Clarifying my research question throughout the thesis. I need to work it in to my paper earlier that it already is (about pg 20 according to my advisor)
My initial discussion of democratic theory is based on a small number of relatively dated sources; it also gets fairly repetitive and doesn’t really “connect” to the real research question that I wind up asking. It’s been recommended to me to make this discussion far more brief, and to make sure it is clearly connected for the reader to the actual question you are working to answer.
The first part of the thesis badly needs a brief summary of the key events in the case. Not the deep historical background, but the contemporary circumstances around the end to the fighting, the negotiation of the initial deal, the referendum, then the revised deal that is ultimately approved by the legislative branch. If those events are “set up” more effectively for the reader (and for you), then I think a lot of the rest of it will flow more effectively.
Is my research accurate in calling the initial agreement and the referendum a failure?
The end of the draft is where my empirical analysis of what key government officials said is most present, and that need to be more consistently present throughout the thesis.
Research interests for this paper include: (a) that Participatory Democracy helps legitimize decisions and governance in general, and (b) that Praticipatory Democracy processes, and deliberation in general, may help create mutual understanding that would be key to a peacebuilding process. On the other hand, some argue that it can lead to the exact opposite outcomes––increasing divisions and misunderstandings (see the book referred to in this article:https://bigthink.com/the-present/deliberative-democracy/). There is certainly more to the debate that you can map; our role is to give you some directions but you must dive into the literature. Then you would bring together these two strands of “theory” to articulate your research questions, which, I agree with Mark, could be framed as “in the Colombian case, did the use of Participative Democracy help or hinder peacebuilding efforts?––and why?
6. Better story-telling efforts. I need to tell the story of the referendum better. It is key to moderate the narrative on the referendum and recognize that it did help the process move forward, generating feedback that the President and Congress used to craft a final plan––however noting that the referendum may have increased civic mistrust (given, e.g., the issue of misinformation) that can, potentially, pose obstacles for the implementation of the plan. Overall, I see this process as half-failed, half-successful. It did not produce the kind of legitimacy and mutual understanding that portions of democratic theory suggest can be produced through Participatory Democracy ––I want to explain that this happended via the misinformation campaign and the use of an over simplistic consultation tool such as a referendum; while it helped the main stakeholders in the representative government identify what was more conflictive and make adjustments that made the plan “digestible”, the process may have created civic mistrust and misunderstandings that will haunt the plan during its implementation stage.
The draft’s structure.
Introduction
This is a place for you to present your problem/puzzle (e.g.: Colombians voted in this referendum, which many hoped would be the culmination of a peace agreement process; the plan was eventually rejected and the President and Congress had to reengage in negotiation efforts; the Colombian PPP referendum presents an intriguing case in peacebuilding, as it involves the attempt to involve the people in the process––which is not usual; the literature on democracy and democratic innovation indicates this can be both promising and risky; in this paper I will examine the Colombian case and determine whether the use of this referendum helped or hinder the peacebuilding process––and why. I argue that x, y, and z. The paper proceeds in x parts, part 1, part 2, part 3… These findings have both theoretical and practical implications… Theoretical implications are a, b, and c; practical implications are d, e, f.
Participatory democracy and peace building
This is a place for you to review the literature on peacebuilding (civil wars) etc. and discuss how unorthodox the Colombian referendum may have been
Participatory democracy: history, potentials, and limitations
This is a place for you to review the literature on PD and set the stage for your analysis
The Colombian conflict: from the founding of the FARC to the Peacebuilding Priority Plan
This is a place for you to tell the story of the conflict up to the referendum
An analysis of the PPP referendum
This is a place for you to tell the story of referendum––how it happened, who was involved, etc.––and then draw your conclusions.
Conclusion
This is a place for you to respond to your research question(s).
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|