Research papers should follow a standard construction of the following sections:

  • Introduction

  • Relevant Literature (aka Lit Review)

  • Methodology (including hypotheses)

  • Data

  • Findings

  • Conclusions

  • Further Research

The introduction is just that. It states what issue the paper purports to address. I have found this section halts my reading more than any other. It stops me because often the premise is not compelling to me.

For instance, a study showing a high correlation between low educational levels and poor credit scores is interesting but not something I will spend much time on because in the few cases in which my clientele has poor debt management, the issue for me is getting them to change their behavior not what other people have done to themselves. A study on the apparent effectiveness of different techniques to help educated people change their debt management behavior would get more of my attention.

The section of a paper that most often spawns additional reading is the review of existing literature. This section helps frame the “newness” of the question being addressed in the paper. If I am wondering if this is just another safe withdrawal rate study or is offering a new twist on portfolio sustainability, this is where I would focus initially. In doing such, I often find citations that I suspect I might be interested in examining deeper.  

The methodology section will stop the reading sometimes too. The headline in a trade publication suggested that small cap stocks do not offer a premium, a direct contrast to accepted literature of the past. The methodology to come to that conclusion involved the hypothetical shorting of a slew of securities. That’s not practical, therefore the paper had no ability to convince me that investing in small caps in any traditional way was not likely to enhance returns.

Another methodology problem I am encountering with more frequency is the use of utility theory. Utility theory is a perfectly legitimate methodology. Utility analysis attempts to weigh the impact of conflicting choices based on preferences. The primary problem is there is a great deal of subjectivity as to the amount of importance placed on varying factors. Unless your client’s preferences align with the weightings used, the results may not be all that useful.