How can you communicate the limitations of your economic research findings?

As a financial analyst, I often utilized economic analysis as a powerful tool to reinforce my arguments. When it comes to cost reductions or revenue-generating opportunities in organizations, upper management is often faced with numerous competing options. By incorporating economic concepts, I was able to effectively compare and contrast these different perspectives. To present my findings to management succinctly, I consistently found that a concise one-page executive document served as the most effective means of communication. This format allowed for further discussion and clarification during meetings, if necessary.

Be upfront about your assumptions, caveats, and discuss all possible limitations and constraints that enabled you to arrive at a particular set of conclusions. Keeping an open mind to other perspectives is also important as it allows the owner of the model to consider other factors that might not have been accounted for in the initial model. Economic modeling is an iterative approach which requires open mindedness, flexibility, patience, and checking your ego at the door.

For any economic research, it is very crucial to identify the limitations, discuss where they originate from, how they affect the research and possible ways of mitigating these effects; and then present them in a very simple format for general consumption. An economic model could be employed for further simplification.

We use economics (econometrics) to model the real world. A model will never be representative of the real world, rather, it will highlight the key attributes in the sample you have chosen. All economic research have this inherent weakness. Therefore, it is good to highlight the assumptions you have taken. The accuracy of your analysis will depend on the soundness of the assumptions that you have made around your modelling/research. While acknowledging the limitations of your own research, please be receptive to feedback. There is no way that one can be an expert in an economic genre. Someone may have found a way to do it (slightly) better.

It is also crucial to explicitly address aspects such as data quality, sample size, measurement errors, model assumptions, causal inference, external validity, and ethical considerations with clear reasoning and logics which not only demonstrates a commitment to intellectual honesty but also invites valuable insights and perspectives from peers and stakeholders.

Stating implications is a crucial step for any research. The implications can be further described under different headings, such as ‘Policy Implications’ or ‘Managerial Implications’, etc. This would help the readers understand research implications in a holistic manner.

Most of us economists are guilty of this. I always ask my team to write their key messaging as if explaining to a 10 year old. In today's fast paced life, no one has the time to take a second read at your text. Or if it's a podcast, listen to it again. You have only a finite amount of time to make an impact. The best impact is often achieved by communicating a complex idea in simple terms.

As any other profession, economics has an unique language. However, if I have a doctor visit, I have not experince that doctor saying terms that belongs to his/her profession, they mostly try to make it easier to let us explain the problem by using ordinary communication language. Therefore, same for economics, being simple as possible is to key to transfer the knowledge to another or gain from another. If a 10 years old have no idea what you talk about, there should be a problem for other ages as well in the communication that is used.

Be direct about your assumptions, models, and results. High level executives and decision makers value conciseness in the message and delivery. The key takeaways should be immediately clear to a non-economist. These are questions to consider: What do the conclusions mean for the decision maker? Why should anyone care about the research? How is it meaningful? How is it applicable?

Anticipating questions, objections, skepticism and criticism before, during and at conclusion of your research is priceless. Honestly and truthfully doing this will definitely improve the quality and robustness of your research.

A big part of preparing for a presentation well is anticipating what questions/objectives the audience will have. This ability can come only from experience so it’s not to develop. Luckily you can learn just as much about your audience by watching others present to them as you do by presenting yourself. Learn from mistakes others make (and let them learn from yours) to make presentations better!

When discussing the limitations of economic research findings, it's essential to acknowledge factors like data constraints, assumptions made, potential biases, and the scope of the study. Clearly outlining these aspects helps others understand the boundaries within which the findings apply and the areas where further investigation might be necessary for a more comprehensive understanding.

One thing that I’ve learnt from the great economists around me is that a particular research can only have one very weird assumption and a couple of reasonable assumptions. Your paper cannot be all about assumptions because then, it will be rejected outrightly. Assumptions can be anything - data limitation, conditions on parameters if you’re trying to build a model, or something as basic as your hypothesis. The most common way to get past them is to do one thing really well - create/find an amazing dataset, ask a very important question, use a novel methodology, etc. Economic research is about building you models and tweaking parameters to arrive at the policy implications and some limitations are excepted, nothing to worry.

In my experience, the technique that I personally use after providing economic research is engaging in open and honest discussions about the limitations and potential biases of my research with peers and colleagues through calls, workshops, or conferences. This helps me to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the constraints and allows for valuable feedback and critique for my next research.

Naturally (scientific) research has limitations and is important to be open about this. But this should not prevent researchers from participating in the public debate and take a stance where necessary.