Get started

What is Pitching Research?

Introduction

Pitching Research is a template tool, developed by Professor Robert Faff from the UQ Business School, designed to help exchange ideas between novice researchers and their academic advisors. It is a great resource to be used across a wide range of research areas and for diverse levels of research training and mastery.

The main purpose of any research proposal is to demonstrate to the reader that:

  • The problem to be investigated is of significance
  • The planned method is appropriate
  • The results will likely make a novel contribution to existing literature

The ‘PR’ tool allows students to provide core specifics of what they are doing, why they are doing it, and to “hint” at how they might have the competency and capability to carry it out.

Approach

Faff’s approach breaks down this information into a structured and integrated framework. The two-page (1,000 word) pitching template begins with research ‘preliminary’ information that acts to “position” your research: working title, research question, key papers and motivation for the study. Following this, the ‘3-2-1’ countdown represents the core of the template, namely:

  • THREE (3) “building blocks “– idea, data tools;
  • TWO (2) questions – ‘What’s new?’ And ‘So what?’;
  • ONE bottom line for the proposed study – its contribution.

Benefits

The major benefit of this condensed and structured template tool is that it allows academics, professors and program co-ordinators to ‘ease in’ their students to the complexities of developing, writing and interpreting scholarly research – an effective way to “start the conversation”. The tool was designed to help streamline the Mentor-Novice Researcher relationship – more specifically, to:

  • Help “start a conversation”;
  • Help reduce the “I’m lost” feeling of novice researchers;
  • Help reduce the common mistake of “over investing” too quickly in an (bad) idea.
  • Help research mentors take “control” early, while allowing flexibility dealing with diverse student abilities/enthusiasm/independence.

Template

Pitcher’s Name Your name here FoR category Field of Research Date Completed Insert date here
(A) Working Title Succinct/informative title here
(B) Basic Research Question IN one sentence, define the key features of the research question.
(C) Key paper(s) Identify the key paper(s) which most critically underpin the topic (just standard reference details). Ideally one paper, but at most 3 papers. Ideally, by “gurus” in the field, either recently published in Tier 1 journal(s) or recent working paper e.g. on SSRN.
(D) Motivation/Puzzle IN one short paragraph (say a max of 100 words) capture the core academic motivation – which may include identifying a “puzzle” that you hope to resolve.
THREE Three core aspects of any empirical research project i.e. the “IDioTs” guide
(E) Idea? Identify the “core” idea that drives the intellectual content of this research topic. If possible, articulate the central hypothesis(es). Identify the key dependent (“explained”) variable and the key test/independent (“explanatory”) variable(s). Is there any serious threat from endogeneity here? If so, what is the identification strategy? Is there a natural experiment or exogenous shock that can be exploited? Is there any theoretical “tension” that can be exploited?
(F) Data?
  1. What data do you propose to use? e.g. country/setting; Why? Unit of analysis? Individuals, firms, portfolios, industries, countries …? sample period; sampling interval? Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual, … Type of data: firm specific vs. industry vs. macro vs. …?
  2. What sample size do you expect? Cross-sectionally? In Time-series/longitudinal?
  3. Is it a panel dataset?
  4. Data Sources? Are the data commercially available? Any hand-collecting required? Are the data to be created based on your own survey instrument? Or by interviews? Timeframe? Research assistance needed? Funding/grants? Are they novel new data?
  5. Will there be any problem with missing data/observations? Database merge issues? Data manipulation/”cleansing” issues?
  6. Will your “test” variables exhibit adequate (“meaningful”) variation to give good power? Quality/reliability of data?
  7. Other data obstacles? E.g. external validity? construct validity?
(G) Tools? Basic empirical framework and research design? Is it a regression model approach? Survey instrument issues/design? Interview design? Econometric software needed/appropriate for job? Accessible through normal channels? Knowledge of implementation of appropriate or best statistical/econometric tests? Compatibility of data with planned empirical framework? Is statistical validity an issue?
TWO Two key questions
(H) What’s New? Is the novelty in the idea/data/tools? Which is the “driver”, and are the “passengers” likely to pull their weight? Is this “Mickey Mouse” [i.e. can you draw a simple Venn diagram to depict the novelty in your proposal?]
(I) So What? Why is it important to know the answer? How will major decisions/behaviour/activity etc be influenced by the outcome of this research?
ONE One bottom line
(J) Contribution? What is the primary source of the contribution to the relevant research literature?
(K) Other Considerations Is Collaboration needed/desirable? – idea/data/tools? (either internal or external to your institution)

Target Journal(s)? Realistic? Sufficiently ambitious?

Risk” assessment [“low” vs. “moderate” vs. “high”: “no result” risk; “competitor” risk (ie being beaten by a competitor); risk of “obsolescence”; other risks? Are there any serious challenge(s) that you face in executing this plan? What are they? Are they related to the Idea? The Data? The Tools? Are there ethical considerations? Ethics clearance?

Is the scope appropriate? Not too narrow, not too broad.



Exercises and Training

These ‘Pitching Research’ template activities are designed to encourage students to practice reading and interpreting relevant research information and to practice writing content in a clear and concise manner.

Structured Abstract Writing

Overview

Structured Abstract Writing provides students with an abstract template, adapted from a modified version of the ‘Pitching Research’ tool. The template is designed to provide structure and guidance for abstract writing.

The ‘Pitching Research 350 Word Abstract’ is a structured approach to an ‘extended’ abstract, which allows for the inclusion of sufficient specifics, without compromising clarity. The specific sections required in the structured abstract are described in the table below.

When writing the abstract in full, each section should be marked by a bolded ‘Title’, followed by the corresponding detail. An example of this is also provided.

Abstract Writing Guidelines

Research Question 15-25 words In one sentence, define the key features of the research question (in “neutral” language)
Motivation 90-120 words In a few sentences, capture the core scholarly motivation for the study. If relevant, identify a ‘puzzle’ that this research aims to resolve. Identify up to three key papers upon which the research builds

What’s New? Highlight where novelty exists in the study; how does it build on or improve existing literature?

So What? Outline the primary reason why it is important to know the answer to your research question.

Idea 40-60 words Articulate the core idea behind the research – what specifically does the study do? If relevant: articulate the central hypothesis; highlight key independent variables and dependent variable(s).
Data 30-50 words Provide an overview of what data were collected/analyzed/used in the study; including data source(s), time period, sample size and measurement tool(s).
Tools 30-50 words Provide a brief summary of the empirical framework, research design and approach.
Findings 60-80 words Highlight the key takeaway points. Highlight any novel result – how do the findings agree/disagree with existing literature? What do the findings add? Highlight any important implications this research has for influence in real world decisions/behavior/activity.
Contribution 15-25 words Outline the primary contribution of this paper to the relevant research literature.

An written example of this template is provided below, using a paper from Milinković, I., Kovačević, I., & Mihailović, D. (2017). What Do Freshmen Want? Career Path Preferences Among Students, Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 22(1), 37-45.

Research Question: This paper investigated whether a relationship exists between students’ life goals and preferences for future career type, specifically in entrepreneurship.

Motivation: Our goal was to explore if there exists a strong link. If this were the case – if entrepreneurial orientation was pre-destined before University – entrepreneurial education for a wide range of students may be rendered ineffective. The paper draws on both Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 2006) and Self Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008), applying them to the context of intrinsic and extrinsic goals (Kasser & Ryan, 1996) among students with preferences for entrepreneurship or management. The study builds on existing literature by distinguishing the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic goals, creating a more rigid structure with which to measure individual goal orientation.

Idea: The core idea of this paper was to empirically evaluate the relationship between intrinsic/extrinsic life goals and chosen career path. The study was conducted using gender, department and career path as independent variables and measured the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic life goals.

Data: Analysis was conducted using responses to 384 surveys completed by first year Serbian students in semester one of 2016/2017 at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences. Students identified gender, department and career path.

Tools: Statistical analyses of all collected data (Utilizing ANOVA, t test, C coefficient, linear correlation analysis and cluster analysis) were used to draw conclusions about the relationships between variables, particularly the correlation between life goals and career preference.

Findings: This study eliminates endowed life goals as a factor in predicting which freshmen would be prone to entrepreneurship as a career, even after considering gender and choice of department (field of study). It suggests that there may be other variables worth considering, such as individual differences and education. It also highlights the potential role for education and development, in order to foster the next generation of Serbian entrepreneurs.

Contribution: This paper expands existing research related to the life goals and entrepreneurial career path and formulates practical suggestions for higher education of future entrepreneurs.

Reverse Engineering Exercises

Reverse Engineering [“RE”] is a process whereby students take an existing research paper and de-construct it back into the ‘Pitching Research’ Framework.

This RE research activity provides clarity and structure for understanding and interpreting academic work. In it’s ‘Reverse Engineering’ form, ‘Pitching Research’ provides a succinct and adaptable framework for all students at all levels of study, to collect, evaluate and communicate the essential elements of an existing research article or new research idea.

Research students will need to read and process a lot of scholarly literature and quite often remembering what you’ve read can be hard, if not impossible. A good way to deal with the problem is to create a template for every paper you read. Imam Salehudin, undertaking his PhD at the University of Queensland Business School (UQBS) has explored using the reverse engineering process to extract key meaning from academic papers for his literature review. Here is a brief abstract from his paper:

The first point in a reverse engineer pitch is the Working Title. Different from the usual template, the working title of this pitch should be the full citation reference of the reverse engineered paper.[…] This way, the reverse engineer pitch can be easily referred later during the actual writing of the literature review.

The second point is the Basic Research Question. Identifying this item is the key information of any academic literature. Our understanding of a literature would be incomplete without a clear identification of what is the research question being asked. Usually, this element can be found in the
abstract or introduction.

The third point is the Key Papers. Identifying key papers is important in exploring other literature relevant to the paper being reviewed. Usually, key papers are mentioned early in the introduction section and repeatedly throughout the article. Key papers should be state of the art, so
most likely they are published less than five years from the date of publication of the paper being reviewed.

The fourth point is the Motivation/Puzzle. This part relates to the background of the research question and the overall purpose of the paper. Some papers cited real world phenomenon as their motivation while others referred to some gap in the theory. It is usually described in the introduction
section and also referred again in the conclusion.

The fifth point is the Idea. This part focuses on the core “intellectual drive” of the paper. In a quantitative paper, this idea will appear in the literature review or the methodology section as research hypotheses. In a more qualitative paper, this idea will appear in the introduction section as the aim and objectives of the said paper.

The sixth point is the Data. This part highlights the data used in the study. As an exception, conceptual papers do not use any data. However, in most cases, research papers will describe in detail the type, size and source of the data in the methodology section.

The seventh point is the Tools. This part focuses on the analytical method used to generate the findings. For quantitative papers, this part will focus on the statistical analysis; while for qualitative papers, this part will describe the analytical framework. It is important to note that citing the software used in the study (i.e. SPSS) does not constitute identifying the analytical tool since
most statistical software can aid in multiple analytical methods. This information is usually described in more detail in the method section.

The eighth point is the What’s New. This part delineates the novelty of the paper being reviewed. The novelty of a paper should be on the idea of the study, but sometimes it is focused on the data or tools used in the research. Most likely, this part is identified clearly in the introduction and conclusion. If not, the reader also must carefully shift for it in the literature review or methodology section. Researchers can also present this novelty in a Mickey Mouse Venn diagram (see figure 1 [link to the original paper below]).

The ninth point is the So What. This part elaborates the impact and implication of the paper for stakeholders. A single study may have different impacts and implications for each identified stakeholders. In some cases, this part can be easily identified from the introduction and conclusion. However, more often, the paper did not identify this part explicitly. Therefore, the reader must construct possible impacts and implications as inferred from relevant information in the introduction, discussion and conclusion.

The tenth point is the Contribution. This part identifies the academic contribution of the paper. It answers specifically what is the research implication of the paper and what further questions that can be asked based on the findings of the study. Similar to the previous part on impact and implication, readers may have to construct their own understanding of the contribution of a paper. Sometimes, the actual contribution of a paper as perceived by the reader is different than what is mention in the introduction or conclusion section of the paper being reviewed.

The eleventh point is the Other Consideration. This final part focuses on any additional reflection on the paper. In the case of a reverse engineer template, this part identifies the key findings of the paper being reviewed. Key findings include support or refutation to existing theories and new insights on the phenomenon being explored. Most likely, readers can find this information
described in the result and discussion section.

For more information, check out Imam Salehudin’s original paper, where he discusses the process in detail, gives the example and reflects on the whole experience.

“PR Lite” procedure will help you find a viable and worthwhile research idea through creating a “mini” pitch. If you are yet undecided on the topic of your next research, try following these 5 steps:

Step 1: Identify a narrow field of research that you want to explore.

Step 2: Find recent published papers in this field of research on which to execute the RE pitch exercise (e.g. start with 2 papers).

Step 3: Do the RE pitch exercise with each paper.

Step 4: Compare and contrast the papers (based on the RE pitch templates) to find a potential aspect to develop a new research idea, built around a “mini pitch” comprising: (i) Basic research question (Part (B)); (ii) Idea (Part (E)); (iii) Data (Part(F)); and (iv) Tools (Part (G)).

Step 5: Search online aiming to discover whether your new research idea is substantially covered by anyone else’s work. If not, you can use the new idea to develop your own full “pitch”. If yes, repeat Step 3 and Step 4 using the new paper that you discovered aiming to find other new things. You can eventually repeat your work from Step 1, if needed, until you truly find a new research idea.

If you want to know more about the steps, check the following paper:

Nguyen, Bao and Faff, Robert W. and Haq, Mamiza, Pitching Research Lite: A Reverse-Engineering Strategy for Finding a New Research Direction (February 1, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2909549 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2909549

Fantasy Pitching

In a time constrained setting, “Fantasy” Pitching challenges teams of novice researchers to use the framework to pitch fictitious research projects, often of a light-hearted nature. Leveraging on peer-to-peer learning, the “fun” side of the exercise facilitates low-stress learning.

Do not overthink your fantasy scenario – some degree of “fakeness” is inevitable. For example, creation of “fake” key papers or theories (it is a good idea to label them as such).

Just remember, there is no place for fantasies in real research!

Interesting Fantasy Pitches

Here are some examples to give you an idea of what this exercise aims to achieve:

Original Fantasy Pitching paper. 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.

Fantasy Pitching II. Topics: (a) Star Wars; (b) Pokemon Go; (c) R&D; and (d) Uber;

Fantasy Pitching III. Topics: (a) “dirty money”; (b) “cashless society”; (c) “digital currency”

Fantasy Pitching IV. Topics: (a) Batman; (b) superpowers; (c) fast food; (d) self-determination; and (e) Donald Duck.

Pitch Sparring Exercise

Pitch Sparring is an additional application of ‘Pitching Research’, designed to neatly leverage the benefits of peer-to-peer learning.

Working in stages, students individually complete sections of the Pitching Research framework before coming together to ‘Spar’. As part of this ‘Sparring’ exercise, students share their individual responses and ideas to find consensus on a final response to input into the ‘Pitching Research’ template.

The aim of “Pitch Sparring” is to familiarize yourself with the PR framework. The exercise will be extremely useful for students, who are yet to start their research journey and need to “learn the ropes”. “Pitch Sparring” includes 5 steps:

1.Working in pairs, you will decide on a paper to work with for this task.

2.Individually, you are to read the paper and have a go at reverse engineering it into the RE ‘PR’ framework. Remember that for Reverse Engineering exercise, there are two modifications made to Faff’s original PR template. For item A) the full, published item is listed instead of a ‘working title’, and for the item K), three key findings from the paper are identified, rather than highlighting potential other considerations.

3. After both you and your partner have read and independently annotated the assigned paper in terms of the elements of a reverse engineered pitch, the ‘sparring’ begins. Here is how the “sparring” typically take place:

  • Both of you will work thorough each section of the Pitch template in an agreed “preferred” order (note that Item “A” is already done for you – you have the paper’s title).
  • The sparring cycle involves three basic steps: (1) independent completion of a given template item; (2) discussion between the sparring partners; (3) consensus formation, that constructively blends the two (or more) views, which might be further finessed by the very act of discussion.
  • And then the spar cycle is repeated for the next item, all the time, building on the evolving consensus pitch. You will work thorough each section of the Pitch template in an agreed “preferred” order – crafting a response for each and entering this in a final version of the Pitch template document.
  • Lets say that you start with Item “B” Research Question – both spar partners work independently to come up with their view of the paper’s key question. A challenging but reasonable time limit should be set for this task (ex. 10 minutes). Then, when both spar partners are ready, they come together and share their answers.
  • Share with each other your thoughts, identifying differences and similarities, and decide on a consensus response for the final RE Pitch template. This may be one person’s contribution, or a combined input from both parties. Take note of any discrepancies in your responses and how you handled them while creating the final document. This information will be helpful when writing your weekly reflection.

4. Using the final version of your consensus reverse engineered pitch, create a 350 Word Abstract.

5. Integrate the reverse engineered pitch into a 10 minute oral presentation.

If you are stuck, check out how students from the Summer Research Program in UQ completed this exercise: Pitching Research: A Reverse-Engineer ‘Sparring’ Experiment with UQ Summer Research Scholars



PR Training Opportunities


To complement the Pitching Research Template Tool and additional applications, Robert Faff [“the Pitch Doctor”] has run a series of workshops – both seminars and webinars, within Australia and globally.

If you would like to know about our latest news, events and training opportunities, please subscribe here.

Seminars

The Pitch Doctor has given “Pitching Research” talks at 37 Australian universities and visited almost 40 countries/jurisdictions: USA; Argentina; Mexico; India; Malaysia; Singapore; New Zealand; Fiji; Thailand; Japan; South Korea; China; Indonesia; Ireland; Vietnam; Austria; Scotland; England; Wales; Netherlands; Belgium; France; Spain; Portugal; Croatia; Italy; Serbia; Slovenia; Switzerland; Romania; Hungary; Czech Republic; Poland; Germany; Estonia; Finland; Sweden; Norway; Ireland.

Webinars

Online webinar sessions with the same content are available when an in-person presentation is not feasible.

To date 8 countries have participated in these webinars: Columbia; Jamaica; Ghana; Pakistan; Kenya; South Africa; Taiwan; Ukraine.

See 2016 Webinar Here

Upcoming Events

Type of Event Primary Host Location Date
PR Webinar Still University New York, USA 15 February, 2018 (4 pm. NY time)
PhD Course University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia 3-4 March, 2018
Institute talk Australian Institute of Business Adelaide, Australia 6 March, 2018
University talk University of Western Australia Perth, Australia 8 March, 2018
PhD Course FIRN: University of Technology, Sydney Sydney, Australia 10-11 March, 2018
PhD Symposium Griffith University Business School Brisbane, Australia 14-18 May, 2018
Conference Keynote ANPCONT Joao Pessoa, Brazil 9-12 June, 2018
Conference Keynote European Academy of Management (EURAM) Reykjavik, Iceland 19-21 June, 2018
Pitching Symposium SIRCA, University of Technology Sydney Sydney, Australia July, 2018
HDR & Honours Research Colloquium University of Queensland Business School Brisbane, Australia July, 2018
Conference Keynote World Finance Conference Port Louis, Mauritius 25-27 July, 2018
Conference Keynote 1st International Conference of Social Sciences, Humanities, Economics and Law Padang, Indonesia 5-6 September, 2018
Conference Keynote INFINITI AP conference Sydney, Australia 6-8 December, 2018


Competitions


Pitching Research competition is a great opportunity for young RHD researchers to test their research idea and get valuable feedback from the panel of judges. The core task of such competition is to fill in the PR template and then pitch it to the audience. Check out YouTube videos below for some examples and inspiration!.

Event/ Competition Location Date Competition Winner & Pitch Title
1. Pitching Research Symposium LaTrobe University, Melbourne 20 & 21 October, 2014 Luisa Unda: “Board of Directors Characteristics and Credit Union Financial Performance”
2. SIRCA Pitching Symposium, 2015 SIRCA, Sydney 27 February, 2015 Martin Hauptfleisch: “The When and Where of Price Formation. The Intraday Dynamics of Price Discovery”
3. Financial Markets & Corporate Governance Conference Fremantle, Western Australia 9 April, 2015 Marvin Wee: “Managerial remuneration contracts and “gaming” earnings”
4. CIFR Pitch Day UNSW (downtown), Sydney 29 May, 2015 Marvin Wee: “Managerial remuneration contracts and “gaming” earnings”
5. Pitching Stream, Accounting & Management Information Systems conference Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania 10 June, 2015 George-Silviu Cordoș: “A Background for Understanding and Researching Audit Reporting Changes”
6. 8th International Accounting & Finance Doctoral Symposium University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 16 June, 2015 Kirsten Tangaa Nielsen: “Are Mutual Peer Benchmarking Links Between Firms a Signal of Efficient Executive Peer Benchmarking?”
7. AFAANZ 2015 Doctoral Symposium Hobart, Tasmania 3 July, 2015 Amirul Nasir: “Does Auditing Affect Owner-managers’ Decision-making? – Evidence from Different Company Life-cycles”
8. UQAPS Pitching Competition Final University of Queensland, Australia 4 November, 2015 Jon McCullough: “Numerical Simulation of heat Transfer in confined Particle Suspensions: Thermo-rheological Behaviour of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids”
9. SIRCA Pitching Symposium, 2016 University of Technology Sydney, NSW 26 February, 2016 Giulia Leoni: “Risk management and firm performance: evidence from Australia”
10. WSE Pitching Research Workshop Warsaw School of Economics, Poland 23 March, 2016 Astrid Zakrzewska: “A lot doesn’t mean good, but good means a lot. The Integrated Reporting case”
11. UQ Business School, Honours Pitch Competition 2016 University of Queensland, Australia 26 April, 2016 Sarine Zou: “The Value Relevance of Carbon Risk with Influence from Business Strategy”
12. 9th International Accounting & Finance Doctoral Symposium University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland 14-15 June, 2016 Stacey Beaumont: “An examination of the relation between transparency in executive remuneration disclosure and the cost of equity capital”
13. AFAANZ 2016 Doctoral Symposium Gold Coast, Queensland 1 July, 2016 Jordan Rippy: “Asymmetric investor materiality: The effects of gains, losses, and disclosures”

Sebastian Firk: “Translating promise into reality – Performance implications and antecedents of CFO commitment to Value-based Management (VBM)”

14. UQ Business School Annual Research Colloquium 2016 University of Queensland, Australia 29 July, 2016 Honours Pitch Winner, Jacob Morgan: “CEO Pay-Gap, Gender and Bank Risk-Taking”

PhD “Commerce” Pitch Winner, Mark Bremhorst: “Improving Situation Awareness with Digital Representations”

PhD “Management” Pitch Winner, Nazila Barbakhani: “Usefulness of Psychophysiological Measures in Sustainable Tourism”

15. Scottish BAFA Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland 30 August, 2016 Timm Schmich: “Global Money Supply, the Role of Quantitative Easing, and the Impact on Commodity Prices”

Ayth Al Mubarak: “The Impact of Managerial Characteristics on Cash Holdings”

16. International Multi-Disciplinary Pitching Research Workshop Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University, India 19 September, 2016 Kanchan Sehrawat: “Women and Finance in contemporary world: Case of Select Indian Cities”

Neha Bhatnagar: “Employability and Skill Gap in India: A study among management graduates”

17. FIRN “Pitch My Research” competition Barossa Valley, South Australia 12 November, 2016 Victoria Clout: “Before the door is closed: Backdoor-listing firms corporate governance and performance”
18. UQAPS 2016 Pitching Research Competition University of Queensland, Australia 28 November, 2016 Shari O’Brien: “Training to enhance neuromuscular control of the ankle in cerebral palsy”
19. ANZAM Doctoral Workshop University of Queensland, Australia 6 December, 2016 Xuefeng Shao: “Diversification or Desynchronicity: An Organisational Portfolio Perspective to Risk Reduction”
20. UQ Business School, Honours Pitch Competition 2017 University of Queensland, Australia 9 May, 2017 Beiqi Lin: “CEO overconfidence and corporate debt maturity”

Asmita Manchha: “Out of Sight, Out of Mind?” The Role of Physical Stressors, Cognitive Appraisal, and Positive Emotions in Employees’ Health”

Matthew Khong: “Advancing management innovation: Synthesizing processes, levels of analysis, and change agents”.

21. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems (JAMIS) Best Pitching Research Letter 2016 Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania Saphira Rekker: “Converting Planetary Boundaries into Action, a New Approach to meeting Global Greenhouse Gas Targets: A Pitch”, JAMIS, Vol. 15(1), pp. 160-167.

Searat Ali: “Corporate Governance and Stock Liquidity in Australia: A Pitch”, JAMIS, Vol. 15(3), pp. 624-631.

22. Accounting and Management Information Systems conference, 2017 pitching abstract competition Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania 8 June, 2017 Anna Balek-Jaworska: “Determinants of Corporate R&D Activity in Poland: Does the Participation of Scientists on the Board Matter?”

Barbara Grabinska: “Under-reporting of corporate R&R expenditure in Poland”

Maria Sanulescu: “Thematic manipulation in the letters to shareholders of Romanian listed companies”

23. 10th International Accounting & Finance Doctoral Symposium Warsaw School of Economics, Poland 14 June, 2017 Nikolas Feistkorn: “An Application of the Quad-Model of Director’s Monitoring Efficiency”
24. AFAANZ 2017 Doctoral Symposium Adelaide, South Australia 30 June ,2017 Lina Li: “The effect of audit market structure change on audit pricing: Evidence from China”
25. SIRCA Pitching Symposium, 2017 University of Technology Sydney, NSW 21 July, 2017
26. UQ Business School Annual Research Colloquium 2017 University of Queensland, Australia 28 July, 2017 Honours Pitch Winner, Jake Sullivan: “Volatility informed options trading during US. elections”

PhD “Commerce” Pitch Winner, Saphira Rekker: “Do environmental rating schemes capture climate goals?”

Joint PhD “Management” Pitch Winners, Jo’Anne Langham: “Invisible taxation: fantasy or just good service design?”

& Susanne Knowles: “Coaching culture development in Australian organisations”

27. UQAPS 2017 Pitching Research Competition University of Queensland, Australia 3 November, 2017 Kyna Conn: “Dissecting motivation from decision-making in schizophrenia using animal models”
Competition Primary Host Location Date
Honours Pitching Competition UQ Business School Brisbane, Australia Feb-April, 2018
Award: Best Pitching Research Letter Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems (JAMIS) Romania Winners announced in June 2018
Conference Abstract Competition Accounting and Management Information Systems (AMIS) conference Bucharest, Romania 14 June, 2018
Doctoral Symposium – Competition 11th International Accounting & Finance Doctoral Symposium (Bangor University, Wales, UK) Bangor, UK 13 June, 2018
Doctoral Symposium – Competition AFAANZ 2018 Doctoral Symposium Auckland, New Zealand 29 June, 2018
HDR Pitching Research Competition University of Queensland Business School Brisbane, Australia May-November, 2018


Frequently Asked Questions


The primary target audience is novice researchers engaged in empirical work - whether they are current doctoral students or junior academics, with only limited publication experience in the very early phase of an academic career. The secondary target audience comprises PhD supervisors, research mentors and senior research collaborators, since they should seek all legitimate means to help fulfil their leading role in any such research relationship.

The hardest thing about doing research is starting it. Novice researchers rarely know where to start and often suffer from being overwhelmed. Novice researchers never know what are the essential items of information that would be convincing to their potential research mentor. Creating a more effective means to “pitch” a research topic would be beneficial for all concerned.

The pitching research framework can be used as: (a) a research planning tool; (b) a research skills development tool; (c) a research learning tool; (d) a research agenda setting tool; (e) a research mentoring tool; (f) a research collaboration tool; (g) a research engagement & impact tool; (h) a research-led teaching tool; (i) a research “discoverability” tool. For (b) a research skills development tool – see http://ssrn.com/abstract=2724451; (c) a research learning tool – see http://ssrn.com/abstract=2827425; (d) a research agenda setting tool – see https://ssrn.com/abstract=2909549; (e) a research mentoring tool – see http://ssrn.com/abstract=2776959; (g) a research engagement & impact tool – see http://ssrn.com/abstract=2813096; (h) a research-led teaching tool – see http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816233; (i) a research “discoverability” tool – see https://ssrn.com/abstract=2948707

Both quantitative and qualitative research can be applied to the PR framework. An extremely diverse range of topics will also work. For example, see the e-library of worked examples at https://www.business.uq.edu.au/supplementary-material-pitching-research

We don’t see the two ideas as mutually exclusive, but rather complementary. 3MT is aimed at PhD researchers who are well advanced in their project, and want to communicate their research outcomes to a generalist audience. It’s a great vehicle for researchers who are up to their elbows in exciting results. We love it. The pitch template is completely different. It’s primarily focused on researchers right at the beginning of their research journey. When you’re choosing a research avenue to pursue, the 3MT competition probably isn’t on your radar. But the pitching template should be. In one of our `pitch day' competitions, we’ll give you 8-10 minutes to get your ideas across. It’s not about research results like 3MT. It’s about starting a conversation about your research idea with your potential supervisor, peers and interested parties. It’s about starting a feedback process that will see you through your entire research project. It’s a process that ensures your work will have academic impact when you’ve advanced to the point in your research that the 3MT becomes a possibility.

Have more questions? Click here to download the full FAQ.