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.