The purpose of the paper is to develop the argument that history of thought and
methodology should form part of the content of pluralist teaching in economics,
where the aim of this teaching is to equip students to exercise their own
judgement as economists.Discussion of the nature and scope of economics, with
examples from history, helps students understand what is involved in considering a
range of approaches and methods (rather than uncritically accepting one general
approach, but without resorting to ‘anything goes’). A way of teaching about the
current crisis is used as an exemplar.

Economics students find difficulty in developing effective learning strategies; they
would also welcome and benefit from a more pluralistic teaching of economics.
Nevertheless, economics teaching has become less pluralistic over the recent past.
Recent benchmark statements seem content to underwrite an essentially monist
approach to the discipline in the hope that a deepening crisis in economics
teaching can be averted by expanding teaching and learning programmes taking
the content of teaching as given and instead concentrating on presentational
reform.The paper argues that such teaching and learning strategies are part of the
problem rather than its solution.

Preparing students to participate in social and economic life after graduation is a
widely held goal of economics instructors.How that goal is achieved and
interpretations of what is a relevant skill, however, are a source of debate, covering
both content coverage and pedagogical practices.This paper argues that a more
pluralistic approach to both course content and pedagogy is fundamental for
better preparing economics students for the world, and that learning theory is an
integral component of understanding how to design practices to achieve desired
outcomes.

This Editorial introduces the special issue of IREE on pluralism in economics
education. It draws out the pedagogical consequences of the contradiction between
the plurality of the discipline and the singularity of student induction into it.
Economics education should instead be based on controversy, benefiting students,
staff,employers and the polity, via the development of students’ intellectual
independence.Pluralism does not entail lowering standards, but itself constitutes a
demanding standard. On pluralist criteria, the current subject benchmark statement
for economics is seriously deficient, but an appropriately edited version would
constitute a step towards the pluralistic reorganisation of economics education.

Two overlapping yet distinct views of pluralism vie for the allegiance of economics
educators: an ‘intellectual diversity’ view in which the pluralist goal is to integrate
competing paradigms into standard curricula, and a ‘critical thinking’ view in which
the aim is to cultivate students’ ability to reach reasoned conclusions in the face of
analytical, empirical or normative uncertainties.This paper defends the latter view.
Educators who aspire to achieve and expand the pluralistic outcomes specified in
the QAA Economics Benchmarking Statement would be better served by pursuing
the student-centred aim of intellectual freedom rather than the teacher-centred
aim of paradigmatic diversity.

This paper, on behalf of the UK-based Association for Heterodox Economists (AHE),
argues for a reformulation of the Subject Benchmark Statement for Economics
(SBSE) on pluralist principles.
Pluralism – the capacity to examine critically a range of explanations for observed
reality – should be the primary required outcome of economics education. Specific
provisions should recognise, promote, defend and guarantee this good practice in
teaching and assessment alike.
Such a revision, it argues, is the appropriate response to widespread criticism of
economics, to which the monotheoretic character of its practice has laid the
profession open, following the recession which began early in 2008.-