Submission 3 April 8, 2013

Opportunities to discuss course content Monday 10-2 Tuesday 1-2

CLEARLY STATED LEARNING OUTCOMES

Submission 3 Outcomes Identify the issues associated with the controversy, the arguments made by stakeholders, and the plans each side is making to ensure their position is the one enacted; Evaluate the argumentation of each position, including an analysis of logic and evidence; Evaluate each position from the perspective of moral reasoning, including an analysis of values, obligations, consequences, and normative principles;

EXPERT INTERVIEWS

Identifying experts Education and/or work experience in the area Not just people with opinions

How Many Experts Two total – 1 For Each Side You must include the contact information in your research file No anonymous interviews

What You Cannot Do Interview family members SEU affiliates Interview via telephone

Finding interviewees Ask your professors Check the internet Elected officials LBJ School/UT Interest groups in Town

THE QUESTIONS

Writing your questionnaire P in Handbook Ask About issues (3-5 questions) Ask About moral reasoning (consequences) Ask About your conclusion/solution Ask each interviewee the same questions.

WRONG QUESTIONS! What do you know about the controversy? Where do you stand on the controversy? (This is too much in your face) Personal information, questions that put people in awkward situations.

Setting up the interviews Start now. Contact at least 3X as many people as you need. Be professional – these people are doing you a favor. Prepare to describe Capstone and your controversy quickly.

Setting Up the Interviews Have a phone where you can be reached or a message can be left. Ask for a time you can call back. Ask for referrals. Be persistent.

THE INTERVIEW

Be Safe Meet in a professional place Bring Back-up if necessary Stop the interview if you feel uncomfortable

Conducting the interview Be on time. Dress appropriately. Taping: – Pre-ask – Be prepared Take notes efficiently.

Conducting the Interview Listen. – You are a reporter, not a debater. Maintain control. – Keep the interview focused. Remain courteous and open-minded. Thank you note- you are representing future generations of St. Edward’s students.

WRITING IT UP

Writing Up the Results of Interviews Do it as soon as possible You can always come back to it You will address this in your final oral presentation and paper

Write-up: The questions Report on every question Direct quotation: – Use sparingly

Write-up: The analysis “Feel” of the interviews Interviewees: – Knowledgeable? – Open-minded? – Demeanor? Did they change your mind on the issue?

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Civic Engagement and the Mission Statement of SEU The University mission urges you to take action to solve problems You are required to take action supporting your position

Requirements Part of Your Final Oral Presentation It does not need to be particularly extensive or time consuming. It should be an action that connects your project with the problem

What you can do Attend a meeting of involved groups Speak to a group Attend a march Circulate petitions Volunteer Write a letter- you must turn the letter and stamped envelop into me so that I can mail it (verification)

What you cannot do Plan to take an action Make a Donation- this is too easy, and too effective Sign up for a Newsletter Anything else that does not consist of a concrete action

The Reality In politics, one person really cannot make a difference unless they are politically, socially, or economically important Grassroots is a euphemism for either “poor” or “unorganized” Money is the best form of political activity because it converts itself and it is identifiable

Understanding this… You should consider an activity that involves the greatest political impact Involves the least cost (direct, indirect, opportunity) Fulfills the requirements of the paper

Where to Go for help Capstone Handbook pp Come see me

Writing Up Civic Engagement This appears in your second presentation It appears in written form in the final submission – what you did – why – Expected Political Impact – how it impacted you, others (reflection)

SUBMISSION THREE ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH TENTATIVE CONCLUSION

Submission 3 is Now Due 4/15

THREE SECTIONS Critical Thinking Moral Reasoning Tentative solution

Part I: CRITICAL THINKING: Analysis of argumentation and Evidence Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of each side’s body of argumentation – Each argument and related evidence – Evaluate the arguments presented in paper 2, not your own! Think of each major argument as a question needed to answer – Will Keystone XL pipeline reduce the price of oil? – Will the Dream act reduce illegal immigration?

Part II: Moral Reasoning Obligations (of each side) Values (held by each side) Consequences (potentially coming from position) Foundational normative principles (supporting case) – Other normative principles (supporting case)

Part III: Tentative Solution Your answer to the thesis question You must take a stand, i.e., answer the question – Note reservations, if you have any Support your position

Mechanics 6-8 pages long (estimate only) Critical thinking = 3 pages Moral reasoning = 3 pages solution = 1 pages Full Works Cited (at least 25 total sources) Writing = as perfect as you can make it MLA format = as perfect as possible

MORAL REASONING A methodology to help people deal with moral dilemmas The Key to doing well on paper 3

Moral Reasoning and Paper 3 Your paper has a value-laden problem Paper 3 uses moral reasoning to assess the moral components of each position Read and of the Handbook

Moral Reasoning Requirements for the Capstone Project For Each Side in Paper 3 you must identify analyze for the proponents and opponents – The Obligations inherent in the position – The Values underlying the position – The potential consequences of the position – The position in terms of the normative principles and theories that support it

MAKING A MORAL DECISION

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY 1.Study the details of the case 2.Identify the relevant criteria Obligations Values Consequences 3.Identify the foundational values at play 4.Determine courses of action 5.Choose the most morally responsible action

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY 1.Study the details of the case – sometimes there are not enough details to satisfy the three criteria. – Use creative thinking to speculate about possible answers, depending on different imagined details.

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY Identify the relevant criteria Here you should identify the obligations, values and consequences. Whom will they affect, in what way. Consider which of the three is most important in the given case. Many times with public policy, you will find the consequences to be the most important.

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY Determine possible course of action- consider all the choices of action that are available. It is only in rare circumstances that an individual has just one course of action. – E.g. adopt, reject the policy

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY Choose the action that is most morally responsible after reviewing the information above

In Paper 3 Conclude your moral reasoning section with a justification of which side has presented the more moral argument Use their arguments Avoid presenting a straw man