Identifying Problems and Research Questions in IR Clayton Thyne PS 235: World Politics Spring 2010 Note: This is best viewed as a slide show (otherwise the animations will be screwed up). Hit F5 now to proceed.

-write the abstract once the paper is finished -a quote is a good way to start the paper – catches the reader’s attention. Use quotes from famous people, though. Paper 1: Bartilow and Eom (2009)

Begins w/ link to other lit/controversy – a way to tie the topic w/ previous literature that is tangentially related. Very clear statement of purpose. They didn’t mention the theory yet or the specific question, but the topic is very clear. The topic should clearly state the IV(s) and DV. -IV = openness to trade -DV = ability of states to respond to drugs Paper 1: Bartilow and Eom (2009)

2 nd paragraph begins w/ a very clear research question. Highlights puzzle in the existing literature – foreshadows what will come in the more extensive literature review Highlights the contributions of the paper – the point here is to sell the paper (keep the reader reading). Paper 1: Bartilow and Eom (2009)

Defining the key terms, which are the IVs (explanatory variables) Previewing the theoretical expectations… -trade openness  enhance drug interdiction in drug-producing countries -trade openness  weaker drug interdiction in drug-consuming countries -trade openness  limited effect on interdiction among transit-center countries Previews empirical tests Paper 1: Bartilow and Eom (2009)

Intro concludes with an outline of how the paper will proceed. Paper 1: Bartilow and Eom (2009) …and then flows into the literature review (2 nd part of your culminating assignment)

Paper 2: Kadera & Morey (2008) -quickly identify state options (the puzzle), and then state research question -further explain state options; set them up at IVs (explanatory variables) -during peace, econ investment  long-term growth, but bad if combat is coming soon -during war, fighting between forces  long struggle…or… -during war, fighting to kill other’s industry  quick engagement

-preview theoretical approach -sell the importance of the paper Paper 2: Kadera & Morey (2008)

-further motivate by tying to specific literature

Intro concludes with an outline of how the paper will proceed. …and then flows into the literature review (2 nd part of your culminating assignment) Paper 2: Kadera & Morey (2008)

Paper 3: Thyne & Moreno (2008) Begins w/ a historical discussion Transitions to the puzzle – why we should care (it matters for democracy)

Paper 3: Thyne & Moreno (2008) Briefly review the literature on this specific topic Present broad puzzle Clearly define research question

Situate paper within existing literature, and then note the puzzle. Preview the theoretical argument… -strong executives  strong ability to pass ed reforms -weak executives  weak ability to pass ed reforms Paper 3: Thyne & Moreno (2008)

Intro concludes with foreshadowing of empirical tests. …and then flows into the literature review (2 nd part of your culminating assignment) Paper 3: Thyne & Moreno (2008)

Paper 4: Wallace (2008)

Hole missing in the literature Conventional wisdom – what most people expect to see The puzzle – expectations do not match reality Paper 4: Wallace (2008)

Clearly identifies IV (alliance institutionalization) and DV (national military strategy). Identifies 2 bodies of literature that he will attempt to merge.Foreshadows empirical tests. Promotes importance of this work.

Intro concludes by outlining the paper to come. …and then flows into the literature review (2 nd part of your culminating assignment) Paper 4: Wallace (2008)

Summary: Commonalities (i.e., things you should do) briefly link topic to existing literature, noting existing hole you seek to fill clearly state purpose/topic clearly state research question clearly state IVs and DVs briefly explain theory – how are IVs and DVs linked? Why? briefly explain how you will test your theory foreshadowing paper to come (identify main sections) attempt to sell the paper (why should we care?)

Summary: Things you didn’t see (i.e., things to avoid) A long discussion of anything (keep it brief) Sweeping condemnations of the literature (we ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ Ambiguous statements (clearly define IVs and DVs)