Category: Political Science

Paper Guidelines per the professor:
This assignment is designed for you to get an in depth look at the policy analysis process. You are expected to produce a well-written, concise paper on the subject.The paper should be 8-10 pages in length double spaced with proper citations.Your paper should address the following areas:
1. Introduce your topic. This includes identifying the problem and defining any key terms.
2. Establish the criteria with which you will evaluate the existing policy and policy alternatives. For example, cost, legality, efficiency and political acceptability represent possible evaluative criteria.
3. Summarize the existing literature that addresses your policy issue, including online and print publications.
4. Analyze the existing policy according to the evaluative criteria you have established. This analysis should also include the effects the policy has on different groups and any conflicts it creates among important values.
5. Identify alternatives to your policy and evaluate each one individually, according to your established criteria. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Keep in mind that you can combine alternative options into new ideas.
6. Conclude by recommending any changes in or alternatives to the existing policy, and briefly reiterate your rationale. Outline a plan for adopting an alternative, if applicable, and discuss the possible consequences of adopting your recommended changes.The paper should have at least ten sources. At least eight of these must be from scholarly journals. The others can come from “other sources.” Scholarly journals do not include magazines such as Newsweek or Time. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of your sources.

6 Pages double spaced 14 Font [You do not need a title/cover page] I will provide details on how to
reference the book review in Class 6, Book Review Session.
This assignment is a book review. It is an assignment that asks you to critically analyze Mark Andrejevic
& Neil Selwyn’s Facial Recognition and tells the reader what the point it is trying to make; and, how
convincingly it makes this point. Writing a critique achieves three purposes. First, it provides you with
an understanding of the information contained in a book; and a familiarity with other information written
on the same topic. Second, it provides an opportunity to apply and develop your critical thinking skills as
you attempt to evaluate critically a political scientist’s (or other thinker’s) work. Third, it helps you to
improve your own writing skills as you attempt to describe the book’s strengths and weaknesses within a
specific page length so that your reader can clearly understand them.
This book review assignment has four areas: Thesis Statement; Methods; Evidence; and,
Recommendations. Before you start your critical review, you should provide the reader with a short
summary of what the book is about. This should be no longer than ½ page. Consider this as your
introduction to the review. Next, you should turn your attention to the four requirements of the critical
review. The following are guides to help you write your paper.
Thesis Statement: Your first task is to find and clearly state the thesis in the book. The thesis is the main
point the book is trying to make. Quote Andrejevic & Selwyn’s Thesis Statement in the body of your
review and tell me which page or pages you believe it is found on. Many authors, however, do not present
their thesis clearly. Do you have to hunt for the thesis of the book? If you believe you found it, quote it
in our review; and, tell me which page(s) you believe you found it on. Comment about the clarity of
the author’s thesis presentation. If you do not believe they had a thesis statement than indicate this in
your answer to this section of the book review.
Methods: What methods did the authors use to investigate her topic? In other words, how did the authors
go about supporting their thesis? In your critique, carefully answer the following two questions. First,
were appropriate methods used? In other words, did the authors approach to supporting the thesis make
sense? Second, did the authors employ the selected methods correctly? Did you discover any errors in
the way the authors conducted their research?
Evidence for thesis support: In your critique, answer the following questions: What evidence did the
authors present in support of their thesis? What are the strengths of the evidence presented by the authors?
What are the weaknesses of the evidence presented? On balance, how well did the authors support their
thesis?
Recommendation: In this section, summarize your evaluation of the book. Tell the readers several things.
Who would benefit from reading it? What will the benefit be? Be specific. Don’t for example say
something generic like “everybody should read this book” or “students taking political science courses
should read it”. How important and extensive is that benefit? Finally, clearly state your evaluation of the
book – whether you liked or disliked it and why?
Think of your paper as a construction requiring planning (an outline) and careful thinking of concepts,
issues, problems etc. It is helpful to state the objectives and the plan for the paper in the opening paragraph
(introduction). The introduction should conclude with a concise, coherent summary of the argument to
be developed. Despite having major components in the paper, you do not need subheadings as they tend
simply to be space filler and I will call you out on it and deduct marks. Instead, you should use
paragraphs as building blocks. To effectively use the book in your paper, try to identify the main
argument(s) of the author and select examples carefully to bolster your argument. Do not use too many
long, direct quotations. You can summarize the argument(s) in your own words, but make sure to cite the
source of the information as an indirect quote.
Your paper will be evaluated on the following criteria:
• A clear, coherent, and systematic presentation.
• Correct spelling and a competent writing style which allows you to express your views and ideas
clearly.
• Proper citation [refer to the documentation posted to D2L on how to reference this assignment.]
• Adequately and fully addressing all aspects of the assignment
• Any review, which is simply a chapter-by-chapter summary, will automatically receive at
best a grade of 50%; and the grade may be lowered based upon the other grading criteria.
• Do not use any other sources other than the book under review. If outside sources are used, I will deduct a substantial grade.

Paper Guidelines per the professor:
This assignment is designed for you to get an in depth look at the policy analysis process. You are expected to produce a well-written, concise paper on the subject.The paper should be 8-10 pages in length double spaced with proper citations.Your paper should address the following areas:
1. Introduce your topic. This includes identifying the problem and defining any key terms.
2. Establish the criteria with which you will evaluate the existing policy and policy alternatives. For example, cost, legality, efficiency and political acceptability represent possible evaluative criteria.
3. Summarize the existing literature that addresses your policy issue, including online and print publications.
4. Analyze the existing policy according to the evaluative criteria you have established. This analysis should also include the effects the policy has on different groups and any conflicts it creates among important values.
5. Identify alternatives to your policy and evaluate each one individually, according to your established criteria. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Keep in mind that you can combine alternative options into new ideas.
6. Conclude by recommending any changes in or alternatives to the existing policy, and briefly reiterate your rationale. Outline a plan for adopting an alternative, if applicable, and discuss the possible consequences of adopting your recommended changes.The paper should have at least ten sources. At least eight of these must be from scholarly journals. The others can come from “other sources.” Scholarly journals do not include magazines such as Newsweek or Time. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of your sources.

writing a book review of Mark Andrejevic and Neil Selwyn (2022) Facial
Recognition. 6 Pages double spaced 14 Font [You do not need a title/cover page] I will provide details on how to reference the book review in Class. Book Review Session.
This assignment is a book review. It is an assignment that asks you to critically analyze Mark Andrejevic
& Neil Selwyn’s Facial Recognition and tells the reader what the point it is trying to make; and, how
convincingly it makes this point. Writing a critique achieves three purposes. First, it provides you with
an understanding of the information contained in a book; and a familiarity with other information written
on the same topic. Second, it provides an opportunity to apply and develop your critical thinking skills as
you attempt to evaluate critically a political scientist’s (or other thinker’s) work. Third, it helps you to
improve your own writing skills as you attempt to describe the book’s strengths and weaknesses within a
specific page length so that your reader can clearly understand them.
This book review assignment has four areas: Thesis Statement; Methods; Evidence; and,
Recommendations. Before you start your critical review, you should provide the reader with a short
summary of what the book is about. This should be no longer than ½ page. Consider this as your
introduction to the review. Next, you should turn your attention to the four requirements of the critical
review. The following are guides to help you write your paper.
Thesis Statement: Your first task is to find and clearly state the thesis in the book. The thesis is the main
point the book is trying to make. Quote Andrejevic & Selwyn’s Thesis Statement in the body of your
review and tell me which page or pages you believe it is found on. Many authors, however, do not present
their thesis clearly. Do you have to hunt for the thesis of the book? If you believe you found it, quote it
in our review; and, tell me which page(s) you believe you found it on. Comment about the clarity of
the author’s thesis presentation. If you do not believe they had a thesis statement than indicate this in
your answer to this section of the book review.
Methods: What methods did the authors use to investigate her topic? In other words, how did the authors
go about supporting their thesis? In your critique, carefully answer the following two questions. First,
were appropriate methods used? In other words, did the authors approach to supporting the thesis make
sense? Second, did the authors employ the selected methods correctly? Did you discover any errors in
the way the authors conducted their research?
Evidence for thesis support: In your critique, answer the following questions: What evidence did the
authors present in support of their thesis? What are the strengths of the evidence presented by the authors?
What are the weaknesses of the evidence presented? On balance, how well did the authors support their
thesis?
Recommendation: In this section, summarize your evaluation of the book. Tell the readers several things.
Who would benefit from reading it? What will the benefit be? Be specific. Don’t for example say
something generic like “everybody should read this book” or “students taking political science courses
should read it”. How important and extensive is that benefit? Finally, clearly state your evaluation of the
book – whether you liked or disliked it and why?
Think of your paper as a construction requiring planning (an outline) and careful thinking of concepts,
issues, problems etc. It is helpful to state the objectives and the plan for the paper in the opening paragraph
(introduction). The introduction should conclude with a concise, coherent summary of the argument to
be developed. Despite having major components in the paper, you do not need subheadings as they tend
simply to be space filler and I will call you out on it and deduct marks. Instead, you should use
paragraphs as building blocks. To effectively use the book in your paper, try to identify the main
argument(s) of the author and select examples carefully to bolster your argument. Do not use too many
long, direct quotations. You can summarize the argument(s) in your own words, but make sure to cite the
source of the information as an indirect quote.
Your paper will be evaluated on the following criteria:
• A clear, coherent, and systematic presentation.
• Correct spelling and a competent writing style which allows you to express your views and ideas
clearly.
• Proper citation [refer to the documentation posted to D2L on how to reference this assignment.]
• Adequately and fully addressing all aspects of the assignment
• Any review, which is simply a chapter-by-chapter summary, will automatically receive at
best a grade of 50%; and the grade may be lowered based upon the other grading criteria.
• Do not use any other sources other than the book under review. If outside sources are used,
I will deduct a substantial grade

The design and aim of the positional paper are to allow you to SELECT ANY TOPIC THAT interests YOU and write an argumentative position. So, you are encouraged to select any topic and theme, whether empirical observation or theoretical debates in the various IR theories.
Yet, if you have problems identifying any topic of interest, you can select any of the topics below.
1. Analyze the workings and dynamics of the balance of power in the Ukraine crisis.
2. Selecting any conflict of your choice, analyze the roles of individuals in the decision-making of such conflict.
3. Analyze by comparing and contrasting the roles and dynamics of collective security (led by the United Nations) and Collective defence (led by NATO) in the preservation of international peace.
4. Select any conflict of your choice (past or present), and analyze the problems and benefits of negotiations in such a conflict. Here, you can select a single conflict as a case study and analyze the dynamics of negotiation in such a conflict.
5. Analyze the advantages and disadvantages by comparing and contrasting constructivist and classical realist approaches to arms control agreements. Here you can choose any arms control agreement of your choice.
In writing this analytical paper, ensure you have all the following elements of a good essay.
1. You have developed a thesis or hypothesis that guides your essay.
2. You have developed your hypothesis into an analytical framework or model, considering the pros and cons that challenge your hypothesis or thesis.
3. You must have sources of evidence that support your hypothesis or thesis or challenge it. When selecting your evidence, you have to balance your analysis. Every argument has two sides, so try to balance your argument.
4. Consult scholarly literature or work to support your hypothesis or thesis statement.
5. Make sure your conclusion (s) flows logically from your argument, considering your hypothesis and analytical tramework.
Further instructions.
1. The Position paper is a 5 double-spaced paper (not counting the endnotes and citation pages). Citations are to be Chicago-style.
NO AI USE

The essay question is:
What roles, if any, did American foreign policy play vis a vis the historical, political, social, cultural, and economic underpinnings of the 1979 Revolution in Iran? What were the policies on the ground, what did they presuppose, and how did they “fail” to see the revolution?
In a well-organized, well-written 10-12-page double-spaced essay, answer one of the following questions with a clear and original argument. Be sure to use specific examples from the readings to support your case (at least 5 readings from the course must be engaged thoroughly). You will need a Works Cited page at the end of the paper, and please use proper citations throughout the paper (pick one style and stick with it). I will share the readings and sources you need to use – if you use additional sources, please make sure they are ONLY academic books or articles from academic institutions. Please use these sources:
Kevan Harris, A Social Revolution: Politics and the Welfare State in Iran: Introduction
Abbas Amanat: Iran, A Modern History; Chapter 11 “Development, Disarray, and Discontent” and Ch 12 “Cultures of Authority and Cultures of Dissent”
Kevan Harris, A Social Revolution: Politics and the Welfare State in Iran: Chapter 2: “Seeing like a King: Welfare Policy as State-Building Strategy in the Pahlavi Monarchy”
– Charles Kurzman, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004): Read the whole book.
– Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi: Foucault in Iran; Chapter 1.
– Misagh Parsa, Social Origins of the Iranian Revolution (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1989): Chapters 5, 6, and 7
– Negar Mottahedeh, Whisper Tapes: Read the whole book
– Sreberney-Mohammadi and Mohammadi: Small Media, Big Revolution, Chapter 8: “The ‘Heavy Artillery’: Small Media for a Big Revolution.”
– Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993): Introduction and Chapter 1
– Negar Razavi: The Systemic Problem of “Iran Expertise” in Washington, Jadaliyya
– Naghmeh Sohrabi, “The ‘Problem Space’ of the Historiography of the 1979 Iranian Revolution,” in History Compass 16, 2018.
– Afsaneh Najmabadi, “Iran’s Turn to Islam: From Modernism to a Moral Order,” in Middle East Journal 41(2), 1987.
– Edward Said, Covering Islam: Chapter 2: “The Iran Story”

Students are required to write a 3-4-page paper (around 1500 words) wherein they conduct a critical review of two written works (at least) addressing a specific course topic.
The written works: (I will attach them below)
1. The Roots of Authoritarianism in the Middle East by Selin M. Bolme
2. Authoritarianism and Democracy in Muslim Countries: Rentier States and Regional Diffusion by Ahmet T. Kuru
The paper should include:
1) a comparative analysis of the arguments presented in the papers
2) identification and evaluation of strengths and weaknesses
3) an assessment of their scholarly validity and contribution
4) a substantiated endorsement or rejection of either perspective.
Please make sure that the paper compares authors’ arguments, engage with them critically, show their contribution, and whether you agree with them or not.

I have 4 articles that require a literature to be completed on them. I have very specific instructions and a study topic to be used.

Instructions
Watch the movie Casino Jack (2010) and CBS 60 minutes clips linked above.
Then, in an essay, answer below two questions.
REQUIREMENTS: MINIMUM 1,500 WORDS / Microsoft Word document / 12-points font size & SINGLE space / Proper Citation, if necessary (either APA, Chicago, or MLA).
——————————————————————————————————————-
Restrictions on Interest Group Lobbying
Under current congressional rules, members of Congress and their staffs are severely limited in the size of gifts they can receive from lobbyists. Similar restrictions had existed for decades but were tightened in the mid-2000s after it was revealed that former congressional staffer-turned-lobbyist Jack Abramoff had used “golf junkets, free meals at the restaurant he owned, seats at sporting events, and, in some cases, old-fashioned cash” to lobby members of Congress. The current restrictions limit members and their staffs to accepting gifts only if they are valued at less than $50—moreover, the total worth of the gifts that any lobbyist can give to a particular member of Congress or staffer is limited to $100 per year. Are these restrictions fair? Do they help or hurt the political process?
Keep the rules, and maybe tighten them.
Supporting this option seems like a no-brainer. These regulations are based on a sensible intuition that laws are needed to prevent well-funded, unscrupulous lobbyists from offering inducements to members of Congress and their staffs in return for policy change. Simply put, groups that can send people to Washington to wine and dine members of Congress, congressional staff, and bureaucrats, might gain a significant advantage over those who are unable to do so. Even if a fancy lunch doesn’t buy a legislator’s vote, it might help with access—that is, give the group a chance to make their arguments and perhaps change some minds. In this way, rules that allow even small gifts create an advantage for some interest groups (those that can open a Washington office or hire lobbyists) and a disadvantage for others. As a result, many reform proposals would go further, preventing lobbyists from giving anything to a member of Congress, legislative staff, or bureaucrat—even a cup of coffee.
Relax the rules (a little).
Some argue that worries about interest group influence seem a little overstated. Suppose an interest group takes some congressional staff out to lunch or invites them to an evening reception. Nice treatment might increase the chances that the staffers would meet with the group’s lobbyists or look at the group’s proposals. But congressional staff and the legislators they work for are going to support a group’s proposals only if they help the member’s constituents or if they move policy in a way the member favors, not just because of an interest group’s free lunch. Also, the targets of lobbying know what’s going on—they’re not going to think a lobbyist is their new friend and ally just because of a small gift.
Finally, there are downsides to tight controls on these gifts and perks. The current rules on lobbyists’ gifts create a lot of paperwork for members and their staffs, who have to file reports on just about anything they receive from a lobbyist, even if that individual is a former colleague, neighbor, or friend. The rules are also extremely complicated—for example, legislators are allowed to eat the hors d’oeuvres provided at a reception, but they cannot sit down to a full meal without violating the gift restrictions. The disclosure requirements are also a burden to smaller interest groups and firms, which have to document everything they do on complex forms. As a result, members of Congress, their staff, interest groups, and lobbying firms spend considerable time and effort on documenting small gifts that are unlikely to have any effect on policy outcomes.
1. To what extent do you think current congressional rules limiting the size of gifts that members of Congress and their staffers can receive from lobbyists have curbed illegal behavior by interest groups?
2. Are these rules aimed at exceptional cases or average interest groups?

PPP – 01 Classroom Discussion of Public Problems, Causes, and Effects
7777 unread replies.7777 replies.
About
Problems can be classified as private or public. Private problems are problems that effect a single individual, while public problems effect many individuals or an ecosystem. Public problems can emerge when private problems spill into the public sphere or consciousness.
For example, a person with an aliment could be viewed as having the private problem. However, if many people are discovered to have the same aliment, then it may enter the public sphere. The public sphere will ask who, what, when, where, why, and how: Who has the aliment? What is the aliment? When were they diagnosed with the aliment? Where were they living or working or visiting? Why do they have the aliment? How did the aliment emerge?
Discussing public problems involves face-to-face and online interactions between individuals.
Estimated Time
An estimated 2 hours is needed to complete this activity.
Classroom Discussion
“I got 99 public problems…”, but in reality, there are a multitude of “public problems” in our neighborhood, community, city, county, region, state, nation, hemisphere, and mother Earth.
The goal of this discussion is for you to post a Public Problem and reply to at least 2 peer’s posts.
You are welcomed and encouraged to go above and beyond the minimum requirements by replying to a third peer’s post.
Step 1: Post a public problem
State a public problem.
Share why you think it is an important public problem to focus on.
Explain what at least one cause of the public problem is.
Explain what at least one effect of the public problem is.
Step 2: Reply to a peer’s public problem
Validate your peer’s justification for focusing on the public problem.
Add one additional cause of the public problem.
Add one additional effect of the public problem.
Step 3: Reply to a second peer’s public problem
Validate your peer’s justification for focusing on the public problem.
Add one additional cause of the public problem.
Add one additional effect of the public problem.
Above and Beyond: Reply to a third peer’s public problem
Validate your peer’s justification for focusing on the public problem.
Add one additional cause of the public problem.
Add one additional effect of the public problem.
Rubric
Rubrics are “a guide listing specific criteria for grading or scoring academic papers, projects, or tests”. Every assessment in the course has a rubric. A table of this assessment’s rubric is provided below for students. However, this table is not accessible for some screen readers.
For students using a screen reader, an accessible version of the rubric table can be accessed by scrolling down further or clicking on the three vertical dots in the upper right corner of the assessment and selecting “Show Rubric”.
If you need additional help, visit How do I view the rubric for my assignment?Links to an external site.
RubricCriteria
Ratings
Points
Post: State a Public Problem
Yes
No
5
0
Post: Share Why Public Problem is Important to You
Yes
No
5
0
Post: Explain at least 1 Cause of Public Problem
Yes
No
5
0
Post: Explain at least 1 Effect of Public Problem
Yes
No
5
0
Post Quality: Subjective evaluation by Professor
01 – Superb
02 – Excellent
03 – Great
04 – Good
05 – Insufficient
0
0
0
0
0
Reply 1: Validate Peer
Yes
No
5
0
Reply 1: Offer Additional Cause of their Public Problem
Yes
No
5
0
Reply 1: Offer Additional Effect of their Public Problem
Yes
No
5
0
Reply 1 Quality: Subjective evaluation by Professor
01 – Superb
02 – Excellent
03 – Great
04 – Good
05 – Insufficient
0
0
0
0
0
Reply 2: Validate Peer
Yes
No
5
0
Reply 2: Offer Additional Cause of their Public Problem
Yes
No
5
0
Reply 2: Offer Additional Effect of their Public Problem
Yes
No
5
0
Reply 2 Quality: Subjective evaluation by Professor
01 – Superb
02 – Excellent
03 – Great
04 – Good
05 – Insufficient
0
0
0
0
0
Above and Beyond: 3rd Reply
Yes
No
0
0