ECON7950 Research Methods in Economics
Sample Annotated Bibliography – A Poor Submission
Part A: Your research question
1. State your research question here (in one sentence).
Imperfect recall in game theory.
2. Which field(s) and topic(s) is/are relevant for your research question? List
them below. Feel free to add/delete rows if needed.
(A “field” is a broad area of economics while a “topic” is a specific focus within
the field. For example, “macroeconomics” is a field and “optimal taxation
scheme” is a topic within that field.)
JEL Classification
(Alphabet plus twoField
Topic
digit)
(i)
Neuroeconomics
Memory
B5
(ii)
Mathematical and
Game theory
quantitative methods
C7
Part B: Annotated Bibliography
Bibliography Item 1
Aumann et. al. (1997, GEB)
Full citation
JEL
classification
code(s)
Summary
(~40—60
words)
Evaluation
and
reflection
(~60—100
words)
D81
This paper provides a careful analysis of the “absent-minded driver”
example and reveals that that while the considerations at the
planning and action stages do differ, there is no paradox or
inconsistency.
While the proposed analysis is indeed more complicated, it is
unclear if it is “more careful”. In particular, the analysis completely
ignores the fact that people are not super-rational decision-maker,
as assumed in the analysis. There is a big literature in behavioural
economics indicating that people do not update probabilities
correctly – in fact, it is not even clear if people think in
probabilities – and they definitely do not calculate nor play
symmetric Nash equilibrium in mixed strategy. It is disappointing
that game theorists ignore this vast literature on bounded rationality
but bury their heads in the unrealistic sand dunes of super-rational
agents. Moreover, how can rationality be expected from “absentminded” decision-makers? I think research on absent-mindedness
should consult neuroscientists. We should do MRI to see how brain
Remarks
functioning is related to absent-mindedness. This is of particular
importance for the neuro-diverse population (e.g., ADHD) or people
who suffer mental illness, both constantly being ignored by
economists due to their ingrained ablism.
Marker’s Comments
This is a poor submission because:
For the research question:
 The research question is not even a question! (My daughter’s teacher would
say, “a question ends with a question mark.”) There are only two terms:
“imperfect recall” and “game theory”. What does the researcher want to do
with them? What should we expect to come out from this research? And
what approach is the researcher intending to take?
 The JEL code of Neuroeconomics is D87, not B5 (which is “current
heterodox approaches”). Moreover, the instruction explicitly asks for
alphabet plus two-digit JEL classification.
 One may think that game theory contains little (“what’s there beyond
prisoners’ dilemma?”), but if you expand C7, there are quite a few two-digit
categories. The classification needs to be more specific.
For the annotated bibliography entry:
 Can one find the paper by this “citation”? (It turns out that there are two
Aumann et. al. papers in 1997, both at Games and Economic Behavior.)
To the writer’s credit, GEB is indeed the common abbreviation of the
journal title, but the full title is expected here.
 The paper itself gives two JEL classifications. Please copy across
faithfully.
 The summary is uninformative. Guess what? It is copied and pasted from
the paper’s abstract. Here is the lesson: Even if the paper’s abstract is
summarising the paper, it may not have summarised it in a way that is
helpful for your research question. Write the summary in your own words.
 The evaluation and reflection – we can debate on methodology, but how
is this evaluation helpful for developing the research question? One may
possibly argue that, from this evaluation, one may build it to “I will
construct a framework that takes behavioural heuristics into account”.
Even then, though, be specific about the heuristics you have in mind.
 As it goes on, the reflection becomes a run-away rant. Can we get back
to your research question? I respect your right to believe that economists
are bigots, but what do you want to achieve with your research question?
And why on earth do you choose the cited paper as part of your
bibliography?
 While the summary is only 32 words, the Evaluation and Reflection takes
160. It is way too long. Worse still, we don’t learn much after reading it.