ECON7950 Research Methods in Economics
Assessment 3 – Research Proposal
Instructions and Marking Criteria
Overview
Finally we are here! We have been spending time looking at the literature. We have pitched
someone else’s research. This time, you will pitch your own research idea.
Your Task
Make a written research pitch, pitching your own research plan, using the template in the
same folder as this instruction.
Your reverse pitch should include:
The Four – Framing the big picture
A. Working Title
Give a succinct/informative title of your research project.
B. Basic research question
In one (1) sentence, define the scope and terms of reference of your research project.
C. Key papers
Identify the three (3) keys paper which most critically underpins your project. Give
their full reference details (again, APA, Chicago or Harvard style, your choice but
please be consistent).
D. Motivation/Puzzle
In one (1) short paragraph (about 100 words), capture the core academic motivation
– which may include identifying a “puzzle” that you hope to resolve.
The Three basic building blocks – Project specifics
E. Idea
What specifically will you do? How do we go about getting an answer? Do you have a
prediction or a hypothesis?
In three (3) to six (6) bullet points (about 100—150 words):
For theory research:
- Note significant innovation in assumptions, if any.
- Articulate the main conjecture and the main intuition/strategy of proof of
it.
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 your research has a mix of the above, you should identify the core idea from each
part.
F. Data
What are you going to put your ideas to?
Describe, if appropriate, in three (3) to six (6) bullet points (about 100—150 words):
For research with secondary data:
- What data are you intending to use? Describe its nature: 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 – is the intended data publicly available? If not, what’s the
plan of accessing it? Are you going to collect the data yourself?
- Do you foresee potential problems with the data (e.g., missing data,
database merging issues)?
For research with experimental data:
- When and where do you intend to run the experiments? Are they
laboratory experiments, field experiments or others?
- What is the intended 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?
- Estimated cost of the experiment.
For theory research (i.e., research with no “real” data):
- Motivating examples for the theory model
- Hypothetical examples to which existing theories provide unsatisfactory
answer but could potentially be answered by the proposed research
- Anecdotal or “stylised” observations that matches your hypothesis
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 you intend to use (e.g., linear regression,
two-stage least squares, maximum likelihood, etc.)
- Any econometric techniques you might need in over-coming data obstacles
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 the proof (e.g., induction, construction, by contradiction)
- Notable mathematical/statistical theorems used in the proof
If the research study has a mix of the above, you should identify the core idea from
each part.
The Two Important Questions
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 your research. Why is it important to know the answer? How will major
decisions/behaviour/activity etc be influenced by the outcome of this research?
The One Bottomline
J. Contribution
In two (2) to four (4) sentences (about 50—100 words), describe the main contribution
of the research. What “new doors” may it open? You may wish to note what may
happen in a “best case scenario” versus a “worst case scenario”.
Plus One: Other considerations
K. Other considerations
In three sentences (or bullet points), note any concerns or considerations relating to
your research plan. For examples, is there sufficient time to complete the research?
Would you need ethics clearance? Are you aware of any funding sources (if funds are
required)? Would you need specific programming skills to carry out the research?
Resources
The handouts for Lecture 4 (Research Pitching) would be of tremendous help.
You can find more resources on research pitching, as well as examples of pitches on
https://pitchingresearch.com/resources/ (module 2).
See also the FAQ’s on Blackboard (in the same folder as this instructions).
Format
You should use the Pitching Research Template (downloadable from the course Blackboard
site, in the same folder as this instruction) for this assessment. The Pitching Research
template is similar to the Reverse Pitching template you had used for assessment 2, 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.
I have also changed the “FoR category” blank in the template to “JEL code(s)” since this course
is economics-specific.
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 proposal should get less on “data”).
Item Suggested words budget
A. Working Title 10—20 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. Other considerations 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 Monday, 12th June 2022 3:00pm 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
Presentation
• Clarity and quality of written expression (5)
• Referencing (5)
10
Research Topic
• Statement of objectives of research (5)
• Justification of research question (5)
10
Literature and economic concepts
• Critical use of literature (5)
• Understanding of relevant economic concepts
10
Data/Theoretical Analysis and Research Methods
• Data (empirical research) OR Theoretical Analysis
(theoretical research) (5)
• Research methods (5)
10
Implications and limitations
• Implication of research (5)
• Limitation/risk of research proposal (5)
10
Total 50
See Appendix A, below, for a detailed marking rubric.
By the way, these criteria and the rubric are closely aligned to the marking criteria and rubric
for a Master’s thesis. If your goal is to do a Master’s thesis after this course, you should aspire
to achieve the standards set out here.
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”.
Appendix A: Marking Criteria and Standards
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Presentation (10)
Clarity and quality
of written
expression (5)
Clarity of expression
excellent. Consistently
conventional grammar
and spelling: professional
writing style.
Language mainly fluent.
Grammar and spelling
mainly accurate.
Meaning apparent but
language not always
fluent. Grammar and
expression weak.
Language, grammar and
spelling do not adhere to
academic conventions.
Meaning of what has been
written not always clear.
Language, spelling and
grammar contain
numerous errors.
Meaning of what has been
written is unclear.
Referencing (5) Referencing clear and
consistently accurate.
Referencing mostly
accurate.
Referencing has minor
inconsistencies and
inaccuracies.
Referencing has many
inconsistencies and
inaccuracies.
Referencing seriously
inaccurate.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Research Topic (10)
Statement of
objectives of
research (5)
Clear delineation of the
objectives of the research.
Research objectives
defined in an operational
manner.
Research objectives
loosely stated.
Research objectives vague
and imprecise.
Research objectives
unclear or
incomprehensible.
Justification of
research question
(5)
Compelling justification of
why the research question
is worth pursuing.
Reasonable justification of
why the research question
is worth pursuing.
General and loose
justification of why the
research question is worth
pursuing.
Limited or vague
justification of why the
research question is worth
pursuing.
Unclear or no justification
of the research topic.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Literature and
economic concepts
(10)
Critical use of
literature (5)
Research ideas developed
from a critical appraisal of
relevant and authoritative
literature (i.e. published in
leading journals).
Relevant literature
appraised and used to
develop some research
ideas in the process.
Some attempt to build
proposal on based on
understanding of relevant
literature.
Some attempt to relate
the proposal to the
literature but no attempt
to be critical.
Little or no attempt to
relate the proposal to the
literature.
Understanding of
relevant economic
concepts (5)
Demonstrated sound
knowledge of relevant
economic concepts
underlying research.
Demonstrated knowledge
of relevant economic
concepts.
Some knowledge of
relevant economic
concepts and an attempt
made to apply the
concept to the research
topic.
Some evidence of
understanding of the
economic concepts
related to the topic and
some attempt to apply
them.
Very limited
understanding of
economics relevant to the
proposed topic.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Data/Theoretical
Analysis and
Research Methods
(10)
Data
(empirical research)
OR
Theoretical Analysis
(theoretical
research)
(5)
Appropriate data source
proposed. Clear
description of the how the
potential data can be used
to achieve research
objectives.
Proposed modelling is
clear and appropriate.
Strategy of analysis
plausible and
demonstrates
understanding of the
theoretical elements
involved.
Sensible data source
proposed. Indication of
feasible plan on using the
potential data to achieve
research objectives.
Proposed modelling is
appropriate, though some
modelling aspects may
remain unclear. Strategy
of analysis suitable for the
type of model proposed.
Possible data source
proposed, but it is unclear
how the data will be used
to achieve research
objectives.
A possible model is
outlined but details are
unclear. Strategy of
analysis may work but it is
unclear how theoretical
elements are related.
Plan on obtaining data
unclear or likely
infeasible. Doubtful plan
on how data can be used
to achieve research
objectives.
Some attempt at
developing a plan of
modelling. Strategy of
analysis unlikely to work
except under restrictive
assumptions.
No feasible plan of
obtaining data. Unclear on
how data can be used to
achieve research
objectives.
No logical modelling
proposed. No or wishful
strategy of analysis.
Research methods
(5)
Appropriate choice of
research tool proposed.
Clear indication on how
the research tool can be
applied to achieve
research objectives.
Appropriate choice of
research tool proposed,
but only a vague
indication on how the
research tool will be
applied to achieve
research objectives.
Appropriate choice of
research tool proposed,
but no indication on how
the research tool will be
applied to achieve
research objectives.
The research tool
proposed is not the most
appropriate, but there is
an attempt to explain how
it may work.
The research tool used
not the most appropriate.
No indication of how the
research tool is related to
the research objectives.
Criteria and mark 5 4 3 2 1—0
Implications and
limitations (10)
Implication of
research (5)
Key issues and points in
about implications of
potential results from
research raised.
Some key points about
implications of potential
results from research
identified.
Some general implications
of potential results from
research noted.
Some vague or doubtful
implications of potential
results suggested.
Very limited or no
indication of implications
of potential results from
research.
Limitations/risk of
research proposal
(5)
Limitations/risk of
research proposal
identified, with
suggestions on how these
might be mitigated.
Limitations/risk of
research proposal
identified.
Some awareness of
limitation/risk of research
proposal, but the issues
mentioned are non-
specific.
Some awareness of
limitation/risk of research
proposal, but no
indication of their
sources.
No or little consideration
of limitations/risk of
research proposal.