POLICY
PAPER WRITING
MODULE
# 11
...
DISCUSSION/POLICY PAPER –
CLOSING SECTION
YOUR
CONCLUSIONS SHOULD FOLLOW DIRECTLY FROM YOUR ANALYSIS. RESTATE YOUR 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.