Faculty & Departments

Across a career, the methods a paper needs rarely stay within one person's training. An economist comfortable with panel econometrics takes on a project that calls for a modern staggered difference-in-differences estimator, or a synthetic-control design, or double machine learning for high-dimensional controls—techniques that have entered the mainstream faster than most researchers can absorb them. A management scholar's next paper needs partial-least-squares SEM, or a measurement-invariance test across countries, or a moderated-mediation model estimated with bias-corrected bootstrapping rather than the outdated causal-steps approach a reviewer will now reject.

We cover that full range with genuine specialists, so you are never choosing between doing a method badly and abandoning the question that needs it. Time-series and financial econometrics, causal inference and policy evaluation, machine learning and text-as-data, meta-analysis, spatial models, experimental design, and qualitative and mixed methods are all in scope—and the person who works on your paper uses that method routinely, keeps up with its literature, and knows what its reviewers currently expect. That is what lets a research programme range across questions without being limited by any one person's methodological comfort zone.

Because we work alongside faculty on papers that will be published, we are explicit about authorship. Providing methodological and analytical support does not, by itself, constitute authorship, and we make no claim to it—the intellectual contribution, the framing, and the interpretation are yours. Where our involvement is substantial, acknowledging analytical assistance is normal scholarly practice, and we are happy to be acknowledged; where a genuine intellectual collaboration develops that meets your discipline's authorship criteria, that is a conversation for you to lead on your terms. What we never do is insert ourselves into authorship we have not earned.

This clarity is deliberate. It means you can bring us into a project without any ambiguity about whose work it is, and without the complications that can arise when analytical help and authorship are not kept distinct. The work is yours; we make it stronger.

There is no single mode of engagement, because faculty needs vary from a one-off analysis to a standing collaboration. The lightest touch is a single scoped task—one analysis, one audit, one revision response—with a fixed deliverable and cost agreed up front. Many faculty start here, testing the collaboration on something contained before relying on it for anything larger. From there, a common pattern is the recurring engagement: we become the analytical bench a faculty member or research group returns to whenever the workload spikes or a project needs a method outside their toolkit, with no retainer and no obligation between projects.

For larger or funded work, we also structure engagements around a project or a grant—involved from the design and power-analysis stage, through the analysis, to the reporting and reviewer responses. Whichever mode fits, the terms are always clear in advance, the work is always documented for your ownership, and authorship always remains yours. We would rather be the reliable capacity you call on repeatedly than a one-time vendor, and the way we work is designed to make that ongoing relationship easy.