Research Agenda
Issues that MN SAPIENS considers essential for the development of the Family Capital Architecture and for which a stronger basis, verification or own research is required.
Мы используем cookie
Настройки cookie
Обязательные cookie всегда включены, так как они нужны для корректной работы сайта.
Аналитические cookie Яндекс.Метрики и статистики платформы Tilda можно включить или отключить. Они помогают нам видеть статистику посещений и улучшать сайт.
Аналитические cookie Яндекс.Метрики и статистики платформы Tilda можно включить или отключить. Они помогают нам видеть статистику посещений и улучшать сайт.
We use cookies
Cookie settings
Essential cookies are always enabled because they are required for the website to work correctly.
Analytical cookies from Yandex Metrica can be enabled or disabled.
Analytical cookies from Yandex Metrica can be enabled or disabled.
MN SAPIENS
Research
How to maintain the coherence of decisions, responsibility and capital over time.
Family Capital Architecture sits at the intersection of several established professional fields. MN SAPIENS therefore distinguishes established knowledge, its own synthesis, working hypotheses and questions for which evidence remains insufficient.
The MN SAPIENS research program is led by Maxim Bagaev, Architect of Family Capital.
Three different types of work
Research and Results
Formal research lines, their protocols, current status and, as empirical evidence becomes available, the method, data, results, limitations, and revision history.
The first empirical studies in the current programme are being prepared. A research agenda is not presented as a result, and a position paper is not presented as empirical research.
Positional and Methodological Publications
Materials outside the formal research protocol in which MN SAPIENS records a professional position, synthesis or methodological distinction. They may draw on research and previous professional approaches, but do not themselves constitute empirical research.
1. Integrity of task transfer between specialists
What context should be maintained when transferring a task between specialists so that the original purpose, limitations and responsibility for the next step are not lost.
Current status:published three related research papers on SSRN: two pre-empirical professional transfer protocols and a conceptual paper on the origins of a couple's recorded shared position. There are no completed empirical studies of the current program yet.
Next stage:independent methodological criticism and synthetic verification of the research design.
Measuring Advisor Handoff Integrity: A Synthetic-Case Protocol for Problem Reconstruction Across Professional Boundaries
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7525739Required Transformation Marking in Written Investment-Policy Handoffs: A Pre-Field Measurement Protocol for Professional Boundary Research
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7551718What Does a Couple's Recorded Joint Position Represent? Intrahousehold Heterogeneity and Provenance in Financial Planning
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7571418All three works are posted on SSRN as working papers / preprints. The first two record research protocols. The third presents an integrative analysis of prior research and a limited conceptual argument. None of the three publications constitutes a complete empirical study or scientific peer review in itself.
2. Traceability of reasons and history of decisions
How to preserve sufficient context with a decision to later reconstruct its basis, participants, assumptions and conditions for revision.
A conceptual work What Does a Couple's Recorded Joint Position Represent? Intrahousehold Heterogeneity and Provenance in Financial Planning, DOI 10.2139/ssrn.7571418, has been published within this area. It looks at an earlier layer of the problem: what can be inferred from the recorded common position of a pair, if it is not stored exactly how that position was formed.
Current status:Review of prior work.
3. Responsibility without rating a person
How to observe the development of responsibility through real decisions and boundaries of authority without turning a person into an object of a general rating.
Current status:Question development.
The direction remains at the stage of research development, until field testing.
What are our conclusions based on
We distinguish:
fact;
direct quotation;
pre-existing professional approach;
own synthesis of MN SAPIENS;
analytic hypothesis;
observation from practice;
a question for which there is not yet enough data.
If a model or idea existed before MN SAPIENS, the new formulation does not make it our invention.
This is especially important for Family Capital Architecture, since much of its intellectual field is shaped by family management, succession planning, investment practice, law, risk management, and family research welfare.
Open questions
The research agenda captures questions that MN SAPIENS considers significant, but for which there is not yet enough basis for a final conclusion.
Not every agenda item has already become a formal study.
From research to public position
Research does not necessarily end with a new model.
Sometimes it results in a more precise distinction, a professional position, a clarification of the boundary or a change in the previous formulation.
Such materials are published in a separate Institutional Corpus of MN SAPIENS.
Working Methodological Models and Distinctions
Not every working idea of MN SAPIENS becomes part of a public methodology.
Before publication, we check what approaches have previously existed, what exactly our contribution is, how strong a public claim can be and where the boundary of applicability lies.
The presence of a model in this section does not mean that it is empirically supported research.
The posting of a working model is also not a statement of its originality or the authorial priority of MN SAPIENS until a review of previous approaches and the boundaries of one's own contribution has been completed.
Three transfers: law, map, judgment
A working distinction between the transfer of legal rights, understanding of the structure of the system and the ability to independently make complex decisions.
Status: previous approaches and the boundary of MN SAPIENS' own synthesis are tested.
Admission calendar
A working model of a gradual transition from familiarity with the meaning of family capital to real responsibility and independent decision.
Status: is tested as a way to apply existing approaches to the development of responsibility of the next generation.
Versions and Revisions
A research position may change in the wake of new evidence, stronger prior work, independent criticism, or the discovery of an error.
A significant change must leave a visible trace of what changed, why, when the new version appeared and what wording was replaced.
For MN SAPIENS, the ability to correct one's own position is part of the quality of the research work.
For researchers and professional partners
MN SAPIENS welcomes independent criticism, methodological review, research replication and joint work with researchers and professional institutions.
