Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/71234
Authors: 
Weichselbaumer, Doris
Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf
Year of Publication: 
2003
Series/Report no.: 
Reihe Ökonomie / Economics Series, Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS) 144
Abstract: 
Scientific rhetoric can have a profound impact on the perception of research; it can also drive and direct further research efforts. What determines whether results are discussed in a neutral or a judgmental way? How convincing must results be so that authors call for significant policy changes? These questions are difficult to answer, because rhetoric on the one hand, and content and methodology of research on the other hand, cannot be separated easily. We use a unique example to examine this question empirically: the analysis of gender wage differentials. The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition represents a standard research method that compares male and female earnings, holding productivity constant. We analyze the wording in these studies and their prevalence to ask for policy intervention. Furthermore, we examine whether the rhetoric used reveals an author's prejudice on the topic which may also be reflected in data selection and thereby his or her findings.
Subjects: 
rhetoric
gender wage differential
discrimination
JEL: 
J7
J16
B4
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
838.34 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.