WRITING A POLICY PAPER
ONE WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE
DIMENSIONS OF A POLICY PAPER IS TO JUXTAPOSE IT AGAINST OTHER COMMON RESEARCH
VEHICLES:
DISCUSSION PAPERS DISSEMINATE RESEARCH QUICKLY IN ORDER TO GENERATE COMMENT
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISION OR IMPROVEMENT. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED
AT CONFERENCES OR WORKSHOPS ALREADY, BUT WILL NOT YET HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN
JOURNALS.
BACKGROUND PAPERS OUTLINE CURRENT POLICIES AND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO
A PARTICULAR SOCIAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM.
[SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?]
== POLICY PAPERS OFTEN BEGIN WITH DISCUSSION PAPERS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
AS RESOURCES, BUT ARE MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE IN GOAL AND SCOPE.
***POLICY PAPERS ARE CRITICAL ANALYSES OF AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL ISSUE
OR PROBLEM THAT INVOLVES THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOP OF A DEFENSIBLE PLAN
(POLICY PROPOSAL) FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM AND FORMULATE WORKABLE STRATEGIES
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN.
THREE KEY FOCI:
[1] AIMS TO
IDENTIFY KEY POLICY ISSUES;
[2] APPLY THE
BEST AND MOST UP-TO-DATE RESEARCH TO HELP UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES; AND
[3] EXPLORES
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH FOR THE DESIGN AND CONDUCT OF POLICY.
THE PROSPECTIVE OUTCOME:
POLICY PAPERS ARE GENERALLY
EXPECTED TO INCREASE THE INVOLVEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS IN AND
IMPORTANT EFFORT AT SOME LEVEL,
[1] WHETHER
IT BE SUPPORTING AND/OR ENDORSING THE POLICY PAPER,
[2] ADOPTING THE USE OF THE SET OF CRITERIA,
[3] JOINING A
WORKING GROUP, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP, ETC., AND/OR
[4] EDUCATING OTHERS ON THIS TOPIC.
THE ORIENTATION:
[1] PRESENTATION {TAILORED FOR RELEVANT AUDIENCES/STAKEHOLDERS};
[2] MANAGEABILITY AND DIGESTIBILITY {STRUCTURED TO FACILITATE ACCESS
TO MAJOR POINTS AND ARGUMENTS};
[3] MAXIMUM IMPACT {SOLUTIONS GUIDED BY PRACTICABILITY AND
IMPLEMENTABLILITY}
POLICY PAPERS NEED TO BE
FORMAL, CONCISE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, ORGANIZED, LOGICAL, THOUGHTFUL, WELL
RESEARCHED, WELL SUPPORTED, WELL WRITTEN, AND WELL ARGUED.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
STRUCTURE OF POLICY PAPER
INTRODUCTION: ABSTRACT/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: THE ABSTRACT IS NUMBERED PAGE TWO (2). IT IS NOT PART OF THE PAPER. THE ABSTRACT DESCRIBES THE PAPER IN THE
THIRD PERSON. THE ABSTRACT SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN, UNTIL AFTER YOUR PAPER IS
COMPLETED.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROBLEM
PURPOSE
SCOPE
METHODS
AND PROCESS
FINDINGS
ACTION
PLAN
FRONT
PAGE
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
ISSUES
AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
METHOD
CONSIDERATIONS
THEORY
AND ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK (PERHAPS HYPOTHESES)
ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES,
IF ANY
COVER
BODY:
THE BODY OF THE PAPER BEGINS ON PAGE NUMBER THREE (3). THE BODY OF THE PAPER
MUST BE DIVIDED INTO THREE SECTIONS.
THE FIRST SECTION MUST STATE, DESCRIBE, AND
EXPLAIN THE AUTHORITY THAT YOUR CHOSEN GROUP HAS TO DO WHAT YOU SUGGEST.
THE SECOND SECTION MUST CONTAIN A SPECIFIC
NUMBER OF REASONS (COUNT THEM OUT) SUPPORTING YOUR PROPOSAL. THE PAPER
ARGUES THAT THEIR PROPOSED POLICY SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR A COUNTED NUMBER OF
REASONS. [EACH OF THE REASON IS OFTEN STATED (AND NUMBERED) IN THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH OF THIS SECTION OF THE PAPER.]
THE THIRD SECTION SHALL DISCUSS THE LOGICAL
ALTERNATIVES TO YOUR PROPOSAL AND SHALL DISCUSS WHY YOUR PROPOSED
ACTION IS PREFERABLE TO EACH ALTERNATIVE. THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS A
DEFENSIBLE PLAN (POLICY PROPOSAL) FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM AND FORMULATE
WORKABLE STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN.
=================================================================================
OUR
STRUCTURE/FORMAT TEMPLATE
****TITLE
YOUR GROUP SHOULD CREATE A TITLE THAT ENGAGES THE READER’S
INTEREST AND FOCUSES ON YOUR TOPIC AREA.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
OF THE ISSUE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO PROVIDE THE READER
WITH BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE SOCIAL ISSUE. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER ARE
AS FOLLOWS:
·
HOW DID THE ISSUE
ORIGINATE? WHAT IS THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE? ARE THERE CRITICAL
INCIDENTS WHICH EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE?
·
WHY IS THIS AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE FOR SOCIETY AT LARGE AND POLICY MAKERS TO ADDRESS? WHY SHOULD CITIZENS BE
CONCERNED WITH THIS ISSUE?
·
WHAT PHILOSOPHICAL OR
ETHICAL ISSUES UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE?
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO ANALYZE THE SPECIFIC
ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROBLEM YOUR GROUP HAS CHOSEN AND THE SOCIETAL
CONSEQUENCES IF THIS PROBLEM CONTINUES UNADDRESSED. QUESTIONS TO FOCUS ON IN
THIS SECTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
·
WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE SUGGESTING A CHANGE IS
POLICY IS NEEDED?
·
HOW DOES THE PROBLEM
AFFECT CRITICAL POPULATIONS, GROUPS, AND SOCIETY AT LARGE?
·
WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC
PROBLEM? (DEFINE THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM.)
·
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR
CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM?
WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS, ETHICAL DEBATES, OR CONTROVERSIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROBLEM?
III. CURRENT POLICIES
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO ANALYZE CURRENT POLICIES (OR PROGRAMS) THAT DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. THE QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
·
WHAT ASPECT OF THE
PROBLEM ARE CURRENT POLICIES (OR PROGRAMS) TRYING TO SOLVE?
·
HAVE THESE POLICIES SOLVED,
ALLEVIATED, EXACERBATED, OR HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PROBLEM? WHY OR WHY NOT?
·
WHO SUPPORTS THE CURRENT
POLICIES? WHY DO THEY SUPPORT THEM?
·
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR FLAWS
OR LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT POLICIES?
·
WHO IS IN FAVOR OF
CHANGING THE CURRENT POLICIES? WHY DO THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM?(THESE QUESTIONS
CAN SERVE AS A TRANSITION TO THE NEXT SECTION OF THE PAPER.)
IV. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO ANALYZE TWO OR THREE
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM. IN SELECTING THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS,
CHOOSE ALTERNATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY PROPOSED BY ADVOCATES OR POLICY
MAKERS. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANALYZE EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE, BUT YOU SHOULD
ANALYZE ALTERNATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED.
EXPANDING (OR MODIFYING) CURRENT POLICIES (OR PROGRAMS) CAN BE TREATED AS ONE
OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS. FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, ANALYZE ITS
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS WHICH GROUPS, OPINION LEADERS, OR POLICY
MAKERS SUPPORT OR REJECT IT. ULTIMATELY, KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU MIGHT BE
REJECTING THESE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS OR USING PARTS OF THEM FOR YOUR OWN
POLICY PROPOSAL IN THE NEXT SECTION OF THE PAPER. THE QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS ARE
AS FOLLOWS:
·
WHAT ARE THE
ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT POLICIES?
·
WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS
AND WEAKNESSES OF THE ALTERNATIVES? WHY?
·
WHO SUPPORTS AND OPPOSES
THE ALTERNATIVES? WHY?
·
WHY HAVEN'T THESE
ALTERNATIVES BEEN MADE INTO POLICY? IS THERE SOME FATAL FLAW INHERENT IN THEM
OR IN THE WAY THAT SOCIETY VIEWS THEM? IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THESE
ALTERNATIVES HAVEN’T BEEN IMPLEMENTED?
V. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS,
FEASIBILITY & IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES {OR THIS SECTION IS SOMETIMES
CALLED – “ACTION PLAN” (PROACTIVE CONNOTATION)}
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO FORMULATE AN
EFFECTIVE POLICY PROPOSAL FOR THE PROBLEM YOU ARE ADDRESSING, DEMONSTRATE THAT
YOUR PROPOSAL IS PRACTICAL AND FEASIBLE, AND PROVE THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WILL
WORK. THE QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
·
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOUR GROUP IS PROPOSING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM? WHAT
SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL GUIDELINES WILL YOUR POLICY PROVIDE?
·
HOW DOES YOUR POLICY
PROPOSAL SOLVE THE PROBLEM BETTER THAN CURRENT POLICY OR ANY OF THE
ALTERNATIVES? WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU OFFER THAT DEMONSTRATES YOUR PROPOSAL WILL
BE EFFECTIVE? WHAT REASONING AND/OR EVIDENCE CAN YOU PROVIDE THAT DEMONSTRATES
YOUR PROPOSAL IS FEASIBLE AND WORKABLE?
·
WHAT LEGISLATIVE BODY,
AGENCY, OR OTHER POLICY-MAKING GROUP WILL NEED TO APPROVE YOUR PROPOSAL IN
ORDER FOR IT TO BE IMPLEMENTED? WHAT AGENCY OR GROUP WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ADMINISTERING YOUR PROPOSAL?
·
HOW MIGHT YOU GO ABOUT
INFLUENCING THESE SPECIFIC GROUPS SO THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WILL BE ADOPTED? WHAT
SPOKESPERSONS OR POLICY MAKERS MIGHT REALISTICALLY BE INTERESTED IN SUPPORTING
YOUR PROPOSAL? WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU PROVIDE WHICH INDICATES THESE PEOPLE WILL
BE LIKELY TO SERVE AS ADVOCATES FOR YOUR PROPOSAL? WHAT OTHER GROUPS MIGHT YOU
ENTICE TO FORM A COALITION IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PROPOSAL? WHAT OTHER
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES MIGHT YOU USE TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR YOUR PROPOSAL?
·
WHAT ARE THE MOST
CRITICAL OBSTACLES (FINANCIAL, LEGAL, ETHICAL, OR POLITICAL) YOU ANTICIPATE IN
IMPLEMENTING YOUR POLICY PROPOSAL? HOW DO YOU PLAN TO OVERCOME THESE OBSTACLES?
WHAT POLICY-MAKERS OR GROUPS MIGHT BE OPPOSED TO YOUR PROPOSAL? WHY WOULD THEY
BE OPPOSED TO YOUR PROPOSAL? HOW WILL YOU COUNTERACT THE INFLUENCE OF THESE
POLICY-MAKERS AND GROUPS?
·
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS OR ADVANTAGES OF YOUR PROPOSAL? IF YOUR POLICY PROPOSAL IS ADOPTED, HOW
SOON MIGHT WE SEE RESULTS? WHAT CHANGES CAN WE EXPECT TO SEE RIGHT AWAY? FIVE
YEARS FROM NOW?
VI. SUMMATION AND CONCLUSION
THIS SECTION IS THE CAPSTONE OF YOUR POLICY PAPER,
AND, AS SUCH, SHOULD BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE. THIS SECTION
SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A FINAL PERSUASIVE APPEAL TO YOU READER(S).
VII. WORKS CITED OR REFERENCE
PAGE
THIS SECTION CONTAINS THE WORKS CITED PAGE (FOR MLA)
OR REFERENCE PAGE (FOR APA). ONLY LIST REFERENCES CITED IN THE TEXT OF THE PAPER.
FOLLOW APA/MLA PROCEDURES WHEN FORMATTING EACH REFERENCE.
·
·
·
EX: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY
OF HEALTH INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET - POLICY PAPER
·
·
{{[1] AIMS TO IDENTIFY KEY POLICY ISSUES; [2]
APPLY THE BEST AND MOST UP-TO-DATE RESEARCH TO HELP UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES;
AND TO [3] EXPLORE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONDUCT OF POLICY}}
·
·
{{THIS POLICY PAPER
PRESENTS A SET OF SEVEN CRITERIA DEVELOPED FOR USE IN EVALUATING THE
QUALITY OF HEALTH INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE INTERNET. IT IS HOPED THAT
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WILL BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS IMPORTANT
EFFORT AT SOME LEVEL, (1) WHETHER IT BE SUPPORTING AND/OR ENDORSING THE
POLICY PAPER, (2) ADOPTING THE USE OF THE SET OF CRITERIA, (3) JOINING
THE HEALTH SUMMIT WORKING GROUP, OR (4) EDUCATING
OTHERS ON THIS TOPIC.}}
·
...
·
·
CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATING INTERNET HEALTH INFORMATION
·
1.
CREDIBILITY: INCLUDES THE SOURCE, CURRENCY, RELEVANCE/UTILITY,
AND EDITORIAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE INFORMATION.
2.
CONTENT: MUST BE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE, AND AN APPROPRIATE
DISCLAIMER PROVIDED.
3.
DISCLOSURE: INCLUDES INFORMING THE USER OF THE PURPOSE OF THE
SITE, AS WELL AS ANY PROFILING OR COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH USING
THE SITE.
4.
LINKS: EVALUATED ACCORDING TO SELECTION, ARCHITECTURE,
CONTENT, AND BACK LINKAGES.
5.
DESIGN: ENCOMPASSES ACCESSIBILITY, LOGICAL ORGANIZATION
(NAVIGABILITY), AND INTERNAL SEARCH CAPABILITY.
6.
INTERACTIVITY: INCLUDES FEEDBACK MECHANISMS AND MEANS FOR EXCHANGE
OF INFORMATION AMONG USERS.
7.
CAVEATS: CLARIFICATION OF WHETHER SITE FUNCTION IS TO MARKET
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OR IS A PRIMARY INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER. {SEE
MISCELLANEOUS FOR EXTENDED VERSION}
_________________________________________________________________________________________
{MY ISSUE}: YOUTH CRIME AND
NEW “THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT”
–
[[ ONE MAIN FOCUS OF NEW ACT IS TO EXPLORE
ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION; AND MEASURES OUTSIDE THE FORMAL COURT PROCESS;
PARTICULARLY FOR MINOR OFFENCES; THEREFORE THE FEDS HAVE DEVELOPED A YOUTH
JUSTICE STRATEGY:
A NEW APPROACH THAT SEEKS –
•
FLEXIBILITY FOR THE
PROVINCES
•
TREATING VIOLENT AND
NON-VIOLENT CRIMES DIFFERENTLY
•
A COOPERATIVE,
INTEGRATED APPROACH TO YOUTH CRIME
•
CHILDREN AS A
NATIONAL PRIORITY
[[[THE POLICY PAPER – CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
“YOUTH OFFENDER TEAMS” (YOUNG PEOPLE, POLICE, COMMUNITIES, PROFESSIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS, AND SCHOOLS) AS A CRIME REDUCTION/COMMUNITY SAFETY STRATEGY.
THIS IS AN INITIATIVE TAKEN TO DEVELOP CRIME
PREVENTION SCHEMES IN ENGLAND – FORMED PARTNERSHIPS THAT CAN STRENGTHEN
INITIATIVES FOR PREVENTING YOUTH CRIME – INVOLVING YOUNG PEOPLE, COMMUNITIES
AND SCHOOLS THROUGH LOCAL PROGRAMMES, BASED ON SCHOOLS, TO REDUCE THE DRIFT
TO STREET AND OTHER FORMS OF CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – A NETWORK
FOR THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICE,
IDENTIFYING WHAT WORKS AND SOURCES OF FINANCE, WILL BE CREATED INCLUDING A NEW
WEB-SITE, NEWSLETTER, SEMINARS AND OTHER LINKS BETWEEN COMMUNITIES – BUILDING ON THE CRIME REDUCTION PARTNERSHIPS
(TO GO ALONG WITH DRUG ACTION TEAMS; EDUCATION AWARENESS INITIATIVES; OTHER
CRIME REDUCTION/COMMUNITY SAFETY INITIATIVES.)
IN CANADA – YOUTH
REFERRAL PILOT PROGRAM [THE NEW ACT PROVIDES A MODEL FOR
EXTRAJUDICIAL MEASURES TO DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH LESS SERIOUS OFFENDERS FOR LESS
SERIOUS YOUTH CRIMES, MOST OF WHICH ARE COMMITTED BY FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS] –
SPRINGBOARD'S EMPLOYMENT “RESOURCE ROOM” FOR AT-RISK SCARBOROUGH YOUTH, SERVES
AS HOME BASE FOR THE ATTENDANCE PROGRAM – EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING EDUCATIONAL AND
LITERACY, SUBSTANCE ABUSE, ANGER
MANAGEMENT, COGNITIVE TRAINING, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, LIFE SKILLS, GANG
INTERVENTION, ANTI-RACISM, HOMEWORK SUPPORTS,
ACCESS TO FAMILY AND PERSONAL COUNSELING, HOUSING OR OTHER NEEDED
SERVICES.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDICES
GROUP
POLICY PAPER
YOUR
GROUP WILL WRITE A POLICY PAPER ON THE TOPIC YOUR GROUP HAS SELECTED. TO
COMPLETE THIS ASSIGNMENT, YOUR GROUP WILL NEED TO REFINE AND EXPAND ON THE
IDEAS DISCUSSED IN YOUR BACKGROUND PAPERS, CURRENT POLICIES/ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTIONS PAPERS, AND EXERCISES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING YOUR PROPOSAL. YOUR
GROUP ALSO WILL NEED TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOP A DEFENSIBLE PLAN (POLICY
PROPOSAL) FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM AND FORMULATE WORKABLE STRATEGIES FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN. YOUR PAPER SHOULD BE 25 TO 30 PAGES LONG, INCLUDING
A WORKS CITED OR REFERENCE LIST. THE SEVEN SECTIONS OF THE PAPER ARE
DESCRIBED BELOW. USE SECTION HEADINGS FOR THE MAJOR SECTIONS OF THE PAPER. (FOR
INFORMATION ON SECTION HEADINGS, SEE KEYS FOR WRITERS, PP. 181, 223).
REMEMBER,
EACH GROUP NEEDS TO SUBMIT TWO COPIES OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE POLICY PAPER.
THE SECOND COPY WILL BE USED FOR PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT.
LEARNING
OBJECTIVES
•
ANALYZING A CURRENT SOCIAL ISSUE.
•
CONDUCTING EFFECTIVE RESEARCH ON A POLICY PROPOSAL.
•
WORKING EFFECTIVELY AS A GROUP IN DEVELOPING AND WRITING A POLICY PROPOSAL.
• WRITING
A COHERENT AND DEFENSIBLE POLICY PROPOSAL.
SECTIONS
OF THE POLICY PAPER.
THE INITIAL
SECTIONS OF THE PAPER ESTABLISH THE BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR YOUR POLICY
PROPOSAL WHEREAS THE LAST SECTION DISCUSSES YOUR PLAN FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM
AND THE PRACTICALITY OF THE PLAN. USE THE QUESTIONS LISTED UNDER EACH
SECTION BELOW TO DIRECT YOUR THINKING. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED AS A LOCK-STEP
OUTLINE. YOU MAY RE-ORDER THE SUB-TOPICS ADDRESSED IN THE QUESTIONS TO PROVIDE
THE MOST SENSIBLE ORGANIZATION FOR YOUR PAPER.
TYPICALLY,
ONE PERSON IN YOUR GROUP WILL BE IN CHARGE OF ONE SECTION. HOWEVER, KEEP IN
MIND THAT THE ENTIRE PAPER MUST READ AS A COHERENT PAPER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE
GROUP MUST SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE AND DEVELOP IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS WHICH LOGICALLY
AND DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE POLICY PROPOSAL. THE PAPER WILL BE EVALUATED ON HOW
COGENTLY AND THOUGHTFULLY YOUR GROUP ANALYZES THE TOPIC, HOW ACCURATELY YOUR
GROUP INTERPRETS AND INCORPORATES EVIDENCE, HOW JUDICIOUSLY YOUR GROUP USES
NON-FALLACIOUS REASONING, AND HOW EFFECTIVELY THE PAPER INCORPORATES A VARIETY
OF CREDIBLE SOURCES. IN ADDITION, THE PAPER WILL BE EVALUATED ON RICHNESS OF
VOCABULARY, MECHANICS OF WRITING, AND ADHERENCE TO PROPER DOCUMENTATION
PROCEDURES.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
YOUR
INTRODUCTION SHOULD CONTAIN A THESIS STATEMENT THAT IS PERHAPS IN THE FORM OF A
PREDICTED OUTCOME OF SOME REFORM PROPOSAL.
THIS SECTION SHOULD ALSO IDENTIFY THE ISSUE. DON’T CONFUSE ISSUE WITH
THESIS. YOUR THESIS MIGHT BE THAT A
PARTICULAR DEFENSE REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL WOULD FAIL DUE TO SERVICE
RESISTANCE; BUT THE ISSUE IS DEFENSE REORGANIZATION.
YOU PROBABLY CANNOT WRITE THE THESIS
STATEMENT BEFORE YOU CONDUCT YOUR STUDY.
TAKE A STAB AT IT IN THE BEGINNING, AND THEN RETURN WHEN YOU’VE FINISHED
YOUR CONCLUSION. YOU’RE NOT WRITING A
MYSTERY NOVEL. THE READER SHOULDN’T
HAVE TO GUESS WHERE YOU’RE GOING.
WHEN YOU’RE FINALLY READY TO WRITE THE
INTRODUCTION, CHECK TO MAKE SURE YOU’VE MET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. THE ISSUE MUST BE CLEAR. YOUR THESIS MUST BE CLEAR. THE READER MUST UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’RE
TALKING ABOUT AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM AND THAT YOU HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION
TO MAKE.
SCHOOLS
OF THOUGHT
THIS SECTION SHOULD MAP OUT THE LOGIC OF
CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATING TO THE CHOSEN ISSUE.
BY CONDUCTING SCHOLARLY RESEARCH, YOU WILL FIND THAT RESPECTED SCHOLARS
AND AUTHORITIES DIFFER ON HOW TO APPROACH YOUR CHOSEN ISSUE. IF THERE IS NO SCHOLARLY CONTROVERSY, THERE
IS NO REASON FOR DOING SCHOLARLY RESEARCH.
THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. “FOR” AND “AGAINST” A PROPOSAL ARE NOT
SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. THE READER ISN’T
INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINION HERE. THIS
ISN’T INTENDED FOR THE EDITORIAL PAGE.
HONESTLY AND EVEN-HANDEDLY DESCRIBE THE MAJOR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.
ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCHOOLS
OF THOUGHT SECTION IS TO PROVE TO YOUR AUDIENCE (YOUR THESIS COMMITTEE) THAT
YOU’VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. ANOTHER
REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU MUST SET THE STAGE FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION; YOU MIGHT
REFUTE OR CONFIRM SOME ELEMENTS OF ONE OF THE SCHOOLS. REMEMBER, YOUR THESIS MUST ADD TO THE
EXISTING BASE OF KNOWLEDGE.
WHILE YOU ARE RESEARCHING YOUR ISSUE,
YOU WILL UNDOUBTEDLY FIND THESE SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. MAKE A POINT TO BE LOOKING FOR THEM WHENEVER YOU ARE
READING. WHEN YOU ENCOUNTER ONE, RUSH
TO YOUR WORD PROCESSOR AND MAKE A SUBSECTION WITH A FOOTNOTE TO THE SOURCE YOU
ARE READING.1 GIVE THE HEADING A NAME
THAT YOU CAN REMEMBER. THEN CAPTURE THE
ELEMENTS OF THIS SCHOOL’S THINKING.
YOU’LL HATE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND READ A COUPLE OF HUNDRED
PAGES TRYING TO FIND A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT YOU ONCE STUMBLED OVER. BY CAPTURING THIS MATERIAL IN THIS FASHION,
YOU AUTOMATICALLY WILL BE BUILDING YOUR THESIS.
ISSUE
HISTORY
CONTINUING WITH THE DEFENSE
REORGANIZATION EXAMPLE, THE ISSUE HISTORY WOULD PROBABLY BE A LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY. CONGRESS HAS PLAYED A STRONG
ROLE IN THIS AREA. TELL THAT
STORY. MAJOR LEGISLATION WAS PASSED IN
1947, 1949, AND EVERY FEW YEARS AFTER UNTIL THE MOST RECENT ROUND OF
LEGISLATION IN 1986. EVENTS IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, EVEN WARS, MAY HAVE PRECIPITATED LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE. CAPTURE THAT STORY AS WELL.
IF YOU ISSUE IS A SINGLE LEGISLATIVE
ACT, YOU MAY WANT TO CAPTURE PREVIOUS LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS, THE EVENTS THAT
MAKE THE LEGISLATION RIPE NOW, THE DATES STEPS ALONG THE LEGISLATIVE PATH WERE
TAKEN, AND ANY SERENDIPITOUS EVENTS ALONG THE WAY.
IF YOU CAN’T FIND A HISTORY FOR YOUR
ISSUE, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN’T IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE RICH ENOUGH FOR A MASTER’S
THESIS. THIS SECTION, TOO, SERVES TO
DEMONSTRATE TO YOUR READER THAT YOU’VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK.
AS IN YOUR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT SECTION,
YOU WILL UNDOUBTEDLY ENCOUNTER ELEMENTS OF ISSUE HISTORY AS YOU READ BOOKS AND
JOURNAL ARTICLES. DON’T MAKE THE
MISTAKE OF NODDING YOUR HEAD UP AND DOWN SAYING THAT’S INTERESTING, I MUST
REMEMBER THIS WHEN I START TO WRITE MY THESIS.? WRITE IT DOWN IMMEDIATELY.
MAKE FOOTNOTES TO THE REFERENCE.
CAPTURE PAGE NUMBERS. YOUR
THESIS IS WRITING ITSELF AS YOU READ.
THE KEY IS TO BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR ISSUE HISTORY.
STAKEHOLDERS,
PLAYERS, PROCESS
STAKEHOLDERS ARE THOSE PARTIES WHO HAVE
SOMETHING TO WIN OR LOSE FROM THE REFORM PROPOSAL. THERE MAY BE OTHER PLAYERS OR DECISION-MAKERS WHO HAVE NOTHING TO
LOSE OR WIN BUT WILL PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN LEGISLATING OR IMPLEMENTING THE
REFORM. AND, THERE IS A PROCESS THROUGH
WHICH THE REFORM WILL BE DECIDED, E.G., AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION,
APPROPRIATIONS, OR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS. THERE MAY BE A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY. A PLAYER IN
ONE MIGHT BE A STAKEHOLDER IN THE OTHER.
IF THERE ARE TWO MAJOR PLAYERS, EACH
WITH A VESTED INTEREST, YOU MIGHT EXPECT THAT THEY HAVE ARTICULATED A SCHOOL OF
THOUGHT TO SUPPORT THEIR INTERESTS.
UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, THIS SECTION MIGHT MERGE WITH THE SCHOOLS OF
THOUGHT SECTION. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU MAY
FIND THAT YOUR ISSUE HAS BEEN THROUGH A PROCESS SEVERAL TIMES AND, THUS, THIS
SECTION MIGHT BE BETTER ADDRESSED IN THE ISSUE HISTORY SECTION.
THIS SECTION DEMONSTRATES TO THE READER
THAT YOU HAVE A GRASP OF THE PRAGMATICS OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND THAT
YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS IS A STRONGER REQUIREMENT IN A POLICY
RELEVANT THESIS THAN IN A PURELY SCHOLARLY RESEARCH THESIS.
RESEARCH
DESIGN
AT THIS POINT, YOU’VE SET UP THE PROBLEM
FOR THE READER. THEY BELIEVE YOU
UNDERSTAND WHAT’S GONE ON BEFORE. NOW
YOU’RE SHIFTING TO WHAT WILL BECOME YOUR ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION. THE REQUIREMENT IS TO DESCRIBE PRECISELY
WHAT YOUR RESEARCH SEEKS TO SHOW, AND HOW YOU HAVE PROCEEDED TO GATHER
INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT SUGGESTS THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF YOUR
CONCLUSIONS. DON’T BE AFRAID TO
IDENTIFY YOUR WEAKNESSES. THIS SECTION
IS OFTEN TITLED SIMPLY ?METHODOLOGY.?
IF, AS IS SUGGESTED IN THE METHODS OF
SOCIAL INQUIRY CLASS, YOU TOOK THE TIME TO CREATE A PROJECT PROSPECTUS OR
RESEARCH PLAN, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO PLUG IT IN HERE AS A FIRST CUT. NO DOUBT YOUR RESEARCH PLAN WILL FAIL YOU IN
SOME WAY. THINGS NEVER WORK OUT THE WAY
WE PLAN. BRING THIS SECTION IN LINE
WITH THE RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID.
DATA
AND ANALYSIS
IN A FULL THESIS, DATA MIGHT BE BEST
PRESENTED IN AN APPENDIX. MAKE A
JUDGEMENT CALL. EITHER PUT IT HERE OR
PUT IT IN AN APPENDIX AND SUMMARIZE IT HERE.
THE ANALYSIS MIGHT BE HIGHLY QUANTITATIVE OR JUST PURE DEDUCTIVE
LOGIC. ANALYSIS MIGHT ALSO BE CONDUCTED
THROUGH SEVERAL CASE STUDIES.
YOU MAY FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE GATHERED
SUPPORTS ONE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT AND REFUTES ANOTHER. SINCE POLICY ISSUES TEND TO BE QUITE COMPLEX, ANOTHER COMMON
OUTCOME OF ANALYSIS IS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS INCONSISTENT, CONTRADICTORY, AND
INCONCLUSIVE. SAY SO.
CLOSING
SECTION
YOUR CONCLUSIONS SHOULD FOLLOW DIRECTLY
FROM YOUR ANALYSIS. RESTATE YOU THESIS,
RECALL YOUR EVIDENCE, AND SUMMARIZE YOUR LOGICAL ARGUMENT. IF YOU CAN WRITE THE CONCLUSION BEFORE DOING
THE RESEARCH, YOU ARE NOT WRITING A SCHOLARLY THESIS, YOU ARE WRITING A LARGE
EDITORIAL.
I OFTEN FIND IT CONVENIENT TO SEPARATE
WHAT I LEARN IN RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS INTO THREE CATEGORIES: FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF IT HELPS, USE IT, BUT DON’T FEEL COMPELLED TO LEAVE THE STRUCTURE IN
YOUR FINAL THESIS.
FINDINGS
SOME THINGS ARE FINDINGS OF FACT. NO READER SHOULD BE ABLE TO ARGUE WITH
FINDINGS OF FACT. THEY MAY NOT LIKE
THEM, BUT YOU’LL HAVE ALL OF YOUR SOURCES IDENTIFIED, AND YOUR DISAPPROVING
READER WILL HAVE TO ATTACK SOMEONE ELSE.
MAKE SURE YOUR SOURCES ARE GOOD ONES.
CONCLUSIONS
SOLID, CLEAR LOGIC IS USED TO WEAVE
TOGETHER FINDINGS TO PRODUCE CONCLUSIONS.
ONE MIGHT EXPECT ANOTHER TO ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, BUT YOUR
LOGIC SHOULD BE SUPPORTABLE. THOSE
INCLINED TO PUT ASIDE THEIR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS SHOULD FIND YOUR CONCLUSIONS
REASONABLE. IF ANOTHER READER CAN
REFUTE YOUR CONCLUSIONS, THAT’S JUST FINE.
THAT’S WHAT SCHOLARLY WORK IS ABOUT.
THESIS, ANTITHESIS, SYNTHESIS, AS HEGEL WOULD SAY.
RECOMMENDATIONS
BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT, LOGICALLY
DERIVED CONCLUSIONS, CREDIBLE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO MOVE
INTO THE WORLD OF THE PREDICTIVE THESIS.
THAT IS, BASED ON EVERYTHING YOU’VE PRESENTED SO FAR, YOU CAN PREDICT A
CERTAIN OUTCOME, E.G., THE EVENTUAL COLLAPSE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST
FUND. THEN THE TITLE OF THIS SUBSECTION
WOULDN’T BE “RECOMMENDATIONS” BUT SOMETHING ELSE.
IF YOUR WORK JUSTIFIES IT, YOU MAY BE
ABLE TO PRODUCE A PRESCRIPTIVE THESIS.
THAT IS, YOU CAN PRESCRIBE A COURSE OF ACTION THAT WILL ACHIEVE A
DESIRED SOCIAL OUTCOME, E.G., WHAT POLICY ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN NOW TO PREVENT
THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND.
YOUR
VIEW
YOU HAVE NOW EARNED THE RIGHT TO SAY
WHAT’S ON YOUR MIND. IF YOUR ANALYSIS
SAYS THE REFORM WILL FAIL, BUT YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT WHY IT SHOULD PASS IN
THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, THIS IS THE PLACE TO SAY IT.
NOW GO BACK AND WRITE YOUR
INTRODUCTION, THE PART I ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH THE MOST.
DO NOT
ASSUME THAT THIS OUTLINE AND THESE HEADING TITLES WILL BE RIGHT FOR YOUR FINAL
PRODUCT. IT IS OFFERED AS A POINT OF
DEPARTURE. AS INDICATED ABOVE, SOME OF
THESE SECTIONS MIGHT PROFITABLY BE COMBINED AND REORDERED. YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL HOW TO COMMUNICATE
YOUR RESULTS UNTIL FAIRLY LATE IN THE PROCESS.
YOU CAN, HOWEVER, BE CONFIDENT THAT THE ORDER YOU FOLLOWED CONDUCTING
RESEARCH IS THE WRONG ORDER FOR FINAL EXPOSITION. THE FINAL PRODUCT MUST BE STRUCTURED FOR THE CONSUMER, NOT THE
PRODUCER.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
A
GOOD POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER COVERS EACH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS (THE WEIGHTING
GIVEN TO EACH SECTION WILL VARY DEPENDING ON THE TOPIC):
ISSUE
DEFINITION: THE POLICY DECISION IS
ARTICULATED AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IS ESTABLISHED.
BACKGROUND:
ALL BACKGROUND INFORMATION (TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, ETC.) NECESSARY TO PLACE THE
DECISION IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT IS GIVEN.
POLICY
OPTIONS: THE VARIOUS POLICY OPTIONS
THAT THE DECISION-MAKER MUST DECIDE BETWEEN ARE PRESENTED AND DESCRIBED.
POLICY
ANALYSIS: THE PROS AND CONS OF EACH
OPTION ARE EXPLAINED. THE VALUE TRADE-OFFS IMPLICIT IN CHOOSING ONE OPTION OVER
ANOTHER ARE EXPLAINED.
RECOMMENDATION: BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, A RECOMMENDATION IS MADE. THE
BIASES AND JUDGMENT FACTORS THAT WENT INTO THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE
EXPLAINED. YOU SHOULD SUMMARIZE YOUR RECOMMENDATION CONCISELY AT THE VERY START
OF YOUR PAPER.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
POLICY PAPER ON DIVERSITY ISSUES FOR NGOS’S:
1.
PERFORMING A
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN TO IDENTIFY THE SCOPE OF DIVERSITY WITHIN
THE REGION;
2.
ANALYZING AND
EVALUATING ACTIVITIES TO IDENTIFY DIVERSITY GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES.
3.
DEVELOPING
APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXTERNAL PARTNERS AND WITHIN DIVERSE COMMUNITIES TO ASSIST THE REGION
IN IDENTIFYING DIVERSITY NEEDS.
4.
STRENGTHENING
DIVERSITY WITHIN THE VOLUNTEER BASE WITH THE REGION/UNIT/BRANCH, PARTICULARLY THROUGH
RECRUITMENT/RETENTION STRATEGIES AND IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES AND MEANS FOR
DIVERSE GROUPS TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN AND /OR VOLUNTEER FOR THE CANADIAN
CANCER SOCIETY.
5.
PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE
UNIT OFFICES IN THE VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE, ASSISTING
IN PLANNING, SURVEYS AND ASSOCIATED BUDGETS TO INTEGRATE DIVERSITY INTO DAILY
OPERATIONS.
6.
WORKING WITH STAFF AND
VOLUNTEERS TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
RESOURCE MATERIALS TO PROMOTE BETTER ACCESS TO SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.
7.
WORKING CLOSELY WITH KEY
STAFF TO COORDINATE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS TO CREATE AWARENESS
WITHIN THE REGION.
8.
IMPLEMENTING ONTARIO DIVISION - CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY DIVERSITY
POLICY, PHILOSOPHY AND STRATEGY TO ENSURE THE
SOCIETY'S STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE OF AND SENSITIVE TO THE
NEEDS OF DIVERSE GROUPS.
________________________________________________________________________________________
1.
RESEARCH
EXISTING EVALUATION METHODS,
INCLUDING IN-DEPTH MEETINGS WITH OTHER UNITED WAYS.
1.
DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT A BASE-LINE SURVEY
FOR ORGANIZATIONS TO IDENTIFY CURRENT EVALUATION PRACTICES.
2.
ESTABLISH A
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PEOD) PROCESS ADVISORY GROUP THAT WILL MEET AT LEAST 10 TIMES
THROUGH THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.
3.
ASSESS STATUS OF
EVALUATION AT PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS AND DELIVER APPROPRIATE
WORKSHOPS GEARED TO THEIR LEVEL OF COMPETENCY.
4.
DEVELOP A
3-YEAR PLAN TO IMPLEMENT OUTCOME MEASUREMENT TRAINING THROUGH VARIOUS METHODS (WORKSHOPS, CUSTOMIZED
CONSULTATION, DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES ETC.)
5.
DEVELOP
COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION STRATEGY WITH AGENCIES.
6.
PROVIDE GENERAL
EVALUATION WORKSHOPS TO
UNITED WAY STAFF.
7.
DEVELOP A
RESOURCE GROUP OF TRAINED VOLUNTEERS WITH EXPERTISE IN EVALUATION TO PROVIDE ONGOING TRAINING.
8.
REVIEW AND
REVISE PROCESS AND MATERIALS ACCORDING TO WORKSHOPS AND CONSULTATIONS.
9.
TRAIN UNITED
WAY VOLUNTEERS (CITIZEN
REVIEW, BOARD, COMMUNITY INVESTMENT CABINET) ON PROGRAM EVALUATION.