Measuring Housing Prices Over the Long Run, Book Review Example

Introduction

Undoubtedly,  measuring housing prices over the long run is one subject which could be (and is, actually) analyzed through numerous perspectives, by one too many researchers nowadays. Such is the case of this present paper. More precisely, this present paper could be inscribed in these tendencies due to the simple fact that it provides information come across through a very well structured and realized research project. In other words, this paper might be read most easily if it were accepted that it reads through the research resume critically. Hence, this present paper will not only summarize the information in the presentation, but it will also criticize it, the final goal being that of enhancing the convincing power the research project has on those interested in the subject.

Motivation

Given the scope of the presentation, the slide in which broader project aims and projects are presented is well realized, mostly because it makes it very easy for the reader to follow the presentation. Furthermore, the data is correctly organized. Still, however right it might have been to present the reasons why housing and, in that order, why housing prices in Dublin were selected, it remains unclear as to what exactly motivated the research project. Is it the fact that wealth relationships depend on financial technology? Is it that wealth depends on inter-alia housing? Or is it that housing is the business cycle? The only case in which this particular slide would be efficient in persuading the audience of the relevance and effectiveness of the project would be that in which the presentation would be doubled by the scholar’s discourse. Again, the slide in which hedonic price indices are mentioned is not sufficient, but its structure might very well help the same scope of convincing the audience. The two sections are well realized, somewhat equal and not crammed with unnecessary words, which makes it easier to follow the information and, hopefully, understand better what the scholar himself/herself is talking about. Maybe it would be better to adjust the font in order to highlight the hierarchy more clearly: since “mean vs. hedonic” is written in the same manner, “conventional wisdom (always mix-adjust)” and “vs existing cliometrics of housing” should as well.

Literature

The literature review section is probably the best section in the presentation. The main reason behind this assertion is that it provides not only relevant quotes, but also charts which will help the reader (guest of the presentation event) acquaint himself/herself more easily with the information. Moreover, the slide in which the identified issues are presented stands out as having been constructed by a very well accustomed reader, capable of hierarchizing the issue both related to methods and aspects considered when writing the paper. Again, the bolded information is well decided and the list clear enough not to weigh on the presentation too much.

Data & Issues

Yet again, the fact that existing databases are brought to light is a good thing. It gives the project the grounds it needs in order to be held in high regard in the literature. Even more, the fact that the scholar did his/her thorough research prior to structuring a very new research sample enhances the chances of making his/her research paper credible. Even so, if we were to provide it with another, more deepened significance, we would salute the structure of the argument: not only are the recent strategies taken into account, but they are also critically analyzed in order to identify which, if possible, aspects might be improved in order to highlight the real issues related to the house prices.

Needless to say, the slide in which issues arisen is exactly what was needed in the presentation. 4 research questions are just enough. However, the first question is not that appropriate. The structure suggests such a question will need a presupposition-based answer. And if there is a place where presuppositions are not welcome, that is academic papers. The third question, furthermore, is not clear, and neither is the last one (since it repeats the third and adds further items).

However unclear the first question might have been, the answer is clearly stated and makes it evident what the writer meant to say. Again, the structure of the slide is appropriate, but it would have been more in order if the text illustrated had been shorter. The second question slide is well organized, clear and relevant. The answer to the third question, however, lacks in textual organizing. The words written this way suggest superficiality and lack of interest. The three dots are no longer utilized in academic writing for this exact reason.

Even if the fourth question was identified as having been structured badly, the slide in which it is being answered is clear enough to make up for it. Any other reader could understand what it was meant to highlight, and also the reasons why it interested the scholar.

Method & Results

Probably the best point of departure was correctly identified: the moment in which the hedonic regression happened, what this meant, what were the rates of net depreciation and what the net quality change in the sample ignored was are the points which were to provide the research paper with the needed ground structure. However, the next sections make one of the most recurrent mistakes: there are, at times, one too many charts in one presentation. In other words, the paper would have been more persuasive if it had at least the main conclusions attached as well, not only the chart themselves. It cannot be denied, visual arguments are most efficient, but they still require the insertions and thoughtful assertions which can be tiresome at some point. This is why this presentation section fails to convince a full audience of the acceptability of the research project conclusions.

Next Steps

Undoubtedly, this section closes a highly rigorously structured presentation which makes room for the assertion that this paper is well realized. This presentation helps guide the listener through the project, it aids him/her understand what drove the work, what was expected of it and, most importantly, what made it so relevant. The slides are clear and easily followed.

Conclusion

To sum up, the presentation is well done, as already shown, it has a very clear ground base which guides the reader throughout the presentation in order to help him understand better, and it highlights interestingly the general scope of the research project. By far, the rigorous structure is the greatest asset of the presentation.

The methodology through which the analysis was realized consists of having pinpointed the reasons because of which the presentation might have or might have not been persuasive for the audience. The premise the discussion parted from is that if people understand and can relate to the presented arguments, then they can take what is presented as credible and acceptable.