Search results

The purpose of the “Introduction” is to provide the motivation and context for the articles of this special issue and an overview and summary of the contributions that follow.

The paper provides an overview and summary of the contributions in the special issue.

It is argued that heterodoxies had gained a considerable and growing influence on research orientations, methodologies, and critical reflections, also on the mainstream publishing practices, even in the mainstream. This has been widely acknowledged as “hip heterodoxy” recently. Thus, many heterodox economists have developed optimistic expectations for the future of the profession. However, that influence has left the main mechanisms of reproduction of the mainstream untouched. These are mass teaching, public advising, journal policies, and faculty recruitment. Above that, the last decade has seen something like a “counterattack” to safeguard these mainstream reproduction mechanisms. The means used for this seem to be journal (and publisher) rankings based on purely quantitative citation measures and “impact factors”. These have an obvious cumulative “economies‐of‐scale” effect which triggers a tendency towards reinforcement and collective monopolization of the dominating orientation. Department rankings and individual faculty evaluations are then based on journals rankings. As a result, there are observable tendencies towards the cleansing of economics departments in a number of countries.

The paper also discusses potential reasons and methods for alternative approaches to measure citation interrelations, networks, cooperation, and rankings among heterodoxies (journals and departments), and for alternatives of publishing and the future of heterodoxies in general. Finally, it draws the picture of the present situation and the foreseeable future of heterodoxies as it emerges from the 11 contributions of the special issue.

This paper seeks to evaluate how some of the core general principles of heterodox political economy (HPE) can be applied to the issue of how HPE has managed to undergo resurgence and development over recent decades.

Four major principles of heterodoxy are applied successively to this issue: historical specificity; contradiction; heterogeneous agents and groups; and circular and cumulative causation.

These principles assist in comprehending how HPE is able to develop its own concepts, networks, publications, academic departments, teaching and policy‐relevant material.

HPE has had considerable success in developing a conceptual apparatus, which helps to explain the emergence of much of its edifice being developed in academic and policy circles. The performance of HPE has been impressive.

The conceptual apparatus of heterodoxy can be applied to real world situations; specifically a component of world history over especially the past 40 years.

This is the first time such a theme has been explored in the literature.

The article seeks to identify and examine HPE concepts and ideas that help teach community economic development to college students.

The paper's discussion is situated within a descriptive account of the learning context, content and structure of a course on community economic development. Selected course readings are analyzed to identify heterodox concepts and to illustrate how they assist in helping students think critically about community economic development.

The course readings prove fruitful ground for the identification and examination of a range of heterodox concepts and ideas used to help students to think critically about community economic development issues.

Although successful in examining the contributing roles of heterodoxy in teaching community economic development, the study relied on only one course syllabus.

The article offers a practical way to gauge the use of heterodoxy in the classroom. It provides a case study example of how courses could be adopted to teach heterodox economic concepts and ideas.

The article presents a case study of the use of heterodoxy to help students think creatively and critically, and as such, provides an exemplar for other professors to adopt a similar approach.

What do economists talk about? This seemingly innocent interrogation conceals a broader and innovative research programme, with the potential to renew the reflection on heterodox economics in a post‐crisis scenario. The aim of this paper is to show that convergence between language for specific purposes and economics is possible, so as to single out the genesis and the emergence of critical economic discourse.

After underlining the necessary collaboration between language and subject‐matter specialists, the paper addresses the question of the problematic use of economics textbooks in English‐speaking countries. Then, it deals with the fascinating question of the multiplicity of specialized meanings in economics. After pointing out the shortcomings of orthodoxy characterized by hyper‐formalization and its inevitable corollary, the mathematical nature of the discipline, it investigates the genesis of critical economic discourse, which requires the acknowledgement of pluralism and the components of heterodoxy, in order to converge towards a process of disciplinary acculturation that goes hand in hand with the learning process of language for specific purposes.

A deep‐seated renewal of economics, consisting of a methodological shift towards the components of heterodoxy, has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of teaching English for economics, so that the latter effectively conveys specialized meaning.

Teaching and researching English for specific purposes necessitates enhanced collaboration between subject‐matter specialists and applied linguists. However, this type of collaboration can be hampered by institutional or socio‐professional obstacles.

Discursive analysis has become indispensable in order to surmount the collective failure of mainstream economics in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. With the help of textbooks of a new kind, one must go beyond the vision of students as mere consumers of knowledge.

Language for specific purposes has long shown interest in economics, but is the reciprocal true? This paper proposes an original association, by putting the two disciplinary fields on an equal footing, and by bringing new synergies forward.

The purpose of this paper is first, as a sort of “health check”, to examine the research approaches, aims and sentiments of academics in the field – based upon their output. Second, to raise key questions with the aim of elevating scholarship within Islamic marketing and its sub-disciplines – through encouraging thought leadership, grounded in: more rigorous and in-depth application of Islamic knowledge; and transformational scholarship – through intellect rooted in creativity and heterodoxy.

The paper employs a grounded theory approach to phenomenological investigation, based upon desk reviews of published and unpublished manuscripts from the Journal of Islamic Marketing. Investigations were also supported by expert knowledge elicitation from Editorial Advisory Board members and reviewers; using participant observation methods and data collected from manuscript reviews.

There are varying perspectives and standpoints which can be adopted, which in turn will raise divergent philosophical positions. However, it appears that many opt for approaches rooted in a dogma of heterodoxy. It is argued that a broader collection of lenses, more creative and revolutionary scholarship, and a greater depth of Islamic knowledge comparable to that shown in the critical appraisal of marketing sub-disciplines are needed – as a necessary process of generative discovery in an emergent field.

This paper gives consideration to a fan of philosophical epistemologies, also offering guidance on the sourcing of further supporting Islamic texts, beyond the Qur ' an and ahadith. In addition, two brief examples of Islamic data theory are presented.

This paper aims to analyze what Samarco and Brazilian magazines speak and say about Mariana’s environmental crime. Discover their doxa in this subject. Interpret the speakings, sayings and doxas through the theories of the treadmills of production, crime and law.

It is a qualitative and documental research and a narrative analysis. Regarding the documents: 45 were from public authorities, 14 from Samarco Mineração S.A. and 73 from Brazilian magazines. Theoretically, the authors resorted to Bourdieusian sociology (speaking, saying and doxa) and the treadmills of production, crime and law theories.

Samarco: speaking – mission statements; saying – detailed information and economic and financial concerns; doxa – assistance discourse. Brazilian magazines: speaking – external agents; saying – agreements; doxa – attribution, aggravations, historical facts, impacts and protests.

The absence of discussions that addressed this fatality, with its respective consequences, from an agenda that exposed and denounced how it exacerbated race, class and gender inequalities.

Regarding Mariana’s environmental crime: Samarco Mineração S.A. speaks and says through the treadmill of production theory and supports its doxa through the treadmill of crime theory, and Brazilian magazines speak and say through the treadmill of law theory and support their doxa through the treadmill of crime theory.

To provoke reflections on the relationship between the mining companies and the communities where they settle to develop their productive activities.

Concerning environmental crime in perspective, submit it to a theoretical interpretation based on sociological references, approach it in a debate linked to environmental criminology, and describe it through narratives exposed by the guilty company and by Brazilian magazines with high circulation.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically ascertain whether an ideological barrier to entry exists, preventing heterodox economists from publishing in mainstream journals.

The empirical results were obtained from a questionnaire asked of heterodox economists. The ten questions include where respondents submitted their research; their treatment by editors and referees; and whether an ideological barrier to publication exists.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the existence of an ideological entry barrier. This barrier goes beyond the normal competitive nature of journal publishing, that is limited journal pages constricting the number of “good papers” that can be published, suggesting that there is an insidious ideological entry barrier preventing heterodox ideas from being published.

Based on this evidence, the last section proffers several research suggestions, including more sophisticated models predicting the likelihood of a heterodox economist submitting to a mainstream journal and the likelihood of acceptance. And, finally, several reforms are suggested including the adoption of a universal code of conduct for referees.

Universities traditionally have had two primary cultural functions. One is to maintain the “eternal verities” of the tribe. The other is to “advance the frontiers of knowledge.” While not wholly antithetical, these two functions do at times pose a delicate balancing act. To advance the so-called frontiers of knowledge may well undermine the very foundations of conventional tribal wisdom and appear to undermine the instituted hierarchy or status system of the society. This can provoke outrage on the part of the beneficiaries of the hierarchy; it may also disturb the cultural contentment of all the rest of the tribe upon whom complicity in the faith is essential for domestic tranquility. Although one might wonder at the outrage of those who might well be viewed as victims of the system, on reflection it is easily understood. To admit that which they believe is a hoax would mean that they were dupes. And no one likes to think that he or she has been taken. In other words, the British people do not like to be reminded of the cultural sham of a Royal Family.

The emergence and maturation of the social sciences is an important component of the expansion of institutions of higher learning in the 20th century. The discipline of Political Economy, increasingly institutionalized in various Canadian universities in the early decades of the century, secured a Chair at the University of Manitoba in 1909. After 1914, its title became “Political Economy and Political Science” and the department subsequently served “as the great mother department to which were attached newer social science disciplines until it was deemed appropriate to let them launch out on their own” (Pentland, 1977, p. 3). Political Science became independent in 1948, Geography in 1951, and Sociology and Anthropology in 1962 (p. 4). Agricultural Economics, which was taught in the Manitoba Agricultural College, became its own department when the college joined the university in 1924. In the 1930s, Agricultural Economics was absorbed into Department of Political Economy. However, according to Pentland (pp. 4–5) it was not until the late 1940s that agricultural economics became a significant “sub-department.” It subsequently separated itself from Political Economy and, in 1954, became an independent department in the Faculty of Agriculture (p. 5). The result of these disciplinary developments was that the faculty of the Department of Political Economy had, from time to time, members whose expertise lay outside the increasingly well-defined terrain of economics. Despite this, however, they did not seem to have any long-lasting direct impact on shaping and defining the curricula in Economics. Since these other disciplines left and became independent when they had reached a certain size or degree of influence, Economics was left to define and pursue its own agenda unencumbered by the needs of these former associates.