Assignment: Policy Analysis Paper Guidelines

Assignment: Policy Analysis Paper Guidelines

Permalink: https://collepals.com/assignment-polic…paper-guidelines/

Assignment: Policy Analysis Paper Guidelines

Purpose: To investigate & integrate knowledge of advanced nursing practice, scholarly inquiry, & leadership by examining a policy at the level of clinical practice, health care systems, or public/social health policy. Students are to submit a paper between 7-10 pages long excluding title page and reference pages. Paper must be organized according to the guidelines below and should include all the identified sections as required. Paper must be completed in APA format and contain current scholarly sources dated from 2010 until current. The following may be selected as topics for this paper:

-Food and drug regulation

-Abortion clinic access

-Planned Parenthood funding

-Correctional health

-LGBTQ health

-Tobacco regulation

-Veterans health

-Medicaid

-Medicare

-Prescription drugs

-Managed health care

-Clean Air act

-Clean Water act

-NIH reauthorization

-Head Start

-Healthcare reform

Has to have

introduccion 10 points

background 10 points

analysis 30 points

recomendations 20points

discussion 20 points

conclusion 5 points

referents 5 points

appendices

A critical analysis paper asks the writer to make an argument about a particular book, essay, movie,
etc. The goal is two fold: one, identify and explain the argument that the author is making, and two,
provide your own argument about that argument. One of the key directions of these assignments is often
to avoid/minimize summary – you are not writing a book report, but evaluating the author’s argument.
Potential points of criticism
Sometimes it can seem intimidating to “criticize” a book or article; after all, they are professors and
experienced policymakers. However, part of this exercise is to expose the fact that even though these
authors are highly qualified, they are still advancing an argument and providing evidence–their aim is to
persuade you that their argument is true, not to just present facts. Once you recognize that these authors
are making arguments, you can analyze whether or not you find their argument compelling. Following are
some possible questions you could ask to evaluate arguments:
• Theoretical questions – How does the author understand the situation? What is his/her
theoretical background? How would this influence their view of the situation?
o If the author is a clear proponent of Western, liberal forms of democracy, how will this influence
his/her study of authoritarian states?
• Definitional questions – Are all the concepts in the text clear? Does the author define a concept
vaguely to allow it to travel across different situations? If a concept can relate two seemingly
different situations, is the concept meaningful?
o Can we really compare the existing communist government in China to the communist government
in the former Soviet Union?
• Evidence questions:
o Does the author’s evidence support their argument? Do they have enough specific
evidence to prove the more general point?
ƒ Does the revolutionary government in Venezuela reflect a more general trend to the left in
all of Latin America?
o Does the author underemphasize or ignore evidence that is contrary to their argument?
ƒ Is an argument compelling if it ignores an obvious exception – Can we really say that
democracies are inherently peaceful given the 2003 Iraq invasion?
o Is the evidence credible? Can you identify a bias in the evidence?
ƒ Was the study done by a political action committee, and environmental NGO, or a nonpartisan research group? How might a group affiliation or funding influence the outcome
of research?
• Implication/Policy relevance questions – What are the implications of this argument? Are
those implications positive or negative? How has the author dealt with this issue?
o If Western modes of thinking are the only efficient path for economic development, what does this
mean with societies that have different cultures and values?
• Other approaches:
o Is the author’s argument consistent throughout the book? Or, does the conclusion seem to
offer a different argument than he/she presented in the introduction?
o Does the author’s background have important implications for their argument?
o Do the specific language choices of the author betray a certain ideology or bias, or frame
the argument in a certain way?

1 Adopted from J.L. Beyer, “Critically Analyzing an Academic Article or Book”
Political Science/LSJ/JSIS Writing Center
Gowen 105; Phone: 616-3354
Structuring a Critical Analysis Paper
Most critical analysis papers begin with a short summary of the work and then dive in to the
argument. Since most of these paper assignments are short, it is important to be concise in all parts of your
analysis. Writing an outline (and following it) is crucial to remain focused on your argument and avoid
summary or irrelevant description. Following is a sample outline for a critical analysis paper:
I. Introduction
a. Identify the work being criticized
b. Present thesis – argument about the work
c. Preview your argument – what are the steps you will take to prove your argument
II. Short summary of the work
a. Does not need to be comprehensive – present only what the reader needs to know to
understand your argument
III. Your argument
a. Your argument will likely involve a number of sub-arguments –mini-theses you prove to
prove your larger argument true. For example, if your thesis was that the author’s
presumption that the world will soon face a “clash of civilizations” is flawed because he
inadequately specifies his key concept, civilizations, you might prove this by:
i. Noting competing definitions of civilizations
ii. Identifying how his examples do not meet the