CAPSTONE VOCABULARY and Submission 1

1. CAPSTONEVOCABULARY and Submission 1

2. Topic Approval • 1 page worksheet • Identify the social problem and the policy solution • Identify the unit of analysis • Identify the preliminary arguments for both sides Due on 1/30/2012

3. Submission 1

4. Submission One – 10% • Paper One consists of 2 parts: • Annotated Bibliography • Research Proposal (worksheet)

5. Research Proposal • Worksheet. • Overview ONLY! • Do not go into depth. • Get the arguments right! • In prose form, this becomes the introduction to Submission Two.

6. Sub 1: Annotated Bibliography • Basically a feasibility study • Requires 14 sources total, pro- and con- • Books, scholarly articles, activist websites and government resources • No “helper” sources (limited journalistic sources and magazines allowed, but NO Wikipedia, NO Taking Sides or Controversial Issues citations etc.) • Include: MLA Works Cited plus “annotations” (comments on each source’s authority, and on how you will use each source) • Due on Valentines EVE (2/13)!

7. How Many Sources • 14 Total • 7 for the Pro Side • 7 For the Con Side • These should be solid/authoritative sources

8. Good vs. Bad • Good • Scholarly journal articles • Government documents • Reputable newspapers • Webpages of influental groups • Bad • Wikipedia • Private Individuals with webpages • Non-influential groups • Trade publications (People, Esquire)

9. Annotation involves 2 things • Develop a standard MLA citation for each entry • Summarizing each source • Why it is credible • How it will contribute to your project

10. Recap • Submission One = Annotated Bibliography + Research Proposal (worksheet) • Research Proposal is revised for the introduction to Submission Two and subsequent submissions. Put all the stuff in your Research File

11. Talking the Talk, is just as important as walking the walk Capstone vocabulary

12. TOPIC QUESTIONThe title of your project • Concern about what should be done about a specific social problem (i.e., a normative question) • Answers imply a policy, so be specific • Lets use a hypothetical, b.s. topic: Should abortion be legal?

13. POSITION • One specific answer to topic question • Particular stance on topic • Yes, abortion should remain legal. • No, Laws should be changed to make it illegal in all cases.

14. SIDES • Identify all who share a position using shortcuts (efficient) • Tell readers • Opponents and Proponents • Side A and Side B • Pro-Life and Pro-Choice • Avoid generalizations

15. PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY • “Who holds each position?” • Important actors with a vested interest • Abortion Groups • Doctors groups • Religious groups • Politicians

16. GENERAL PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY (aggregate data) • Broad types of people who have taken a specific position • Qualify as precisely as possible • Not all of one type of people ever take one position (e.g. All Dems or Reps)

17. SPECIFIC PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY (Individual Data) • “Leading the charge” for a given side • Specific individuals or named groups • Rick Santorum, Presidential Candidate • Nancy Pelosi, Former Speaker of the House

18. ISSUES • Broad concerns that the sides are arguing over • No opinionated language • Generally sides “share” issues • Usually 4-5 issues per controversy

19. EXAMPLES OF ISSUES • Personhood, i.e., When does the fetus become a person? • Choice, i.e., How much control should women have over their bodies? • Safety, i.e., Is it safer or less safe for women if abortions are legal?

20. ARGUMENTS • Gives the OPINION of the side (which includes all the parties to the controversy) about each specific issue • Each side may have several arguments about each issue • Each argument should relate back to the side’s position.

21. EVIDENCE • What each side uses to SUPPORT its arguments • Can include: • Statistical information • Case studies • Expert testimony • Quantity and quality

22. EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE • The pro-life side argues that the fetus is a person. To support this view, they point to a study done at the University of Maryland Medical School which showed that 93% of 1000 fetuses tested in utero at approximately 15-20 weeks reacted to stimuli (Cortez 119). • Dr. John Langen, Ph.D., Professor of Theology at Notre Dame University, and Biblical scholar speaks for the pro-life side when he contends that there are numerous Biblical passages that supports fetal personhood (1130).

23. PLANS/ACTIONS • “What are the sides doing to insure their position is the one in force?” • Practical, concrete actions • Examples: developing proposals lobbying working with electoral system at all levels using the media

24. EXAMPLES OF PLANS/ACTIONS • Pro-Choice: • working with lobbyists • electing sympathetic candidates • working with/ protecting doctors • Pro-Life • grassroots campaigns • media campaigns (emotional appeals) • electing sympathetic candidates

25. VALUES • Ultimate “goods” • Bedrock of each side’s case • All parties on a side hold all values

26. REVIEW • Topic question = the clearly stated controversy • Positions = possible answers to the topic question • Parties to the controversy = describes who takes each position • General = broad types of people • Specific = named groups or individuals who are leaders on each side

27. REVIEW, cont. • Issues = Concerns that the sides are arguing over • Arguments = opinions of each side related to each issue • Evidence – what a side gives to support each argument

28. REVIEW, cont. • Plans = Concrete actions taken to insure that the side’s position is the one in force • Values = Ultimate goods

29. REVIEW EXAMPLE • Topic question: Should abortion remain legal? • One position: No, abortion should be illegal in all cases. • Side Nickname: pro-life.

30. REVIEW EXAMPLE, cont. • General Parties to Controversy on Pro-Life side: Conservative Legislators from both parties, some doctors; some Christians and religious groups; etc. • Specific P to C on conservative side: Rick Santorum, Focus on Family,

31. REVIEW EXAMPLE, cont. • Pro Life’ side’s plans: electing Republicans, especially in the upcoming Congressional campaign; etc. • Pro-Life’ side’s underlying values: The life of the fetus; family; responsibility; maturity;