Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

94
3: Study 1 Replication
In this section, the first aim is to first replicate the bivariate probit analysis of SYETP as
reported by Richardson (1998). The key value of the replication is to validate the results,
and to ensure that the later analyses are carried out using comparable data. The
Richardson (1998) analysis was the most sophisticated of the SYETP analyses, as shown
in the earlier review. This study has selected to build upon Richardson (1998) for this
reason.
Firstly, the motivation for replication is presented. Then, the methods needed to carry out
the replication are described. The data are briefly detailed. Finally, the results of the
replication are shown and discussed.
3.1 Motivation for replication
A number of papers have discussed the importance of replication. King (1995, 2002) has
been one of the more vocal in recently maintaining the importance of the scientific step
of replication. However, earlier work by Dewald, Thursby and Anderson (1986) also
presented strong evidence of the value of replication. King (2002) p1 describes the
‘Replication Standard’:
“Sufficient information exists with which to understand, evaluate and build
upon a prior work if a third party can replicate the results without any
additional information from the author.”
Empirical evidence that meets the replication standard allows the conclusions of the work
to be maintained and built upon in accordance with the scientific method. King (1995)
argues convincingly that “…Without complete information about where the data have
come from and how we measured the real world and abstracted from it, we cannot truly
understand a set of empirical results…” (King (1995): 445). King (1995) p 445 also
suggests that replication is a prerequisite to further development and is the most
productive method of building on existing research, by “…following the precise path