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.