Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/73273
Authors: 
Weichselbaumer, Doris
Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf
Year of Publication: 
2003
Series/Report no.: 
Working Paper, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University of Linz 0312
Abstract: 
Scientific rhetoric can have a profound impact on the perception of research; it can a lso drive and direct further research efforts. What determines whether results are discussed in a neutral or a judgmental way? How precise and convincing must results be so that authors call for significant policy changes? These questions are in general difficult to answer, because rhetoric on the one hand, and content and methodology of the paper on the other, cannot be separated easily. We, therefore, use a unique example to examine this question empirically: the analysis of gender wage differentials. Here, the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition represents a standard research method that compares male and female earnings, holding productivity constant. We analyze close to 200 papers to investigate what drives authors to talk about discrimination, whether and when they call for policy activism or when they are more hesitant to do so. Furthermore, we examine whether the rhetoric used really 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
92.44 kB





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