Research essay advice PDF

Preview

Summary

Research essay advice...

Description

ATS2256 Research Essay Advice 2021 Key information •

Due date: Friday 17 September 2021, 11:55pm

•

Word limit: 1200 words (± 10%) – the word limit excludes the bibliography but includes in-text references and footnotes/endnotes.

•

Assessment extension and late assessment submission policy: https://www.monash.edu/arts/business-processes/assessment/assessment-extensionand-late-assessment-submission

General advice •

Use short paragraphs. If possible, use subsections/subheadings.

•

Ensure that the introduction briefly states the essay’s central argument as well as the key steps in your analysis.

•

Use at least 6 academic sources, e.g. books, book chapters and journal articles (please see required readings and further resources in Moodle).

•

Citing and referencing - You may use any citing and referencing style. The most important thing is that you use the same style consistently throughout the essay. You can find a list of citing and referencing styles here: https://guides.lib.monash.edu/citingreferencing.

More specific advice for each essay question Question 1 Some people argue that ideology is no longer central to social and political life in mature liberal democracies such as Australia. Do you agree with this view? Discuss with reference to one specific real-world example (e.g. a country, a political party, a political leader, etc.) and to theories of ideology covered in the unit. Key points •

You may answer the question either positively or negatively, as long as you provide evidence for your argument.

•

Answering the question positively may involve arguing that the left-right distinction is obsolete and/or the view that most people do not (or no longer) hold coherent ideologies.

•

Answering the question negatively may involve arguing that the left-right distinction is still relevant if understood in a more nuanced way than in the past (e.g. through a bidimensional rather than unidimensional lens) and/or that political parties or leaders that appeal to specific ideologies are often still successful nowadays in contemporary liberal democracies. 1

•

You may endorse a more balanced/nuanced position that combines aspects of both arguments.

•

You should mostly draw on the week 2 readings and lecture.

•

You should use at least one specific real-world example.

Question 2 Examine a political leader of your choice who you believe was/has been particularly successful during their time in office. After briefly explaining in what sense they were successful (e.g. by referring to their electoral success and/or measured popularity and/or ability to enact specific policies), analyse their success by referring to at least two theories of leadership and/or followership covered in this unit. The essay can examine political leaders currently in office. Key points •

You should provide evidence for the leader’s success.

•

You should refer to at least two theories of leadership and/or followership examined in week 3 and explain why you chose these two specific theories, e.g.: o Is your choice due to the strength of the theories per se? o Is your choice due to the relevance of the theories to examining this specific political leader? o You may argue that the two theories present complementary strengths.

Question 3 Analyse one particular case of intergroup prejudice or conflict (e.g. racist speech targeting members of certain ethnic minority groups in Australia or elsewhere, interreligious or interethnic conflict, etc.). Draw on either realistic conflict theory or social identity theory (or both) to explain the sources of this prejudice/conflict and refer to the contact hypothesis to explain whether and how this instance of prejudice/group conflict has been overcome or could be overcome. Key points •

Explain clearly what your case study is and why it constitutes an instance of intergroup prejudice and/or conflict.

•

You should refer to the relevant readings and theories examined in week 4 (realistic conflict theory and/or social identity theory). If you draw on both theories, you may argue that they present complementary strengths.

•

When drawing on the contact hypothesis, you should explain whether the conditions that are necessary for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice and/or conflict were/are present and/or could be brought about in the case that you examine.

2...