MORSE PhD meetings June 2021

Both the sessions lasted for three hours in which 4 presentations were given. The two sessions first and foremost allowed all PhD candidates to give and receive constructive feedback on each other’s work which can help them for the rest of the research that still needs to be done. The PhD supervisors also played an important role as discussants. Not of their own PhDs but for those working on sometimes rather different topics. The meetings furthermore provided for the perfect opportunity to get to know each other and connect. Many of us have been working from home since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis and therefore have not been able to for example chitchat on the hallway.

On June 22nd, PhD candidate Vinzenz Peters kicked off the day which lasted from 12:30h till 15:30h. His topic was ‘Layers of financial structure and disaster resilience’. He talked about disaster resilience and the potential role finance can play in this. Helpful comments such as literature recommendations were made, and potentially problematic issues were identified. The presentation was followed by a presentation given by Jonas Wogh, a MSc student following the Research Master in Economic and Financial Research. He showed the work he has done for his research thesis ‘Black boxes, Bleak outcomes? An analysis on Algorithmic Bias in the Mortgage Lending Context.’ A couple of the things Jonas addressed were discriminatory decision making, data and hypothesis and empirical results. The third presentation, given by PhD candidate Poramapa Poonpakdee dealt with ‘Ambiguous business cycles and uncertainty.’ Her motivation for this research topic was to try to incorporate uncertainty in a macroeconomic model. After the presentation, useful tips and comments were given once again. Last but not least was PhD candidate Mette Huijgens with her presentation on ‘The impact of macroprudential policy on SME’s access to finance.’ She, among other things, talked about her findings, data, sample, and results. Mette was, like the rest, given feedback and comments to help her along the way. At the end of the session the conclusion could be drawn that the day was very fruitful and inspiring. A wide variety of topics and methods had been presented and although PhD-students and their supervisors were taken a bit out of their comfort zones, the exchanges were constructive and useful. Everybody was eager to see the other presentations scheduled for the day next.

On June 23rd, the session started at 09:00h in the morning and lasted till 12:00h. The day started with a presentation given by PhD candidate Laura Kirsch. She presented her research on responsible leadership and how this affects corporate social responsibility of a company. Helpful feedback was given in this first round of comments and discussion. The second presentation was given by Maria Tomai. She, unlike the others, is a PhD fellow at the United Nations University. Her topic was ‘Urban sustainability transitions to a circular economy.’ She, among other things, talked about how consumers’ engagement can be enhanced for a transition towards a circular economy and spoke about what could be barriers to and what could be enablers of consumers adopting new practices and innovations. The presentation gave rise to some discussion, where different opinions and points of view were argued. The third presentation of the day was given by PhD candidate Tereza Bauer and was about her research question ‘In what ways are Dutch listed companies embedding sustainability into their business.’ She spoke about the methodology used, the specific interview methodology and in what stage of the research she was exactly. Laura’s work was, among the presentations, closest to conclusion. The last presentation of the two sessions was given by PhD candidate Kiia Strömmer. Her topic was ‘Impact assessment as a forward-looking tool to address sustainability challenges’. She, among other things, spoke about what kind of research she is conducting and how she selected the literature she used.

To conclude, it can be said that every speaker presented a promising project. We trust that the projects will all have interesting results and will all be impactful, in the near and more distant futures. The speakers also reached out to one another and offered their help on certain issues. Engaging the supervisors in this way also provided insightful comments from unusual perspectives, crossing disciplines and methodological silos that sometimes hinder progress on important research questions. In all respects, the two sessions were very useful and that such sessions will be held again.