Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Right. If a paper is "easy to read" its better by definition.
One of the most RIDICULOUS articles ever. Easy to read must be the most infamous standard ever to measure that when the only one that must be used is quality of content. Easiness to read must be easily explained that the topic used are simpler and more basic compared with males that do more complex one. For just that simple reason this article is beyond believe in its farcical content just another piece of feminist propaganda.
The conclusion here may not be so simple. First drafts may be similar in readability between male and female economists, but there may be extenuating reasons for the final drafts being less readable for some economists. It may indicate a level of complexity or sophistication that has evolved over the interim in how the writers have developed or presented their findings. Abstracts, therefore, may reflect this phenomena. I am also not entirely convinced that the readability of an abstract alone can really identify quality of writing or complexity of research. This seems too much a generality.
Academics like to pretend that they value clarity, conciseness, and accessibility, but in fact they value the opposite. In my experience a young researcher is rewarded for work that is presented in an opaque and dense manner, as the difficulty of understanding the paper gives the impression that he must be very clever. Academics are inordinately proud of their ability to read dense, inaccessible papers -- they spent years acquiring that ability as graduate students, and their ability to speak that dense jargon puts them in a tiny circle of similar specialists where they feel most comfortable. A researcher who opens up a particular field by writing in an open and accessible manner both devalues their work and learning, and also threatens to let the unwashed masses into their exclusive club. Women, who are not especially welcome to join the exclusive boys club in the first place, are less likely to share the exclusionary attitudes of their male peers. Because they are more likely to gain from accessibility than inaccessibility, they strive to write in an open style conducive to learning. While this should be applauded, the senior figures in any field didn't get there by being accessible, and will reward the boys who follow in their footsteps. Opacity and inaccessibility are what further a career, no matter what the policy of the journal may state.
Why TE would waste space on an inanity like this is mind blowing. Economics should be more attractive to women because it is a close cousin of witchcraft.
Any woman who wants to be on a par with men has very little ambition.........Marilyn Monroe.
I'm glad the economics profession is finally taking this seriously!
All academic papers should be submitted without the author’s identity. The author can be given a code generated randomly, which only the journal and the author know. Papers accepted for publication can have their codes displayed on the journal’s website, so the author can claim the paper and reveal his/her name. Many years ago, Leonard Bernstein began auditioning musicians while they sat behind a screen. The result was many more female and minority musicians playing for the NY Philharmonic. Remove the subjective (biased) element, and the results will change.
The methodology and data sets are not listed here but it is likely they pooled age groups together. Your question would imply that the data compared young women with older men which is not the case. If the data set is not stratified to include age then that would be an utter statistical design failure.
Could it be that younger and less well-known economists are held to a higher standard of writing than older and more credentialed ones? If so then the writing standards women are being held to would be a result of their junior status relative to men and not to their sex.
Wait, what? Oh, that's right. Not an issue. At all.
Researchers may intend to signal complexity and sophistication to their peers by using dense jargon, but what they are really signaling is that they belong to the same exclusive peer club that shares that jargon. Because those peers share that jargon, they award density and opacity because it reinforces the exclusivity of their peer group. Transparency and readability would welcome newcomers, fresh thinking, and critique of established concepts built by the senior members of the exclusive peer group, who do not wish their ideas and standing to be challenged.
Sadly this behavior limits the growth of many research fields. Many areas of research exist in this sort of closed fortress until a brilliant newcomer comes along, grows tired of the same old ideas, and starts collaborating out of the group, which requires a departure from exclusionary jargon. These individuals are few and far between. Women are probably wise to try to be open and to cross-collaborate outside their narrow field, as they are not as welcome in the exclusive peer group (usually a boys club), but most will not succeed in breaking open the fortress, and will instead be dismissed as 'lightweights' for not being sufficiently opaque.
Gender-baiting is a poor excuse for journalism. It has been the hallmark of Zannie's tenure here.
About the double-blind peer review: in Economics it’s been a tradition that researchers post their working papers publicly online and give talks around the world, especially for the ones who target on the top 5 journals, which are used exactly in Hengel’s paper. Given that the assigned referee usually is in the same subfield, it is very likely that the referee knows the name (thus gender) of the author(s). It is an orchestral experiment without screen.
Agree. A somewhat similar experiment was done with coders. Misogynist men frequently claim they are better coders (because, you know, what does it even mean to be man if you're not putting women down left and right??), but when code was submitted without names, code written by women was of higher quality and accepted more than men's. Society really needs to stop determining people's lives based on the shape of their genitals.
Why would someone who doesn't see economics as a legitimate field of scientific study read a publication titled The Economist? (assuming the comparison to witchcraft was meant to be derogatory)
I struggle to understand reporting on academic studies that are not yet peer reviewed. The reader can't even access the primary source. Anecdotally, I've found that studies reported in the news media with sensational findings and working papers that are available tend to be poorly conducted and/or dishonestly reported on. This is such a poor practice.
In this case, others point to serious (potential) problems with this study's assumptions, methods etc. I'm curious, is the peer review process in economics not double-blind? How do the reviewers know the authors' gender? Do the reviews specifically ask for "improved" writing? Do women's resubmissions without changes in writing styles get rejected more frequently?
I think this is a question that can't be answered using only quantitative research methods.
I like to see what the wacky weekly has to say. It's also a semi-commie rag & I'm a right wing war monger,so what? Yes,you guessed right,but not derogatory-facetious.