First half of the final paper. You will write the first draft as if it were only the first 7-8 pages of the final paper. Thus, it will look like this:a) Introduction: 1.5-2 pagesb) Literature...

Yom Structuring a Scholarly Paper In political science and other academic disciplines, research papers perform a singular task: to deliver a persuasive hypothesis and explanation for an important outcome, event, or puzzle. To that end, every section of your paper should be designed to facilitate this task. Papers are their own worst enemies. Their structure too often obstructs rather than aids the reader’s comprehension of the central point. Typically, we face two problems in structuring long papers. First, we emulate the dense jargon that characterizes the scholarship we read. We conflate complex words and opaque structure with intellectual authority. Resist this temptation and use the simplest language possible to convey your point. Remember Howard Becker’s seminal lesson: “to overcome the academic prose you must first overcome the academic pose.” Second, we attempt to squeeze too much into a paper. Even though a paper approaching 15-20 pages sounds daunting, the course of research often generates too much information. Sometimes, we want to include everything in the paper, to prove that we know our topic. Or, we inject so much flowery language that the text bursts at the seams! Do not fall into this trap: your reader only cares about the argument. Obey the page limit. The Master Template: Four Sections There is a very useful format for political science papers that you should know. Though different contexts may require minor alterations, consider this the dominant framework for structuring your paper. It applies to any paper considered “seminar length”—typically, 15 or more pages, and written as part of an intensive reading class (the logic behind Temple capstones, or any graduate class), or for publication in scholarly journals. I. Introduction. This is one of the most important parts of the paper. A confused reader who cannot follow your lead will at worst quickly lose interest, and at best be less likely to accept the main argument that follows. Thus, every introduction must have four parts. For a paper of 15-20 pages, the introduction should be no more than 2 pages. a) State the puzzle or question, and mention why it is significant. Typically, puzzles in political science are important because they have either theoretical or policy-oriented significance. b) Present the hypothesis/explanation, and justify why it is superior to competing arguments. Also discuss the importance of your case(s), and why they are worthy of investigation. c) Establish the essence of the contribution: why does your work matter? What is the contribution to knowledge, and how do you shape how we think about the topic? Convince the audience that they should read the rest of the paper! d) Road map. Preview the rest of the paper by briefly discussing what each succeeding section holds. “First, I review the literature to show why my theoretical answer resolves the puzzle of… Second, I present my data and results, illustrating how this explanation unfolds… I conclude the paper by highlighting policy implications and…” II. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework. Express the logic of your approach by first presenting your literature review. The literature review emerges as the first substantive section because by critically exposing gaps and flaws in the existing scholarship, you can set up your own argument and show how it adds to our knowledge and theories. This also means carefully explaining why rival explanations do not work, and why your own argument is necessary to move forward. For any paper of 15-20 pages, this section should be no more than 3-4 pages. III. Cases and Explanation. This is the heart of the paper—the meat on the bones, the fuel for the fire. For any paper of 15-20 pages, this will require at least 8 pages. You may need to break up this large section into sub-sections; how you do so is up to you. In this section, introduce the cases, and present your data in a concise way. Deliver only the information necessary for the explanation to succeed. Do not turn this section into an historical overview, a demonstration of intellectual mastery, or a moral argument. Instead, be as precise. Focus only on the people, events, and processes that play a central role. Discuss only the time period under review. Emphasize the link between cause and effect. Resist the urge to introduce extraneous footnotes and excessive information. By the end of this core section, the reader should know precisely what your argument is—all the moving parts, all the vital information, and the reasons why your hypothesis is right or wrong. IV. Conclusion. Remember that the conclusion is the last thing the reader will see. Here, restate the main point of the paper. Trace out its implications—how does it affect the way we understand a particular topic or subject? What was the point of the project? Should politicians and policymakers care; and if so, why and how? If you wish to make predictions about the future, do so here. For any paper close to 15-20 pages, the conclusion should be no more than 1.5 to 2 pages. AI Usage When writing your paper, AI-based tools are not very useful. You can prompt some platforms to generate long-form texts that stretch on for many pages, but if that artificial essay is not structured in the way described here – and more importantly, if it does not persuasively show evidence of your hard-earned research and analysis – then the resulting paper will fall flat. They also cannot generate drafts that match the four-part structure of a political science research paper in a sensible way. (For instance, a section called “literature review” that actually does not review any literature using the approaches we have learned is not very useful.) Nonetheless, remember that you are free to engage AI-based tools to continue brainstorming, dialoguing, and experimenting with new ideas and sources. But they cannot write any part of the actual submitted text, as per class and university guidelines. POLS 4896 Feedback on Annotated Bibliography Student: Sundhi Sehgal Grade: 7.5/10 Overview This is a detailed annotated bibliography.  Your sources are very interesting, and deliver some insightful comments and information about the situation in Kashmir. Most of them, however, are not scholarly sources. Recall our lesson/handout on sources, in which scholarly sources are defined as peer-reviewed works (e.g., books, journal articles, and the like). Popular media, such as Reuters, NPR, and Al-Jazeera, do not count, and this accounts for the minor point deduction. On the flip side, I think that once you do begin excavating enough academic research for your topic, you’ll find it easy to understand, and then explain, the puzzle you see in Kashmir. And that’s what I emphasize most strongly: this research project cannot be a historical description or exposé into the troubles of Jammu and Kashmir. It must identify a distinctive puzzle, and then formulate a testable hypothesis to explain that puzzle. To use one of many potential examples: why did the Indian state grant Article 370 in the first place if it never intended to grant Kashmir self-rule in the first place; or, alternatively, why did it choose to abrogate those concessions recently? From this or many other potential issues, you must propose a concrete argument that explains why these outcomes have taken place. Fortunately, there is a lot to uncover here given how popular this topic is, and how much literature it has generated! Suggestions Since you now need a full array of purely scholarly sources, I will reiterate what I wrote in your proposal commentary: please research this topic more on academic databases like JSTOR, Project Muse, and EBSCO, and find articles like the Mukherjee piece from the Borderlands Studies journal. Longstanding experts like Sugata Bose have likewise written profusely on the topic. Media op-eds and think tank reports are not enough, especially since the problems of Jammu and Kashmir are long-simmering. A wealth of scholarship awaits. Journals do not have to be Western to count as scholarly, since Indian academia produces a host of very good work that Anglophone scholars in Europe and North America unfortunately ignore. Looking ahead, I offer just two more suggestions. First, it remains urgent that you think about your puzzle and hypothesis as quickly as possible, given that your first draft will be due in a few weeks. That first draft cannot be a description of the Jammu/Kashmiri situation based upon news sources; it must resemble a political science essay oriented around an outcome, and from there it must posit a hypothesis with an independent variable (or variables) to explain it. Second, once you do this, remember to consider rival, competing explanations for your puzzle. Again, to exploit the earlier example: if a scholar were to explain why India abrogated Article 370 (puzzle), and picked the argument that this was due to a combination of religious nationalism, BJP politicking, and domestic pressures, then another scholar might argue the outcome occurred instead as a rebuff against Pakistani (so foreign pressures, not domestic ones). This sort of “jousting” with alternative arguments happens in the literature review, as we discussed in class. Keep at this! I look forward to your first draft in a few weeks.