Research and Writing Seminar To find an up-to-date version of the schedule and to read the papers check the website Thursday, – 16 35, room B 1

Coordinators: - Prof. Andrzej Cieślik -Dr. Paweł Kaczmarczyk -Dr. Michał Krawczyk -Dr. Anna Kukla-Gryz - Dr. Grzegorz Kula -Dr. Joanna Tyrowicz -Dr. Leszek Wincenciak 2

Objective of the course: Give you basis for your own research. 3

The goals for each student are following: Gain exposure to state-of-the-art research in economics, Become familiar with key analytical tools and modeling skills, Develop academic writing skills, Develop critical thinking and evaluation skills, Gain exposure to useful presentation techniques. 4

Writing reviews Why do you need to do this (except for „because we say so”)? –Thinking is nice, writing shows results –Organization is key – no better way to test it –Criticizing is a skill – not each critique merits What for do you do this? –WYDIWYL (= what you do is what you learnt) –Discipline helps getting nice ideas (for thesis too!) 5

Writing reviews – how do you do this Necessary steps: 1. Read the paper and prepare your comments – in the week before the seminar (this we do not check). 2. Ask questions and present your comments – at the seminar (this is where we evaluate your potential). 3. Discuss the first draft – one week after the seminar (first evaluation of your work). 4. Submit the final version – two/four weeks after the seminar (final evaluation of your work). 6

Step 1 - preparation Read the paper and prepare your comments (you may want to identify first, what is of interest for you) Read the paper to be presented and think about it. Find some time to read more literature in the field. Make comments that include your reasons explaining why you like (or do not like) the paper, your suggestions and concerns. Make a list of specific questions you would like to ask to the presenter at the seminar. In addition: think about possible extensions that could be made to the paper. 7

Step 2 – face the dragon Ask questions and present your comments Use the knowledge of both paper and presentation to be sure your accusation/praise is grounded (question relevant). Speakers are here for you – ask them all possible (relevant!) questions. Use the opportunity of speaker presence to discuss with them your suggestions/questions/ideas on the theme. 8

Step 3 – first attempts Discussing the first draft Prepare your first draft (not free notes, but a coherent draft) and send it you your coordinator. Set up a meeting to discuss vices and advantages of your work. You get feedback on both substance and exposition. Listen to our comments, but do not fear presenting your own opinions, views and suggestions. Give us the time to give you the time (send drafts by in advance, set up appointments, etc.). We like you – if we cannot read it, it means you really need to revise it. 9

Step 4 – salvation Submitting the final version There is a point in Step 3 – make best use of it. Make sure your structure is clear and coherent. Make sure sentences make sense (have beginnings, ends, etc.). Use spell checker, mind editing, complete bibliography, etc. We have many students: make sure there is one main reason for which we should want to read this paper. Papers submitted by only – title: Name, surname plus number of review –File name: surname_draft_number or surname_final_number 10

Students’ obligations Winter semester: 5 critical reviews -Purely descriptive, and not exceeding 10 pages, -Due date: 2 weeks after the seminar presentation. Summer semester: 4 critical reviews with extension -Reviews must include an analytical extension of the reviewed paper, -Reviews should not exceed 20 pages, -Due date: four weeks after the seminar presentation, -Can work in teams of two. By the end of August: Write your own research proposal for the master thesis (not graded but indispensable). 11

Each review should include: Title page with abstract Introduction with motivation, intuition, goals and structure Brief literature survey Critical analysis of the theoretical framework AND/OR statistical methodology Critical analysis of theoretical AND/OR empirical findings In the winter semester: a list of possible future extensions In the spring semester: extended theoretical model or new empirical results Concluding section with your main points summarized Bibliography 12

Introduction Explain, what is your motivation for reviewing this paper (saying ”it is interesting” is not enough). Describe what the paper is about, maybe mention its main points. State the goals you want to achieve in the review (”reviewing the paper and criticizing it” is too general for the goal of a review) – they should be the same as your criticism afterwards. TEASE the reader. Be organized and clear. 13

Literature review: Locate the paper in the field. We do not need you to repeat what was reviewed in the original paper (it is not an analysis of what literature is used in the paper and how it is presented). Show how you understand the field and the contribution of this particular paper. Link this section to you criticism (ground your criticism in the field). You do not need to read everything nor summarize all the papers you have found. The idea is to compare the problems, methods and results, and not to describe other papers in details. 14

Critical analysis: Do not describe theory or methodology in detail, unless you have comments or opinions of your own. If you have them, include in the paper sections on a critical analysis of the theoretical framework and/or a critical analysis of statistical methodology. If you have nothing to say about them, drop these sections, but say a few words about theory and methodology in the introduction. You have to include a critical analysis of theoretical and empirical findings. You should present arguments supporting your opinions. 15

Extensions In the winter semester: Possible future extensions = only suggestions. You have to describe: - what the suggested extension is, - the intuition behind it, - what result you hope to obtain, - why it is significant, - its’ feasibility. You should think of at least two possible extensions. 16

Extensions In the summer semester: Theoretical or econometric extensions of the reviewed papers: - a step further in the research described in the reviewed paper, - solutions of some special cases, - alternative methods of estimation, - tests which were not conducted in the original research, - alternative assumptions, approaches, - etc. Only one extension per review (no need to do completely new research, although you may do that if you wish). You may work in teams of two. 17

Some really useful tips: 1.Write a review – not a summary (do not rewrite the reviewed paper) 2.Even genious points are unclear if you are not clear, neat and organised 3.GIGO does not merit our appreciation (without main theme, there can be no good review) 4.Make yourself heard by being interesting and right – not necessarily critical or controversial 5.Not each question needs to be asked – not each criticism merits being written down 6.… 18

Papers evaluation and final grades Each paper is evaluated on the basis of: Clarity of exposition – 20% Academic writing quality – 30% Substantive quality – 50% In the summer semester these three points constitute 50% of the grade, while the extension yields the remaining 50%. 19

Papers evaluation and final grades For each paper: maximum 10 points, One additional point for a sensible question during the discussion after the presentation, In order to get this point you have to introduce yourself, Be on time: late submission cuts your points (minus one point for the delay of one week), The final grade in the semester is an average of the points from the reviews. 20

Research proposal: Introduces and describes the subject, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE your eventual master thesis Should not exceed 10 pages: –Describe the problem, –Explain why it is worth studying, –Say how you will conduct your research and what you plan to find out from this excercise, –Include a short bibliography of basic literature, Shows that you are interested in the subject, Shows that you know the problem enough to start the research Shows that you are able to write the thesis. 21

Contact details Prof. Andrzej Cieślik Room: 409Office hours: Monday, Dr. Paweł Kaczmarczyk Room: 211 Office hours: Wednesday, Dr. Michał Krawczyk Room: 214Office hours: Monday, – Dr. Anna Kukla-Gryz Room: 214Office hours: Dr. Grzegorz Kula Room: 106Office hours: Thursday, Dr. Joanna Tyrowicz Room: 5Office hours: Thursday, – Dr. Leszek Wincenciak Room: 409Office hours: Monday, –