ECON7950 Research Methods in Economics
Assessment 2 – Reverse Pitch
Instructions and Marking Criteria
Overview
Once we identify a list of useful literature for our research, the next step is to concentrate on
one (or sometimes two) “really relevant” piece of literature on which we will base our
research. Very often, new research work is done by putting a “twist” to the existing literature.
The twist can be a change in assumptions, a different stratification of data, imposing extra
restrictions, adding different dimensions, using a different methodology… etc. However, to
be able to put a meaningful twist to a piece of literature, we need to understand that piece
of literature well – inside-out well.
There are many ways to achieve this in-depth understanding. For this course, we will use the
Reverse Pitching method. Reverse Pitching refers to the reverse engineering of the research
pitch of an existing research study. It deconstructs the existing research study into its primary
elements, and in particular, its research questions and how the author(s) answer(s) them. This,
in turns, can help you pose your own research question in a more specific way, as well as
finding a feasible method to tackle the question.
As an assessment of ECON7950, this assessment also gives you an experience in research
pitching. This time, you don’t need a research plan of your own – yet. By seeing how other
researchers could have pitched their research, you can then pitch your own next time!
Your Task
Choose one research study from your Annotated Bibliography (Assessment 1)1 and make a
written reverse research pitch using the template in the same folder as this instruction.
Your reverse pitch should include:
A. The complete reference details of the research study you are reverse pitching
Give the full reference details of the research study you are reverse pitching in APA
style.
B. Basic research question
In one (1) sentence, define the key features of the research questions.
C. Key papers
Identify the three (3) keys paper which most critically underpins the topic. You can
simply give their full reference details (again, APA).
D. Motivation/Puzzle
In one (1) short paragraph (about 100 words), capture the core academic motivation
– which may include identifying a “puzzle” that the authors hope to resolve.
E. Idea
Identify the “core” idea that drives the intellectual content of this research topic.
In three (3) to six (6) bullet points (about 100—150 words):
For theory research:
1 If you have changed/updated your research question since you turned in your first assessment, you can pick a
research study that was not included in your annotated bibliography. But for your own sake, the research
study should be related to your new research question, or at the very least, be “interesting” for you.
- Note significant innovation in assumptions, if any.
- Articulate the main theorem and the main intuition/strategy of proof of
the main theorem.
For experimental research:
- Articulate the central hypothesis(es).
- Identify the key dependent (“explained”) variable(s) and describe the
control and treatment(s).
For research using secondary data:
- Identify the key dependent (“explained”) variable and the key
test/independent (“explanatory”) variable(s).
- What is the identification strategy? (E.g., natural experiment, regression
discontinuity, instrumental variables, structural estimation, etc.)
If the research study has a mix of the above, you should identify the core idea from
each part.
F. Data
Describe, if appropriate, in three (3) to six (6) bullet points (about 100—150 words):
For research with secondary data:
- What data are used? E.g., Country/setting; unit of analysis (e.g.,
individual/firms/sectors/countries, etc).; sampling period and sampling
interval (e.g., daily, monthly, quarterly, etc.).
- Sample size and sampling nature (e.g., cross-section, time-series,
balanced/unbalanced panel, etc.)
- Data sources – publicly available vs. propriety data, are they collected by
the researchers, are they novel new data?
- Possible problems with the data (e.g., missing data, database merging
issues, decisions on how to handle “irregular” cases)
For research with experimental data:
- When and where are the experiments run? Are they laboratory
experiments, field experiments or others?
- What is the subject pool?
- How are the experiments run? Computer-based? Experimenter
observations? Interviews? Are real effort tasks involved?
- Are the experiments individual or do they involve group interactions? If the
later, how are subjects matched? (E.g., do they stay in the same match
throughout the same experiment, or are they rematched every period?
How many matching groups are there?)
- Is/are the treatment(s) within-subjects or between-subjects? If a subject
experiences multiple treatments, how is the order of treatments
determined?
- Any other relevant concerns about the experiments or subjects. (E.g.,
whether certain measures are incentivised.)
For theory research (i.e., research with no “real” data):
- Simulation or calibration “data”, if any
- Motivating examples for the theory model
- Hypothetical examples to which the proposed theory/solution/model can
be applied (better than competing theories)
- Anecdotal or “stylised” observations that matches the model’s prediction
(better than competing theories)
If the research is a mixed of the above, describe the part that contains actual data.
(That is, if it is theoretical research with some actual data, describe the actual data.)
G. Tools
Describe, if appropriate, in three (3) to six (6) bullet points (about 100—150 words):
For research with secondary data:
- The basic econometric model (e.g., linear regression, two-stage least
squares, maximum likelihood, etc.)
- Any econometric techniques in over-coming data obstacles
- Econometric techniques considered for robustness check (but be brief!)
For research with experimental data:
- Tools for eliciting certain information (e.g., Holt-Laury for risk preference)
- Any experimental design that is specific to the type of experiments run
- Statistical tools used for analysing the data
For theory research (i.e., research with no “real” data):
- The type of model (e.g., static, dynamic, network, etc.)
- The type of the proof, if any (e.g., induction, construction, by contradiction)
- Notable mathematical/statistical theorems used
If the research study has a mix of the above, you should identify the core idea from
each part.
H. What’s New
In two (2) to four (4) sentences (about 50—100 words), indicate the novelty of the
research. Is the novelty in the idea/data/tools? Which is the main “driver” of the
novelty? Is it being limited by some other elements?
I. So what?
In two (2) to four (4) sentences (about 50—100 words), state the “policy implications”
of the research. Why is it important to know the answer? How will major
decisions/behaviour/activity etc be influenced by the outcome of this research?
J. Contribution
In two (2) to four (4) sentences (about 50—100 words), describe the main contribution
of the research work to the relevant literature.
K. Three key findings
In three sentences (or bullet points), briefly list the three key findings or takeaways
for the paper. Briefly indicate whether these come directly from what the authors
claim or alternatively that they, to some degree, come from your perspective framed
on your research potential plans/interests.
Resources
You can find a self-paced learning module (or simply powerpoint slides) on reverse pitching,
as well as examples of reverse pitches on https://pitchingresearch.com/resources/ (module
3).
Since there are some good examples there, I will not provide examples in this instruction
sheet. (Plus, that will be too long.)
See also the FAQ’s on Blackboard (in the same folder as this instructions).
Format
You should use the Template for Reverse Pitching (downloadable from the course Blackboard
site, in the same folder as this instruction) for this assessment. The Reverse Pitching template
is similar to the Pitching Research template (introduced in Lecture 4), but with some
differences – so please use the correct template! There is a cued template (which includes
prompts for you) and an empty template (which you can directly type your pitch in). If you
are using a cued template, please delete the cues before submission.
You have a word limit of 1000 words (plus or minus 20%). Marks will not be deducted for
pitches below 800 words per se (conciseness is a virtue), however, if the lack of words means
little information is conveyed, you will likely be hurt on some marking criteria. On the other
hand, marks can be deducted for extraneous pitches.
The following guide provides a rough “words budget” for each item. This is just a guide – the
words count for each part may vary depending on the research study you are reverse pitching
(e.g., theory papers should get less on “data”).
Item Suggested words budget
A. Full Reference 20—25 words
B. Basic Research Question 20—30 words (1—2 sentences)
C. Key papers 60—70 words (3 full references)
D. Motivation/Puzzle 150—200 words (4—6 sentences or bullet points)
E. Idea 100—150 words (3—6 bullet points)
F. Data 100—150 words (3—6 bullet points)
G. Tool 100—150 words (3—6 bullet points)
H. What’s new 50—100 words (2—4 sentences)
I. So what? 50—100 words (2—4 sentences)
J. Contribution 50—100 words (2—4 sentences)
K. Three key findings 50—100 words (3 sentences or bullet points)
Submission
Submit your completed annotated bibliography electronically to Turnitin through the link on
the course Blackboard site before Thursday, 5th October 2023 4:00pm Brisbane time.
Requests for the granting of extensions must be made online
via https://my.uq.edu.au/node/218/2#2 with supporting documentation before the
submission due date/time. If an extension is approved, the new agreed date for submission
will be noted on the application and the student notified through their student email.
Extensions cannot exceed the number of days you suffered from a medical condition, as
stated on the medical certificate.
Where an extension has not been previously approved, a penalty of 10% of the maximum
possible mark allocated for the assessment item will be deducted per day for up to 7 calendar
days, at which point any submission will not receive any marks unless an extension has been
approved. Each 24-hour block is recorded from the time the submission is due.
Marking Criteria
Criteria Maximum possible marks
Language and style
• Accuracy and consistency in referencing
• Clarity and quality of written expression
5
Focus and coherence
• Clarity of focus and inter-connectedness of entries
5
Literature Background
• Positioning of the underlying research against the
literature background
5
Description of Research
• Accuracy of the description of the ideas, tools and data
(if applicable) of the underlying research
5
Identification of Significance
• Depiction of the significance and contribution of the
underlying research
5
Future Research Direction
• The potential of the pitch in informing future research
5
Total 30
See Appendix A, below, for a detailed marking rubric.
The quality of the bibliographic items is not part of the marking criteria, but typically it would
be easier to reverse pitch higher quality literature. The marking criteria will not be adjusted
for difficulty due to your choice of literature.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides emerging tools that may support students in completing
this assessment task. Students may appropriately use AI in completing this assessment task.
Students must clearly reference any use of AI in each instance.
A failure to reference AI use may constitute student misconduct under the Student Code of
Conduct.
Academic Integrity
By submitting your assessment item, you indicate your commitment to UQ’s academic
integrity pledge as summarised in the following declaration:
“I certify that I have completed this assessment in an honest, fair and trustworthy manner,
that my submitted answers are entirely my own work, and that I have neither given nor
received any unauthorised assistance on this assessment”.
Note: Given that you are reverse pitching a piece of existing literature, it is unavoidable that
you might use some of the expressions in that literature. This should not be of concern as long
as you are writing the pitch in your own words. It would be of concern, however, if the
summary and points you write are largely taken directly from the literature without digestion.
That indicates not only poor academic integrity but also your failure to understand the
literature.
Appendix A: Marking Criteria and Standards
Criteria &
mark
Excellent Good Satisfactory Inadequate Weak Poor
5 4 3 2 1 0
Language (5)
Referencing clear and
consistently accurate.
Clarity of expression
excellent. Consistently
conventional grammar
and spelling:
professional writing
style.
Referencing mostly
accurate. Language
mainly fluent.
Grammar and spelling
mainly accurate.
Referencing has minor
inconsistencies and
inaccuracies. Meaning
apparent but language
not always fluent.
Grammar and
expression weak.
Referencing has many
inconsistencies and
inaccuracies.
Language, grammar
and spelling do not
adhere to academic
conventions. Meaning
of what has been
written not always
clear.
Referencing seriously
inaccurate. Language,
spelling and grammar
contain significant
errors. Meaning of
what has been written
is unclear.
Referencing
absent. Language,
spelling and
grammar contain
numerous errors.
What has been
written is
incomprehensible.
Coherence (5)
Entries succinct and
connect logically to
each other, giving a
coherent summary of
the underlying
research study.
Entries relevant and
consistent with each
other, giving a
reasonable summary
of the underlying
research study.
Entries cover main
features of the
underlying research
study. The logical
structure of the
underlying research
can be implied.
Entries sketch basic
components of the
underlying research
study, but the logical
structure of the
underlying research is
not often clear.
Entries lacks focus and
ineffective. It is hard to
recover the logical
structure of the
underlying research.
Entries confused
and scattered. It is
impossible to
recover the logical
structure of the
underlying
research due to
deficient entries
and/or extraneous
digressions.
Criteria &
mark
Excellent Good Satisfactory Inadequate Weak Poor
5 4 3 2 1 0
Background
(5)
The pitch positions the
underlying study
accurately against the
literature background.
Readers of the pitch
can easily identify the
intention of the
underlying research,
and how it is informed
by and informs the
relevant literature.
The pitch positions the
underlying study
against the literature
background. Readers
of the pitch can follow
the intention of the
underlying research,
and how it is informed
by and informs the
relevant literature.
The pitch gives a
general outline of the
underlying study
against the literature
background. Readers
of the pitch may need
to infer from their
knowledge in the
relevant fields to
understand the
intention of the
underlying research,
and how it is informed
by and informs the
relevant literature.
The pitch gives a blurry
outline of the
underlying study
against the literature
background. Readers
of the pitch may need
to conjecture the
intention of the
underlying research,
and how it is informed
by and informs the
relevant literature.
The pitch gives a
confusing outline of
the underlying study
against the literature
background. It is
difficult to learn from
the pitch the intention
of the underlying
research, and how it is
informed by and
informs the relevant
literature.
The pitch gives
little or no
information about
the underlying
study against the
literature
background. It is
impossible to learn
from the pitch the
intention of the
underlying
research, and how
it is informed by
and informs the
relevant literature.
Description
(5)
The pitch clearly
describes the ideas,
tools and data (if
applicable) of the
underlying research,
highlighting its
important features.
Readers of the pitch
can appreciate the
methods adopted in
the underlying
research in answering
the research question.
The pitch gives a
factual description of
the ideas, tools and
data (if applicable) of
the underlying
research, covering its
main points. Readers
of the pitch can
recognise the methods
adopted in the
underlying research in
answering the
research question.
The pitch gives a broad
description of the
ideas, tools and data (if
applicable) of the
underlying research.
Readers of the pitch
may need to infer from
their knowledge to
comprehend the
methods adopted in
the underlying
research in answering
the research question.
The pitch gives an
imprecise description
of the ideas, tools and
data (if applicable) of
the underlying
research. Readers of
the pitch may need to
guess the methods
adopted in the
underlying research in
answering the research
question.
The pitch gives a
confusing description
of the ideas, tools and
data (if applicable) of
the underlying
research. Readers of
the pitch may have
difficulties detecting
the methods adopted
in the underlying
research in answering
the research question.
The pitch gives no
description of the
ideas, tools and
data (if applicable)
of the underlying
research. Readers
of the pitch cannot
discover the
methods adopted
in the underlying
research in
answering the
research question.
Criteria &
mark
Excellent Good Satisfactory Inadequate Weak Poor
5 4 3 2 1 0
Significance
(5)
The pitch articulates
convincingly the
significance of the
underlying research
and expounds its
implications. Readers
can appreciate the
contributions of the
underlying study to the
broader question it
attempts to address.
The pitch describes the
significance of the
underlying research
and reports its
implications. Readers
can identify the
contributions of the
underlying study to the
broader question it
attempts to address.
The pitch outlines the
significance of the
underlying research
and notes its
implications. Readers
can infer the
contributions of the
underlying study to the
broader question it
attempts to address.
The pitch sketches the
significance of the
underlying research
and allude to its
implications. Readers
can conjecture the
contributions of the
underlying study to the
broader question it
attempts to address.
The pitch depicts the
significance of the
underlying research
and its implications in
a confusing manner.
Readers find it difficult
to deduce the
contributions of the
underlying study to the
broader question it
attempts to address.
The pitch gives
little or no
information on the
significance of the
underlying
research and its
implications. It is
impossible to
fathom the
contributions of
the underlying
study to the
broader question it
attempts to
address.
Direction (5)
The pitch points its
readers to practical
pathways to future
research work,
building upon the
underlying research
work.
The pitch can help its
readers find workable
ideas to future
research work,
building upon the
underlying research
work, although the
ideas may not be well-
formulated.
The pitch can help its
readers find general
directions for future
research work, but the
directions are non-
specific.
The pitch gives only
vague suggestions for
future research work.
There is no clear way
of how one may
proceed on these
suggestions.
The pitch offers only
tentative suggestions
for future research
work. It is doubtful if
these suggestions are
feasible.
The pitch offers no
help for anyone
who wish to use
the underlying
research work in
future research.