As noted on your syllabus, depending on your personal interests and goals, you can chose to write either a policy paper or research paper to meet the research project requirement of the seminar. If you choose the research paper option, your may want to model your paper (in terms of format) after a journal publication in a specific journal that you might wish to submit your work to one day (for example, Journal of Democracy , Democratization , etc.).
However, for the purposes of this assignment, you are not required to conduct primary research. (That said, if you are able to use primary sources, this is commendable!)
Regardless of which option you choose, your projects should focus on a specific problem or puzzle of democracy in a country of your choice, and should be between 20 – 22 double-spaced pages in length. Key to the success of this project is to identify a problem or puzzle that is sufficiently narrow in scope that you do not end up launching a book project! For example, if you have chosen Kenya as your case study, you should not then attempt to address all problems of democracy in Kenya. Choose one specific problem (i.e. a specific aspect of their electoral system, or some aspect of corruption, ethno-politics, limits on free speech, etc.) as the focus of your analysis. If you need help narrowing your topic, or if you run into problems finding information on the topic you’ve chosen, please consult me, a reference librarian, or the political science research librarian at Geisel, Annelise Sklar.
Project abstracts/summaries: A one-paragraph (single-spaced) abstract/summary of your proposed project is due at the beginning of seminar during week 3, April 16 th . For this abstract, two things are required: (1) statement of your country of interest; (2) brief statement of the specific problem or puzzle of democracy/democratization you wish to investigate. Although it’s understandable that there may be some changes between this proposal and your final paper, the more precise you can be, the better feedback I’ll be able to give you.
Statement of research question: A clear statement of your research question is due at the beginning of seminar during week 5, ( April 30 th ). Good research questions typically pose a problem or puzzle that concerns causes or consequences.
That is, your question and paper should not simply ask and answer “ what happened ,” or the “ who, what, where, and when ” of politics, but should be a focused analytical effort to explain “ why, how, to what extent, or under what conditions .” Your research question should clearly, and concisely, link your dependent variable (that which you are explaining) to your central independent variable (the central factor that you believe explains the outcome or effect --your dependent variable). In addition, strong research questions should address some recurring , patterned set of events, rather than a unique or idiosyncratic event. A couple great examples provided by Professor
Roeder include the following:
[I]f you are interested in the contribution of the Great Depression to the rise of Hitler, rather than ask “did Hitler come to power because of the depression?” you might ask “are fascist movements more successful in states undergoing greater social dislocations from economic depression?” The first asks about a single outcome, the second asks about a pattern of outcomes. (Roeder, Honors
Memorandum #2, p. 2)
You are interested in the fact that most members of the Chumurt minority entered politics through class rather than ethnic organizations. Rather than ask “why has the Chumurt minority mobilized along class rather than ethnic lines?” (a question about a single outcome) you might turn this into an explicitly comparative question about a pattern of variation: why do some minorities mobilize as ethnic groups, but others mobilize as multi-ethnic classes? (Ibid.)
In addition, good research questions should be interesting and relevant in two senses: (1) theoretically –to the body of scholarly literature that you are addressing, and (2) practically –to the real world in which we live (again, see
Roeder). Finally, as mentioned above, good research questions are concisely stated. If you find yourself needing multiple lines or sentences to ask your question, chances are you still have more work to do in refining it. Here’s an example of a research question related to democracy/democratization that Baglione gives: “Why are the rates of electoral success of American women lower than those of females in some other countries?” (Baglione, p. 24).
-1-

Project outline with preliminary bibliography: At the beginning of seminar during week 7, May 14 th , you will turn in a 1 – 2 pg. outline of your project, together with a preliminary bibliography of eight (8) relevant academic sources. (If you need assistance with this, see Baglione p. 80 for the structure of a sample outline.) As noted on your syllabus, please bring enough copies of your outline to give to your fellow seminar participants, in order to help us better understand each other’s projects. At this point in the quarter, you should have completed a first draft of your introduction, your literature review, and should be more than halfway through the analysis and assessment section for your thesis.
Project presentations: During weeks 8 and 9, you will then have the opportunity to present your research findings
(10 minutes --5% of your grade) and receive feedback from your fellow classmates and me prior to turning in your final papers. Please keep your presentations to 10 minutes and, at this time, be able to succinctly summarize the essential components of your project. Project presentations serve at least five purposes: (1) they enable us to better understand each other’s research projects and interests; (2) we gain practice in presenting our research ideas orally;
(3) they provide an opportunity for feedback prior to turning in final projects (10 minutes will be allotted to each student for feedback); (4) they advance our understanding of central problems and puzzle of democracy in our world today; and (5) they help us draw comparisons across case studies and regions.
Final policy papers are due no later 3:00 p.m. Monday, 9 June.
You can bring them either to my office, or to the international studies office. Your papers should be 20 - 22 double-spaced pages in length. (The page count does not include your title/cover page, or your bibliography.) Please sign a Buckley waiver on the back of your paper, if you would like to pick up your paper after finals week; or leave a self-addressed stamped envelop, if you would like me to mail your papers to you.
The following guidelines are designed to assist, not constrain , you in your research papers.
I.
Cover Page: Your cover page should include the following information:
1.
Paper title –make it interesting and compelling!
2.
Your name.
3.
A single-spaced abstract of your paper: An abstract is a brief summary of your central puzzle and key findings. Typically, they do not exceed approximately 150 words, or so. (Thus, they are often extremely challenging to write!)
II.
III.
Introduction:
In general, your paper’s introduction should accomplish three things:
1.
Briefly introduce the specific problem or puzzle of democracy you’ve chosen, and state why it’s important/relevant;
2.
Concisely state your thesis, or answer to this puzzle.
3.
Provide a brief overview of the structure of your paper or argument, or an overview of how you will present the material that develops and supports your thesis.
Literature Review:
The central objectives of a literature review are to identify, examine and critique alternative hypotheses to the research problem/puzzle you propose. That is, these hypotheses present alternative independent variables (or factors that claim to explain your research question) that compete with the independent variable you propose (your thesis statement) to explain your dependent variable (outcome or effect).
As you likely already know, or will quickly learn, in many social science disciplines, competing hypotheses are often grounded in one of four major theoretical perspectives or approaches: 1. institutional approaches. 2. economic approaches, 3. political power approaches, and 4. cultural approaches. As the names of the approaches imply, institutional approaches privilege the role of formal rules as independent variables in explaining outcomes (dependent variables), economic approaches privilege the role of economic variables, political power approaches privilege the role of powerful political actors, and cultural approaches privilege the power of culture and/or ideas in explaining outcomes. As we will discuss in seminar, the names of these approaches vary between and within disciplines and sub-disciplines, but, in general, they can help us identify and categorize fundamental differences in approaches.
-2-

IV.
Each of these competing schools of thought holds certain assumptions about which variables are dominant variables in explaining outcomes. Your literature review should identify and critique these assumptions in relation to your research question, and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Thus, your literature review should be organized theoretically and analytically, grouping alternative explanations within major schools of thought. Finally, as Baglione explains, “[t]he conclusion of the Literature Review leads [you] to a bottom line: One answer to the research question appears best. In effect, that conclusion is the fundamental argument or thesis that you will be sustaining, evaluating, or testing in your research paper” (Baglione, p. 59).
Thus, your literature review should answer the following questions, as outlined by Baglione:
1.
How have important scholars answered my general research question? What are the most important schools of though and who are identified with them? What is an appropriate label for this group of authors? Why?
2.
What are the strengths (logical or explanatory) of each school of thought? What are the weaknesses?
3.
In conclusion, which school of thought seems best? (See Baglione, p. 45)
Development of Your Thesis (Hypothesis or Argument) with Supporting Evidence
This section of your paper should clearly, and carefully, develop your central hypothesis or thesis, and each stage of its development should be supported by specific empirical references to evidence from your case study (or studies). As Baglione explains, “[t]he best definition of the hypothesis is that it is your “best guess” about the links between the independent and dependent variables” (Baglione, p. 66).
As she points out, however, it is a well-informed/education guess, because you have already closely examined competing answers to your question by knowledgeable scholars in the field through your literature review.
For the purposes of this paper, as discussed above, we are centrally concerned with hypotheses or theses that posit a causal relationship between that which you are trying to explain, the “effect,” or the dependent variable , and the central variable or factor that you believe explains it, or the independent variable
. The dependent variable is called such because it “‘depends’ on some other factors (the causes) and it is a variable because, if the value of the causes [independent variables] change, so too will the effect” (Baglione, p. 63). As discussed above, your literature review lays the foundation for your thesis. Here is an example provided by Baglione of how one student transitions from her literature review to the development of her thesis:
Having delineated the various schools of thought about the influences on American foreign policy, constructivism seems to be the most useful approach for evaluating the difference in U.S. policies towards Iraq’s and North Korea’s WMD programs. A causal chain can be used to outline the argument:
Nature of American public ------

type of U.S. foreign policy perception of threats
The hypothesis for the constructivists is that the more American society has its eye fixed on a certain issue (that for a variety of factors it perceives a state or situation in a certain way), the more the United Sates will be prone to take serious action. Unlike realists who would argue that in the absence of a global sovereign, the United States engages in war to preserve itself and its interests, constructivists point to differences in the American public perceptions of the two states [Iraq and North Korea], arguing that the broader social understandings of the two countries played a major role in the differences in U.S. foreign policy (cited in Baglione, pp. 69 – 70).
This section of your paper most likely will have several subsections. You will need to clearly state your central thesis, carefully define important concepts and measures, explain how you will operationalize (or measure) variables, and test/evaluate your hypothesis in your case study. (Again, since you are not required to conduct primary research for the project, in many cases you will be building on the work of
-3-

V.
others in the field, although the construction of your argument(s) and presentation of evidence should be original. That is, you are combining and critiquing the work of others in an original way, giving proper credit where credit is due.)
Here are some general tips for “digging into” this section of your paper:
1. Study your sources of data carefully and take notes as you conduct your research:
Underline and/or highlight important sections of texts, tables and articles as you read. Make marginal notes regarding your impressions of the author’s argument, evidence, and/or your own questions, criticism and concerns. This will greatly facilitate review of your sources later.
2. Develop a plan: a. Focusing on your central hypothesis, compile a list of evidence for arguments and counterarguments.
Review your data and notes, and make a list of evidence that you can bring to bear to support your argument, as well as important criticisms of this argument. Ask yourself whether you have sufficient evidence to counter these criticisms. Your evidence should be concrete and specific.
Avoid making sweeping and/or vague statements that you cannot support with concrete evidence.
Be sure to cite authors and page numbers, so that you can easily refer back to them later. b. Study the evidence:
Once you have compiled what you believe to be the strongest evidence both for and against your thesis, think about what might be the most logical and persuasive order to present this evidence.
The central task of a writer is to convince or persuade her or his audience. A metaphor often referred to in teaching the art and practice of writing is that of a court case. As Lisa Baglione has argued:
In writing your research paper, you are, in essence, presenting your case to the judge and jury (readers of the paper). While you need to acknowledge that there are other possible explanations (for instance, your opposing counsel’s case), your job is to show that both your preferred logic and the evidence supporting it are stronger than any competing perspective’s framework and its sustaining information. Interesting details that have nothing to do with the particular argument you are constructing can distract a jury and annoy the judge. Good lawyers lay out their cases, connecting all the dots and leaving no pieces of evidence hanging. All the information that they provide is related to convincing those in judgment that their interpretation is the correct one. (Baglione, p. 5)
In other words, just like arguing a case in court –you need concrete evidence and arguments to convince the jury and the judge. c. Construct an outline:
The body of your essay should then logically and persuasively develop your thesis through the presentation of evidence, counterevidence and rebuttals.
Conclusion:
Finally, as Baglione points out, there are five main tasks that your conclusion should accomplish:
1.
Tie the paper together by repeating the argument and reporting the findings.
2.
Remind readers why this argument is important to different audiences.
3.
Assess the extent to which your thesis can be extended or must be limited.
4.
Return to the choices or compromises that you made and evaluate their impact on your work.
5.
Establish a productive path for future research. (Baglione, pp. 155 – 156)
-4-

VI.
Bibliography and Citations:
Please consult a minimum of ten relevant academic sources, in addition to assigned course readings, for your projects. These sources can either be books, articles from scholarly journals, other policy briefs, organizational reports, or primary sources or materials from authoritative websites. (See research links on the course website for assistance with this.) The preferred formatting for references is Chicago Manuel of
Style with formal footnotes (as opposed to endnotes or in-text citations). If you are not yet familiar with this style, please consult their website: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html
(Note that the preference is for “N” (footnotes) and “B” (bibliographic entries), not for “T” (in-text citations) and “R” (references).) You can also consult me, or one of the research librarians for any assistance with this.
A Few Notes on Citations:
1. It is very important to give proper credit to the sources of your ideas. This is not only important in order to give credit where credit is due, but it also lends greater credibility to your own argument(s) and points your readers to further reading should they want to pursue a point you raise in greater detail. One way to understand your task as a writer is that you are in conversation with other writers and thinkers who have explored similar ideas and concerns.
Especially given the type of paper we are writing in this course (where you are not required to conduct primary research --although the more primary data and sources you can include, the better), you must build on the research of others to provide credible empirical evidence for your assertions. Even if you use your own words to summarize someone else’s ideas, you still need to cite the source of your ideas. In addition, if more than one scholar supports the general argument you make, be sure to list these scholars, their relevant works, page numbers, etc. in your footnote(s). If you have any questions about proper citations, please see the reference guides listed below, or ask me, or one of the research librarians at Geisel library.
2. If you use direct quotations, be sure to introduce and contextualize these quotes. For example: As Bates argues,
“yadda, yadda, yadda…” Or: As Martin “contends,” or “suggests,” or “insists,” etc. This way, quotations are not left hanging, and your reader gets the sense that you are, in fact, in conversation with these other scholars. If a quotation exceeds three lines, both left and right margins should be indented, and the quotation should be singlespaced. (That is, it should be written as a “block quote.”)
3. Because of the importance of properly citing your sources, I will be quite strict in grading this component of your paper. If you have any questions at all, please consult the Chicago Manual of Style web-link, me, or one of the research librarians. In addition, if you have any questions about when and how to cite, please consult the following reference on reserve for the course: Lisa A. Baglione, Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical
Guide to Inquiry, Structure and Methods , Thomas Wadsworth Press, 2007. For citations, see especially pp. 52 – 55.
4. Finally, depending on your level of experience in writing research papers, guides that you may find useful include:
1.
Lisa A. Baglione, Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure and Methods , Thomas Wadsworth Press, 2007.
2.
Wayne C. Booth, and Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M Williams, The Craft of Research , Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1995.
3.
Professor Philip Roeder’s website with resource materials for senior theses in political science (various memoranda are cited here): http://weber.ucsd.edu/~proeder/ThesisA.htm
4.
William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style (any edition).
*All texts have been placed on reserve at Geisel library for your reference.
VII.
Optional:
You may also choose to include tables, maps, or figures within the text of your analysis, or as an appendix at the end of your paper.
-5-


Start with a first draft:
Try to complete this draft approximately one week before your final paper is due. As they say, write early and often!
 Write a second (or more) draft(s):
Once you have a good idea of what it is you want to say, re-write your paper from beginning to end, ensuring that all the key components discussed above are included. Be brutal as you proofread your work. Is the evidence you present persuasive? Does it clearly support your central argument? Does each paragraph contain a topic sentence or idea and supporting evidence? Does each paragraph logically connect to the next? Have you acknowledged important counterarguments and presented evidence that clearly refutes them? Is your evidence specific and concrete? As Strunk and White recommend, “[p]refer the specific to the general, the definite to the vague, the concrete to the abstract.” (Strunk and White, p. 21). Is your language concise?
As
Strunk and White also point out, “[v]igorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary parts.” (Strunk and White, p. 23).

Proof-read your work:
Once you have completed a final draft of your paper, carefully proofread your work one more time. Check for grammatical and spelling errors, and/or sentences that might read awkwardly.
Best of luck, have fun, and please consult me, or any of the research librarians at Geisel, if you run into problems, need to brainstorm, etc.!
-6-