1Phl1 Contemporary World: Debate Motions: October , 2019

1Phl1 Contemporary World: Debate Motions: October 1, 2019

Gray Round

Adjudicators:  Government Whips from Green, Yellow, Blue, and Orange


PM and LO should text me their chosen motion by 9:00 a.m. today.  I will reply with the finalized one.

1.  THBT the world village is an illusion.
2.  THBT all states should adopt a democratic form of government.
3.  THBT human rights should be made second in comparison to the survival of the state.

1Phl1 Contemporary World: Debate Motions: October 1, 2019

1Phl1 Contemporary World: Debate Motions: October 1, 2019

Blue Round

Adjudicators:  Members of the Government and Members of the Opposition from Green, Yellow, Gray, and Orange


PM and LO should text me their chosen motion by 9:00 a.m. today.  I will reply with the finalized one.

1.  THBT the UN should become militarized.
2.  THBT the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council harm rather than protect the world.
3.  THBT there should be a world government..

Pol 3213 - 2Pol3 - Prelim Paper

For the prelim paper, you need only the following:

Format

2-3 pages of content (references is a separate page) totalling 4

Font - Palatino Linotype size 12

1" margin top and bottom

.5 left

1.5 right
1.5 spacing

no cover page
make use of headings, sub-headings stretegically

check out the format of the two articles below.

5 pt mark for grading, 1pt deducted for every error.

Content

Abstract 

No more than 200 - 250 words.

Keywords:  must be strategic, the keywords are used to 1) align the article to a particular area of political science.  2) Make the article easily searchable by those doing research on that topic.  The 2nd reason helps you get cited by bridging you to readers.

In sequence:

Must have a hook.

Must briefly tell the reader what the topic is about.

Must inform the reader of the theory to be used.

Must inform the reader of the proposed method to be used.

Must inform the reader of: 1) in a proposal, which your paper is, informs the reader of what your hypothesis or thesis statement is.  And 2) if the paper is already finished, informs the reader of what your findings are.

10 marks, 1-2 pts deducted for every error.

Introduction

Must have the following:

Background on the issue  

To hook and inform the reader.

Background on the locale or subject of study.  This depends on your topic.  What is the actual feature of your study?  The phenomenon?  An idea (theory, concept)? The actor?  The location?  Sometimes, even the time period.  e.g.  Phenomenon - impeachment of Chief Justice Corona.   Idea - local autonomy.  Actor - Hong Kong protesters.  Location - San Fernando Pampanga.  You choose which, because the choice is linked to what you are writing about.

The background must have sources.  Sometimes what you write is because of your own experience or interest, or observation.  Write it in such a way to signpost this to the reader.  Some materials in your RRL can be used here (not all though).  The objective and significance are also 3-4 paragraphs. 

10 marks, 1-2 pts deducted for every error.

Related Literature and Theory

Balance this in proportion to the background.

Should be only a few paragraphs.  2 - 3 will do, you may extend to 4 if needed.

Should show the relationship of major studies done in relation to what you are doing now.  You are comparing them.  Grouping them on which are near the same topics, and at the same time, feature what makes each individual unique (the contribution of the article to the body of knowledge, usually the findings or method used).  And lastly, identify the gap.  The gap is the missing are which has not been researched on, and you are filling the gap with what you are writing.  At the end, these studies should contribute to a theory which supports your thesis statement.  There should be a direct statement of what the theory is.  e.g.  Kant -  government systems can affect war or peace, and democracy as a government system is the one that leads to peace.

10 marks, 1-2 pts deducted for every error.

Method

Must answer the following in narrative paragraphs (see samples in links):

Why is your Quanti-Quali or why Quali-Quanti?  (this is your method)

What is your quali design? (this is your design)

What location and who to participate? (subject and study site)

Why that place?  Why them?  (called selection criteria)

How do you intend to get the data?  (data gathering method, there can be more than one)

IMPORTANT:  

Just rephrase my ethical considerations in the Localizing Zero Waste sample paper.

NO mode of analysis - I haven't taught you that yet.  But just to clarify, in a proposal, there should be one.

10 marks, 1-2 pts deducted for every error.

45 Marks in total for this submission.

For plagiarism check, you will submit ms word copies via eleap on the same day of the hard copy submission.  Notification will be made through class president.  5 marks deducted for every valid match exceeding 3%

Samples

Republic City

Localizing Zero Waste

1Phl1 Contemporary World: Debate Motions: September 26, 2019

1Phl1 Contemporary World: Debate Motions: September 26, 2019

Yellow Round

Adjudicators:  Deputy Prime Ministers from Green, Blue, Gray, and Pink


PM and LO should text me their chosen motion by 9:00 a.m. today.  I will reply with the finalized one.

1.  TH must ask the World Bank for debt forgiveness.
2.  TH will withdraw from the GATT.
3.  THBT the Breton Woods System was made for the benefit of developed countries alone.

Pol 3211 (1Pol1 - 1Pol3) - Final Paper

You have more time to write your final paper, which will impact both as a class participation grade and as 1/2 of your final exam grade.  It can help raise or lower them based on how you prep and do this.

Final paper's theme is Blip in Political Science History.

Follow same format as the Prelim paper.  However, picture will have to be relevant to this paper's topic, which is. "where is the Republic of the Philippines in the timeline of Political Science."

We, the Philippines, are now the blip. In your paper, I want you to address two questions, where in the history of the discipline are we.  Your options are the points of the timeline.  Next is that based on the previous question, are there any issues in Philippine politics that can be addressed?  How do you address this?

This paper will be 5 pages in total.  Short bond paper.

Remember the instructions from the previous paper.

Remember to use headings and sub-headings.

Format is 10 marks just like last time.

For content, answer the questions above, be able to point out where in the timeline are we.  Prove it, cite books, journals, news articles.  10 marks (5 for the soundness of the argument - refer to my lesson on Writing in the Discipline links are given below, 5 for the proofs).

Again, like last time, 5 marks for composition.

Submission is individual, stapled upper left, no cover page, no folder, identifying parts on top 3 page of page one.

Date of Submission: November 21, 2019, individually collected in class.

https://onyxtower.blogspot.com/2014/08/academic-papers-writing-in-discipline.html

https://onyxtower.blogspot.com/2013/07/writing-in-discipline.html

For questions, please post in the comment box.

Pol 3211 (1Pol1-1Pol3) - Primogen of Sparta

Lines of Succession

In monarchies, succession was predominantly determined through the system of primogeniture.  From latin primus (firs) and gignere (to be born of), means that the line of succession is based on sequence of birth, starting from the firstborn to the last.  By tradition, this is modified as male-preference primogeniture, since the patriarchal system placed value for men to rule instead of women (do you agree, women of 1Pol?).  The reverse, in terms of gender, female-preference primogeniture exists, though usually only opted for when there is no male heir.  The opposite, terms of order of birth, ultimogeniture, is not used for succession, but used for inheritance, such as inheriting the estate or real property of one's parents.  Some families in the Philippine use ultimogeniture, some modify it as based on order of marriage.  Wherein the last child to get married gets the family house.

In democracies, succession is usually based on a sequence of elected officials listed by the constitution.  For your supplementary reading, I want you read the 1987 Philippine Constitution article VII, Sections 7 - 10.

Prelim Paper

Your paper for the prelim period will be a short but experiential one.  As freshmen taking up Political Science as a Profession, you are expected to attend the General Assembly of the Political Science Forum (TPSF), the student organization to which, by being a student majoring in political science, you are automatically part of.  It is your immediate professional community.  There will be others, such as the Association of Political Science Organizations of the Philippines (APSOP) where TPSF is a member, and by extension, you are.

The Prelim paper will only be a one pager, consisting of 1 picture (dimensions preferred dimensions are 2.5x3 or 3x2.5) and your though narrative.

Format

The first thee lines of the paper are the identifying lines.  Follow instruction based on the course syllabus, is downloadable online via https://onyxtower.blogspot.com/2019/08/pol-3213-syllabus.html.  This will include where to place your name, etc.  Creative title should be include the wors "Promogen of Sparta," which is the theme of this piece.

Text should be Font Style, Palatino Linotype size 12. Margins, 1" top and bottom, .5" left, 1.5" right.  1.5" spacing.  

Layout the picture as best as possible, it should be aesthetic (adds to the pleasantness of the output) and strategic (sized and situated on the paper for best impact).

Caption with picture.  Short description plus (surname of who took the picture, 2019).

Use long bond paper.

e.g.

Author with the organization officers (Javier, 2019)

For regular students, picture should be you at the GA.  

For irregular students, picture should be you with either, a faculty member of the Department or one of the Alumni.

Make the photo relevant to the content you write.

Format gets a 10 pt mark based on how you complied with these instructions, lowest is 1.

Narrative Content

Narrative content should be your reflection on either the discipline or the profession.  I cannot grade you on the outcome of the reflection, it is personal.  However, I'll be grading this on whether or not you hit the target (reflection is aligned on profession or discipline).  5 marks

What you reflect on should be based on two things, the event, and a chat that you take up with a non-freshman Spartan.  You should use this as evidence of what you talk about.  These proofs should have citations (citations APA on how to cite interview, and how to cite seminar or conference).

This paper is themed as Primogen of Sparta because the reflection is guided from what you can get from your primogen.

There should be at least 2 footnotes on the citation (full text citations).  5 marks

Context is expected to be at least 3 paragraphs only.  Reminder, be clear, be direct.  1 sentence = 1 idea.  1 paragraph = 1 idea, each sentence contributing to that idea.

You only have three paragraphs.  Make it count.  Composition gets 5 marks

Total of 5 marks.

Date of Submission:  October 4, 2019

Submit to class auditor on October 3, 2019.

Class auditor assisted by PRO, collate alphabetically and place in a clearbook.

Class president, have someone creative make a cover for the folio.  Creative cover will be in the first pocket of the clearbook, making it the first page, class list at its back.  1st paper follows and so on.

Class Lists


I know there's a difference between some points in the ppt and this new post.  This supersedes the ppt.

For questions, please post in the comment box.

1Phl1 Contemporary World: Debate Motions: September 24, 2019

1Phl1 Contemporary World: Debate Motions: September 24, 2019

Green Round

Adjudicators:  Prime Ministers from Yellow, Blue, Gray, and Orange

PM and LO should text me their chosen motion by 9:00 a.m. today.  I will reply with the finalized one.

1.  THBT Globalization is chaos.
2.  TH rejects globalization.
3.  THBT the Philippine government should embrace globalization.

Qualitative political Analysis: Online Lecture - Unit 2 Nature of Political Analysis

Some Finishing Touches from Unit 1:

Concept vs Content

The essence of writing a paper is that you are producing ideas, not rehashing them.  There are two things that you have to take into consideration in writing, content and concepts.  When we speak here of content, it is the raw facts that come from the research, whether it is library research, a survey of literatures, a survey of studies, or actual field work.  They work hand-in-hand with concepts - existing or new political ideas.

What do you do with these?  Say for example, you have interviews.  These are content.  Same as survey material, which you then present in graphs, charts, or tables.  They are all content.  But a very important question is, what concepts can you use these content for.  You will not just have a bunch of quotes or numbers.

Remember that when you write, you have a thesis.  An argument that you are trying to prove.  The concepts are the things that will become the things that will prove your thesis.  Let's use as an example my recent paper presented in Sweden.  It's thesis is that "solid waste management is implemented properly through local autonomy.'  And I had interviews on how local barangays are able to implement the provisions of RA 9003.  I also have numerical data from city hall on the success rate of the city in diverting solid waste materials.  

But before I lump all my quotes or paraphrases, I organize and outline the topics which lead to the argument.  And the outlines composed of the following political concepts:  political structure of the city, political actors, and the localization process.  It is these concepts which I talked about in the paper, and the quotes and numerical data were used to as evidences.

Note:  You do not quote and explain.  You state your ideas, then prove it with the evidences.  Whether in the form of quotes, paraphrases, numbers, or even pictures. 

Media Analysis vs Conferences

As statesmen and women, we analyze the condition of the state.  We are also scientists who produce or innovate ideas.  Political analysis is involved in both, and it is important that you do one or both of them.

Speaking through the media and providing the public a political analysis has similarities and differences with that of a conference.  When you speak through media, you are being a political analyst.  You are commenting on conditions of the present, and occasionally on the prospects of the future.  When you speak at a conference you are delivering your discoveries (conducted through rigorous research) to the community of political scientists and any other stakeholder involved in your niche.

But whether you are speaking to the media or at a conference, one thing in common is the need for both INSIGHT and RIGOR,

Analysis given before the media may seem to have less rigor because you have to speak on something current that is going on in the Philippines or outside.  But in fact the rigor has already been accomplished from years devoted to studying a specific area of politics: ie. elections, corruption, environment.  This is part of the essence of being an expert in a chosen field.  Rigor in conferences involve painstaking process of accepting and rejecting participants, qualifications of respondents, streamlining questions for interview or survey, validating them, among others.  These are what helps make what you discover valid, acceptable, and fairly accurate.  

Insight is actually the result of analysis.  It is informing people of what goes on deep in the political world.  And this involves being able to do one or more of the following: classifying things (e.g. explaining what's going on by being able to classify governments, classify actions of people), abstracting or differentiating or finding similarities (e.g. explaining how something happened by differentiating events, people, institutions.  Sometimes, instead of differences, you need to look at similarities), contextualizing or by being able to relate concepts to the setting of the political events (e.g. explaining how something occurred by tracing history, identifying geographic background, identifying social background), predicting or being able to observe patterns and their implications.

With that let us procede to unit 2.

 

Nature of Political Analysis

Political analysis explains the political world.  Usually, what we explain are political events or phenomena/phenomenon (phenomenology), such as impeachment, or elections or voting, or doing politics in media, or doing politics in the street.  Take note of the given samples, and let us connect them with the above ideas of CONCEPT and CONTENT.  Content are the raw data.  Note that I mentioned as samples of phenomenon both elections and voting.  Because they are two different concepts and as such given different terms.  How about the samples: doing politics in media, and doing politics in the street?  They are political events.  Are they different concepts?  Are there terms that actually encapsulate one and the other?  Do they both fall under the umbrella term of "political participation?"  (note also that we are in a way abstracting and doing classifying here)    

But sometimes, in order to arrive at understanding political events, we also need to understand political beings (ontology).  These beings are what we call 1) political actors in behavioralism/post behavioralism, and 2) political institutions in institutionalism/neo-institutionalim.

Political beings can, at times, be less concrete and more abstract.  Because in a more general sense, ontology is about understanding "what."  And these whats in politics can also be immaterial things such as, values, ideologies, even music.  They can also be other concepts or can be other non-living material things such as media, books, or even food.\

We need to understand the nature of what we analyze before we can procede to the actual act of analysis.  Because if the analysis does not match the thing being analyzed. then the result may not lead to insight.  The following three are the nature of analysis based on what kind of research is being done.  

Normative Analysis

The information here is best answered through your reading by Pietrzyk-Reeves, 2017.

a. Pietrzyk-Reeves, 2017

What I'll be giving here is a guide, along with the practicalities unique to our department.  Normativism was the very beginning of political science.  In fact, it was the beginning of political philosophy.  And why sometimes, political science is classified as a branch of philosophy under ethics.  It proposes principles on how the political world should work, rather than describe it.  Ethically, it also analyzes by evaluating the actions of political beings, be they actors or institutions.  

Normative analysis and normative philosophy are seldom accepted as thesis topics in our department because of the INSIGHT requirement.  In terms of rigor and insight, normative research has less rigor (mind you, less not none).  And it has a very high expectation in terms of insight.  

There is less rigor because there is less surveys or interviews to do.  More attention is instead given to analysis of the data.  Political scientists who are more into rigor disparage those who write on normative analysis by calling them armchair researchers because sometimes all you need are literature and classic texts.  The literature can be sources of current events, the classic texts as sources of practical philosophy to be used in the analysis.

What makes it fail is the convolutedness and abstractness.  What can make it pass is organization.  Because to write on normative political analysis is to do political philosophy.  And here the matching activity is to discuss abstract concepts.  Not just talk about them, but to dissect them to the very core in order to arrive at the very essence  of what you are analyzing.  Each part you dissect, will them have it's own discussion and explanation.  And you should be able to help the reader see all these ideas with your words.  

Pietrzyk-Reeves (2017) gives us a 2 important guidelines.  1.  Is on what to study, and 2. on how to study.  The answer to the first is easy enough: real world politics.  You need to study current political issues.  The second is that you need to be able to use specific political postulates or principles to evaluate the issue or the event or the act    The article also adds the concept of the need for validity.  You have to cross validate you findings by doing one of two things or both.  One is going back to the people who are the subject of analysis and having them confirm your findings.  The other is going to experts on the topic, interviewing them and seeing if your analysis matches.  Or you can simply confirm your analysis by asking.

Empirical Analysis

Our discussion on empirical analysis is based on Isaac (2015).

Isaac, 2015

The currently acceptable form of doing science.  Rational choice analysts  would say that the only empirical research is one that does quantitative analysis.   We will not include Rational Choice as a reading because you will not be using it.  There are not enough experts in the country who can pass down that knowledge in terms of applied political science.  And I wouldn't claim such an expertise myself.  

Empirical analysis can be said as having a balance of both rigor and insight.  Rational choice has more rigor, though they'd claim they have a high level of both.  Eventually writers such as Weber and Strauss argued that science is not simply about the numbers.  And qualitative analysts who followed eventually consolidated methods that make it rigorous.

The rigor is not simply about going to the field and doing surveys or interviews.  The rigor is about calibrating the instrument and making the experiment as valid and accurate as possible.  Isaac provides us the following varieties of what makes empricial research: Evidence, Plausibility, Tests, Wide Area or Scope.

Evidence is raw data.  It's statements, statistics, pictures, drawings, any material that can support your argument.  And they all come from the field.  These are the things that make a paper original, the use of unpublished materials.  Evidences that you took or gathered first-hand.

Plausibility relates to insight.  The argument that you are trying to convey in your writing, and would eventually present at a conference or through the media should be logically possible or feasible both in the mind of the reader or audience, and also in reality.

Tests begin at the planning stage.  You establish qualifications for your locus of study, for the participants or respondents.  You have to double check, why talk to these people?  Take for example the difference between elections and voting.  If you are trying to do an analysis of why do people vote, do you interview professors, or do you interview voters?  Do you interview candidates or do you interview those who will be voting?  

Then there's the set of questions that you ask.  We will deal with these on the next unit.  But questionnaires and surveys both are termed as instruments.  Just the same as we call weighing scales, test tubes, beakers, and cylinders as instruments.  Among those, test tubes do not have numerical markings.  But we use them to contain things, and to separately identify chemicals.  Instruments help us measure, they help us identify characteristics, they help us identify components.  We can't just place any question in an interview questionnaire or in a survey.  These questions must accurately bring about the scientific result of what you are trying to find out.

Hence, instruments need to be pre-tested.  You go to a different set of people, one who are not your participant or respondents, but can substitute, around 2-3 for quali, and 10 for quanti will do.  You ask administer the instrument and observe if the questions do elicit the right answer.  Because sometimes, what we ask is not the way a person actually understand.  Sometimes, we can be vague, sometimes we use the wrong terms, sometimes we use an incorrect line of asking.  Once done, you revise until you are finally ready to go to the field.

Going to the field without doing this is the true waste of time, energy, money, and a lot of paper if the instrument is innacurate.

Wide range of scope allows the thesis to be more generalizable.  A thesis should not be, Isko Moreno is an effective local government officials.  But rather, you should move up to a general category of what Isko Moreno is.  He can be a proletarian politician, he could be a former actor politician.  This now helps to generalize the statement.  You now dissect the concept of being a preletarian politican.  Of being a proletariat, of being a politician, which are qualities of the case - Isko.  You do not study Isko per se.  You study the political of what is Isko.

To all this, I also would like to hark back to validation.  Which is an essential practice through all the modes of analyses.  If you did quali, you might need numbers to validate the claims.  If you did quanti, you might need words and explanations to validate the numbers.

Most importantly, specific qualitative methods require validation by you going back to the participant after you did the analysis.  Again, you bring back the analysis, and it will be they who will say that yes, the terms categories you made does describe their political world.  This is usually done in phenomenology, because you are merely analyzing a person's experience.  The experience are not yours.  You need the participant's validation.

Constructivist Analysis

This mode of analysis is fun, but very contestable.  A trait which makes it less acceptable by the department.  Construction is about consolidating ideas and encapsulating them.  It's about interpretation of texts and statements which may or may not have differences in meaning depending on the audience.

It's a cross between political philosophy and empirical analysis.  In construction, one construes meaning.  The subjects can be speeches, music, books, film.  And the interpretation of one person can be different from another.  The only way for a constructive analysis can be acceptable is if one is able to present rigor aside from insight.


Based on this discussion, I want you to be able to review your proposals, and from this start brainstorming on which among these fits your topic.

Pol 3211 Rubric of Grading for Timeline of the Discipline

Per team:  Download 1 copy, fill up, print, bring on presentation day.

Any group not ready forfeits.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/15nvNzG-Xub6LICaEUSkXtTDp5ERc5Ku4/view?usp=sharing