The Evolution of Economics at the University of Oxford: Gendered Constructions of Legitimate Economic Knowledge and Authorities
Saved in:
| Title: | The Evolution of Economics at the University of Oxford: Gendered Constructions of Legitimate Economic Knowledge and Authorities |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Claire McCann (ORCID |
| Source: | History of Education. 2025 54(5):556-574. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Foreign Countries, Universities, Economics Education, Educational History, Gender Discrimination, Females, Economics |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom (England) |
| DOI: | 10.1080/0046760X.2025.2486094 |
| ISSN: | 0046-760X 1464-5130 |
| Abstract: | As evidence of women's exclusion from economic study emerges, interrogation of the discipline is crucial. While feminist scholars have extensively examined the barriers women face in contemporary economics, less attention has been given to the historical evolution of the field and its disciplinary formation. Drawing on primary sources related to the University of Oxford's Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) degree, this article aims to address this silence. It explores how economics' evolution within PPE (re)produced or challenged dominant conceptualisations about "legitimate" knowledge and authorities, and the corresponding impact on women's status. This analysis highlights the social construction of economics within institutions like Oxford, and university complicity in women's marginalisation. However, this construction did not necessarily follow a linear trajectory; the boundaries of economics appear a product of contestation. Perhaps, then, these boundaries can be renegotiated in the twenty-first century, creating space for a more holistic discipline. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1482304 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwElPoWAx7hkUGRQ0BXeIxRMAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAYPp-MD8u9vPhk2FwIBEICBmlbW2FQjMsY2oOabot9-4F8lxH-OZDnk0zFD-u6pUTLyVfDJ26rDA_rr14F071ffeTvM4oULosFkrbanKooy07mME62XZ16n4UBBr-DkWxhTU0g87jhrBZLhDXjlNtQMelJHoMZsEkrPRg_SDZV8OvaK3bzx4dEgeiByxNxMKIfz5Wfetyo3CnTjVDRDtfm51_Q1ZKut_Jx0PV8= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0187694306;hed01sep.25;2025Sep04.05:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187694306-1">The Evolution of Economics at the University of Oxford: Gendered Constructions of Legitimate Economic Knowledge and Authorities </title> <p>As evidence of women's exclusion from economic study emerges, interrogation of the discipline is crucial. While feminist scholars have extensively examined the barriers women face in contemporary economics, less attention has been given to the historical evolution of the field and its disciplinary formation. Drawing on primary sources related to the University of Oxford's Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) degree, this article aims to address this silence. It explores how economics' evolution within PPE (re)produced or challenged dominant conceptualisations about "legitimate" knowledge and authorities, and the corresponding impact on women's status. This analysis highlights the social construction of economics within institutions like Oxford, and university complicity in women's marginalisation. However, this construction did not necessarily follow a linear trajectory; the boundaries of economics appear a product of contestation. Perhaps, then, these boundaries can be renegotiated in the twenty-first century, creating space for a more holistic discipline.</p> <p>Keywords: Economic history; higher education; gender studies; disciplinary formation; University of Oxford</p> <hd id="AN0187694306-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Monica Ali, who studied the Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) degree at the University of Oxford (hereafter, Oxford) in the 1980s remarked that,</p> <p>I didn't have a single female tutor during my degree course and I'm sure that will be different now, but I do think it put me off further study. Also I was the only girl at Wadham in my year who was accepted for PPE, out of a total (I think) of ten.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Today, things might not be that different. In 2020, PPE student Millie Prince-Hodges echoed Ali's experiences by claiming, "in this environment – where you have no female role models, no female classmates, you don't see women in the readings – your confidence in the work you produce is undermined."[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>] This absence of women extends beyond Oxford's PPE and is a recognised problem in the economics discipline globally. Both mainstream and heterodox economists have highlighted this issue and initiated efforts to increase women's participation among undergraduate economics majors.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]</p> <p>Inadequate women's representation in PPE, and economics specifically, is concerning but perhaps unsurprising for a discipline where exclusion manifests not only functionally, in terms of the representation of women students, but also conceptually, with respect to gendered worldviews embedded in the substance and outlook of economics. Contemporary economics, predominantly taught and shaped by male professionals, faces criticism for failing to attract women as economic authorities, and for neglecting the particularities of women's lived experiences in its abstractions of reality. Over one hundred years ago, however, when PPE or "Modern Greats" emerged, it held potential to improve women's representation. At the pivotal moment when women could first receive Oxford degrees, "Modern Greats" felt promising as, unlike the pre-existing "Greats," it did not require previous study in ancient languages.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]</p> <p>This trajectory, whereby a subject initially promising today attracts few women, feels difficult to comprehend. A deeper analysis of PPE's disciplinary formation offers a lens through which to explore the changes in women's access to economics over time. This historical analysis may be powerful not only in revealing some historical roots of exclusion but also in shedding light on alternative versions of the discipline that may exist.</p> <p>The aim of this article is to explore how the twentieth-century disciplinary formation of PPE (re)produced or challenged dominant conceptualisations about economic <emph>knowledge</emph> and <emph>knowers</emph>, focusing on the corresponding impact on women's status. Two questions guide this inquiry: firstly, who are positioned as "legitimate" economic knowers? Secondly, what is considered "legitimate" economic knowledge and who is the subject of this knowledge?</p> <p>To address these questions, I draw from Warren Young and Frederic Lee's outline of the evolution of PPE in the twentieth century, which the authors constructed using recollections of Oxford economists and their students.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>] In this account, Young and Lee turned away from grand narratives of intellectual history in favour of the more mundane elements of institutional history, using often overlooked sources such as examination papers, lecture notes, and student recollections.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>] Their aim was to use these elements to "show that Oxford's contribution to the development of economics was equal to that of Cambridge."[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>] While this article does not aim to assess Young and Lee's success in achieving this aim, nor uncritically reproduce their interpretations, it draws on this account alongside other sources to trace developments at Oxford reinforcing and challenging women's status. This perspective adds nuance to a story better represented by a zig zag than a linear progression. In addition, I interrogate to what extent Young and Lee's historical account itself may directly or indirectly contribute to women's marginalisation.</p> <p>To refine this history, I explore two sets of primary sources. First, I analyse twentieth-century PPE Honour School Final Examinations, concentrating predominantly on examinations set between 1949 and 1999 as there is already literature discussing examinations in the earlier twentieth century. Secondly, I revisit the recollections of former Oxford students and economists, originally collected by Young and Lee, and housed in the Oxford University Archives in the Bodleian Library. These recollections provide insight into the perspectives of students and economists, but they are hardly straightforward representations of reality.</p> <p>Archival sources are partial, fragmentary collections offering an incomplete historical record.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>] Given the historical exclusion of women from economics, it is unlikely that their voices have been sufficiently recorded. Furthermore, these recollections are not direct but mediated by researchers (Young and Lee) whose own assumptions may have impacted interview transcripts and correspondence. These assumptions appear evident as, in one instance, an academic corrected the authors' perception that a woman working in economics was merely an "assistant."[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>] Thus, I recognise the limitations of archival sources in this research, but also the significance of returning to these sources to re-narrate histories requiring revision.</p> <p>Before turning to the substance of this article, I would like to highlight that this research, which concentrates on Oxford and briefly considers Cambridge, neglects the contributions of other universities. The evolution of economics owes much to the rapid growth of the London School of Economics (LSE), and technical development of economics in American universities.[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>] The micro-world of Oxford is merely one aspect of a much bigger picture. Oxford is, nonetheless, a significant micro-world, given the ongoing role of the higher education institution in producing Britain's elites.</p> <p>There are two reasons why I have chosen to focus on the Oxford PPE as a lens for exploring how gendered worldviews have shaped the discipline of economics. First, PPE has the longest history of incorporating economics as a taught subject at Oxford, evolving from Political Economy and existing for over 100 years. It is therefore older and has a longer evolution than other forms of economics teaching and research currently at Oxford. PPE institutionalised economics teaching at Oxford, although not in the framework of a specific economics degree.[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>] The second reason for this focus is a recognition of the global influence the PPE has had, playing a role in shaping economics teaching and learning beyond the confines of Oxford's cloistered halls. As Chris Melonovsky notes, "What started at Oxford in 1920 has spread to become a primary area of study [...] There are now more than 60 PPE programs across Europe and over 150 programs across the world."[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>] PPE has had a tremendous impact globally and in the United Kingdom, having produced many of the country's leaders on the left and right.</p> <p>The next section unpacks the enclosure and professionalisation of economics within universities, and the exclusion of women from this epistemic community. Thereafter, I interrogate the narrowing of economic content, its separation from other disciplines, and the gendered implications of both these developments. Finally, I conclude by offering closing reflections and future directions.</p> <hd id="AN0187694306-3">Enclosing Economics at Oxford</hd> <p>In the recollections of former Oxford students, one PPE graduate described returning to Oxford in 1965, twenty-five years after completing his degree.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>] He recalled telling the Director of the Institute of Economics that he obtained a distinction in economics in the 1920s, to which the Director responded "disdainfully" that "there were no economists in Oxford in those days."[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>] This interaction highlights that the economics profession is a relatively recent invention, socially constructed in and by university institutions in the twentieth century. The conversation recalled, between a male graduate and male Director, provides insight into <emph>who</emph> can establish credibility as an economics expert.</p> <p>As is evident by the Director's comment, PPE as a degree initially struggled to establish legitimacy. Recollections of former students in the 1920s and 1930s indicate perceptions of PPE as the "soft option," and an "easy way to waste years of youth."[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>] One former student reflected that,</p> <p>a by-product, incidentally, of the newness of the discipline (and of its unproved vocational or educational value) was that college authorities were averse from exposing an undergraduate to the hazardous study of economics.[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]</p> <p>Over time, however, PPE came to attract those striving for careers in politics or public policy. From the late 1920s onwards, a new generation of economics lecturers sought to nurture the respectability of their subject, seeing the move towards specialism as essential for the development of professional economics. Between 1948 and 1952, lectures transitioned from a generalist to technical orientation, placing greater focus on economic theory as a first step towards the discipline's professionalisation.[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>] Examinations, which became more specialised over time, reflect this evolution.[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>] In 1963, the Public Finance paper of the PPE Final Honour School examination included the question, "In which new fields is there most scope for professional economists to advise on public policy?"[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>] This question emphasises the discipline's development, as just over forty years before, there was little semblance of "professional" economics, let alone an enhanced level of credibility enabling economic thinkers to advise on public policy.</p> <p>This process illustrates that professions do not merely emerge but are socially constructed, generally by individuals within universities, as practical knowledge transforms into academic discipline.[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>] A characteristic of professional power, as Magali Sarfatti Larson notes, is that the profession has the "exclusive privilege of defining [...] legitimate conditions of access" to its knowledge.[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref21">21</reflink>] While professionalisation improved economics' legitimacy, it also enclosed economic knowledge within universities, adversely impacting women's access. A closer look at the evolution of Oxford economics, beginning in the nineteenth century, may enhance our understanding of this enclosure.</p> <p>Just under a century before PPE's emergence, in 1825, the Drummond Chair in Political Economy was established.[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>] By the 1870s, Oxford offered a Political Economy module in both Modern History and <emph>Literae Humaniores</emph> (Classics) or "Greats," with lectures in political economy, the history of economic thought and, subsequently, economic history.[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>] These schools incorporated political economy into historical and classical study, as part of a holistic view on civilisations. For instance, one question in the 1874 <emph>Literae Humaniores</emph> examination included a quotation from Aristotle in Ancient Greek, followed by a question on political economy, illustrating the interconnectedness of these schools of thought.[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>] The quotation underlines that classical authors were key points of reference; they did not just serve to ratify conventional norms but offered provocations to rethinking them. This quotation reads (in Benjamin Jowett's translation): "Such legislation [for communal rather than private property] may have a specious appearance of benevolence."[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>In 1903, Cambridge was the first to establish a specialised Honour School, the Economics Tripos, a significant moment for the development of economics as a discipline. Soon after, in 1904, Oxford's Diploma in Economics emerged.[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>] Significantly, the momentum behind the Diploma's establishment came not from the university but from the founders of Barnett House who were active supporters of university reform.[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref27">27</reflink>] Established in memory of the Anglican clergyman Samuel Barnett, who worked extensively to improve the conditions of London's working class, and to foster links between university undergraduates and communities they would not normally meet – what he called "practicable" socialism – Barnett House was a centre combining study, training, and public engagement.[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]</p> <p>While physically at the heart of Oxford, Barnett House was an independent institution established to "advance the systematic study of current social and economic questions."[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>] In the spirit of diffusing "useful knowledge," the Diploma in Economics was accessible to working class students from Ruskin Hall, students from nearby religious colleges, and women, who could not be awarded Oxford degrees at the time.[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref30">30</reflink>] The Diploma appeared embedded in the Oxford community, rather than enclosed by the university. This structure aligned with Oxford's general orientation, which retained an emphasis on the theological and social concerns often considered outdated at Cambridge and the London universities.[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]</p> <p>Unlike in Cambridge, where specialism emerged early, economics did not have a specific role in the Oxford undergraduate curriculum until the founding of the PPE Honour School in 1921.[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>] Adopted by the university's Hebdomadal Council, PPE introduced a "Modern Greats" approach to education, dedicated to the study of modern society. The introduction of PPE partly represents an enclosure of economics within Oxford, taking undergraduates away from Barnett House as lectures developed within the university, restricting the number of authorities disseminating economic ideas, and people with access to this knowledge.[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref33">33</reflink>] This enclosure, however, was complex, enhancing access for some and simultaneously displacing others. The shift to "Modern Greats" made PPE more accessible for typical outsiders, such as the first generation of women eligible to receive Oxford degrees, as, unlike "Greats," it did not require previous education in ancient languages.[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>]</p> <p>PPE also exhibited an openness to the outside world. The degree was to a certain extent a "radical" idea, centred on the contemporary world, rather than the medieval and classical ones that were "Oxford's usual preoccupations."[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref35">35</reflink>] In addition, its interdisciplinary framework implied that economic theory could not be developed independently from politics, philosophy and social history.[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref36">36</reflink>] One former student of the 1920s commented that,</p> <p>Oxford in those days, unlike Cambridge, did not recognise economics as a fully separate discipline. At the undergraduate level, it was part of "Philosophy, Politics and Economics", and for graduate purposes part of "Social Studies".[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]</p> <p>Another reflected on his experience that "the emphasis was on general education."[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>] In the early years of the degree, even for students primarily focused on economics, economics was "only marginally more than fifty percent of one's work."[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]</p> <p>Specialism and professionalisation of economics became clearer by the mid-twentieth century. The evolution of examination questions reinforces this shift; for instance, a 1966 Economic Theory paper asked, "In what branches of economic theory have principles been discovered which can be confidently and universally applied to practical problems?"[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>] This question, implying confidence in <emph>universal</emph> economic laws, appears to suggest that economic solutions can be applied in isolation of other considerations. It perhaps also reflects a gradual loss of radicalism in PPE as the study of economics became increasingly technical and apolitical, neglecting the particularities of context and subjectivity.</p> <hd id="AN0187694306-4">Women's Status as Economic Authorities</hd> <p>This professionalisation of economics, although not following a distinctly linear trajectory, corresponds with women's exclusion. The enclosure of PPE within the university enabled the creation of a more exclusive degree, highlighted most clearly by Lee's compilation of student recollections, featuring British Prime Ministers, various American Rhodes Scholars, and at least one billionaire.[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref41">41</reflink>] This sample is likely a result of Young and Lee's strategy for choosing interlocutors. The authors traced former students by consulting the 1981 <emph>Who's Who</emph>, a yearly reference work listing notable figures in British life, thereby excluding less publicly distinguished PPE graduates.[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]</p> <p>An absence in these recollections is women's voices, which Lee claims is because the authors were unable to trace PPE graduates who married and changed their last names.[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref43">43</reflink>] This absence, however, may signal the deeper issue that the construction of economics within universities has affected some groups' authority as economic knowers more than others. As is made evident by the economists who pushed for specialisation, economics has been socially constructed by human actors, and men have been dominant in the epistemic community creating the discipline.[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>] This affects not only the standpoint of economics, but also the individuals with access to economic credentials and able to speak authoritatively on economic issues.[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>]</p> <p>For this analysis, Miranda Fricker's concept of <emph>testimonial injustice</emph> as a component of epistemic injustice is significant.[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>] Testimonial injustice emerges from prejudice in the economy of credibility, whereby some speakers are considered less legitimate than others.[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref47">47</reflink>] An analysis of women in economics, therefore, requires not only consideration of physical access to universities, but also interrogation of epistemic access, or how gendered modes of thinking affect women's credibility as economic authorities and knowledge creators.</p> <p>Universities construct epistemic communities such as "economists" through credentialled discourses of expertise. The social construction of economics as a profession also involves the depiction of certain (masculine) identities as legitimate authorities of knowledge and (feminine) others as less credible. With reference to the creation of examinations at Oxford in the nineteenth century, Paul Deslandes links the rise of professional society with a specific version of masculinity.[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref48">48</reflink>] For Deslandes, the emerging ideal of professionalism represented a new version of British masculinity, premised not on "godliness and good learning or even muscular Christianity" but "proficiency, competence [...] and unimpeachable character."[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref49">49</reflink>] Over time, professional status carried symbolic significance as an attainment of manhood.[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref50">50</reflink>]</p> <p>The professionalisation of economics, and its association with masculinity, impacted women's legitimacy as economic authorities. When PPE first emerged, descriptions of the degree involved feminine iconography: as "Girls' Greats," "soft," a "'pretty' but not very important subject," or the "option for the weaker man."[<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref51">51</reflink>] Once economics gained legitimacy, the discipline instead became increasingly associated with masculinity.</p> <p>This social construction had tangible effects for the credibility of women working in the space. Elizabeth Brunner, at Oxford in the 1940s and 1950s, illustrates this point. As an economist in her own right, best known for her work in industrial economics with Philip Andrews, she is mentioned in recollections, but marginalised in Young and Lee's account of prominent economists.[<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>] It also appears that Brunner was treated unjustly at Oxford (although there are few details outlining this injustice) after Andrews' death and thereafter established herself at the University of Lancaster.[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>] While Brunner lacks recognition for her work at Oxford, the recollections of some academics set the record straight. One person claimed,</p> <p>Elizabeth Brunner was much more than an assistant: she kept Philip [Andrews] closer to theoretical rigour, and she ensured that his interests proceeded in a businesslike way. In the latter part of his life she was the real origin of much of the work with which he is credited.[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref54">54</reflink>]</p> <p>Another economist noted that,</p> <p>You can hardly give an accurate account of Philip Andrews' career as editor [of <emph>Journal of Industrial Economics</emph>], without much weight to the contribution of Elizabeth Brunner. She was completely self-effacing, to where people who had not met them both, and talked to them together, could overlook her entirely. This may have something to do with what I thought was her unjust treatment by Nuffield College after his death.[<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref55">55</reflink>]</p> <p>Academics also indicated why Brunner was treated unjustly, with one person claiming she was in the background because of her "unclear" relationship with Andrews, compared to other women academics who were married to economists.[<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref56">56</reflink>] Of the few women academics mentioned by Young and Lee, it appears most derived authority from their marriages to male economists.[<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref57">57</reflink>] In fact, when tracing PPE's evolution, Young and Lee hardly include women academics, some of whom they claim "appeared to make no contribution to economics at Oxford, in spite of [...] professional credentials."[<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref58">58</reflink>]</p> <p>Young and Lee's account is one of several that neglect women's contributions. The Palgrave Companion to Oxford Economics edited by Robert Cord, for example, includes six chapters on themes in Oxford economics and 24 chapters on the lives and work of Oxford economists – all of whom appear to be male – to show how economics became established at the university.[<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref59">59</reflink>] Significantly, one of these chapters focuses on the life of Philip Andrews and mentions Elizabeth Brunner's name only once as Andrews's "assistant and collaborator."[<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref60">60</reflink>]</p> <p>Women's marginalisation was not only evident in the treatment of academics and scholars but also in the belittlement of women PPE students, apparent even in PPE's early days. While Lee's recollections include few voices of women, this infantilisation manifests in the recollections of men. One former student recalled, "I remember [George] Cole [a prominent academic in economics who had an equally prominent wife, Margaret Cole] starting his first lecture of the term as follows: 'Good morning, ladies and gentleman! Have you got that down ladies?'"[<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref61">61</reflink>]</p> <p>These examples illustrate instances where women's contributions to economics were unacknowledged. Women, however, were not absent in the construction and dissemination of this knowledge.[<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref62">62</reflink>] Even before the establishment of PPE, women were active participants at a time during which they experienced significant barriers to entering universities. Many women, for example, bridged the gap between the theorist of political economy and his audience.[<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref63">63</reflink>] Of particular importance in transmitting this knowledge were the people Evelyn Forget refers to as knowledge brokers: those facilitating the creation, sharing and use of economic knowledge for the wider development of society.[<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref64">64</reflink>] Several scholars have revisited Jane Marcet's <emph>Conversations on Political Economy</emph> (1816), perhaps the first textbook in economics, written as dialogue between two students, Emily and Caroline, and their teacher, Mrs. B.[<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref65">65</reflink>] This text contributes to the development of political economy; it brings together the insights of European and British thinkers, makes political economy more accessible and encourages the active participation of students in the learning process.[<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref66">66</reflink>]</p> <p>Marcet's contribution to political economy, however, should not be portrayed uncritically. While she played an important role in disseminating economic ideas, she did not challenge core assumptions, especially regarding women's societal roles. Rather, her position was complex, often reinforcing gender roles, as women used her textbooks to teach children, but, in other ways, blurring boundaries between masculine and feminine spaces by providing a platform for women to engage with the conventional economic principles of the time.</p> <p>Moreover, nineteenth-century women were not merely knowledge brokers but also creatively and critically engaged with economic thought. In the 1890s, several women helped construct political economy, publishing in academic journals.[<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref67">67</reflink>] Women were also contributors to Palgrave's <emph>Dictionary of Political Economy</emph> (1894/99).[<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref68">68</reflink>] Sometimes, the content of these contributions often questioned the orthodoxy as women wrote critically on labour markets, social issues, gender relations and wage gaps.[<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref69">69</reflink>]</p> <p>These contributions contrast with the relative absence of women's economic writing in the early twentieth century, perhaps driven out by the discipline's institutionalisation. For example, Marcet's work was scarcely read in the twentieth century, her popularity having decreased because of scathing critiques by "professional" economists.[<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref70">70</reflink>]</p> <p>This non-linear history provides some indication that the evolution of economics was not a benign and natural process but the result of an enclosure within university walls, and social construction of economics as a masculine profession, reducing women's physical and epistemic access. Having explored the construction of legitimate economic authorities in this section, the following section turns to the construction of the boundaries of economic knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0187694306-5">Constructing Economic Knowledge: From Interconnectedness to Insulation</hd> <p>The Oxford University Branch of the Christian Social Union published the <emph>Economic Review</emph>, perhaps the first British journal in economics, from 1891 to 1914.[<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref71">71</reflink>] The existence of this journal, albeit for a brief period, indicates interest in a version of economics centred on social and theological concerns; <emph>Economic Review</emph> embraced interdisciplinarity, and its economic questions reflected moral concerns about what it means to live a good life.[<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref72">72</reflink>] In its opening issue, the editors claimed that <emph>Economic Review</emph> would consider "the study of duty in relation to social life."[<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref73">73</reflink>]<emph>Economic Review</emph> aimed to embrace a "wide field" of approaches, emphasising historical and social methods, while recognising that these forms of meaning-making were not exhaustive – many feminist texts would later find a home in this emerging journal.[<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref74">74</reflink>]</p> <p>By contrast, Cambridge's <emph>Economic Journal</emph>, emerging weeks after and now outliving Oxford's <emph>Economic Review</emph>, represents a different approach. Where <emph>Economic Review</emph> was historical, and centred on social and theological concerns, the early <emph>Economic Journal</emph> is recognisable in relation to modern (i.e. specialised and insulated) economics, its first edition specifying that the journal should be distinctly "British" and "Economic," to suggest "special knowledge and scientific accuracy."[<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref75">75</reflink>]</p> <p>The comparison between these journals illustrates the differences between Oxford's and Cambridge's initial economic approaches. While Cambridge is often considered the pioneer of British economics, Oxford's early economics appeared grounded by social, historical and moral concerns.[<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref76">76</reflink>] Many Oxford students with an interest in political economy in the nineteenth century followed courses in modern history, and their economic interest emerged from this engagement.[<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref77">77</reflink>] This provided the background for a historical version of economics, with emphasis on the context and moral implications of economic ideas.[<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref78">78</reflink>]</p> <p>The early PPE, which emphasised connections between disciplines, seemed to align with this approach. In comparison to Cambridge, which had already established a specialised economics degree, Oxford academics largely supported an interdisciplinary framework as "economics was best studied along with [...] philosophy and history."[<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref79">79</reflink>] Philosophers and historians were responsible for most economic teaching in the 1920s, due to a lack of economics academics.[<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref80">80</reflink>] At this time, PPE tutors ensured that "economics [was] solidly entrenched in the Oxford approach," historically grounded and with emphasis on the normative implications of theory.[<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref81">81</reflink>]</p> <p>Recollections of former PPE students reflect this approach. One student of this period claimed that "Most of us felt that salvation lay in a combination of socialism of some sort coupled with Keynesian economics."[<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref82">82</reflink>] Another reflected that students "trusted that economics – and social sciences generally – could be instruments for social and economic progress."[<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref83">83</reflink>] In these claims, economics was not an end in itself, but a means, alongside other disciplines, of exploring how economic study could further a more prosperous and equitable society.</p> <p>This perspective was not unanimous. Some former students at Oxford in the late 1920s and early 1930s opposed this integration of disciplines. One claimed that "PPE was in its early years at any rate drawn too wide [...] to avoid those taking it ending up as jack of three trades and master of none."[<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref84">84</reflink>] Another had a similar opinion as his "general view of the school [...] was that it was too diffused."[<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref85">85</reflink>]</p> <p>Different perspectives about this integrated approach reflect a gulf between economics and economic history emerging as early as the late 1920s. Many philosophers and historians who taught economics courses were not replaced upon retirement, and non-economist support for political economy and economic history declined.[<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref86">86</reflink>] Instead, economics within Oxford's PPE from the 1930s onward embraced a more theoretical approach, insulated from other disciplines. As one former student recalled,</p> <p>In those days there was a very heavy emphasis on economic theory; we worked our way through Marshall's tome on the subject. We knew that the final exam in Philosophy, Politics and Economics would concentrate heavily upon economic theory – contrasted with the actual workings of the economic system.[<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref87">87</reflink>]</p> <p>Examination papers for the economics component of PPE provide insight into the growing insulation of economics from other disciplinary approaches. In the 1920s, political economy candidates were required to know economic theory, history and application of concepts to modern economic conditions.[<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref88">88</reflink>] From 1923 to 1927, candidates were expected to read classical writers (Smith, Ricardo and Marx were most prominent) for their Prescribed Books paper and write examinations on Political Economy and Currency and Credit.[<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref89">89</reflink>] In addition, economics specialists were required to write British Social and Economic History.[<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref90">90</reflink>]</p> <p>By 1933, this interdisciplinary approach diminished as economists aimed to advance economic theory: the Political Economy paper was replaced by Economic Theory and, later, Principles of Economics.[<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref91">91</reflink>] The Principles of Economics paper, one of two compulsory papers in economics (alongside Economic Organisation) for most of the twentieth century, represented the insulation of economic substance, with the content of examinations progressively having a tighter focus on international trade, monetary theory and general equilibrium.[<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref92">92</reflink>] In the same year, the Prescribed Books changed to The Economic Works of Smith and Ricardo, excluding Marx.[<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref93">93</reflink>] The paper on British Social and Economic History was made optional, and, by 1963, split into two different disciplines; British Economic History became a further subject in economics and British Social History became a further subject in politics.[<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref94">94</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0187694306-6">Narrowing Economic Substance and Erasing Women</hd> <p>The evolution of twentieth century examination papers thus illustrates the dehistoricisation, desocialisation and insulation of economics. Accompanying this insulation was a narrowing of economic content. In 1935, Lionel Robbins, one of the academics aiming to develop a "professional qualification" in economics at Oxford, proposed a definition of economics widely disseminated by contemporary economics textbooks: "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses."[<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref95">95</reflink>] This definition positions economics as the science of choice and market relations. Once a Sub-Faculty in Economics was established in 1932, a different discipline had emerged, largely influenced by economics at Cambridge and the marginalist revolution, during which economics increasingly focused on the utility- or profit-maximising behaviour of individuals.[<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref96">96</reflink>] This shift was met with a corresponding decline in the interdisciplinary PPE ideal. At this point, the possibility of a distinctive, historically grounded economics diminished.</p> <p>Though widely accepted today, Robbins's definition of economics is not the only means by which theorists have made sense of the discipline. Feminist institutionalists, who form part of economics' heterodox tradition, have long rejected the notion of economics as merely the study of choice under scarcity. Instead, they describe the economy as a means of <emph>social provisioning</emph>, organised through social relationships, history and institutions, and embedded in social norms and power structures.[<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref97">97</reflink>] This perspective embraces the interdependence of institutions and agents, where individuals exist not as atoms but in relationships and connections. It also broadens the scope of economics beyond the market, perhaps addressing what Karl Polanyi referred to as the danger of the <emph>economic fallacy</emph>: the conflation of the entire economy with market activity, side lining the human relations of production, and the political and social aspects of resource distribution in societies.[<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref98">98</reflink>]</p> <p>A broader understanding of economic activity, rooted in social provisioning, creates space for analysing the home, a domain historically shaped by women's labour. Women's household labour and care work, traditionally feminised and unpaid, sustain human life and make market production possible. This social reproduction forms the foundation of economies, leading Sylvia Federici to claim that the amount of domestic and care work done by women in the home is what "keeps the world moving."[<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref99">99</reflink>] Care work is not only foundational to understanding many women's economic experiences but is also, according to Federici, the "point zero" that forms one of capitalism's background conditions of possibility.[<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref100">100</reflink>]</p> <p>Gendered dichotomies and frameworks of understanding, however, have historically shaped the distinction between "economic" and "non-economic" knowledge. The narrowing of economic content over time, illustrated even in the evolution of the economics component of the interdisciplinary PPE degree over the course of the twentieth century, affected the development of other disciplines. The construction of sociology in the twentieth century, concerned with the social – defined negatively as the "non-economic" – in part represents an attempt to fill the gap left by the more confined definition of economics.[<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref101">101</reflink>] A dualism thus emerged between sociology and economics: rational and non-rational, economic and social, market and non-market.[<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref102">102</reflink>] These distinctions mapped onto broader gendered binaries, with masculinity historically associated with rationality, separation, and the public sphere (market activity), while femininity was linked to emotion, connection, and the private sphere (the home). Over time, many heterodox economic thinkers found their intellectual home in disciplines like sociology rather than within traditional economics faculties.</p> <p>Within PPE itself, several unorthodox economic thinkers were marginalised. George Cole, for example, though integral to PPE's establishment, was ultimately considered an economic or social historian rather than a legitimate economist.[<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref103">103</reflink>] Former student recollections reflect this perception as one person claimed that their tutor "thought him [Cole] lightweight" and another indicated that Cole "couldn't really be taken seriously as an economist."[<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref104">104</reflink>] In addition, various economists disliked the place afforded to philosophy in PPE; one academic (Edwin Cannan, the later founding Professor of Political Economy at the LSE) created the group "Some Oxford Economists" and refused membership to any philosopher.[<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref105">105</reflink>]</p> <p>As the economics discipline became more insulated, and as economic content correspondingly narrowed, economics' unit of analysis developed to become the rational, selfish and independent <emph>homo economicus</emph> or "Economic Man," who, despite economics' recognition of this characterisation's limited relevance, remains at the core of many economic models.[<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref106">106</reflink>] The endurance of Economic Man highlights another form of epistemic injustice, hermeneutical injustice. According to Miranda Fricker, <emph>hermeneutical injustice</emph> is a gap in collective interpretive resources putting certain individuals at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to making sense of their lived experiences.[<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref107">107</reflink>] This injustice is a result of prejudice in the "economy of collective hermeneutical resources" evident in the world of Economic Man.[<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref108">108</reflink>] Here, women are absent as subjects of study, and economics has historically failed to make sense of the value of household work, and other gendered aspects of economic activity.[<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref109">109</reflink>]</p> <p>While the home and family have received more attention by orthodox economists since the 1960s, particularly by Chicago's New Home Economics, these conceptualisations may have constructed another dangerous dualism: between selfish, profit-maximising man and altruistic and family-orientated woman.[<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref110">110</reflink>] Women's experiences are erased or oversimplified, placed in opposition to economics' actual unit of analysis. In addition, these frameworks often fail to account for the role of power and conflict in household decision-making.[<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref111">111</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0187694306-7">Resisting the Reduction of Economics</hd> <p>The narrowing of economic content to the science of the market, with Economic Man as the unit of analysis, was not, however, uncontested. Interrogation of this approach appears in examinations in the late-twentieth century. One question in the 1989 Principles of Economics paper asked, "'Economic theorists can make further progress only if they abandon their narrow view of human rationality.' Do you agree?"[<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref112">112</reflink>] Similarly, a 1991 paper asked, "To what extent would altruism on the part of individual agents undermine the conclusions of welfare economics?"[<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref113">113</reflink>] The most provocative question about economic knowledge, however, emerged not from economics papers but from Philosophy of the Social Sciences. This question asked, "I am not Economic Man; why, then, should I be interested in his behaviour?"[<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref114">114</reflink>] Although this question would have been a bolder introspection of the discipline had it come from a specialist economics paper, it does indicate that students reading PPE were to some degree exposed to critique of economics' underlying assumptions.</p> <p>In addition, examination questions from the 1970s onwards placed more focus on women. The 1972 British Economic History paper included the question, "Do you regard the increased participation of women in economic activity in the U.K. as an element exogenous or endogenous to the growth and development of the economy?"[<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref115">115</reflink>] The introduction of the optional Labour Economics and Industrial Relations paper also included questions such as, "Why has there been such a large increase in the female labour force since 1960?" and "Is the Equal Pay Act responsible for the narrowing of pay differentials between men and women in Britain in the 1970s?"[<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref116">116</reflink>] These examples represent a widening of economics to include women's experiences but with limitations. These questions exist in optional papers, and only account for women's participation in the formal labour market, ignoring household production.</p> <p>PPE examinations also indicate resistance to economics' insulation. By 1971, Marx was re-integrated into examination papers, with the Principles of Economics paper including the question, "Can Marxian economics contribute anything to our understanding of contemporary capitalism?"[<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref117">117</reflink>] In 1976, the Classical Economic Thought examination re-emerged, including the ideas of Smith, Ricardo and Marx. Joint further subjects in politics and economics also emerged. Optional papers on the Economics of Developing Countries, and Economic Development of Communist Countries, later renamed Command and Transitional Economies, indicated a more outward-looking approach.</p> <p>These examination papers portray a complex space, reflecting a narrowing of knowledge best represented by the content of compulsory examinations, but an uneven and often contradictory progression, with some elements of interdisciplinarity and critical thinking about disciplinary boundaries. This contestation, with traces of the commitment to the PPE approach, was in some senses very effective: a Faculty of Economics distinct from other subjects only emerged in 1999.[<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref118">118</reflink>]</p> <p>A further illustration of resistance to the insulation and narrowing of economics was the Cole Group, an informal discussion group which emerged in the late 1920s and met regularly at the Cole household.[<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref119">119</reflink>] Group discussions related to the idea that economic problems and solutions must be seen from within their political context. For members, this group was an "antidote" to an emerging ahistorical and depoliticised economics, and one former student claimed that it was "one of the most stimulating experiences of one's university career."[<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref120">120</reflink>] This group, however, existed on Oxford's margins. One former student described members as "largely innumerate economists" and another claimed that the group was "what might be known today as a 'fringe' group."[<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref121">121</reflink>] As the Cole Group was pushed to the margins, so was Oxford's distinctive, historical approach, while boundaries between economics and other disciplines, as well as between what was or was not considered valid economic knowledge strengthened.</p> <p>Today, the prospect of a distinctive, historical approach to economics at Oxford remains unrealised. This evolution is complex, rather than a linear progression, but its outcome is a narrow version of economics, insulated from other disciplines. While there is evidence of resistance to these developments, Oxford remains one of various institutions solidifying the discipline's boundaries. This enclosure echoes the insights of the previous section, highlighting the fortification of boundaries between economic "knowers" and those beyond its disciplinary boundaries. Building on the previous section, this section highlights that women's exclusion from economics is not only about their status as economic authorities but also relates to the construction of what counts as legitimate economic knowledge. The distinction between "economic" and "non-economic" knowledge reflects deeper epistemic injustices, reinforcing gender binaries that continue to shape economic thought.</p> <hd id="AN0187694306-8">Final Reflections</hd> <p>This article examined the disciplinary formation of economics through the lens of the Oxford PPE, with two sections exploring developments with ramifications for women's access to the discipline: the professionalisation and enclosure of economics within universities and the insulation and narrowing of economic knowledge. This article thus interrogated the historical evolution of <emph>what</emph> economic knowledge is deemed valuable, and <emph>who</emph> is positioned as a creator of this knowledge. These developments illustrate an uneven progression, whereby a more holistic political economy approach transformed into specialised economic knowledge. Economics' professionalisation exacerbated <emph>testimonial injustice</emph> experienced by women. Similarly, the narrowing of economics' boundaries, in terms of content, pushed women's experiences to the fringes, an instance of <emph>hermeneutical injustice</emph>.</p> <p>Economics did not just emerge but was constructed in institutions like Oxford. Moreover, this construction was not uniform; the boundaries of economics appear a product of contestation between various actors, with phases of inclusion and exclusion. This depiction of the twentieth-century PPE course as a negotiated terrain is significant as it illustrates that economics as it is known today was not inevitable. Economics' boundaries may not be as well-established as they appear and alternatives to dominant conceptualisations of the discipline are possible.</p> <p>This article thus illustrates how universities may be complicit in the exclusion embedded in contemporary economics, but also indicates possibility for a reimagination of the discipline. Future directions for this reimagination could include a deeper interrogation of political economy at Oxford prior to the twentieth century, further exploration of the ways gendered worldviews have affected the evolution of the methodologies of the economics discipline (answering the question of <emph>how</emph> knowledge is constructed) and work prioritising correspondence with women who studied PPE. The collection of this data, where possible, could contribute to an incomplete historical record. Another significant research area concerns the evolution of economics in various universities, especially in developing countries where there may be greater disenchantment with Western orthodoxy. A comparative analysis between Oxford and other UK universities, such as Cambridge and LSE, could prove useful.</p> <p>I wrote this article to open a dialogue, with the hope that more voices typically on the periphery of economics are brought into this conversation. These voices are essential in attempts to deconstruct and rebuild the boundaries of economics in such a way that the discipline encompasses and is holistically embedded in material life. In so doing, we may begin to re-signify the economics classroom, not as an exclusively masculine space, but a location of possibility and resistance.</p> <hd id="AN0187694306-9">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.</p> <ref id="AN0187694306-10"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> White et al., <emph>One Hundred Years of PPE</emph>, 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Boileau, "PPE: WHERE Are All the Women?"</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Avilova and Goldin, "Seeking the 'Missing Women' of Economics"; and Lundberg and Stearns, "Women in Economics."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Currie, "The Arts and Social Studies," 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Young and Lee, "Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Tribe, "Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists," 666.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Young and Lee, "Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists," front flap.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Harris, "Archival Analysis," 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> C. Carter, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 225.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, <emph>Constructing Economic Science</emph>, 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, "PPE and Oxford Economics," 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melonovsky, <emph>The Routledge Handbook of Politics, Philosophy, and Economics</emph>, xvii.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> E. Vaughan, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> H. A. Lascelles, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 32; and F. Keenlyside, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> A. Wooler, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1949–1999).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, "Public Finance," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1963), 4K6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, <emph>Constructing Economic Science</emph>, 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson, <emph>The Rise of Professionalism</emph>, 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Offer, "Economic History at Oxford, 1860–2020," 104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Oxford, <emph>Honour School of Literae Humaniores Second Public Examination</emph>, Michaelmas term, (1874) 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jowett, <emph>The Politics of Aristotle: I</emph>, 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 3–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, Peretz, and Smith, <emph>Social Enquiry, Social Reform and Social Action</emph>, 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnett and Barnett, <emph>Practicable Socialism</emph>, 170; and Chester, <emph>Economics, Politics and Social Studies in Oxford</emph>, 130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Oxford Department of Social Policy and Intervention, "History."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Named after John Ruskin, Ruskin Hall was an educational institution intended for working-class students, based on the ideal that education should be accessible to all, and as a means by which practicable socialism could be implemented; Smith, Peretz, and Smith, S<emph>ocial Enquiry, Social Reform and Social Action</emph>, 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, <emph>Constructing Economic Science</emph>, 179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chester, <emph>Economics, Politics and Social Studies</emph>, 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Currie, "The Arts and Social Studies," 11; and Young and Lee, "PPE and Oxford Economics," 133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beckett "PPE: The Oxford Degree that Runs Britain."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> L. Gordon, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> M. Milne-Watson, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> K. E. Robinson, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, "Economic Theory," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1966), 3R9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., xviii.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferber and Nelson, "Introduction," 1–2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fricker, <emph>Epistemic Injustice</emph>, 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deslandes, "Competitive Examinations and the Culture of Masculinity," 544–78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 548.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 569.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> J. R. Hilton, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 2; Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 10; and Currie, "The Arts and Social Studies," 113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Andrews, by contrast, is duly acknowledged in Young and Lee's, <emph>History of Oxford Economics</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, "Obituary: Elizabeth Brunner," iv.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> C. Carter, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 225.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> M. A. Adelman, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> E. M. High-Jones, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economics</emph>, 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cord, <emph>The Palgrave Companion to Oxford Economics</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, "P. W. S. Andrews (1914–1971)," 400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berg, "The First Women Economic Historians," 308; and E. B. Teesdale, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimand, "Women Economists in the 1890s," 269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The nineteenth century voices of economics were those of its "great men," with canonical works by Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forget, "Jane Marcet as Knowledge Broker," 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcet, <emph>Conversations on Political Economy</emph>; Henderson, "Jane Marcet's <emph>Conversations on Political Economy</emph>," 423–37; and Myers, "Science for Women and Children," 171–200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Even this enhanced access was limited. While Marcet's work improved access to economic knowledge, especially for women, Marcet did not consider working-class people her appropriate audience; Forget, "Jane Marcet as Knowledge Broker," 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 270–4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, <emph>Economics as Literature</emph>, 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, <emph>Constructing Economic Science</emph>, 187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Editors, "Editorial – A Programme," 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Editor, "The British Economic Association," 1–2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, <emph>Constructing Economic Science</emph>, 178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chester, <emph>Economics, Politics and Social Studies</emph>, 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> A. D. Frank, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> C. Saunders, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> H. A. Caccia, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> E. G. R. Moses, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, <emph>Constructing Economic Science</emph>, 197.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D. Rusk, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chester, <emph>Economics, Politics and Social Studies</emph>, 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chester, <emph>Economics, Politics and Social Studies</emph>, 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Currie, "The Arts and Social Studies," 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chester, <emph>Economics, Politics and Social Studies</emph>, 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, "British Economic History since 1870," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1963), 4K7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robbins, <emph>An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science</emph>, 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 24; and Mäki, "The Dismal Queen," 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waller and Wren, "Feminist Institutionalism and Neoliberalism," 59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polanyi, "The Economistic Fallacy."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Federici, "Wages against Housework."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milonakis and Fine, <emph>From Political Economy</emph>, 217.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldman, "A Peculiarity of the English?," 142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> P. K. Piercy, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 26; and A. S. Ashton, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, <emph>Constructing Economic Science</emph>, 177; Chester, <emph>Economics, Politics and Social Studies</emph>, 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mäki, "The Dismal Queen," 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fricker, <emph>Epistemic Injustice</emph>, 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferber and Nelson, "Introduction," 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Becker, "Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labour," 33–58; and Garnett, "Whose Logic?," 79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doss, "Diffusion and Dilution," 10; The Fabian Women's Group, comprised of feminist academics from economics and economic history, and committed to women's economic independence, was one of the first collectives to recognise that the workplace and household were simultaneous sites of women's oppression (disrupting the dualism between altruistic home and selfish market).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, "Principles of Economics," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1989), 67.38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, "Philosophy of the Social Sciences," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1978), 2G22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, "British Economic History since 1870," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1972), 2R32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, "Labour Economics and Industrial Relations," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1978), 2G13; Oxford, "Labour Economics and Industrial Relations," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1981).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford, "Principles of Economics," <emph>Honour School of PPE</emph> (1971), 2O1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, "PPE and Oxford Economics," 132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young and Lee, <emph>Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists</emph>, 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 27; and B. Hughes, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> E. A. Radice, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 41; and Sir J. S. Cripps, in Lee, "Recollections of Students and Economists," 42.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187694306-11"> <title> Primary </title> <blist> <bibtext> Economic Review, 1891–1914.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Editor. " The British Economic Association." Economic Journal 1, no. 1, (1891), 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Editors. " Editorial – A Programme." Economic Review 1, (1891), 1 – 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, F. S. " Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists 1922–71: Recollections of Students and Economists," Correspondence between Lee and Former PPE Students and Academics, 1993, File MS. Eng. C 4819, Bodleian Archives and Manuscripts, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcet, J. Conversations on Political Economy, London : Longmans, 1816.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palgrave, R. H. I., ed. 1894–99. Dictionary of Political Economy, 3, London : Macmillan, 1910.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Oxford, Honour School of Literae Humaniores Second Public Examination, Michaelmas term, HathiTrust, 1874, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hxq2w6&amp;seq=10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Oxford, Honour School of Philosophy, Politics and Economics Second Public Examination, Trinity term 1949–1999, Social Sciences Library, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187694306-12"> <title> Secondary </title> <blist> <bibtext> Avilova, T., and C. Goldin. " Seeking the 'Missing Women' of Economics with the Undergraduate Women in Economics Challenge." Journal of Economic Perspectives 38, no. 3, (2024), 137 – 62. doi: 10.1257/jep.38.3.137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnett, S. A., and D. H. O. R. Barnett. Practicable Socialism: Essays on Social Reform. London : Longmans, Green and Company, 1894.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Becker, G. S. " Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labour. " Journal of Labour Economics 3, no. 1, (1985), 33 – 58. doi: 10.1086/298075.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beckett, A. " PPE: The Oxford Degree that Runs Britain." The Guardian, February 23, 2017. https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain">www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berg, M. " The First Women Economic Historians." Economic History Review 45, no. 2, (1992), 308 – 29. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2597625">www.jstor.org/stable/2597625</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boileau, B. " PPE: Where are All the Women? " Cherwell, November 9, 2020. https://cherwell.org/2020/11/09/ppe-where-are-all-the-women/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chester, D. N. Economics, Politics and Social Studies in Oxford, 1900–85. London : Macmillan, 1986.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cord, R. A., ed. The Palgrave Companion to Oxford Economics. Cham, Switzerland : Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Currie, R. " The Arts and Social Studies, 1914–1939." In The History of the University of Oxford: Volume VIII, the Twentieth Century, edited by B. Harrison, 109 – 38. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1994.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deslandes, P. " Competitive Examinations and the Culture of Masculinity in Oxbridge Undergraduate Life, 1850–1920." History of Education Quarterly 42, no. 4, (2002), 544 – 78. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5959.2002.tb00010.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimand, R. W. " Women Economists in the 1890s: Journals, Books and the Old Palgrave." Journal of the History of Economic Thought 21, no. 3, (1999): 269 – 88. doi: 10.1017/S1053837200004260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doss, C., " Diffusion and Dilution: The Power and Perils of Integrating Feminist Perspectives into Household Economics." Feminist Economics 27, no. 3, (2021), 1 – 20. doi: 10.1080/13545701.2021.1883701.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Federici, S. " Wages Against Housework." In Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle, edited by S. Federici, 74 – 87. San Francisco : PM Press, 1974.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferber, M. A., and J. A. Nelson. " Introduction: The Social Construction of Economics and the Social Construction of Gender." In Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, edited by M. A. Ferber, and J. A. Nelson, 1 – 22. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1993.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forget, E. L. " Jane Marcet as Knowledge Broker." History of Economics Review 65, no. 1, (2017), 1 – 12. doi: 10.1080/10370196.2016.1267550.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fricker, M. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garnett, J. " Whose Logic? Reflections on Gender in the History of Ideas." History of European Ideas 28, no. 1–2, (2002), 77 – 82. doi: 10.1016/S0191-6599(02)00009-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldman, L. " A Peculiarity of the English? The Social Science Association and the Absence of Sociology in nineteenth-century Britain." Past &amp; Present 114, (1987), 133 – 71. doi: 10.1093/past/114.1.133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, L. J. " Archival Analysis." In The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Communication Research Methods, edited by M. Allen, 44 – 46. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications, 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, W. " Jane Marcet's Conversations on Political Economy : A New Interpretation." History of Education 23, no. 4, (1994), 423 – 37. doi: 10.1080/0046760940230406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, W. Economics as Literature. London : Routledge, 1995.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jowett, B. The Politics of Aristotle: I. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1887.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, J. E. " P. W. S. Andrews (1914–1971)." In The Palgrave Companion to Oxford Economics, edited by R. A. Cord, 395 – 415. Cham, Switzerland : Palgrave Macmillan, (2021).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson, M. S. The Rise of Professionalism: Monopolies of Competence and Sheltered Markets. Los Angeles, CA : Transaction Publishers, 2013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lundberg, S., and J. Stearns " Women in Economics: Stalled Progress," Journal of Economic Perspectives 33, no. 1, (2019), 3 – 22. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3301729.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mäki, U. " The Dismal Queen." In Fact and Fiction in Economics: Models, Realism and Social Construction, edited by U. Mäki, 1 – 32. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melenovsky, C. M., ed. The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. London : Routledge, 2022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milonakis, D., and B. Fine. From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the Social and the Historical in the Evolution of Economic Theory. London : Routledge, 2008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers, G. " Science for Women and Children: The Dialogue of Popular Science in the Nineteenth Century." In Nature Transfigured: Science and Literature 1700–1900, edited by J. Christie, and S. Shuttleworth, 171 – 200. Manchester : Manchester University Press, (1989).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Offer, A. " Economic History at Oxford, 1860–2020." In The Palgrave Companion to Oxford Economics, edited by R. A. Cord, 101 – 29. Cham, Switzerland : Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polanyi, K. " The Economistic Fallacy." Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 1, (1977), 9 – 18. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240754">www.jstor.org/stable/40240754</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robbins, L. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London : Macmillan, 1935.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, G., E. Peretz, and T. Smith. Social Enquiry, Social Reform and Social Action: One Hundred Years of Barnett House, Oxford : University of Oxford Department of Social Policy and Intervention, 2014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, K. " Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists." European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 1, no. 3, (1994), 663 – 67. doi: 10.1080/10427719400000129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tribe, K. Constructing Economic Science: The Invention of a Discipline 1850–1950. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Oxford Department of Social Policy and Intervention. " History." University of Oxford. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.spi.ox.ac.uk/history">www.spi.ox.ac.uk/history</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waller, W., and M. V. Wrenn. " Feminist Institutionalism and Neoliberalism." Feminist Economics 27, no. 3, (2021) 1 – 26, doi: 10.1080/13545701.2021.1883194.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, B., S. Wainwright, and L. Schreiter. One Hundred Years of PPE 1920–2020. Oxford : University of Oxford, 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, T. " Obituary: Elizabeth Brunner." Journal of Industrial Economics 32, no. 2, (1983), i – iv.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, W., and F. S. Lee. Oxford Economics and Oxford Economists. London : Macmillan, 1993.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, W., and F. S. Lee. " PPE and Oxford Economics. " In The Palgrave Companion to Oxford Economics, edited by R. A. Cord, 131 – 46. Cham, Switzerland : Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Claire McCann</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Claire McCann is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford. Her dissertation focuses on the potential of university community engagement projects to overcome historical and spatial divides between universities and their neighbouring communities in South Africa. She is passionate about breaking down the boundaries between higher education institutions and the communities excluded from these establishments and hopes to orientate her research and practice towards the construction of more just education systems. Claire holds a MSt in Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and MPhil in Economics. Her research interests include community/public engagement, African higher education, feminist and engaged research methods, and community histories.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref121"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1482304 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Evolution of Economics at the University of Oxford: Gendered Constructions of Legitimate Economic Knowledge and Authorities – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Claire+McCann%22">Claire McCann</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0839-1483">0000-0003-0839-1483</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22History+of+Education%22"><i>History of Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 54(5):556-574. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Economics+Education%22">Economics Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+History%22">Educational History</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Discrimination%22">Gender Discrimination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Females%22">Females</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Economics%22">Economics</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/0046760X.2025.2486094 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0046-760X<br />1464-5130 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: As evidence of women's exclusion from economic study emerges, interrogation of the discipline is crucial. While feminist scholars have extensively examined the barriers women face in contemporary economics, less attention has been given to the historical evolution of the field and its disciplinary formation. Drawing on primary sources related to the University of Oxford's Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) degree, this article aims to address this silence. It explores how economics' evolution within PPE (re)produced or challenged dominant conceptualisations about "legitimate" knowledge and authorities, and the corresponding impact on women's status. This analysis highlights the social construction of economics within institutions like Oxford, and university complicity in women's marginalisation. However, this construction did not necessarily follow a linear trajectory; the boundaries of economics appear a product of contestation. Perhaps, then, these boundaries can be renegotiated in the twenty-first century, creating space for a more holistic discipline. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1482304 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1482304 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/0046760X.2025.2486094 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 StartPage: 556 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Universities Type: general – SubjectFull: Economics Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational History Type: general – SubjectFull: Gender Discrimination Type: general – SubjectFull: Females Type: general – SubjectFull: Economics Type: general – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Evolution of Economics at the University of Oxford: Gendered Constructions of Legitimate Economic Knowledge and Authorities Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Claire McCann IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0046-760X – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1464-5130 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 54 – Type: issue Value: 5 Titles: – TitleFull: History of Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
