Department of Politics
Te Tari Tōrangapū
Honours Handbook
2015
Dr James Headley
Rm: 4S1 Tel: 479 8616
[email protected]
Dr Vicki Spencer
Rm: 4S3 Tel: 479 9615
[email protected]
Contents
Postgraduate Honours Programme in Politics
3
POLS490: Dissertation
3
Role of Supervisors
4
Student Expectations
5
Draft POLS490 Workshop Programme
6
Ethics Approval
7
Dishonest Practice
8
Dissertation Format
9
Assessment Criteria
10
Marking Procedure
11
Staff Supervision Areas
12
Provisional List of 400-Level POLS Papers Offered in 2015
14
Getting from a Research Interest to a Research Aim and Question
15
Getting from a Research Question to a Research Proposal
17
2
Postgraduate Honours Programme in Politics
When studying for the nine-month postgraduate Honours programme in Politics students must
normally complete three 400-level POLS papers plus POLS490/491. If you wish to study part-time,
then you need to enroll in the Postgraduate Diploma (PGDip).
The BA(Hons) programme is an essential requirement for students wishing to undertake further
research study at the MA (by dissertation) or PhD levels. A good first class result in the Honours
programme is also necessary for candidates to qualify for a scholarship in New Zealand and for a
scholarship to study overseas. In the last 5 years, our Honours Programme has produced two
Rhodes Scholars now studying at the University of Oxford and one Fulbright Scholar who studied
for his MA at the New School in New York.
But it is worthwhile doing the Honours programme even if you do not wish to undertake further
study. By adding to your specialist degree in Politics, the BA(Hons) opens up new career and
employment opportunities. An Honours degree is in high demand by employers and our graduates
have been highly successful in obtaining employment in both the public and private sectors.
The Department strongly recommends that students do not go on exchange during their 400-level
studies. Anyone considering this is encouraged to talk with the Honours coordinators to consider
their options.
To enter the Politics Honours programme, students normally need to have a:
• BA in Politics, or cognate discipline
• Grade average of at least B+ over the four best 300-level POLS papers or equivalent. This
means an average of at least 6 using the following grade averaging scale:
A+ 9, A 8, A- 7, B+ 6, B 5, B- 4, C+ 3, C 2, C- 1, D 0, E 0, Aegrotat 3, Absent 0
You can apply on eVision using the following link:
http://www.otago.ac.nz/courses/qualifications/bahons.html
If you still need to complete some papers to meet the entry requirements (e.g. over Summer
School), you can still apply and be accepted provisionally subject to fulfilling the requirements.
POLS490: Dissertation
The research dissertation is either a piece of original research on a specified research question or a
more wide-ranging discussion of a topic giving a critical account of existing literature and
knowledge. The dissertation is a maximum of 15,000 words (excluding footnotes, bibliography, and
appendices). The submitted electronic version will be used to verify the word count provided on
your title page. Please also note that footnotes and appendices must not be over-used as a means to
avoid the word limit.
The due date for POLS490 is Friday 9 October 2015.
An electronic version of the dissertation must also be submitted via Blackboard by that time.
3
Role of Supervisors
A.
Direction of Research
When you fill out the application form for POLS490 you can nominate up to three possible
supervisors. You can seek advice concerning who to nominate based on your research interests
from James Headley or Vicki Spencer, or talk directly with whomever you are thinking of working.
For more information regarding staff research interests please consult the Department’s webpage.
Final decisions will be based on research interests and staff workloads.
B.
Contact with Supervisor
It is the normal expectation that POLS490 students make arrangements to meet with their
supervisor on a fortnightly basis. Some supervisors may also wish to see you weekly at the outset.
If students have trouble contacting their supervisor once the semester begins, it is their
responsibility to draw it to the attention of one of the Honours coordinators.
C.
Formal Research Proposal
Based on early discussions with your supervisor, you are expected to hand in a formal POLS490
research proposal by Thursday 2 April. This should be submitted to James Headley, and to your
own supervisor. The workshops in the first five weeks of the year will help you to prepare this
proposal.
This research proposal should state (on no more than two A4 pages):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Your name and your supervisor’s name.
Your research question/problem/topic.
A statement of why the research is interesting and important.
If collecting primary data: what method(s) of data collection are you using.
If doing a critical review, are you questioning or adding to the conventional wisdom?
Assessing an on-going debate? Filling a gap?
6. Draft chapter outline.
D.
Submitting draft work to your supervisor
When preparing drafts to submit to your supervisor for comment, please remember the following
guidelines:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
12 point font
Line spacing should be 1.5 or double-spaced
Include page numbers
Wide margins on left and right of the page for comments, full justified text
Include a cover sheet with your name, date and a title (e.g. Introduction)
A bibliography of all references used in the draft
Proper citation
Also, if you wish your supervisor to read the draft and comment on something specific (e.g. the
sources used, or the logic of a particular argument) make sure you write this on the cover sheet to
avoid confusion.
4
Student Expectations
A.
Workload
Students should note that the full-time Honours programme requires a commitment of a full fiveday working week for study. Students are strongly advised not to take on paid work or extra papers
which will detract from the 40-hour study week. Excessive workload will not be taken into account
if you have to make an application for an extension for your course work or your dissertation. The
Honours coordinators may refuse to sign in students who are enrolling for papers in addition to their
400-level requirements.
B.
Supervision and Feedback
Supervisors have many other teaching and research demands. You should expect it to take at least a
week for your supervisor to give you feedback on work you have submitted. It is your responsibility
to let the one of the Honours coordinators know if you have any concerns about your supervision.
C.
Dissertation Workshops and Study Groups
Dissertation workshops run throughout the first semester and part of the second semester.
Attendance at these workshops is very important and your supervisors will expect you to go as they
are designed to provide you with valuable information for the research, writing and presentation of
your dissertation. In addition, the workshops help you get to know your fellow students and create a
supportive and collegial research environment.
Students will also present their research-in-progress to their fellow students and selected staff (dates
below). This will provide you with important feedback from a wider audience than your supervisor
and allow an exchange of ideas that will help in the formulation and refinement of your dissertation.
Charlotte Brown is the specialist librarian available to assist you. She can be contacted at 479 8976
or [email protected]. She can also be contacted through the Lending and i desk in the
Central Library.
D.
Extensions
The due date for POLS490 is a strict deadline. Extensions will only be provided in cases of
unforeseen circumstances that significantly restrict a student’s ability to complete the dissertation
on time. This does not include work commitments, or any other activities entered into voluntarily
(such as standing for elected offices to the OUSA). In cases where there are serious unforeseen
circumstances, the student should discuss it with one of the Honours coordinators at the earliest
possible opportunity.
E.
Student Rep
The POLS490 students will elect a student representative to attend meetings to provide feedback to
the department from the group. Any student is also able to approach the Honours coordinators or
Head of Department with any questions or concerns.
5
Draft POLS490 Workshop Programme
Semester one
Mon 23 February
Mon 2 March
Mon 9 March
Mon 16 March
Mon 23 March
Mon 30 March
Mon 13 April
11.00-11.50
Tbc
11.00-11.50
11.00-11.50
11.00-11.50
11.00-11.50
11.00-11.50
Mon 20 April
11.00-11.50 Research design and strategies
Mon 4 May
11.00-11.50 Planning and writing a chapter
Mon 11 May
11.00-11.50 Effective writing techniques
Mon 18 May
11.00-11.50 Referencing, plagiarism and sources
Mon 25 May
11.00-11.50 Methods workshop
Welcome
Research resources
Developing a focused research question
Discussion of research questions
Developing a research proposal
Discussion of research proposals
Ethics approval; advice from 400-level graduates
Semester two
Mon 6 July
11.00-11.50 Preparing for presentations
Mon 13 July
11.00-11.50 POLS490 presentations
Mon 20 July
11.00-11.50 POLS490 presentations
Mon 27 July
11.00-11.50 POLS490 presentations
Mon 3 August
11.00-11.50 Abstracts, layout and formatting
Mon 28 September
11.00-11.50 Open session: any last-minute questions on preparing dissertation for
submission
Fri 9 October
5.00pm
Final deadline for submission of POLS490
6
Ethics Approval
Honours students, in consultation with their supervisors, need to consider carefully the potential
ethical implications of their research in accordance with University Policy. If the intended research
involves human participants then ethical approval must be sought. This does not apply to simple
consultation with academics and other experts. However, ethical approval must be sought for all
surveys, interviews and focus groups involving politicians, public officials, the media and members
of the community where the information will be employed as part of a student’s research data. It is
recommended that interviews be recorded as hand-written notes are too unreliable.
University policy makes provision for two types of ethical approval. Category B can be approved at
the departmental level and requires the anonymity of the participants. Exceptions can be made for
the naming of ‘elites’ including politicians, public officials and the media when they are being
interviewed in their official capacity and are fully aware of that fact. If private persons are to be
named, or children are involved, you must seek Category A approval. This is also the case if you
intend to conduct any research involving human participants overseas, including Australia. If you
are not sure whether you require Category A or B approval, please consult one of the Honours
coordinators.
For Category B applications, Jim or Vicki can provide you with a user-friendly template and
guidance on how to proceed. You should also prepare your application in consultation with your
supervisor. Students should be assured, however, that it is a relatively simple process and it can
serve as useful impetus to refine your research agenda. Please note that you must seek approval
prior to conducting any research. Under no circumstances will the Committee consider
retrospective applications. All POLS490 Category B applications must be emailed to the
Department’s Ethics Committee Coordinator, Carla Lam, no later than 8 May:
[email protected]
Category A application forms, which go directly to the University Ethics Committee, are available
from http://www.otago.ac.nz/acadcomm/categorya.html. The University Ethics Committee meets
monthly to consider applications that are submitted approximately a fortnight beforehand. All due
dates are available at the above address. Category A applications are quite complicated in
comparison to Category B applications and you can often be asked to make revisions so you should
leave plenty of time to complete this process. Seventeen copies plus the original signed copy need
to be submitted to Mr Gary Witte, Manager, Academic Committees (Tel 479 8256, Email
[email protected]). Please consult your supervisor in the first instance for advice on
completing the application form. Jim and Vicki also have experience with these applications if your
supervisor does not. However, once you have a draft it is most helpful to seek advice from Gary
Witte who has the most up-to-date information about the Committee’s procedures.
7
Dishonest Practice
Dishonest practice in relation to work submitted for assessment (including all course work, tests and
examinations) is taken very seriously at the University of Otago.
All students have an obligation to understand the requirements applying to particular assessments
and also to understand and follow acceptable academic practice. Any breach of established
requirements or of acceptable practice — whether intentional or arising through a failure to take
reasonable care — will result in action being taken against those involved.
Plagiarism is one form of dishonest practice. Plagiarism is defined as copying or paraphrasing
another person's work and presenting it as one’s own – whether intentionally, or through failure to
take proper care. Being party to someone else’s plagiarism (by allowing them to copy your work or
by otherwise helping them plagiarise work for an assessment) is also dishonest practice.
All students have a responsibility to be aware of acceptable academic practice in relation to the use
of material prepared by others, and for taking all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that no
breach of acceptable practice occurs. Part of your study at University is about developing your own
thoughts and ideas. Where you use other people’s words or ideas in your work it is vital that you
reference these correctly. The Student Learning Centre (which is located in the Information
Services Building) offers a course to assist you with this if you want one.
Any student involved in dishonest practice is liable to be proceeded against under the University's
regulations. A range of penalties is established by those regulations, including forfeiture of marks
for the piece of work submitted, a zero grade for the paper, or in extreme cases exclusion from the
University. At the Honours level, you will be expected to understand fully the rules on plagiarism at
the University of Otago and detected cases will be pursued fully. Further details on plagiarism are
available at http://www.otago.ac.nz/study/plagiarism/ , and the University’s Dishonest Practice
Guidelines are available at http://www.otago.ac.nz/administration/policies/otago003145.html .
Your dissertation will be checked for plagiarism using the University’s Safe Assign software as
explained below:
Safe Assign is a plagiarism detection tool which can report matches between sections of students’
work submitted to it and material on a comprehensive database to which Safe Assign has access.
This includes material on the internet and other students’ assignments which have previously been
submitted to Safe Assign.
Assignments will need to be submitted to the Final Version assignment folder under ‘Assignments’
on Blackboard. You may submit your assignment to this folder only once.
You also have the option of submitting one draft assignment to the ‘Draft’ folder. If you choose to
utilise this option, you will receive the report generated which contains a percentage mark of the
paper that matches other sources. Assignments submitted to the ‘Draft’ folder will not be assessed;
however, the report will be available for the paper co-ordinator to view.
You can find further information on Safe Assign at:
http://www.otago.ac.nz/blackboard/assessing-your-students/anti-plagiarism-safeassign/antiplagiarism/
8
Dissertation Format
1.
You will need to hand in two soft-bound copies for examination and one electronic copy.
2.
Line spacing should be 1.5 or double spaced. A 12 pt font should be used. The binding margin must
be no less than 30 mm. Use full justified paragraph alignment. Pages may be double-sided.
3.
Pages (together with any interpolated sheets, tables, maps, etc.) should be numbered consecutively
within the binding margins.
4.
The following order is usually observed:
A. The preliminaries:
1.
Title page giving the title of the dissertation in full, the name of the student, the name of the
discipline, the date when submitted for the degree, the computer word count (excluding footnotes,
bibliography and appendices), and the following statement: Dissertation submitted in partial
fulfillment of the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours
2.
The following signed Declaration:
I certify that this dissertation does not incorporate without acknowledgement any material
previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to the best of my
knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made in the text.
Signed:
3.
Date:
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Abstract (no more than 300 words) summarising the dissertation: the problem, methodology, and
conclusions. Do not give a chapter outline, as this is covered in the introduction.
Table of contents
Acknowledgements
List of tables (if applicable)
List of illustrations or figures (if applicable)
List of abbreviations (if applicable)
1.
2.
3.
B. The text:
Introductory chapter
Main body of the work divided into chapters (each starting on a new page)
Final chapter which usually includes a summary, conclusions and any recommendations
1.
2.
C. The references:
Bibliography
Appendix or appendices (if applicable)
You can find out other information on presentation in the library guidelines ‘Organising your
thesis’ on Blackboard (although note that these guidelines are primarily for longer theses).
9
POLS490 Assessment Criteria
A+ (90%+)
Outstanding and original – clearly written with a well-integrated and
carefully demonstrated argument that shows a knowledge of a range of
alternative views and interpretations. An extremely well documented and
presented piece with astute theoretical analysis.
A (85-89%)
Excellent – successful reinterpretation of a body of material or
interpretation of new material. Does not show the same originality as an
A+ but is a well written, documented and argued dissertation with
excellent use of source material and demonstrating good theoretical
analysis.
A- (80-84%)
Very competent – critical, balanced, well researched, informed and
clearly presented with good documentation and an attempt to incorporate
theoretical analysis but not with the same level of sophistication expected
of an A.
B+ (75-79%)
Competent – clearly written but the level of research is not as extensive
and/or the argument is not as successfully demonstrated throughout as for
an A dissertation. It might, for example, be a well researched but less than
successfully argued piece or the theoretical analysis might be limited.
B (70-74%)
Research fails to show sufficient understanding of a range of alternative
views and interpretations; lack of balance in the argument; an ineffective
connection between the argument and evidence; little use of theoretical
analysis; satisfactory presentation and documentation.
B- (65-69%)
Inadequate research that does not show a sufficient grasp of the literature;
little or no theoretical analysis; ineffective use of evidence to support the
argument; poor presentation or careless documentation.
C+ (60-64%) Limited achievement – basic flaw in the development of an argument;
C (55-59%)
poor research and documentation; little understanding of alternative views
C- (50-54%) and interpretations or theoretical analysis; poorly structured and written.
Fail (0-49%)
Inadequate or incomplete.
10
Marking Procedure
1. There is a primary marker for each dissertation who will assign a mark and prepare a report. A
supervisor will not be involved in the marking process of a dissertation he/she supervised. The
marker is asked to comment on the following qualities:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Clarity of aims (and hypotheses)
Clarity of research strategy and/or methodology to meet research aims
Theoretical analysis
Focus of the dissertation (appropriate; too broad; too narrow; overambitious)
Coherent account of recent work in the field; adequacy of literature review; acquaintance
with relevant literature
Clear explanation of concepts
Capacity to critique the relevant literature (and concepts)
Arguments well formulated and sustained (supported with relevant data/evidence)
Quality of writing and communication skills
Structuring/ordering of the material
Originality, creative ability
2.
There is also a secondary marker who assigns a mark and a very brief explanation in relation to the
assessment criteria.
3.
The overall mark is calculated as an aggregate of the primary and secondary marks.
4.
If there is a major discrepancy between the primary and secondary marks, i.e. over 5 marks, or the
mark is on the borderline between two grades, then the dissertation is sent to another University for
external assessing. If a mark cannot be resolved in discussion or as a result of the assessor’s
comments, the Honours Committee retains the discretion to appoint a third marker.
5.
It is not possible for students to enter into any discussion with the markers who will remain
anonymous.
6.
The examined dissertation will be available for students to collect along with the markers’ reports.
The student whose dissertation receives the highest mark will be awarded the William Kennedy
Prize for Best 400-level Dissertation in Politics.
Your overall degree result for Honours is calculated by taking an average of the percentage marks
of your 400-level papers, with POLS490 counting as three papers (60 points). The award is then
made using the following scale:
Honours:
First Class Honours
Second Class Honours (Division I)
Second Class Honours (Division II)
Third Class Honours
= 80% and above
= 70 to 79%
= 60 to 69%
= 50 to 59%
11
Staff Supervision Areas
Dr Bryce Edwards, BA Hons (Cant), PhD (Cant)
[email protected]
New Zealand politics; political parties; elections; political communication; political finance; social
movements; interest groups; inequality; class politics; and new politics.
Professor William Harris, MA (Cant), PhD (Durh)
[email protected]
Middle East comparative politics; ethnic and communal issues; political geography; Middle East
history and contemporary affairs, especially the Levant, Turkey and the Persian Gulf.
Dr Janine Hayward, BA Hons (Cant), PhD (Vic)
On leave second semester.
[email protected]
New Zealand politics including electoral politics, local government, parties, constitution,
Maori/state relations; environmental politics including green politics and green ethics; Canadian
politics with a focus on First nations, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Quebec.
Dr James Headley, BA Hons (Oxon), MA (London), PhD (London)
[email protected]
Russian politics and foreign policy; international politics of the former Soviet Union and
Central/Eastern Europe; nationalism and ethnic conflict; international relations theory; New
Zealand and Australian foreign policies; and the European Union.
Dr Iati Iati, BA Hons (Canterbury), MA (Canterbury), PhD (Hawai’i)
[email protected]
Governance; Pacific Politics; land reform; regionalism; geopolitics.
Dr Najibullah Lafraie, BA LLB (Kabul), MA PhD (Hawai’i)
[email protected]
International peacekeeping and to a certain extent the UN and NATO in general; foreign relations
of the countries in Central and South Asia as well as the Middle East; domestic politics of
Afghanistan and its neighbours; Islam and politics; Islamic militancy, international terrorism, and
the "war on terror”; and refugee issues.
Dr Carla Lam, BA (New Brunswick), MA (New Brunswick), PhD (Carleton)
On leave second semester.
[email protected]
Political theory with special reference to Ancient Greek thought; feminist political theory; history of
ideas; the politics and philosophy of reproduction; women and politics; bioethics, biotechnology
and reproductive technology; society, science and technology; the politics of health; and the body
and embodiment.
Dr Nicholas Khoo, BA Ecos (California), MA (John Hopkins), MPhil (Columbia), PhD
(Columbia)
[email protected]
China’s foreign and security policy; Internatinal Relations of Asia; International relations theory
and specifically neo-liberalism; strategic studies; Cold War history.
12
Professor Philip Nel, MA, DPhil (Stellenbosch)
[email protected]
Success stories in welfare redistribution: Public health in Sri Lanka; success stories in welfare
redistribution: Costa Rica; New Zealand and Vietnam: an evolving relationship; economic
inequality in Muslim countries: causes and remedies.
Professor Robert Patman, MA (Warw), PhD (S’ton)
[email protected]
International relations; post-Cold War security; and the relationship between order and justice in a
globalising world.
Dr Brian Roper, MA (Cant), PhD (Griff)
[email protected]
New Zealand politics; public policy; political economy; social inequality; gender and feminism;
classical and contemporary Marxism; history and major theories of democracy.
Dr Chris Rudd, MA, PhD (Essex)
[email protected]
Political communications; political marketing; political campaigning; and politics and the media.
Dr Vicki Spencer, BA Hons, MA (Flinders), DPhil (Oxon)
[email protected]
Contemporary political theory, political ethics generally and the history of political thought; more
specifically, communitarianism; culture and identity; multiculturalism and nationalism; the concept
of tolerance; theories of forgiveness and punishment; theories of recognition.
Dr Lena Tan, BA (Smith College), MSc (LSE), Ph.D (Mass, Amherst)
On leave first semester.
[email protected]
International relations; identity and international relations; international relations theory;
constructivism; domestic and international politics of Southeast Asia; decolonization and territorial
disengagement; China; Japan; American foreign policy; British foreign policy; and colonialism.
13
Provisional List of 400-Level POLS Papers Offered in 2015
Semester One
POLS402 Community, Culture and Rights
Dr Vicki Spencer
What does justice mean in the increasingly plural societies that characterise most Western states?
Do we need to accommodate and affirm cultural differences through public recognition, or is it
sufficient to leave people to pursue their own ends within the limits of a common legal framework?
These questions have been centre-stage in recent political theory with various attempts to
accommodate cultural differences. Yet this new orthodoxy is increasingly under attack in both
public debates and political theory. Issues we address in this paper include the validity of human
rights and universal values; liberal multiculturalism and nationalism; indigenous co-sovereignty;
and the conflict between cultural and gender claims.
POLS409 Russian Foreign Policy
Dr James Headley
Analyses the development of Russian foreign policy since the Cold War. The legacy of Soviet
foreign policy theory and practice is assessed, and the evolution of foreign policy under Yeltsin,
Medvedev and Putin is considered in terms of national interest and identity, foreign policy process,
and regions and issues of particular importance to Russia.
POLS416 Global Governance
Prof Philip Nel
Global integration and interdependence are reconfiguring political authority and creating a demand
for institutions to provide global public goods. This paper reviews and evaluates various theoretical
approaches to the global public goods. In addition, a simulation exercise is conducted dealing with
real-life negotiations about the provision of a selected global public good.
Semester Two
POLS404 Politics and Society
Dr Brian Roper
Class, gender, and ethnic inequality in New Zealand; the empirical patterns, underlying causes,
historically changing social and cultural construction, and political implications of these
inequalities. This course focuses on class, gender, and ethnicity, with comparative reference to the
United States and Great Britain. It addresses questions such as: Why do these inequalities exist?
What are some of the major ways in which they have changed historically? How do they impact
upon politics and policy-making? What can and should be done about them?
POLS414 The Levant
Prof Bill Harris
The evolution of modern Syria and Lebanon from their emergence out of the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire in 1918 to the catastrophic developments in the late twentieth and early twentyfirst centuries. What does this tell us about state, society, religion, and politics in the Middle East?
14
Getting From a Research Interest to a Research Aim and a Research
Question
A summary prepared by Philip Nel
Good research is focused research. Skilful researchers formulate a clear research aim in the form of
a research question to focus their research. Our choice of a research questions are determined by
our theoretical assumptions about the world and the meanings that we attach to the words that we
use to speak about this world. Thinking carefully about how you want to focus your research thus
also helps you to work through and question your own theoretical and conceptual assumptions.
Example:
I am interested in doing research on ‘the politics of global health’. This interest stems from my
hearing about the Millennium Development Goals, of which three are related to health matters.
However, I realise that ‘the politics of global health’ is a large topic, and that I have to focus my
research to make it manageable. How do I go about it? Here are a few suggestions:
1. Decide what exactly it is that interests you about this topic
To do so, you have to consider:
* what you mean when you use the concepts ‘politics’, ‘global’, and ‘health’
* whether you want to focus on one specific issue, say action taken to address malaria, or
on a field of issues (for example, policy measures to deal with communicable diseases in general)
* what the reigning theoretical approaches in this field of study are, and how you relate to
them
*what is it that you will have to forego if you do not undertake this study (why is this
study important to you personally?)
Example:
After I took the steps suggested above, I decided that what really interests me is that a
communicable disease such as HIV-AIDS seems to be affecting more women than men in certain
parts of Africa.
Tip: Make sure that your research interest really excites you, and write down the reasons why it
does. If you cannot come up with good reasons why you should be excited about a research interest,
it is probably better to move on to something else.
2. Formulate a research aim as a question
The next step is to re-formulate your research interest into a focused research aim. One
excellent way to do this is to think in terms of a question that you want to answer through
your research.
A research question is a short statement of a significant intellectual puzzle that is implied by
your research interest.
A well-formulated research question suggests why others (your readers/audience) should also
be interested in finding an answer.
15
Example:
I am interested in the gender-specific nature of HIV-AIDS in South and East Africa. Through my
initial research I found that most policies aimed at addressing the AIDS epidemic in these parts of
the world are impervious to the fact that AIDS seems to be affecting disproportionately more
women than men. My research aim is to determine why this is so, and what the consequences of
this are. In view of the devastating impact of HIV-AIDS on Botswana and Kenya in particular, the
social cost of not ‘solving’ this research problem is considerable.
Tip: See how authors of journal articles use the first few paragraphs of their ‘Introductions’ to
make their research question also the reader’s question – thus, getting and keeping the reader’s
attention. If you do not know of any good articles to study as guides to good academic writing, ask
your supervisor to suggest one or two.
3. The final step is to deduce a number of specific research sub-questions that you have to
answer in order to answer the overall research question / meet the research aim. Ask yourself:
what are the specific questions that I have to answer in order to meet the stated research aim?
Clearly formulated research sub-questions will indicate what the appropriate methodology is
that you should use. ‘The methodology’ refers to the theoretical frameworks, research
sources, and research techniques that you will use in order to answer the research subquestions.
Examples of research sub-questions flowing from the above formulation of my research aim:
a) To what extent is HIV-AIDS a gender-specific phenomenon in Botswana and Kenya?
b) What are the gender-specific dimensions of the AIDS debates in Botswana and Kenya (if any), and
how are these dimensions reflected in policy documents / policy discourse?
c) What are the degrees of success achieved by these policies?
d) If these policies are largely unsuccessful, what could possibly explain their lack of success? How
can we determine the net effect of the absence of a gender-specific focus? (There may be other
reasons for the lack of success, and I will have to find ways to ‘control for’ these other factors.)
Tip: Try to formulate your research questions as clearly and unambiguously as possible. While you
are writing down these questions, think about the possible meaning(s) of core concepts (such as
‘gender’, ‘gender-specific’, and ‘policy’ in the above example). If you are unsure about the
meaning of core concepts, consult encyclopedias or glossaries of the social sciences. Do not rely
solely on general dictionaries, though. They provide information only on the denotation of a term,
not on its (often controversial) connotations in the social sciences.
16
Getting From a Reseach Question to a Research Proposal
(and planning that all important Introductory and Concluding chapter
at the same time)
A summary prepared by Philip Nel
One of the main criteria that examiners use in evaluating a thesis or dissertation relate to the
question:
Is the candidate self-aware of what she is doing, and does she provide
evidence of such self-awareness, concerning specifically:
a) The problem that she is investigating;
b) The main research questions that flow from this problem;
c) The methodology that she used/is using to answer these questions;
d) Her own theoretical assumptions in formulating and addressing the research
problem and research questions?
Tip: A good “Introductory chapter” should, amongst others, tell the reader about a) to d) above. In
addition: what supervisors normally look for in a good Research Proposal are preliminary /
provisional information on these four points.
Steps towards a good Introduction /Research Proposal:
1. Decide what exactly it is that interests you about this topic
2. Formulate a research aim as a question
3. Formulate specific research sub-questions
4. Methodology
Where and how am I going to find answers to these questions?
− What type of study is this? Am I testing a hypothesis, explaining a phenomenon, evaluating
a
policy, or exploring a subject (= generating hypotheses for future research?)
− How do I define and operationalise (= “find empirical indicators for”) the core concepts used in
these questions?
− What type of information/data do I have to generate?
− What are potential sources of information /data, and are these sources reliable?
− What are appropriate methods and techniques for this type of study?
− How am I going to ensure that my own biases do not influence my results?
17
− Limitations: What do the available sources (and time) allow me to do?
− Delimitation: What am I not going to do in this study?
− Are there methodological and meta-theoretical issues involved in the techniques and methods that I
am going to use, and what are they (supervisors will usually
point these out).
5. Theory and concepts
− On what ‘level of analysis” (individual, societal/national, global; or micro, meso, macro) am I
operating here? Why this and not another level of analysis? Will my study not be enriched if I use
more than one level of analysis?
− What causal assumptions am I making about people and their behaviour on these levels of analysis?
− Am I a methodological individualist (ultimately, behaviour of individuals shape outcomes) or am I a
holist (e.g.: the structure of a social system determines outcomes)? Can I not combine both these
meta-theoretical perspectives?
− Are there “essentially contested” concepts in my formulation of the research problem and my
research questions?
− What are my basic normative assumptions and how can I justify them?
− If I am evaluating policy or a phenomenon, what are my criteria of evaluation and how can I justify
these?
− How has others approached these or similar questions?
− What sub-fields of Politics are implicated by my research problem, and what are the current (main)
debates/trends in these fields?
Final tip: When writing your Conclusions, return to the research questions that you formulated in
your Introduction, and discuss the answers that you generated during your study. Show how these
answers help you to solve your original research problem. If you cannot ‘solve’ this problem
adequately, point out at least what your research indicates should (and can) be done in future
research to solve this problem adequately
18
Research Problem
Questions that have to be answered to
‘solve’ the problem
Analytical framework (theory),
methods, and information needed to
answer these questions
What are the answers?
&
How far do they take us in solving the
problem?
= Conclusions
19