Political Science 313 Final Project
Your final project will require you to apply conceptual comparative public policy frameworks to major policy issues within the IMMIGRATION policy. You will choose three countries to evaluate (OECD countries ONLY). Policy papers should be 10-12 pages (single spaced but including graphs and tables).
Your policy papers should include the following sections:
Executive Summary: A 1-page executive summary. An executive summary is not an introduction. Since this is an example of professional writing, you should organize your paper into section.
Introduction: Introduce the problems you intend to analyse, the comparative frameworks of analysis, and case studies areas. Provide a road map to the reader, and key arguments you intend to support.
Literature review (at least 8-10 sources): Your literature review should present a theoretical framework which provides an overview of the key thematic debates, comparative methods of analysis; and appropriate research questions. Your literature review should help you identify specific outcomes that you can use to analyse your case studies. Your sources should be primary and secondary. Newspaper articles can be used in addition to these sources, but will not count towards your minimum number of sources. You need to use at least 4 scholarly articles or books.
[place-order]
Description and Analysis of the Statue Quo: Describe the policies in your country of origin. You will also provide evidence of the problem and discuss and analysis the current “status quo” policy in your country of origin (Country A). Use key terms from the literature to analyse the status quo policy in Country A.
Comparative Case Study Presentation: You will compare the status quo policy in your country of origin to two other countries. First you need to provide background on how the policies in Country B and Country C compare and contrast with Country A.
Presentation of Evidence/Outcomes: This section should contain 4 sub sections. The first will introduce the outcomes. The next sections with be Outcome 1, Outcome 2, Outcome 3 (for example Access, Cost). In each outcome section you should employ the use of multiple indicators. You will compare and contrast outcomes in country A to countries B and C (systematically!).
Analysis of Outcomes: In this section you will draw conclusions from the data. Refer back to Bloom’s Rubric.
| Analysis | Entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. |
| Synthesis | Puts analytical components together in a new way. Produce unique communication, an original plan, set of operations, or set of relations. |
| Evaluation | Explains the value of previous analytical arrangements and subsequent synthesized arrangements. Weighs alternatives to justify a decision about the best choice. |
Recommendations: Based on the outcomes you have analysed. What should country A do? Should it stick with the status quo or adopt policy changes used in countries B and C? In this section you will include economic feasibility analysis (Cost/Benefit or Cost/Effectiveness) and the political feasibility analysis (Prince Method). Political Science 313 Final Project
[place-order]
Grading Rubric Social Science Policy Analysis
Student Paper:
| Assignment Criteria | 4 = A Excellent | 3 = B Good | 2 = C Adequate | 1 = D Marginal |
| Literature Review and Problem Definition (20%) The student provided a statement of the problem and problem definition, including proper explanation of the problem, quantification of problem, and framing of problem using key terms from existing literature. |
|
|
||
| Review of Policy Models (10%) The student provided an overview and comparison of three different policy models explaining policy goals, administration, and comparative design features. | ||||
| Evaluation of Evidence (30%) The student identified criteria, compared criteria across each policy option and provided a critical evaluation of the evidence found. Analysis includes the main arguments for and against each policy option. | ||||
| Policy Recommendation (30%) The student developed a specific policy recommendation, included a political feasibility analysis, and action steps needed to implement a policy. Recommendation was persuasive and anticipated arguments against the policy. | ||||
| Writing Quality and Sources (10%) The student’s writing is clear and concise and does not require significant work by the audience to fill in needed information or to ignore linguistic distractions. Paper is properly cited and draws from a variety of appropriate sources. |