Skip Navigation


Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access originally published online on November 8, 2006
Cambridge Journal of Economics 2007 31(3):363-378; doi:10.1093/cje/bel034
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
31/3/363    most recent
bel034v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jefferson, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B41 - Economic Methodology
Right arrow D13 - Household Production and Intrahousehold [...]
Right arrow J26 - Retirement; Retirement Policies
Right arrow E21 - Consumption; Saving
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

Two studies of women's retirement incomes in Australia: assessing some outcomes of pluralism in economic research

Therese Jefferson*

* Curtin University of Technology, Australia

Address for correspondence: Women in Social & Economic Research (WiSER) Unit, Curtin University of Technology, PO Box U1987, Perth WA 6845, Australia; email: Therese.Jefferson{at}cbs.curtin.edu.au

To illustrate the potential use of plural research methods, two studies of Australian women's retirement incomes are examined. The first study employed quantitative microsimulation techniques. Its outcomes emphasised low lifetime earnings as a cause of women's lower retirement incomes. The second study used an inductive approach known as grounded theory, and its conclusions emphasised household decision-making processes as a cause of both women's low lifetime earnings and lower retirement incomes. Using Runde's criteria for assessing causal explanations, a comparison is made of the outcomes of the two studies. The conclusion is that, rather than being seen as competing accounts, the outcomes of the two varying research methods can be viewed as complementary. By demonstrating the different insights afforded by contrasting research methods, this paper provides some support for pluralism of research methods within the discipline of economics.

Key Words: Critical realism • Pluralism • Babylonian method • Retirement income • Research method • Grounded theory

JEL classifications: B41, D13, E21, J26

Manuscript received February 14, 2006; final version received July 17, 2006.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.