generally appreciative of other Austrian themes have singled out ABC as being, in one such critic's words, an “embarrassing excrescence” marring the otherwise generally sound body of modern Austrian thought.¹ Despite such criticisms, many Austrian economists persist in forwarding ABC as the best available, or perhaps even the only valid, explanation for the cycles of boom and bust regularly occurring in most modern, national economies.

Lester and Wolff (2013) find little empirical support for the Austrian business cycle theory. According to their analysis, an unexpected monetary shock does not alter the structure of production in a way consistent with the Austrian view. Rather than increasing production in early and late stages relative to middle stages, they find the opposite – a positive monetary shock typically decreases production in early and late stages relative to middle stages. We argue that the measures of production and prices employed by Lester and Wolff (2013) are constructed in such a way that makes them inappropriate for assessing the empirical relevance of the Austrian business cycle theory’s unique features. After describing how these measures are constructed and why using ratios of stages is problematic, we use a structural vector autoregression to consider the effects of a monetary shock on each stage of the production process. We show that, with a clearer understanding of what is actually being measured by the stage of process data, the results are consistent with (but not exclusive to) the Austrian view.