This is a continuation of the first paper you wrote, “Paper #1: Presentation of the Problem”. My professor has looked over your first draft and left comments (please see the pdf attached titled ‘Paper #1_graded” and you will find the paper you wrote attached titled ‘UCDC Seminar Paper’. You are expected to look over the draft with comments/concerns from my professor first, then fully address any and all comments before moving on to complete the 2nd and final part of this assignment (i.e., the final paper). Instructions on how to complete the final paper are as follows: The final written portion of your research project draws upon (and can go beyond as you find new sources) what you learned in your first paper and further refines your research question. You may do this in the form of a policy proposal or an academic-style research paper. If you chose the policy proposal option, you may need to (re)frame your research question in terms of a policy problem or think about how your question—and different possible answers to it—support different policy options. The completed proposal/paper should be between 4000 and 5000 words. You will not use your first paper in its entirety; but zero in on the key points and arguments that are needed to set up your analysis. For policy papers specifically, you’ll want to identify the crucial and central sources needed to assess competing solutions to your policy problem. You are also required to include some visual representation of data or evidence related to your question or argument. This might include a photographic image, a map, a figure, etc. This should also be discussed in the text and used to advance your argument in some way. Your papers are worth 35 points, and I will grade them based on the S.A.G. scale: Structure (14 points), Argument (14 points), Grammar (7 points). Purpose Once you develop your research question and review the literature, it’s time to develop an argument. Making a compelling argument requires the combination of taking a position and providing evidence in support of that position. This is true for a research paper or a policy proposal. For the former, you will need to identify competing hypotheses and for the latter you must identify at least two distinct and likely competing policy options (remember, the status quo is always an option and should be explained). Citations You must draw upon a wide range of secondary and primary sources to make your case. This includes when you lay out the definition of the problem, the causes of the problem, and what we know (or can expect) about the impact of different solutions to the problem. Your paper should cite at least 10 different sources (5 of which must be scholarly). These do not have to include the same sources used in your first paper but they can. You will probably need to add one or more additional sources of the evidence you use to set up and/or make your argument. Purdue University Online Writing Lab (Purdue OWL)Links to an external site. and University of North Carolina Writing CenterLinks to an external site. provide wonderful resources. In-text citations or footnotes/endnotes should be included, as well as a full and properly formatted works cited page at the end. Substance & Structure Your task is to consider the answer to the question, which may include taking a side in a debate. As you do, you will use evidence to support your position. Even though this is applied more than theoretical, your analysis will be more powerful if informed by theory. Stated differently, you need to tell a story with the evidence you bring to bear and show why it’s better than competing plausible stories. The following are recommended components of the policy proposal: 1. Title 2. Executive Summary: The key argument, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of your research. 3. Introduction (Identification the Problem): – Present the general issue or problem and make the case for why it’s important to study and understand better. – Introduction of the specific research question or policy problem that demands a solution. – Usually, though not always, there is some debate about the very nature of the problem, which you may want to address or touch on in the introduction. Convince your reader that this is a problem that is caused by humans and/or amenable to human solutions. – Clearly state your thesis/argument. This is a statement or assertion of something that you will support in your paper. It is a transformation of your research question. You may argue – by way of answering your research question – that x causes y and that the implications of this are that policy p is preferable to policy q or the status quo. 4. What We Know about the Issue from Existing Research: Draw upon the crucial sources and conclusions from first paper, but don’t include the whole thing. This establishes much of what is known about the larger (and in some cases specific) question you are answering, and the policy debate you’re investigating. This should help you to make your argument, as well as identify alternative arguments and proposals. 5. Causes: Drawing from the first paper, as well as political and policy debates, identify the causes of the problem addressed by your research question. Indeed, this may be where you identify the range of possible answers to your question and argue, at least preliminarily, in favor of your position and against relevant counterarguments. 6. Identification of Options, Analysis – What could be (or could have been) done differently to make this better? Worse? This might also include the status quo. – What are the options for policy makers or other actors now, including the status quo? – Drawing on the secondary sources presented thus far, and adding relevant quantitative and qualitative evidence, what do you recommend, what do you oppose, and why? – You will also need to identify specifically what level of policy making is relevant. Who would decide on this matter? What are the relevant levers of power? (i.e., is this supra-national? a decision that a US president could make via executive action? Is it a legislative matter? Is there an issue of implementation of already existing policy? long etc…). 7. Policy Recommendation(s) – Based on the above, what do you recommend and why? In some cases this will be a simple list without a great deal of elaboration (which will have happened previously). – Your recommendations and the argument supporting them will be stronger and more likely to be supported by your arguments and evidence if your recommendation is relatively narrow and concrete, rather than a broad and vague (which often happens with “laundry lists” of recommendations). 8. Conclusion – Repeat and summarize everything. – Reiterate the importance of your issue and the specific question and policy you analyzed. – List recommendations if not done in a previous section. The following are recommended components of the research paper: 1. – Abstract: The key argument and findings, conclusions 2. – Introduction. Your research paper introduction is an important element that sets up your topic (including briefly identifying its importance and relevance), states your research question and thesis (or competing hypotheses that you plan to evaluate) and a summary statement of your main findings and conclusions. An important note is that research papers are not mystery stories—there are no spoilers, so tell your reader where you’re going. Finally, your introduction should include a “roadmap” paragraph outlining the different sections of the paper (e.g., “First, I will review the literature on my question. Second, I will present competing hypotheses and how I plan to test them… etc., etc.”). 3. – Abbreviated Literature Review/Existing Research: Draw upon the crucial sources and conclusions from your first paper, but don’t include the whole thing. This establishes much of what is known about the larger (and in some cases specific) question you are answering. You should use this primarily as a way to develop, justify and set up your specific research question and the two or more hypotheses that you will consider. 4. – Hypotheses. Most typically, you will find your hypotheses in the literature, but these can also be based on public statements of key actors or you may derive your own hypotheses by combining elements from existing sources in a new way. Hypotheses should be falsifiable, empirical propositions. That is there should be some possible evidence that you could find that would prove the hypothesis to be wrong. Think hard about what that evidence could be and strategize about where and how to find it. 5. This section describes and justifies how you answer your question and explore/test/evaluate the hypotheses and has a several component parts. That is, what evidence would falsify different hypotheses? What would support hypotheses? – Outcome (a.k.a., dependent variable). How will you measure the phenomenon you are seeking to explain? You will have already identified what it is you’re studying, the outcome you’re interested in, but you often need to make explicit what data you will use to measure and identify this. This is somewhat less important for single case studies, but still relevant. For example, Allison’s analysis seeks to explain the Kennedy Administration’s actions in response to the USSR stationing nuclear missiles in Cuba. The possible “outcomes” identified included “do nothing,” “surgical strikes,” “full land invasion,” “blockade.” – Causes (a.k.a., independent variables). What factor(s) do you think explain the value taken by the dependent variable? Why did the Kennedy Administration respond with a “blockade” during the Cuban missile crisis? You can think about different explanatory variables (or sets of factors) that help to account for the ultimate outcome. It might be that you have a different set of explanatory variables that are associated with a particular hypothesis and some associated with an alternative hypothesis. If you (and the literature) recognize that there are many factors that affect your outcome, but you’re really interested in seeing if a specific factor also has an impact, the former set of factors can be treated as control variables (i.e., you acknowledge that they’re important, but focus on something else). For instance, you may recognize that many different factors explain variations in poverty rates across countries (e.g., GDP, unemployment, political system, etc.), but you’re really interested if an anti-poverty program reduces the rate. – Case Selection. Are you doing a single case study? Are you looking at a single country before and after a key event to see if/why your dependent variable changed? Are you comparing two or more cases at a particular moment in time, or over time? Are you conducting a quantitative, large-N analysis (either over time, or at a particular moment in time)? – Data. If not already clarified when discussing your case selection or the indicators you’ll use to measure your variables, make sure your reader knows what your sources of data – Justification of Method. If not sufficiently clarified previously, make sure to articulate why your method of analysis is appropriate to answer your research question. You may also discuss alternative methods and why you didn’t choose those. – Analysis and Findings. This is the section where you evaluate the evidence (data) examined, report the results, and draw specific conclusions. Presenting the results of your analysis might be relatively short for quantitative studies, but for qualitative case studies, this might be one of the longest sections in your paper. – Conclusion and Implications. This section should reiterate and sum up what you have done, what the answer to the research question is, what hypotheses are most persuasive, etc. This is where you drive home your argument and tell/remind the reader why it’s important. For those of you who are particularly interested in predicting what will happen or making an argument about what should happen, this is the place to do it. You may include policy recommendations, predictions/forecasts, or simply discuss general implications of your findings for policy or scholarship. What questions remain unanswered? What additional research is needed? What data are lacking, what additional hypothesis would you like to test?  This structure isn’t “set in stone,” and your proposal does not necessarily need to include all of these sections or subsections. It is crucial, however, for your report to be well structured with logical sections and subsections. In almost all cases, these major component parts will need to be addressed somewhere.  Note: this structure isn’t “set in stone,” and some papers will not need all of these sections in exactly this way. Your paper needs to have some structure however, and in almost all cases, all of these component parts will need to be addressed. Oral Presentation Guidelines (i.e., power point slides) applicable). Do not spend too much time on background; rather, provide the contextual information necessary for us to understand why your research is important. If you have preliminary finding or policy recommendations, make sure to leave enough time to discuss those, and tell us how you drew your conclusions. Visual aids and presentation slides or other images will be useful to help you present your argument and convince you listeners of your conclusions and recommendations. Please email me your PowerPoint or google presentation or other images you plan to use. You should also have these available to share from your own computer, but I would like to have a copy. We will also leave time for Q and A at the conclusion of the presentations so be prepared to ask and answer questions. See pdf titled ‘oreo presentation structure’ for more details —————————————————————- Please be sure to review and address any all comments, questions, and concerns listed on your first draft, before moving onto the final paper. Also, there is a PowerPoint presentation requirement as well.