Fantasy Pitching II: Star Wars vs. Pokemon vs. R&D vs. Uber Robert Faff;1* Ann Wallin;1 Mark Brosnan;2 Naiara Carrillo;1 Dhani Darmawan;1 Alana Dorris;1 Martin Groen;1 Nurlia Listiani;1 Victor Maxwell;1 Felix Orole;1 Anh Pham;1 Imam Salehudin;1 Matt Simons;3 Duy To;2 Jemaine Tsoi;1 Charlane Wong;1 Keegan Woods;1 Nirma Yossa;1 Kate Zhaunerchyk1 1
University of Queensland; 2Bond University; 3James Cook University * Corresponding author: UQ Business School The University of Queensland Queensland 4072 Australia Telephone: (61) 7 3346 8055 E-mail address:
[email protected]
Abstract This paper extends upon Faff, Ali, et al. (2016), outlining a further fantasy research pitch exercise conducted in a PhD course at the University of Queensland. Using Faff’s (2015, 2016a) pitching research template, students attending the course engaged in a group exercise to pitch a “fantasy” research topic. While the final exercise was completed in a 90-minute timeframe (60 minutes of brainstorming, followed by 30 minutes of reporting back to the full group), the cohort had the prior benefit of 3 x 90 minute sessions of related material on the first day of a weekend PhD module. Four groups were formed and they pitched “pretend” topics relating to: (a) Star Wars; (b) Pokemon Go; (c) R&D; and (d) Uber. Herein, is the narrative of this exercise, made available for pedagogic sharing. Key words: Pitching Research; Fantasy Pitching; PhD Student Exercise; Research Groupwork Exercise; Star Wars; Pokémon Go; R&D; Uber JEL classification: G00; M00; B40; A20; B00; C00; D00; E00; F00; H00; I00; J00; L00; Q00; R00; Z00
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2827425
2
1. Introduction Using Faff’s (2015, 2016a) pitching research template, Faff, Ali, et al. (2016) outlines a fantasy research pitch exercise conducted in a PhD course at the University of Queensland. 1 Extending on this earlier work, the current paper provides a brief narrative about a new cohort of PhD students who were confronted by a similar “fantasy” group pitching exercise challenge. While the fantasy pitch exercise itself was completed in a 90 minute timeframe (60 minutes of brainstorming, followed by 30 minutes of reporting back to the full group), the cohort had already been exposed to 3 x 90 minute sessions of related material over the weekend module. The four “pretend” topics chosen are: (a) Star Wars; (b) Pokemon Go; (c) Indonesian R&D; and (d) Uber. Given the severe time constraints for the exercise, readers are cautioned not to be overly harsh in judging the “quality” of each pitch. The real value of the exercise derives from the teamwork and giving familiarity to the tool, in a time pressured setting. Faff’s (2015, 2016a) pitching research concept provides a simple 2-page template tool. 2 The aim of the tool is to facilitate the process of conceptualising research SO THAT a novice researcher can confidently and succinctly convey all the essential elements of a new research proposal to an academic expert. 3 The pitching tool is both methodical and succinct in its design. The current paper augments a rapidly growing stable of related “pitching” papers that collectively provide a serious pool of resources for PhD students and young research scholars, regardless of discipline area: Faff (2016b, 2016c); Faff, Godfrey and Teng (2016); Faff, Ali, et al. (2016); Faff and Kastelle (2016) and Faff, Li, Nguyen and Ye (2016).
1
They pitched three “fun” topics: (a) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Impact on Society; (b) Wipe-a-Baby; (c) Quality of Dairy Products: The Happiness of the Cow Does Matter. 2 Recent examples of short papers that illustrate the application of the pitching template are: Beaumont (2014, 2015); Ratiu (2014, 2015) and Unda (2014, 2015). Indeed, there is now a special section of the Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems (e.g. Rad (2016); Rekker (2016); Shahzad (2016); and Xue (2016)) and the Accounting Research Journal devoted to these “pitching research letters”. 3 A free web portal provides a convenient means for pitch creation: PitchMyResearch.com
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2827425
3
Faff (2016b) reviews experiences and draws insights from a series of workshops, pitch days, competitions and other events based on the “pitching research” template tool. 4 Faff (2016c) takes a “learning” perspective, mapping into the research skill development (RSD) framework of Willison and O’Regan (2007). Faff, Godfrey and Teng (2016) extend the pedagogic angle on pitching a step further: giving a narrative focused on the experiences of a visiting undergraduate exchange student from China to the University of Queensland, Jie Teng. Faff, Li, Nguyen and Ye (2016) describes a further real example of the “RSD”-type strategy, piloted for three UQ Winter Scholars sponsored by the UQ Advantage Office, as part of a program aimed at undergraduate and coursework masters students. Finally, Faff and Kastelle (2016) create and discuss a new counterpart research planning template aimed at achieving engagement and impact. The remainder of the current paper is organised as follows. Section 2 provides a brief context to the exercise which confronted the PhD students. Section 3 describes salient aspects of the specific process followed by each of the groups. Section 4 documents some reflections from the facilitators’ perspective, while Section 5 concludes.
4
The 2015 UQAPS pitching research competition final was video recorded and have been uploaded to YouTube. The addresses are as follows (the event introduction can be found are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ6I6ejgy4c): 1. Gill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaYchX039Fs 2. McCullough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvgbX9oClHo 3. Eats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlCRGpu2P9M&feature=youtu.be 4. Mahmud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czTkGJTwO2Y&feature=youtu.be 5. Ndugwa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPNfHUolx5c&feature=youtu.be 6. Gorji: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBGEWPR1bUk&feature=youtu.be 7. Noh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoUWH2LRmUE
4
2. Context: Fantasy Pitching Group Exercise in the AFDEN PhD Course “Process of Research in Business” The current paper is based on in-class group work in the AFDEN PhD course: “The Research Process in Business”. 5 For contextual purposes, a brief course outline is shown in Appendix A. This particular course is partitioned into three weekend modules: (1) “challenges and strategies for starting research”; (2) “challenges and strategies for progressing research”; and (3) “challenges and strategies for finishing research and “beyond””. On the weekend of 13-14 August, 2016, seventeen PhD/PhD-track students attended Module #1 of this course. On the morning of the first day the class looked at how to generate research ideas and strategies for igniting research creativity. This focus on “innovative ideas” began with a 90minute interactive seminar style session led by the course leader (Faff), 6 followed by a related group work activity in a second session after a morning tea break. 7 For this exercise, four groups were formed based loosely around commonality in discipline interests – the groups
were
labelled:
(a)
“management”;
(b)
“marketing”;
(c)
“strategy”;
(d)
“finance/accounting”. The task set for each group was to discuss the strategies used to generate (research) ideas – both personal and generic, in the context of the given group member’s particular interests/skills. As a deliverable from this first stage exercise, based on these discussions each group had to decide on 3 “signature” research ideas for their group. While all such ideas would be “pretend” (i.e. there is no intention that the group would make plans to try and execute research linked to them), at least one of the ideas had to be “serious” and at least another not so serious. This element of the task was assigned a 45-60 minute duration. In the remainder of the 90 minute session, each (elected) group leader reports back (in a 5-8 minute presentation) to the full class generally about the ideas discussed and the chosen “top 3”.
5
AFDEN is the AFAANZ Doctoral Education Network. For more information, see the AFDEN web page: http://www.afaanz.org/doctoral-programs#AFAANZDOCTORALEDUCATIONNETWORK 6 Ann Wallin (the second named author of the current paper), assisted in the day 1 program, centred on the fantasy pitching exercise. 7 A pdf of the PowerPoint slides for this session are available at: http://bit.ly/2b02Guh
5
In the post-lunch session, a 90-minute talk on “pitching research” of Faff (2015, 2016a), was conducted interactively by the course leader. 8 This session introduced the pitching template, discussed its core elements and their underlying philosophy; and the critical relationship between them. In the context of convincing a research mentor (an academic expert) about your proposed research direction, the core messages emphasised are: (a) structured “less is more”; (b) research is a “non-linear” process; and (c) don’t forget “connectivity”. Given the above, in the final 90 minute session for Day #1 of the opening module for this PhD course, students were set a “fantasy pitching” task. In a pre-reading task designed to give further context to this exercise, students were asked to read the SSRN working paper, “Fantasy Pitching” (Faff, Ali, et al. 2016). 9 As argued in Faff, Ali, et al. (2016), the fantasy example works well for a diverse audience – it “… allows a more relaxed and “fun” perspective, opening up a greater chance for seeing the full value of the tool”. Students reformed into the same groups established in the morning session and (a) new group leader(s) determined. Then each group had to decide which topic to work on as their “fantasy ‘pitch”, chosen from their morning session ‘top 3’. From there, they had 45-60 minutes of brainstorming to complete the pitch as best they could achieve in this very demanding timeframe. The course leader provided generic PowerPoint presentation slides via email, though one group were not able to access these and worked with a handwritten template instead. 10 At end of the session, each group leader reported back to the full class, their group’s “fantasy” pitch (5-8 minutes each). The four “pretend” topics chosen are: (a) Star Wars; (b) Pokemon Go; (c) R&D; (d) Uber. Given the severe time constraints for the exercise, readers are cautioned not to be overly harsh in judging the “quality” of each pitch.
8
A pdf of the PowerPoint slides for this session are available at: http://bit.ly/2aTuL80 However, it needs to be acknowledged, as is often the case, not all students completed this pre-reading for various reasons – most notably, imperfect communication. 10 A blank copy of these PowerPoint slides are available at: http://bit.ly/2bwySEn 9
6
The real value of the exercise derives from the teamwork and giving familiarity to the tool, in a time pressured setting.
3. Four Fantasy Pitch Examples from Student Groups 3.1 Star Wars Fantasy Pitch The “star wars” fantasy pitch was chosen by the “Finance/Accounting” group: Kate Zhaunerchyk; Mark Brosnan; Matt Simons; Martin Groen and Duy To. The group had earlier identified two groups potential topics as follows: Serious topics - Foreign ownership of Australia's strategic assets: A short-term versus long-term trade off - The economic impact of data security: The Census debacle - Pricing the risk of UK and Europe debt and equity in a post Brexit world - Global synchronised quantitative easing and its efficacy Nonsensical topics (all Star Wars-themed) - How does Darth Vader and The Empire finance its next intergalactic expansion? - What is the remuneration policy for storm troopers working for the Empire? - Which economic regime improves the financial standard of living? It was a consensus decision to choose the fun topic. The fun topic had the following advantages: allowed the cross section of the groups experience to contribute; allowed the task to be completed in the timeframe due to its fictional nature and it was light-hearted. The handwritten completed “star wars” pitch is shown in Appendix B.
The Pitch Title: Did the financial standards of living (FSoL) change between political regimes in the Star Wars universe?
7
Theory: Different political regimes result in different experiences for the populations living under them.
There are various ways to measure these experiences (political, social,
financial/economic, personal freedoms and liberties and so on). Star Wars contains three political era: Old Republic
Empire
New Republic
1,000 years
20 years
30 years
FSoLO
FSoLE
FSoLN
Hypothesis: There will be a different level of financial standard of living between the different political regimes. Method: Data collected includes all manner of financial and economic indicators across the three political eras. Null hypothesis: no difference between FSoLO, FSoLE & FSoLN. Contribution: Established theory being tested in a new sample group (Star Wars universe). And new statistical techniques (ANN, decision trees) applied in conjunction with established tools (MDA, LR, FA).
Order of Pitching Template Completion The approach taken was non-linear:
Topic Ideas Process Contribution So What? Puzzle & Motivation Data and Regression Analysis Other Considerations Bottom Line
This sequence did not follow the template, but evolved organically and dynamically, through group discussion. Participation was robust and consensus provided for an efficient resolution of the Topic and the balance of the Pitching Template completion process.
8
Task Division Once the presenter was appointed, the Group contributed individually and severally (dynamic process) to the elements supporting the presenter’s content for the Pitching Template. This process, once the Fantasy Topic was agreed, came together in a very time efficient manner. The PowerPoint was supplemented by a whiteboard exercise to breakdown the relevant elements of the Data Analysis (Regression Analysis). This was instrumental in improving audience engagement and the subsequent development of their understanding of the Pitching Template.
Reflections Even though a light hearted approach was taken, the structure was nevertheless rigorous. This facilitated a more concentrated approach on the Template elements once the Fantasy Topic was agreed and selected.
3.2 Pokemon Go Fantasy Pitch This team comprised four members: Imam, Anh, Naiara and Charlane. Our first potential topic was to look at how Pokemon Go challenges and questions work and play, social routines and consumer behaviour. Our second potential topic was to discover what strategy would be more beneficial to maintain or increase Pokemon Go’s brand and consumer loyalty. Our third potential topic was to discover how the phenomenon of Pokemon Go can impact on market research. Our nonsense idea was to discover how Pokemon Go can influence and change the GPA of students. The decision making of our research topic was based on an online news article and then we discussed it together. We also discussed our day to day encounter with Pokemon Go users. From this, we googled a few articles on the topic, and developed the topic accordingly to gain some comfort that it had some degree of validity.
9
However, one key challenge was stepping away from the context of Pokemon Go. A second key challenge was having a time constraint which exaggerated our concerns of being unfamiliar with the relevant literature. This further reflected in our construction of the research questions. It was also hard to keep it contained within the two page template. This was a good exercise to increase in our efficiency when it comes to limiting key papers in a challenging timeframe. The completed “Pokémon” pitch is shown in Appendix C. We started in a linear fashion by constructing a working title first but, as time progressed, we did not progress in a linear fashion especially when we were developing the idea. We began the
exercise together but then we organically divided into two subgroups. Imam and Charlane collaborated on the research of the key literature, while Anh and Naiara documented key ideas into the pitching research template. Finally, we came back together and discussed everything collectively to ensure that the group was on the same page. Finally we reflected on the working title to make sure the entire document was consistent and “connected”. Overall, due to the severe time constraint, preparation for the presentation was stressful for some group members
3.3 R&D Fantasy Pitch First Exercise The team members of this group, “Strategee”, are: Victor Maxwell; Jemaine Tsoi; Dhani A. Darmawan and Nirma Yossa. How did we go about identifying research ideas in the first exercise? First, it should be noted that we took “serious” to mean relevant to our research (or relevant to at least one group member’s research). Accordingly, we went around the group and each member “pitched” there research to the other group members. These were: - Impact of Macroeconomic Vulnerability on Poverty and Inequality in Indonesia (Dhani) - Renewable energy economics (Victor)
10
- International experience, global mindset, and professional identity (Jemaine) - Global research funding and its impact toward innovation performance and universities (Yossa) It was during Yossa’s “pitch” that Dhani mentioned the low percentage of GDP spent on R&D in Indonesia (~ 0.08%). This sparked a discussion in which it was decided that Indonesia would make an interesting case study and four questions around the implications of low R&D spending arose: -
Does it contribute to poverty and inequality?
-
How does this relate to amount of carbon in economy?
-
Does this make Indonesia unattractive for global partnership or investment?
-
Does it stop innovation?
Each question related back to our individual research topics. At this point we felt we had sufficient information for two of the three topics we were asked to come up with. We moved on to the nonsense topic. We spent significantly less time on this and came up with the topic of: Does having wrinkles and white hair indicate one’s perception off intellectual ability? This topic was mostly the brain child of Jemaine.
Decision making on “fantasy” topic (2nd exercise) We first needed to decide between the serious pitch or the nonsense pitch. While the nonsense pitch would certainly allow us to work through and understand the pitching research template and process, we felt that using the serious topic would have more long term benefits to our own research. Based on the topics that we pitched during the 1st exercise, we decided to scope our ideas and focused on R&D spending and global competitiveness. However, we felt that the topic of interest was still too broad and we needed to narrow it down further in order to fit the criteria of the pitch template. After further discussion, we chose to zoom in on ICT in Indonesia as this industry is representative of the intensity of
11
R&D, contributing to a growing economy. Additionally, we also decided to analyse the group of countries under MIKTA as these countries possess certain similar characteristics as compared to the Indonesian economy. The completed “R&D” pitch is shown in Appendix D.
Challenges We can identify several challenges, particularly given the very tight timeframe for this exercise. First, finding a plausible key paper was quite difficult without much knowledge, we were faced with a time constraint and technical problems with the internet access and laptop. Second, we had trouble blending all our research ideas together in order to generate our research question (which would have been less of an issue, had we chosen the path of a less serious topic) Third, some members naturally have less/weak knowledge of ICT, so the team needed to spend some time to discuss about the topic of interest. Fourth, we had a debate regarding the decision of the methodology and some of the questions raised were as follows. Should the data be time series or panel? Should we make the focus a comparative international study or internally, across Indonesian provinces?
Pitch Item Order Our starting point was not in a clockwise fashion; we “jumbled up” the order and started from the motivation/puzzle and then followed on with the basic research question and continued to ideas, data and tools. We then tried hard to find the key papers and to find what's new, so what, contribution, other considerations and the title. The last step was to decide on our group name.
Task Division The teamwork was very strong and each member contributed to the template. One of the members has a sound knowledge about the Indonesian economy and ICT to share with the
12
others – a critical role for the team. Each team member had a role within the group: Victor – the Leader, Yose – note taker, Jemaine – reviewer-time keeper and Dhani – the source of information in terms of R&D, ICT, competitiveness in Indonesia and MIKTA issues.
Any other reflections The time constraint was a big challenge, as well as technical issues. Also, we are from different backgrounds so we needed time to adapt, collaborate and to succeed as a team. We felt that the results of this exercise also broadened and enhanced our skills and experiences in developing ideas for our own research topics.
3.4 Uber Fantasy Pitch This group comprised: Keegan, Felix, Alana and Lia. The potential topics from the first exercise are “doping and elite athletes and comparing that to CEOs and cheating behaviours in the workplace” and looking at uber as a case study for international roll-out projects in shared market economies affected by hostile legal environments. Our fun topic had to do with interviewing the tooth fairy to learn about children’s dentistry. We came to some of the topics through Keegan’s interest in Government regulation stifling innovation and the doping topic primarily fuelled by Alana’s thesis topic comparing sport psychology and organizational behaviour but also from talking about the Olympics at Rio. Some of our challenges stemmed from our very diverse backgrounds/interests: Felix is Leadership, Lia is finance, Keegan is also finance, and Alan is more psychology. We had trouble also choosing a fun topic that made enough sense to present. The completed “Uber” pitch is shown in Appendix E. There was not much in the way of task division. We all tried to collaborate and took turns leading the little class presentations. The order that we followed in completing the
13
template items was somewhat linear, though we went back and forth between the pitch template elements to confirm/update our evolving thoughts and ideas. We learned it was much more difficult than we thought to fill out the pitch template. You need to know a lot about your topic and its background literature before you can take a stab at the pitch template at all. It will be interesting when we actually need to fill out our own. We will need to ensure we have enough background literature to fully have an idea of how to go forward.
4. Facilitator Reflections The pitch template formed the basis the “fantasy” pitch exercise. Previous sessions on the day had familiarised the groups with the structure and language of the pitch tool. The focus for the “fantasy” pitch session was to interact with the pitch template tool in a fun and engaging environment, with the additional benefit of helping to create an open and relaxed cohort environment which would carry on for the remainder of the course. From a facilitators perspective there was impressive levels of group engagement with the tool from the beginning of the exercise. The tool’s simplicity and step-by-step approach meant that the students barely needed guidance and tackled the session very much on their own. The key learning and feedback was peer-to-peer rather than facilitator led. As the reflections above suggest, the flexibility of the tool allowed each group to take a meaningfully different approach to essentially the same task. This flexibility, matched with the requirement to engage with each aspect of the pitch tool, gave the students confidence that they could independently tackle the task. The overarching goal was to show students that it would be possible to take the pitch tool and apply it to their own (more serious) research, hopefully with the continued willingness to seek feedback on their ideas and “play” with different approaches with more openness than prior to the exercise.
14
5. Conclusion This paper provides a narrative record of a pedagogic experiment involving a fantasy research pitch exercise conducted in a PhD course at the University of Queensland. Specifically, using Faff’s (2015, 2016a) pitching research template, students attending the course were asked to create a “fantasy” research pitch. Four groups of students were formed and they pitched projects related to: (a) Star Wars; (b) Pokemon Go; (c) R&D; and (d) Uber. Given the time constraints for the exercise, such a fantasy application of the “pitching” approach, provides a low stress setting for appreciating and exploring the underlying philosophy of the tool.
15
References Beaumont, S., (2014), “An Investigation of the Short and Long Run Relations between Executive Cash Bonus Payments and Firm Financial Performance: A Pitch” (December 23, 2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2542046 Beaumont, S., (2015), “An Investigation of the Short and Long Run Relations between Executive Cash Bonus Payments and Firm Financial Performance: A Pitch”, Accounting & Finance 55, 337-343. Faff, R., (2015), “A Simple Template for Pitching Research”, Accounting and Finance 55, 311336. Faff, R.., (2016a), “Pitching Research”, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2462059 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2462059 Faff, R., (2016b), “The "Pitching Research" Concept: 2015, a Year in Review”, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2721528 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2721528 Faff, R., (2016c), “Mapping “Pitching Research” Tasks into the RSD7 Framework: A Pedagogic Perspective”. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2724451 Faff, R. and Godfrey, K. and Teng, J., (2016), Pitching Research Evolution: An Illustrative Example on the Topic of 'Innovation and Financial Dependence' (May 7, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2776959 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2776959 Faff, R., Ali, S., Atif, M., Brenner, M., Chowdhury, H., Crudas, L., Joubet, A., Malik, I., Nagar, V., Mi, L., Pullen, T., Siegrist, M., Smythe, S., Stephenson, J., Zhang, B., and Zhang, K., (2016), “Fantasy Pitching”, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2782778 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2782778 Faff, Robert W. and Kastelle, Tim, (2016), “Pitching Research for Engagement and Impact” (July or 22, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2813096 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2813096 Faff, Robert W. and Li, Ya and Nguyen, Bao Hoang and Ye, Qiaozhi, (2016), “Pitching Research: A Pilot Experiment with UQ Winter Scholars” (July 30, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 2816233 Rad, H., (2016), “Pairs trading and market efficiency using an adaptive market hypothesis framework: A pitch”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems 15, No. 1, 178-185. Ratiu, R. V., (2014), “Financial Reporting of European Financial Institutions During the GFC: A Pitch” (August 17, 2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2482032 Ratiu, R. V., (2015), “Financial Reporting of European Banks during the GFC: A Pitch”, Accounting & Finance 55, 345-352. Rekker, S., (2016), “Converting planetary boundaries into action, a new approach to meeting global greenhouse gas targets: A pitch”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems 15, No. 1, 160-167. Shahzad, S. K., (2016), “Private firms’ adaptation to climate change within the context of developing countries: A pitch”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems 15, No. 1, 168-177. Unda, L., (2014), “Board of Directors Characteristics and Credit Union Financial Performance: A Pitch” (October 16, 2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2535673 Unda, L., (2015), “Board of Directors Characteristics and Credit Union Financial Performance: A Pitch”, Accounting & Finance 55, 353-360. Willison, J., and O’Regan, K. (2007). “Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers”, Higher Education Research & Development 26(4), 393-409. Xue, R., (2016), “Study of the contagion mechanism for opening risk of emerging equity markets in BRICS countries: A pitch”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems 15, No. 1, 154-159.
16 Appendix A: RBUS6914 Process of Research in Business Course Plan – 2nd Semester 2016 Name Robert Faff
Email
[email protected]
Phone 334 68055
Room 343
Consultation Open door or by appointment
Background Traditionally, the “process of research” is a “life skill” that academics assimilate somewhat haphazardly and imperfectly, in a piecemeal fashion over many years during their academic career. Even in more recent times, while particular key elements of the process are covered formally or informally in PhD coursework, doctoral students have a highly varied experience in this regard. In this course, I outline the full spectrum of the research process with a mindset of quantitative empirical work. My core focus is developing an understanding of the many dimensions of the process of research and how to translate this into long-term strategies for a successful academic career. Key elements of the research process include: • strategies for generating and pitching new research ideas; • understanding research design trade-offs; • data management in the C21; • ethical clearance & research integrity; • strategies for identifying “value-adds” to research topics; • the art of research writing; • the art of research presentations; • the art of giving and receiving constructive research feedback; • understanding the journal refereeing process and the quality rating of journals; • the art of research mentoring; • the art of research networking; • developing strategies for sustainable publishing success beyond the PhD. The course is divided into three (weekend) modules and some relevant details for each are provided on the following pages: • Module #1: Challenges and Strategies for Starting Research • Module #2: Challenges and Strategies for Progressing Research • Module #3: Challenges and Strategies for Finishing Research & Beyond
Description Research Process in Business: MOD#1 Research Process in Business: MOD#1 Research Process in Business: MOD#2 Research Process in Business: MOD#2 Research Process in Business: MOD#3 Research Process in Business: MOD#3
Scheduled Weeks 13th August 14th August 10th Sept.
Scheduled Days Saturday
Scheduled Start Time 9:00 AM
Scheduled End Time 5:00 PM
Sunday
9:00 AM
5:00 PM
Saturday
9:00 AM
5:00 PM
11th Sept.
Sunday
9:00 AM
5:00 PM
22nd Oct.
Saturday
9:00 AM
5:00 PM
23rd Oct.
Sunday
9:00 AM
5:00 PM
Allocated Location 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building
17
Module #1: Challenges and Strategies for Starting Research Date: Saturday 13 August, 2016 Venue: 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building # Time Session Topic Style #1.1 9-10.30am Seminar Introduction/Generating Research ideas #1.2 11am-12.30pm Group Work Relating to Topic #1.1 #1.3 1.30-3pm Seminar Pitching Research #1.4 3.30-5pm Group Work Relating to Topic #1.3 Date: Sunday 14 August, 2016 Venue: 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building # Time Session Topic Style #1.5 9-10.30am Seminar Advanced Pitching Research #1.6 11am-12.30pm Group Work Relating to Topic #1.5 #1.7 1.30-3pm Seminar A Primer on “Problematization” #1.8 3.30-5pm Group Work Relating to Topic #1.7 Homework (each credit student) 1.1 Personal pitch template* 1.2 RE pitch template key (recent) paper 1.3 RE pitch template seminal paper * linked to presentation assessment in Module #2
Assessment Task? No No No No
Leader
Assessment Task? No No No No Yes: 30% 10% 10% 10%
Leader
Faff Faff/Wallin Faff Faff/Wallin
Faff Faff Sandberg Sandberg
Pre-reading Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J., (2011), “Generating Research Questions through Problematization”, Academy of Management Review 36, 247-271. Faff, Robert W., Pitching Research (2016a). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2462059 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2462059 [latest version] Faff, R., (2016b), “The "Pitching Research" Concept: 2015, a Year in Review”, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2721528 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2721528 Faff, R., (2016c), “Mapping “Pitching Research” Tasks into the RSD7 Framework: A Pedagogic Perspective”. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2724451 Faff, R. and Godfrey, K. and Teng, J., (2016), Pitching Research Evolution: An Illustrative Example on the Topic of 'Innovation and Financial Dependence' (May 7, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2776959 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2776959 Faff, Robert W. and Ali, Searat and Atif, Muhammad and Brenner, Matt and Chowdhury, Hasibul and Cruddas, Leelyn and Joubert, Alison and Malik, Ihtisham and Nagar, Vinu and Mi, Lin and Pullen, Tim and Siegrist, Manuel and Smythe, Steve and Stephenson, Jeff and Zhang, Beile and Zhang, Kun (Bruce), Fantasy Pitching (May 21, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2782778 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2782778 Faff, Robert W. and Li, Ya and Nguyen, Bao Hoang and Ye, Qiaozhi, Pitching Research: A Pilot Experiment with UQ Winter Scholars (July 30, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816233 Deng, X., Kang, J-k. and Low, B., (2013), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Value Maximization: Evidence from Mergers”, Journal of Financial Economics 110, 87-109. Stokes, D., (2013), “Generating Innovative Research Ideas”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 12, No. 2, 145-155. Plus, to bring along a recent daily newspaper (eg Australian Financial Review) or Business Magazine (eg In the Black, Forbes). Other References Also, browse issues of Annual Review of Financial Economics [or an “Annual Reviews” area closer to your thesis topic], eg: • Frydman, C. and Jenter, D., (2010), “CEO Compensation”, Annual Review of Financial Economics 2, pp. 75102. • Graham, J. and Leary, M., (2011), “A Review of Empirical Capital Structure Research and Directions for the Future”, Annual Review of Financial Economics 3, pp. 309-345.
18
Module #2: Challenges and Strategies for Progressing Research Date: Saturday 10 September, 2016 Venue: 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building # Time Session Style Topic #2.1 9-10.30am Seminar Research Integrity #2.2 11am-12.30pm Student Individual pitch presentations Presentations (from Mod #1 homework (1.1)) #2.3 1.30-3pm Seminar Pitching Research for Engagement & Impact #2.4 3.30-5pm Group Work Relating to Topic #2.3 Date: Sunday 11 September, 2016 Venue: 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building # Time Session Style Topic #2.5
9-10.30am
Seminar
Data Management, Metrics and Predatory Publishers #2.6 11am-12.30pm Student Individual pitch presentations Presentations (from Mod #1 homework (1.1)) #2.7 1.30-3pm Seminar Writing Craft in Academic Research #2.8 3.30-5pm Student Individual pitch presentations Presentations (from Mod #1 homework (1.1)) Homework (each credit student) 2.1 2-page E&I pitch template* OR 2.2 2-pager summary * linked to presentation assessment in Module #3 (also worth 10%)
Asses Task? Leader(s) No Dolnicar 10% No
Faff/Kastelle
No
Faff/Kastelle
Assessment Task? No
Leader(s) Whiteway
10% No
Faff
10% YES: 10%
Readings Dunleavy, P., (2014), “Why do Academics Choose useless Titles for Articles and Chapters? Four Steps to a Better Title”, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/02/05/academics-choose-useless-titles/ Faff, Robert W. and Kastelle, Tim, Pitching Research for Engagement and Impact (July 22, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2813096 Grant, Adam M. and Pollock, Timothy G., (2011), “Publishing in AMJ-Part 3: Setting the Hook”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 Issue 5, 873-879. Medium.com, (2015) How to Write Paragraphs in research texts (articles, books and PhDs) https://medium.com/adviceand-help-in-authoring-a-phd-or-non-fiction/how-to-write-paragraphs-80781e2f3054 Medium.com, (2015) Designing ‘attention points’ in academic work Four principles for improving how you display tables, graphs, charts and diagrams https://medium.com/advice-and-help-in-authoring-a-phd-or-non-fiction/designing-attention-points-in-academic-work31236eb101c1 Ragins, B. R., (2012), “Editor's Comments: Reflections on the Craft Of Clear Writing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 Issue 4, 493-501. Taylor, D. and Procter, M., “The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it”, University of Toronto, http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/images/stories/Documents/literature-review.pdf The Writing Center, (2015), “Additional Handouts and Resources”, http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/
19
Module #3: Challenges and Strategies for Finishing Research & Beyond Date: Saturday 22 October, 2016 Venue: 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building # Time Session Style Topic #3.1
9-10.30am
Seminar
#3.2
11am-12.30pm
#3.3
1.30-3pm
Student Presentations Seminar
#3.4
3.30-5pm
101 Tips for Finishing your PhD Quickly Mod#2 homework presentations What are examiners, journal editors & referees looking for? Mod#2 homework presentations continued
Student Presentations Date: Sunday 23 October, 2016 Venue: 14-216 - Sir Llew Edwards Building # Time Session Style Topic #3.5 #3.6
9-10.30am 11am-12.30pm
Seminar Group Work
#3.7
1.30-3pm
Seminar
#3.8
3.30-5pm
Student Presentations
Building an Online profile Online visibility/social media exercise [eg Twitter, Google Scholar, LinkedIn, ORCID, SSRN, RePEc, About.me]** Essential strategies for research career success Mod#2 homework presentations continued Homework (each credit student) 3.1 Social media task – enhancing academic visibility/profile 3.2 Writing Pitch Research Letter
Assessment Task? No
Leader(s) Wallin/Faff
10% No
Faff
10%
Assessment Task? No No
Leader(s)
No
Faff
YouTube Videos*
10%
10%
30%
* YouTube (we will view a selection of the following in class): Tim Kastelle (“visibility”/blogging) https://youtu.be/Hr9hKoO4DYA Pierre Benckendorrf (“on research visibility”) • part I: https://youtu.be/LPHWV_cuiOM • part II https://youtu.be/WjIgB7y2fXA • part III https://youtu.be/HhX6MYdta5I • part IV https://youtu.be/OSxoZoR9rjU
Reading Bradbury, M., (2012), “Why you don’t get Published: An Editor’s View”, Accounting and Finance, 52, 343–358. Clarkson, P., (2012), “Publishing: Art or Science? Reflections from an Editorial Perspective”, Accounting and Finance 52, 359–376. Mullins, G. and Kiley, M., (2002), “‘It's a PhD, Not a Nobel Prize’: How Experienced Examiners Assess Research Theses”, Studies in Higher Education 27, 369-386. Rekker, S., (2016), “Converting planetary boundaries into action, a new approach to meeting global greenhouse gas targets: A pitch”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems 15, No. 1, 160-167. Unda, L., (2015), “Board of Directors Characteristics and Credit Union Financial Performance: A Pitch”, Accounting & Finance 55, 353-360. Wallin, A. and Spry, A. 2016. The Role of Corporate Versus Brand Dominance in Brand Portfolio Overlap: A Pitch. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems. Forthcoming.
20 Full Assessment Schedule # 1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
Assessment Item/Deliverables Personal pitch template: using PitchMyResearch.com write a new original “pitch” relating to your thesis & email to Faff (using 2-page template from Faff (2015)) Deliverable(s): completed 2-page template & presentation in Mod #2. Email template to:
[email protected] Reverse Engineered pitch template: using PitchMyResearch.com reverse engineer a pitch based on the most relevant empirical paper to your main research interest or potential thesis topic, recently published in a quality journal. Deliverable(s): completed 2-page template. Email template to:
[email protected] Reverse Engineered pitch template on Seminal paper in your field: using PitchMyResearch.com reverse engineer a pitch based on a “seminal” paper most relevant to your main research interest or potential thesis topic. Deliverable(s): completed 2-page template. Email template to:
[email protected] Engagement and Impact Pitch template: write a new original “E&I pitch” relating to your thesis & email to Faff (using 2-page E&I template from Faff & Kastelle (2016)) Deliverable(s): completed 2-page E&I template & presentation in Mod #3. Email template to:
[email protected]
Due Date
Assessment Weight
Template: 9 September 10% Presentation (10-12 mins): 10-11 Sept. 10% 10% Template: 9 September
Template: 12noon 19 September (Mon) 10%
OR 2.2
3.1
3.2
Writing craft/ Module#2-related assignment: write up a summary of a topic chosen (pre-confirmed by Faff) from relevant tweets sourced from Faff’s Twitter account & give associated in-class presentation (email seeking confirmation of topic by 10 October) Deliverable(s): completed 2-page summary of assigned topic & presentation in Mod #3. Email 2-page summary to:
[email protected] Social Media & academic visibility assignment: choosing at least one relevant social media forum (eg LinkedIn, Twitter, …) choose a scholarly theme VERY closely related to your primary research interest(s), and create a social media “presence”. Your goal is to create an online visibility around how you would like the academic community (initially your RBUS cohort) to perceive your scholarly ‘existence’/‘footprint’. For example, this could be built around retweeting interesting relevant tweets that have underlying helpful content (eg articles, posts, tools, resources); creation of your own “content-driven” posts and/or tweets of your posts, and so on. NB: on average you should NOT devote more than 30-minutes per day on this task, aiming to (where possible) re-capture some of those “lost” minutes that we all have each day (eg standing in a coffee queue). Journal submission: “Pitching Research Letters” journal submission Using Unda (2015), Rekker (2016), Wallin & Spry (2016) as guides,** write up a 6-page journal “letter” built around the template delivered in either assessment item #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 above. The reflective narrative part of the letter should convey the “story” that includes as relevant context, the RBUS6914 “experience”. Deliverable: completed 6-page letter & submission to Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems Email letter to:
[email protected]
2-pager: 21 October Presentation (10 mins): 22-23 Oct Deliverable: an accumulated body of relevant and meaningful tweets, posts, social media interactions, … located within your chosen social media forum(s)
10% 10%
Due: 14 November
10%
21 November 12 noon
30%
TOTAL
100%
21
Appendix B: Fantasy Pitch #1 – Star Wars
22
Appendix C: Fantasy Pitch #2 – Pokémon Go Pitcher’s Name Pokemon are Go FoR category Marketing Date Completed 13/8/16 (A) Working Title Finding pikachu: Exploring how virtual reality affects reality. (B) Basic Res Q What are the drivers of customer engagement in augmented games? (C) Key paper(s) Yee, Nick, 2006, The Labor of Fun How Video Games Blur the Boundaries of Work and Play, Games and Culture vol 1: 1 Vangeel, J., Beullens, K., Vervoort, L., Cock, N. D., Lippevelde, W. V., Goossens, L., & Eggermont, S. (2016). The Role Behavioral of Activation and Inhibition in Explaining Adolescents’ Game Use and Game Engagement Levels. Media Psychology, 1-28. Boyle, E.A., Connolly, T.M., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J.M. 2012. Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 7 (D) Motivation/ News articles: Puzzle Real world phenomena – why Pokemon Go,a free game, is making so much money. Also, how the game is interrupting real life –known through news and personal encounters. Theory: Model of Goal directed behaviour: Bagozzi, R.P., & Dholakia, U.M. 2002. Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Theory of plan behaviour: Lee, M.C., & Tsai, T.R. 2010. What drives people to continue to play online games? An extension of technology model and theory of planned behavior, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(6), 60 Stakeholders: 15 million users in one month. Business engagement opportunities THREE Three core aspects of any empirical research project i.e. the “IDioTs” guide (E) Idea?
1
How Pokemon Go influence work and play in customer and game engagement?
(F) Data? (G) Tools? TWO
Twitter, facebook, media articles – qualitative Focus groups – content analysis/social network Nvivo Two key questions
(H) What’s New?
Game being augumented – blurring boundaries of virtual and reality. Game engagement becomes customer engagement
(I) So What?
Advertisement impact Revenue from in-app purchases Impact on marketing strategy and theory
ONE (J) Contribution?
One bottom line Building new theory and extending existing conceptual models within the branding literature Sustainability for new apps in marketing practitioners
(K) Other Considerations
Aim to publish in journal of interactive marketing Cyber psychology and behaviour journal of consumer psychology
2
Appendix D: Fantasy Pitch #3 – R&D Strategees
(A) Working Title
Research and Development (R&D), Information Communication & Technology (ICT) and Global Competitiveness in Indonesia
(B) Basic Research Question (C) Key paper(s)
-The link between R&D spending and global competitiveness in ICT for developing countries? -R&D budgeting affected to the Competitiveness in ICT Sectors on Indonesian Economy? -Indonesian position on MIKTA in term of ICT? - Tecnology and Competitiveness: the Interdependence between Manufacture and Producer services, P Guemeri, V Meliciani, Elsevier cited 345 (Structural Change and Economic Dynamics
(D) Motivation/ Puzzle
It has been observed that the Indonesian government allocates about 0.08% of their budget towards research grant. Given such low spending on R&D, thus may affect Indonesia’s status in the global marketplace. We aim to discover if there is indeed a link between R&D and global competitiveness in ICT and so if thus strong and positive correlated.
THREE
Three core aspects of any empirical research project i.e. the “IDioTs” guide
(E) Idea?
Competitiveness with ICT – subsidy – research grants ICT competitiveness uncorrelated with subsidy (market influence). R&D in ICT relies heavily on subsidy.
1
FoR category
Strategy
Pitcher’s Name
Date Completed 13/8/16
(F) Data?
(G) Tools?
TWO
Innovation in World Competitiveness Index World Development Indicators (WDI) Indonesian Science and Technology Indicators Indonesian national income by subsector Panel data 2006-2014 Number observation: MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey, Australia) STATA or Eviews Two key questions
(H) What’s New?
Studies have been made about subsidy (gov spending) & competitiveness but not specifically in the ICT industry as well as developing countries?
(I) So What?
It might inform strategy of Indonesia government of budget alocation and appropriate policies in Indonesia and other developing countries as well It might open a new line of research for understanding developing economies.
ONE
One bottom line
(J) Contribution?
R&D spending on ICT not only increasing competitiveness index through efficiency & effectiveness in the economic activities but also has a significant impact on GDP through high end export The result could be implemented to other countries with similar characteristics with Indonesian economy (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, Australia) Not enough data for making inferences Does Indonesia case act as a good proxy case
(K) Other Considerations
2
Appendix E: Fantasy Pitch #4 – Uber Pitcher’s Name Uber FoR category strategy Date Completed 13/8/16 (A) Working Title The battle between innovation and regulation: A case study of Uber international role out (B) Basic What are the optimum international role out strategies for firms operating in the shared Research Q economy and hostile legal environment? (C) Key paper(s) Wallsten, S. (2015). The Competitive Effects of the Sharing Economy: How is Uber Changing Taxis?. June 2015 Cannon, Sarah, and Lawrance, S. (2014). How Uber and the Sharing Economy Can Win Over Regulators. Harvard Business Review, 2014 (D) Motivation/ Puzzle
The emergence of the share economy and how to overcome the impact of the legal environment and political changes
THREE
Three core aspects of any empirical research project i.e. the “IDioTs” guide
(E) Idea?
A case study to understand effective management within the new sharing economy. Specifically, we seek to understand optimal strategy to role out in hostile legal environment.
(F) Data?
Case study, interview with the management in private company
(G) Tools?
NVivo
1
TWO
Two key questions
(H) What’s New?
No previous study have done
(I) So What?
To encourage more innovation in sharing economy by learning more about the strategies
ONE
One bottom line
(J) Contribution?
Understanding the legal challenges faced in the new shared economy and how to overcome them
(K) Other Considerations?
2
