Male and Female Wage Disparity in Developed Countries
1
ECON7030 Final Research Report Marking Rubric_2020S1
Criteria FA: 40-49%
An unsatisfactory attempt
PA:50%-64%
A satisfactory attempt
CR:65%-74%
A sound attempt
DI:75%-84%
Work of a superior quality
HD:85% and above
Work of an outstanding quality
GRADE
(Total:
100)
A. Introduction
I. Problem &
Context/motivation
II. Research
question/Objective/Hy
pothesis
III. Significance (why the
research is important)
IV. Contribution (What
does the study add to
the subject area
compared with other
studies in this field?)
I. Fails to accurately
identify a problem,
the purpose of
research and explain
any empirical or
theoretical context
relevant to the
problem. Motivation
is not stated.
II. Research questions
lack of clarity and
precision. Have little
or no connection to
the context.
III. Fails to indicate
significance of the
research.
IV. Contribution of the
research not stated.
I. Identifies the
problem and
purpose of
research. Limited
description and
understanding of
the empirical and
theoretical
contexts relevant
to the problem.
Motivation is
stated but is
unlcear.
II. Rudimentary
attempt at
formulation of
research question/s
which may lack
clarity and
precision. Vaguely
linked to context.
III. Significance is not
discussed
IV. Contribution of the
research is stated
but is unclear.
I. Identifies the
problem and
purpose of
research
accurately.
Describes the
context clearly.
Demonstrates
general
understanding of
the empirical and
theoretical
contexts relevant
to the problem.
Motivation is
stated with some
clarity.
II. Generally
appropriate, clear
and concise
framing of the
research questions
which are
somewhat linked
to the context.
III. Significance is
mentioned.
IV. Contribution is
mentioned.
I. Identifies the problem and purpose of research accurately. Thoroughly describes the empirical and theoretical contexts relevant to the problem. Motivation is clearly stated.
II. Highly
appropriate,
precise and
concise framing of
the research
questions which
are clearly linked
to the context.
III. Significance is
clearly and
concisely stated
IV. Clear and concise
statement on
contribution
I. Identifies the
problem and purpose
of research
accurately.
Thoroughly describes
empirical and
theoretical contexts
relevant to the
research problem and
establishes/ finds
connection with
alternative contexts.
Motivation is clearly
stated.
II. Exceptionally
appropriate, clear
and concise framing
of the research
problem and
questions, which are
clearly linked to the
context.
III. Significance of the
issue is insightfully
discussed.
IV. Clear, concise and
appropriate
statement on
contribution
15
2
B. Literature Review
The literature review is
unstructured and haphazard.
Incomplete and fails to provide
depth and scope of the existing
literature.
Provides only a summary and
fails to synthesise and critically
interpret the available
literature.
Relevance of published studies
to each other is not established.
Relevance of published studies
to the current topic is not
established.
The gaps in current
understanding or conflicts in
current knowledge are not
identified.
The literature search is not
transitioning to justify further
research.
The literature review is
organized. Limited attempt
to provide depth and scope
of the existing literature.
Provides mostly a summary.
Limited attempt to
synthesize and critically
interpret the available
literature.
Relevance of published
studies to each other is
somewhat established.
Relevance of published
studies to the current topic is
somewhat established.
The gaps in current
understanding or conflicts in
current knowledge are
vaguely identified.
The literature search makes a
limited attempt to transition
to justify further research.
The literature review is well
organized. Sound attempt to
provide depth and scope of
the existing literature.
Related literature is credibly
summarized. Sound attempt
to synthesize and provide a
critical interpretation of the
available literature.
Relevance of published
studies to each other is
established. Relevance of
published studies to the
current topic is established.
The gaps in current
understanding or conflicts in
current knowledge are
identified.
The literature search makes
sound attempt to transition
to justify further research.
Literature review is well
organized. The depth and
scope of the existing
literature is adequately
represented.
An excellent attempt to
synthesise and critically
interpret the available
literature.
Relevance of published
studies to each other; as
well as to the current topic is
logically established.
The gaps in current
understanding or conflicts in
current knowledge are
clearly highlighted, and
directions and approaches
that fill these gaps are
identified.
The literature search is an
excellent attempt to
transitions logically and
sequentially to justify further
research.
Literature review is well
organized, comprehensive and
extensive. The depth and scope
of the existing literature is
adequately represented.
An outstanding attempt to
synthesise and critically
interpret the available
literature. New ideas are
raised.
Relevance of published studies
to each other; as well as to the
current topic is insightfully &
logically established.
The gaps in current
understanding or conflicts in
current knowledge are clearly
highlighted, and significant
directions and approaches that
fill these gaps are identified.
The literature search is an
outstanding attempt to
transition logically and
sequentially to expose the gap
in the literature and justify
further research; and is able to
add additional insight into the
literature.
15
C. Method
A well-developed empirical
approach or a theoretical
modelling strategy that can
informatively address the
Selected methodology does not
satisfactorily answer the
identified research
question/support the research
objective.
Methodology goes some way
towards addressing the
identified research question/
supporting the research
objective.
Sound methodology for
answering the identified
research question/
supporting the research
objective.
Excellent methodology for
answering the identified
research question/
supporting the research
objective.
Outstanding methodology for
addressing the identified
research question/supporting
the research objective, clearly
20
3
question or problem is
required.
For empirical researcha,
clearly describe data and
method (empirical model).
For review-based researchb,
methodology will be
analogous to an accurate
description of how the
relevant literature was
selected (which database,
which search terms, which
inclusion/exclusion criteria)
and the structure of the
review –how the review was
analyzed and summarized,
what are the different
sections).
For review-based researchb,
data will be analogous to the
readings that you have
identified for your review.
a for empirical research:
data is not appropriate to
answer the research question.
No justification is provided for
choice of data set. Data sources
not mentioned. No description
of data and how it is processed
to answer the key research
question (s). Data processing is
inaccurate.
a for, empirical research:
identified statistical/
econometric techniques are
inaccurate and not relevant for
answering the research
question(s). No justification on
the choice of selected
techniques.
bfor literature review-based
research: the method of
literature search is either not
stated or is not clear.
aData is well chosen /
appropriate to the research
question. Data sources are
clearly mentioned. Limited
description of data and
characterization as to how it
is processed to answer the
key research question (s). Data processing is more or
less accurate with some
errors.
aidentified statistical/
econometric techniques have
limited relevance in
answering the research
question(s). Limited
justification on the choice of
selected techniques.
b Limited description of the
method of literature search.
bData is well chosen/
appropriate to the research
question. Data sources are
clearly described.
Inadequate description of
data and characterization as
to how it is processed to
answer the key research
question (s). Data processing
has minor errors.
bidentified statistical/
econometric techniques have
some relevance in answering
the research question(s).
Satisfactory justification on
the choice of selected
techniques.
b Sound description of the
method of literature search.
aData is well chosen/
appropriate to the research
question or problem. Data
sources are clearly
described. Precise and
accurate description of data
and how it is processed to
answer the key research
question (s). Data processing
is accurate.
aidentified statistical/
econometric techniques are
accurate and have clear
relevance in answering the
research question(s).
Adeqaute justification on
the choice of selected
techniques.
bAdequate description of the
method of literature search.
demonstrating elements of
innovation.
aData is well chosen/
appropriate to the research
question or problem. Quality of
data is excellent. Data sources
are clearly described. Precise
and accurate description of
data and how it is processed to
answer the key research
question (s). Data processing is
accurate.
aappropriate, accurate and
novel application of the
statistical and econometric
technique to be used. Excellent
(and insightful) justification on
the choice of selected
techniques.
bExtensive discussion on the
method of literature search.
D. Findings
Focus on clear, accurate and
scientific reporting of results,
followed by insightful
discussion of findings
(relevant for both review-
based research as well as
empirical research).
Results are not clearly stated,
level of detail is insufficient.
Inaccurate/unscientific
reporting of results.
Consistent/contradictory
findings that disagree with the
conclusions.
Results are stated but not as
clearly, level of detail is
inadequate.
Reporting of results is
scientific with some errors.
Findings broadly agree with
the conclusions with some
inconsistencies
Results are clearly stated but
the level of detail is limited.
Reporting of results is
scientific with minor errors.
Findings agree with the conclusions with minor
inconsistencies.
.
Results are clearly stated
and are they are well-
organized.
Reporting is accurate and
scientific.
Findings clearly align with
the conclusions.
Results are clearly stated in a
comprehensive level of detail
and are extremely well-
organized.
Reporting is scientific and
accurate.
Findings integrate superbly
with the conclusions
20
4
Tables/figures are not
clear/concise in conveying the
key findings.
Interpretations/analysis of
findings are inaccurate and fail
to address how the findings
supported, refuted, and/or
informed the research question
(s).
Discussion of findings is not
grounded in relevant economic
theory.
No attempt at critical
interpretation of findings.
No attempt to compare and
contrast results with those from
similar studies in the literature.
The discussion fails to place the
findings in the context of the
broader literature.
Tables/figures are somewhat
clear/concise in conveying
the key findings.
Interpretations/analysis of
results have some errors; and
do not adequately address
how the results supported,
refuted, and/or informed the
research question (s).
Limited attempt to ground
the discussion in relevant
economic theory.
Limited attempt to critically
interpret the results.
Limited attempt to place the
results in context by
comparing and contrasting
results with findings from
similar studies in the
literature.
Tables/figures are
clear/concise in conveying
the key findings, with minor
errors.
Interpretations/analysis of
results have minor errors;
and satisfactorily address
how the results supported,
refuted, and/or informed the
research question (s).
A sound attempt to ground
the discussion in relevant
economic theory.
A sound attempt to provide
some critical interpretation.
Results are placed in context
by comparing and contrasting
results with findings from
similar studies in the
literature.
Tables/figures clearly and
concisely convey the key
findings.
Thorough and accurate
interpretations/analysis of
results that extensively
address how the results
supported, refuted, and/or
informed the research
question (s).
An excellent attempt to
ground the discussion in
relevant economic theory.
An excellent attempt at
critical interpretation of
findings.
Excellent attempt to situate
the results in the context of
the broader literature by
comparing and contrasting
results with findings from
similar studies in the
literature.
Tables/figures clearly and
concisely convey the key
findings.
Interpretations/analysis of
results are accurate, precise
and innovative; and insightfully
address how they supported
refuted, and/or informed the
research question(s).
An outstanding attempt to
integrate the discussion to
relevant economic theory.
Outstanding attempt at critical
interpretation of findings with
logical and theoretical
connections being established
to current research results, and
new connections indicated.
Findings are insightfully
compared and contrasted with
those from similar studies
demonstrating outstanding
attempt at integrating the
findings with the broader
literature.
E. Conclusion
• Highlight key
findings
• Limitations
• Policy
implications
Key findings are not
highlighted. A weak conclusion
which does not follow from the
key findings, or is linked to the
research questions stated in the
introduction.
Unclear conclusion with a
limited attempt to highlight
the key findings and link
them to the research
question(s).
Limited attempt to discuss
policy implications of the
results.
A clear conclusion
highlighting the key findings,
with a sound attempt to link
them to the research
question(s).
Sound attempt to discuss
policy implications of the
results.
A well-integrated conclusion
with an excellent attempt to
highlight the key findings,
clearly linking them to the
research question(s).
Adequately discusses
relevant and supported
A well-integrated, clear and
succinct conclusion highlighting
the key finding. The conclusion
is a logical extrapolation from
the inquiry findings.
Insightfully discusses in detail
relevant and supported policy
12
5
• Direction for
future research
States policy implications
which are irrelevant and
unsupported by the literature.
Limitations of the study are not
discussed.
Fails to provide directions for
future research
Inadequate discussion on
limitations of research.
Limited attempt to identify
directions for future
research.
Sound attempt to discuss
limitations of the research
Sound attempt to identify
directions for future
research.
policy implications and
limitations of research.
Directions for future
research logically flow from
the discussion.
implications and limitations of
research.
Provides logical and innovative
directions for future research.
F. Quality and
relevance of
scholarly sources of
evidence.
I. Ideas supported
by credible and
relevant sources
II. In-text citation
III. Referencing
(style).
I. The selected
references are
irrelevant, of poor
qualityc.
II. In-text citations are
missing, incomplete
or incorrect.
III. Accuracy and format
of the reference
questionable.
I. Referenced articles
are relevant but
are of poor quality.
II. In-text citations
have the correct
reference style but
may be incomplete
or have minor
errors.
III. Reference style and
format is mostly
accurate with some
inconsistencies.
I. Referenced articles
are relevant.
II. In-text citations use
the correct style
but are often
missing or have
minor errors.
III. Reference style and
format is correct,
with minor errors
and
inconsistencies.
I. Referenced articles
are appropriate,
relevant, are of
good quality and
are used to inform
and extend
scholarly
arguments.
II. In-text citations
are accurate.
III. Reference style
and format is
accurate.
I. Referenced articles
are high-quality
scholarly works that
are relevant and at
the same time
provoke new
thoughts on the
topic.
II. In-text citations are
accurate.
III. Reference style and
format is accurate.
10
G . Presentation (Structure
and clarity of academic
writing, coherence and
flow of arguments)
The research report is poorly
organized, with no coherence.
Writing language is not
scholarly. The writing is unclear,
with incorrect grammar,
punctuation, and poor spelling,
posing significant barrier to the
reader’s comprehension.
The research report is
generally well organized,
with some inconsistencies. Is
not written in scholarly
language. The writing is clear,
with occasional errors in
grammar, punctuation, and
spelling. Written language
presents some barrier to the
reader’s comprehension.
The research report is well
organized, with minor
inconsistencies. Is mostly
written in scholarly language.
The writing is clear, with
minor errors in grammar,
punctuation, and spelling but
none that pose any
significant barrier to reader
comprehension.
The research report is
comprehensively organized.
Is written in scholarly
language. The writing is
clear, precise; with correct
grammar, punctuation, and
spelling.
The research report is
exceptionally well written and
comprehensive demonstrating
clarity, cohesion and
coherence. Is written in
scholarly language. The writing
is clear and precise with correct
grammar, punctuation, and
spelling
8
Note: a Literature review-based, b Empirical research, cjournals/readings do not adhere to the standard of economic journals mentioned in the instructions.