Lesson Report:
### Lesson Summary Report
**Title**: Refining Research Questions: From Case Studies to Theoretical Frameworks
**Synopsis**:
This session focused on helping students refine their research questions, connect their specific case studies to broader theoretical frameworks, and define key concepts central to their theses. Through interactive discussions, the instructor guided students to critically evaluate their topics for clarity, focus, and academic utility. Emphasis was placed on identifying gaps in existing literature, defining key terms and concepts, and constructing compelling and theoretically grounded research questions. The class concluded with a detailed overview of final paper requirements and upcoming deadlines.
—
**Attendance**:
– **Absent**: Farhunda
—
**Topics Covered**:
1. **Revisiting Research Questions**:
– The session began with a two-minute brainstorming activity for students to revisit their research questions and extract the broader, generalizable theoretical questions underlying their case studies.
– Students shared their research questions in turn, receiving feedback on identifying larger academic themes while avoiding over-reliance on specific case details.
2. **Case Study 1: Kazakhstan and BRICS Cooperation**:
– Discussion on how Kazakhstan’s interaction with BRICS relates to larger questions of narrative construction.
– Feedback highlighted the need to focus on how narrative construction impacts state behavior in relation to economic blocs, making it academically valuable by moving beyond descriptive analysis.
3. **Case Study 2: Public Diplomacy in Kyrgyzstan**:
– Focused on comparing the public diplomacy strategies of major powers (China and Russia) in small states.
– Theoretical framing emphasized process-based questions, such as how differing goals (e.g., economic influence vs. maintaining reputation) shape public diplomacy strategies and their outcomes.
– Comparative value and existing literature gaps were explored, particularly in process-focused rather than descriptive analyses.
4. **Case Study 3: Presidential Education and Governance**:
– Feedback involved clarifying vague terms (“level of education,” “good governance”) and narrowing the research to focus on how specific degree fields affect policy prioritization.
– Theoretical grounding in human capital theory was encouraged, with a focus on its implications for cognitive biases and decision-making.
5. **Case Study 4: Political Responses to Domestic Violence**:
– The student investigated the interplay between cultural, socioeconomic factors, and institutional power in shaping responses to domestic violence in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.
– Feedback included framing domestic violence through feminist theories of power, and exploring how shared power structures across these nations influence institutional reactions regardless of political system differences.
– The importance of defining causal mechanisms and connecting institutional reactions to public perception was emphasized.
6. **Case Study 5: Turkish Soft Power in Uzbekistan**:
– The research question examined Turkey’s use of soft power and its impact on cultural and political relations with Uzbekistan.
– Theoretical expansion was suggested, focusing on how middle powers (unlike superpowers) employ soft power to achieve regional objectives, with attention to shared cultural and historical narratives like Pan-Turkism.
7. **Case Study 6: Identity Marginalization and Radicalization in Tajikistan**:
– Feedback stressed the need to define the processes of marginalization and radicalization clearly, connecting them through relevant scholarly models to acts of terrorism.
– Suggested the inclusion of mechanisms explaining state suppression of religious identity and its role in fostering radicalization.
8. **Remaining Case Studies**:
– **Taliban and Afghan Economic Dependence**: Theoretical focus on dependency theory and the intersection of peripheral and semi-peripheral states.
– **Afghanistan and Rule of Law Post-Withdrawal**: Large-scale exploration of de-democratization processes and their impact on legal systems and governance.
9. **Closing Notes on Final Assignments**:
– Students were reminded about final paper submission requirements and deadlines.
– Key details of the accompanying presentation were shared, including technical requirements (showing face and slides simultaneously).
– Stress on following the rubric to ensure high-quality submissions.
—
**Actionable Items**:
– **For Students**:
– Final Papers:
– Due Wednesday (Submit on e-course). Ensure to include all required sections (e.g., methodology, historical background).
– Avoid vague terminology—be specific and define key concepts like “optimal policy,” “good governance,” “rule of law,” etc.
– Presentations:
– Due Friday. Ensure both your video and PowerPoint slides are visible. Familiarize yourself with recording tools (e.g., OBS Studio).
– Focus on updated theories, methodologies, and the value of your research.
– **For Instructor**:
– Review submissions thoroughly and provide feedback for thesis refinement during the next semester.
– **Future Considerations**:
– Address absent student’s (Farhunda) progress in the next meeting.
– Develop specific resources or examples for students struggling with theoretical connections, such as readings on the transition from descriptive to process-based research.
—
This session effectively guided students toward more focused and theoretically robust research, setting up a strong foundation for their senior theses.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
No explicit homework or assignments were mentioned in the transcript. The professor conducted an in-depth discussion of students’ research questions, providing feedback and conceptual guidance, but did not directly assign tasks or homework for the students. The session concluded with reminders and clarifications about existing course expectations and deadlines, such as final papers and recorded presentations, but these were not newly assigned during this lesson.