public policy case study

You are editing the case study draft with the comments that I’ve uploaded. Besides the comments inside the draft, here are general suggestions below. You also need to edit following these. (To see the original insturctions and case choice, see attached as well).
Important notice is, DO NOT USE BROAD WORDS, to specify as much as possible. using the textbook concept from the books I uploaded or journals.
Pay attention to the APA format, especially the subheadings, etc!

(1) Please write an abstract – it should be less than a page and does not count toward your page count. It’s a great exercise actually, after you’ve finished, to see if you can boil down the main points.
(2) Make sure you also have an introduction up front. This is not the same as providing background on your case. Instead, it should overview your paper ahead, including your thesis. I love that John reflected on the DB last week how he writes his thesis – and he was right. It’s a 1-2 line argument that summarizes your main takeaway argument. What do you think the reader should mainly remember/ reflect on after they walk away from your paper? What was the point of reading your case and analyzing it in the context of our program? Many people refer to this as putting your ‘bottom line’ up front.
(3) Some of you really disconnected the case and your analysis. I think the better papers folded these things together, with constant reflections throughout. Otherwise you risk having your paper read as a ‘book report’ up front.
(4) Speaking of reflections, many of you were not specific enough with referencing themes and theories from our programs. While you can have some exposition, you absolutely need to tie directly to readings and name/ quote specific concepts. Do not be overly vague or general as it risks your paper feeling like you are sweeping everything under the rug. I think a key part of our program is recognizing nuance – so show that in your writeup.
(5) Some of you drank too much of the kool aid. Don’t forget to have your critical thinking cap on. You can disagree with the case’s interpretation! You can squabble with theories. You can point out that they sound like platitudes that can’t really be carried out in the real world. I think that introducing some tension, and pointing out how hard solutions are is good.
(6) Please try to avoid passive voice.
(7) Please use subheadings to your advantage – they should really help signpost what you want the reader to get out of the section to come – one word is usually not enough to do that so try to have substance in there.
(8) Pay attention to transitions. Many sections are quite choppy, and they need to flow.

Last Completed Projects