SSP Research Seminar:
Technology and Security
Security Studies Program
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University
Class SEST-750 / Kai-Henrik Barth, Ph.D.Fall Semester 2006 / Mortara Center 206
ICC 223A / 202-687-3930
Tuesdays 6:15-8:05 pm /
Office Hours: Wednesdays 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., or by appointment
[you may also use AIM, iChat or similar: my screen name is khb3georgetown]
Overview
The M.A. curriculum of the Security Studies Program (SSP) is designed to give students a solid grounding in the concepts, history, and substance of national and international security problems, as well as the skills to conduct original research and analysis on contemporary security issues. This class is not intended to train students to become social science scholars. However, the same basic principles underlie all solid research and analysis on which policy is based. Whether it is a scholarly book, a policy brief, or an oral presentation of analysis, strong research provides insightful and balanced perspectives on important policy problems.
The SSP Research Seminar is the capstone to the M.A. program. The goals of the Research Seminar are:
(1) To give students additional training in research design, research methods, and effective writing;
(2) To help students develop their abilities to constructively critique and contribute to the work of others; and
(3) To guide students through the process of conducting original research and analysis, leading to the production of substantial, professional-quality papers.
This class helps students recognize common research mistakes and biases, while also learning more about what constitutes strong research.
SSP students take the Research Seminar in their area of concentration: U.S. National Security Policy, International Security, or Technology and Security. Students with customized concentrations take the Research Seminar that is most closely related to their area of study. Other Georgetown seminars may not be taken in fulfillment of the SSP Research Seminar requirement.
Because the Research Seminar is the capstone to the M.A. program, SSP students must take the Seminar in their final semester in the program. (Students who expect to graduate in the summer must take the Research Seminar in the spring of that year.)
Requirements
Research Topics: Because these are broad “field” seminars, students may focus their projects on any topic that falls under the broad scope of the seminar provided that:
(1) the topic is important;
(2) the topic has implications for contemporary security issues; and
(3) the project involves some original research – that is, the collection and analysis of primary source material.
Project Statements: Students must submit a 1-2 page project statement (Week 3) and receive the instructor’s explicit permission to proceed with the project.
Research Design: Students must subsequently submit a 13-17 page research design (Week 6). This proposal should include: a 1-2 page preliminary outline (table of contents) of the paper, a 4-5 page narrative that identifies the project’s main questions and outlines the research plan, a 2 page review of the policy implications or recommendations, a 4-6 page literature review, and a 2 page bibliography
First Drafts: Students must write first drafts of their papers and present these drafts to the seminar in the second half of the semester. Drafts must be circulated to the seminar one week before they are presented; this will enable the members of the seminar to offer constructive criticism of the drafts when they are presented.
Class Participation and Commentary: Students must participate actively in class discussions and provide constructive commentary on other projects. This is an integral part of the seminar. At various junctures, students will be assigned to provide commentary on the project statements, project proposals, and first drafts of other students. Class participation and commentary will have a significant impact on final course grades.
Final Papers: Final papers should display both scholarly weight and analytic rigor, and they should contain policy lessons and recommendations. These papers should make original contributions to our understanding of the issues under investigation. Final seminar papers are usually 30-40 double-spaced pages in length, although this varies depending on the nature of the subject and the mode of analysis employed in the project.
Final course grades will be based on the following formula:
1/3: Class participation, including commentary on other projects and presentation of the first draft.
2/3: Written work, including the project statement, project proposal, first draft, and final paper.
Books(Purchase recommended)
Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of Research, Second Edition (University of Chicago Press, 2003).
William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (Allyn and Bacon, 2000).
Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, Cornell University Press, 1997.
Notes
If you have a documented physical or learning disability, I will be glad to make appropriate accommodations. Please contact me by September 5 (our first class) so that we can discuss these arrangements.
If you anticipate any conflicts between this schedule and your religious obligations, please inform me by September 5 so that we can make alternate arrangements.
Academic honesty
Please be certain that you understand Georgetown’s policy on academic honesty. The relevant section of the Graduate Bulletin is at:
The undergraduate Honor Council pamphlet may be useful in understanding what plagiarism is, as it contains several examples. It is available at: . For additional examples, please read “What is Plagiarism?”, which you can find at the general site:
.
Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject to submission for a Textual Similarity Review to Turnitin.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers will be added as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers in the future. Use of the Turnitin.com service is subject to the terms of use agreement posted on the Turnitin.com site.
Podcasting
Lectures and class discussions will be recorded and made available to students. In addition, I will provide some brief video podcasts. These recordings are intended as a study aid, not as a replacement for attending class. I will give the technical details in class.
Class Outline
[Before Class Begins: Identify Topics]
Week 1 (Sept. 5): Research approaches, part 1: Overview and hypothesis framing
Week 2 (Sept. 12):Research approaches, part 2: Collecting and assessing evidence
Week 3 (Sept. 19): Research approaches, part 3: Conducting case studies
Project statements due
Week 4 (Sept. 26):Review of project statements, part 1
Week 5 (Oct. 3):Review of project statements, part 2
Week 6 (Oct. 10):Reading cluster: proliferation
Research design due
Week 7 (Oct. 17):Review of research designs, part 1
Week 8 (Oct. 24):Review of research designs, part 2
Week 9 (Oct. 31):Communicating effectively
Paper drafts are due for students presenting on Nov. 7
Week 10 (Nov. 7):Presentation and review of first drafts, part 1
Paper drafts are due for students presenting on Nov. 14
Week 11 (Nov. 14):Presentation and review of first drafts, part 2
Paper drafts are due for students presenting on Nov. 21
Week 12 (Nov. 21):Presentation and review of first drafts, part 3
Week 13 (Nov. 28):Individual meetings with instructor
Week 14 (Dec. 5):Wrap up, research lessons, or individual meetings with instructor
Final papers are due Dec. 5 by 6:15PM
Weekly Assignments
[Before Class Begins]
One week before the first day of class I emailed you asking you to identify one or more research topics (and, ideally, questions). For our first meeting you should also read the required reading for Week 1 (see below).
Weekly assignments
Week 1: Research Approaches, part 1: Overview and hypothesis framing
Main Topics
Overview of the seminar
Identifying research topics
What are useful research questions?
How do analysts and scholars answer research questions?
Framing hypotheses
Required reading
Booth, et al, Craft of Research, pp. 3-16, 37-74.
Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, pp. 7-48.
Teresa Pelton Johnson, “Writing for International Security: A Contributor’s
Guide,” International Security (Fall 1991), pp. 171-180.
Week 2:Research Approaches, part 2: Collecting and Assessing Evidence
Main Topics
Assessing evidence: authority, accuracy, comprehensiveness, relevance
Common data and research biases
Required Reading
Booth, et al.,Craft of Research, pp. 75-107.
Review Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. You are responsible for ensuring that your written products for the course are free of the problems they identify.
Robert Jervis, “Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: The Case of Iraq,” The Journal of Strategic Studies (Feb. 2006), Vol. 29, No. 1, 3-52.
“Georgetown University Library’s Guide to Research Finding Primary Sources,” available online at
Robert Ehrlich, “More Guns Means Less Crime,” in Nine Crazy Ideas in Science
(Princeton, 2001), pp. 13-32.
Week 3:Research Approaches, part 3: Conducting Case Studies
Main Topics
What is the value of case studies?
How do you draw conclusions from different cases?
How do you build or test theories from cases?
Required Readings
Alexander George, "Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of
Structured, Focused Comparison," in Paul G. Lauren (ed.), Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy (1979), pp. 43-68.
Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, pp. 49-88.
Optional reading
Andrew Bennett and Alexander George, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (MIT Press, 2005), 67-124.
1-2 page project statement due
Week 4 Review of Project Statements, part 1
Critique of each project statement by designated student commentator.
Class discussion of each statement.
Week 5 Review of Project Statements, part 2
Critique of each project statement by designated student commentator.
Class discussion of each statement.
Week 6 Reading cluster: Analyses of Proliferation (all on Blackboard)
- Scott D. Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” International Security, vol. 21:3 (Winter 1996/97), 54-86
- Graham Allison, “How to Stop Nuclear Terror,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 83:1 (Jan/Feb 2004), 64-74
- Peter Liberman, “The Rise and Fall of the South African Bomb,” International Security, vol. 26:2 2 (Fall 2001), 45-86
Research designs due
Week 7:Review of Research Designs, part 1
Critique of each research design by designated student commentators.
Class discussion of each proposal.
Week 8:Review of Research Designs, part 2
Critiques of each research design by designated student commentators.
Class discussion of each proposal
Week 9:Communicating Effectively
Main Topics
Organization, clarity, style
Writing effectively
Proper citation
Required Reading
Georgetown University Library's Guide to Citing Sources
Turabian Bibliographic Form: Footnote/Endnote Style, found at:
Weeks 10-12:Presentation and Review of First Drafts
Drafts must be distributed one week before they are presented.
Brief presentation by author.
Critique of each draft by designated student commentators.
Class discussion of each draft.
Week 13:Individual meetings with instructor
Week 14:Wrap up, research lessons, or individual meetings with instructor
Final papers are due December 5, 6:15pm.
Appendix 1:Topic Selection
How does one make an “original contribution” to our understanding of important issues? Here are some of the possibilities:
One can examine an old security problem that has received insufficient attention from scholars, analysts, and/or policymakers.
One can examine important aspects of a problem that have been overlooked by scholars, analysts, and/or policymakers.
One can examine a new security problem that has not yet been examined in a serious, systematic manner.
One can challenge a conventional wisdom that is wrong or simplistic.
One can stake out a new position in a policy debate, or resolve a policy debate.
One can sharpen thinking in an area where analysis is fuzzy and consequently misguided.
In substantive terms, students have a vast number of options for their projects. Here are some possibilities:
One can analyze the evolution of a security problem over time (e.g., weapon proliferation; transnational terrorism).
One can analyze the regional and international ramifications of a security problem (e.g, the impact of intra-state problems on regional stability).
One can analyze the track record and changing role of a key actor (e.g., a key state; a regional organization; an international organization; or a non-governmental organization).
One can analyze the use and misuse of a policy instrument (e.g., economic sanctions; use of military force).
One can analyze the strengths and weaknesses of policymaking processes and current policy responses (at the state, regional, and/or international levels).
Appendix 2:Template for Project Statements
Project statements are due Week 3. They should be one to two (1-2) pages in length, and they should include the following:
Title of the project
Overview of the project
A concise statement about the focus of the project
A concise statement about the main question the project seeks to answer
A concise statement about why this question is important
A concise statement of your working hypotheses and expected policy implications
Overview of the research plan
A concise statement of how you will study the topic and answer the question you pose
A brief discussion of the primary and secondary sources you plan to draw on
A concise statement about how your project will involve original research and make a contribution to our understanding of the issue under investigation
Appendix 3:Template for Research Designs
Research designs are due in Week 6. They should be thirteen to seventeen (13-17) pages in length, and they should include the following:
Outline (1-2 pages)
The outline is the paper’s preliminary “Table of Contents.”
The outline should identify the paper’s main sections and sub-sections, and it should estimate how long (i.e., how many pages) each section will be.
Narrative (4-5 pages). The narrative should discuss the following:
The focus of the project
The main question the project seeks to answer
The reason(s) why this question is important
The ways in which this project will involve original research, and the ways it will make original, important contributions to our understanding of the issues under investigation
Your working hypothesis or hypotheses, as well as possible alternative explanations
The Project’s Policy Implications and Lessons (2 pages)
What does your research suggest about the current direction of policy? What factors should policymakers consider based on your research? What recommendations, if any, would you offer to change policy?
Literature Review (4-6 pages)
This section will identify the main themes in the existing literature. This includes laying out “the standard wisdom,” noting important “gaps,” and noting various “disagreements.”
Bibliography (2 pages)
List the major sources on which you will draw for your research.
Appendix 4:Other Useful References
Research Design
John W. Cresswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, Second Edition (Sage, 2003).
Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton University Press, 1994).
Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Cornell University Press, 1997).
R. Keith Van Wagenen, Writing a Thesis: Substance and Style (Prentice Hall, 1990)
Research Tools
William M. Arkin, National Security Research on the Internet (Johns Hopkins Center for Strategic Education, 2000).
John A. Butler, CyberSearch: ResearchTechniques in the Electronic Age (Penguin, 1998).
Thomas Mann, The Oxford Guide to Library Research (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Marie L. Radford, Susan B. Barnes, and Linda R. Barr, Web Research: Selecting, Evaluating, and Citing (Allyn and Bacon, 2002).
Dawn Rodrigues and Raymond J. Rodrigues, The Research Paper and the World Wide Web, Second Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000).
Alan. M. Schlein, Find It Online: The Complete Guide to Online Research, Third Edition (Facts on Demand Press, 2003).
Irving Seidman, Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences, Second Edition (Teachers College Press, 1998).
Robert K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Third Edition (Sage, 2002).
Writing
Claire Kehrwald Cook, Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing (Houghton Mifflin, 1985).
Richard Marius and Melvin E. Page, A Short Guide to Writing About History, Fourth Edition (Longman, 2002).
Bruce Ross-Larson, Edit Yourself: A Manual for Everyone Who Works with Words (Norton, 1996).
Bruce Ross-Larson, Effective Writing (Norton, 1999).
Gregory M. Scott and Stephen M. Garrison, The Political Science Student Writer’s Manual, Fourth Edition (Prentice Hall, 2002).
Lynne Truss, Eats Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation (New York:
Gotham Books, 2003).
Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Sixth Edition (University of Chicago Press, 1996).
Joseph M. Williams, Style: Toward Clarity and Grace (University of Chicago Press, 1995).
William Zinsser, On Writing Well, Sixth Edition (Harper, 2001).
1