Lesson Report:
**Lesson Report: Mock Thesis Defense Presentations and Feedback**
**Synopsis:** This session was dedicated to mock thesis defenses for senior students. Four students presented their research (three in person, one online), followed by a 10-minute Q&A session with faculty acting as a defense panel. The primary objective was to provide students with practice and critical feedback ahead of their final thesis defenses, focusing on presentation clarity, command of the subject matter, methodological rigor, and argument coherence.
**Attendance:**
* Number of students mentioned absent: 0 (One student presented online as scheduled).
**Topics Covered:**
**1. Introduction and Mock Defense Instructions**
* The instructor welcomed the class and outlined the session’s purpose: mock thesis defenses.
* **Schedule:** Four presentations were scheduled (Karolina, Amira, Tuba – online, Asel).
* **Format:** Each defense consisted of a 10-minute presentation followed by 10 minutes of Q&A with the faculty panel.
* **Assessment:** The panel assessed presentations on a 1-10 scale. A ’10’ signifies strong understanding, mastery of the topic, and a clear, easy-to-follow explanation of the research process, not necessarily a flawless dissertation. Emphasis was placed on the student’s ability to clearly articulate their work.
**2. Karolina’s Presentation: Framing BRICS+ Partnership in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan**
* **Aim:** Analyze how the presidents of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan construct narratives around BRICS+, contributing to literature on international alignment and understanding perceived opportunities.
* **Research Question:** How do the presidents of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan frame the partnership with BRICS+?
* **Theoretical Framework:**
* *Narrative Analysis:* To analyze policy statements, images of past/present/future, and partnership views to understand foreign policy positions.
* *Strategic Framing:* To understand leaders’ emphasis (economic gains, independence from West, tech development, political sustainability).
* *IR Concepts (Polarity, etc.):* To understand why states like Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan cooperate with BRICS+ without formal membership (soft balancing, maintaining flexibility, multi-vector strategy).
* **Literature Review:** Covered themes like ideological/institutional views, economic development, strategic positioning, soft balancing, and multi-vector strategies related to BRICS cooperation.
* **Historical Background:** Post-Soviet independence led to multi-vector foreign policies. Increased interest in BRICS+ format emerged post-2010s, especially after the Ukraine war, driven by factors like sanctions, economic interests (China’s BRI), and seeking platforms independent of Russia.
* **Methodology:** Qualitative narrative and discourse analysis of presidential speeches (2018-2024) from official sources and summit participation records.
* **Findings:** Presented comparative findings (implied table):
* *Kazakhstan:* Frames BRICS+ as part of multi-vector policy, emphasizing trade diversification, energy, market access, geopolitical influence.
* *Uzbekistan:* Frames BRICS+ as a tool for regional cooperation, focusing on economic modernization, infrastructure investment, domestic development.
* **Conclusion:** Both countries engage with BRICS+ to diversify relations and promote development, seeing it as a platform for economic/technological opportunities rather than a purely ideological alliance. Kazakhstan focuses more on geopolitics, Uzbekistan on domestic economy.
**3. Faculty Q&A and Feedback for Karolina**
* **Faculty Questions:** Focused on the interaction between theoretical frameworks, explaining the variation between the two countries (role of domestic factors), differentiating narrative analysis in theory vs. methods, the thesis’s contributions (filling a comparative gap, especially on Uzbekistan), and limitations (large volume of sources).
* **Methodological Inquiry:** The instructor pressed for specifics on *how* conclusions were derived from analyzing speeches (moving beyond “I read them”).
* **Instructor Feedback:**
* *Strengths:* Presentation structure and visual organization were clear and impressive.
* *Areas for Improvement:* Must articulate the *process* of narrative analysis more concretely for the defense committee (e.g., coding process, criteria, linking specific speeches to codes). Needs to demonstrate deeper mastery of the methodological steps.
**4. Amira’s Presentation: Institutional Trust and Vaccine Hesitancy in Kyrgyzstan**
* **Topic:** Investigating social-political factors, particularly governmental distrust (influenced by media, religion, NGOs), contributing to vaccine hesitancy in Kyrgyzstan (approx. 2018-present).
* **Research Question:** How does institutional trust influence vaccine hesitancy in Kyrgyzstan, and what roles do media, religious groups, and NGOs play?
* **Aim:** Study the reasons behind vaccine hesitancy, focusing on how institutional mistrust shapes public attitudes.
* **Context:** Noted a decline in vaccination rates and linked it to citizens’ distrust of government, fueled by specific actors, rather than solely personal beliefs or misinformation. Highlighted accessibility issues despite official claims (using regional disparities in vaccination centers, e.g., Bishkek vs. Osh).
* **Data:** Used UNDP survey data on trust, WHO/Govt stats on vaccination rates (Measles, DTP, COVID), and data on vaccination center distribution. Justified using existing surveys for objectivity and reach. Explained choice to study general vaccination hesitancy to maintain a political science focus, avoiding a medical deep-dive into specific vaccines (like Measles or COVID).
* **Theoretical Framework:**
* *Institutional Trust Theory:* Low trust leads to vaccine reluctance.
* *Agenda Setting Theory:* How media, religious orgs, NGOs shape perceptions.
* *Political Economy of Health:* Linking regional inequalities and access issues to hesitancy.
* **Methodology:** Qualitative discourse analysis of official speeches and major media sources. Avoided primary interviews/surveys due to concerns about achieving objectivity and representative sampling across regions.
* **Hypothesis:** Declining institutional confidence, influenced by key actors and inconsistent messaging, is a primary driver of vaccine refusal.
* **Limitations:** Limited access to regional digital media sources.
**5. Faculty Q&A and Feedback for Amira**
* **Faculty Questions/Feedback:** Emphasized the need to cite sources for all claims and data presented (graphs/charts). Pointed out inconsistencies in data presentation (graph timeline vs. caption). Questioned the role of political culture in trust patterns (NGO vs. state). Suggested normalizing data (e.g., vaccination centers per capita). Critiqued the rationale for avoiding interviews regarding objectivity, suggesting proper sampling techniques could address this, and questioned the objectivity of relying solely on selected media sources. Advised using fewer slides and better time management.
* **Instructor Feedback:** Re-emphasized citing sources and correcting data errors (COVID timeline). Critiqued that the presentation focused too much on data and lacked a clear, central argument demonstrating *how* the identified factors (distrust, media, etc.) causally lead to vaccine hesitancy. The argument needs to be foregrounded, with data used as evidence. Acknowledged improvement since the last presentation.
**6. Tuba’s Presentation (Online): Structural Effects on Education Accessibility for Students with Disabilities in Virginia**
* **Topic:** Analyzing how structural factors, particularly funding mechanisms, impact the accessibility and quality of K-12 education for students with disabilities in Virginia.
* **Key Terms Defined:** Accessibility, Disability, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), Quality of Education.
* **Case Selection Justification:** Virginia’s diverse educational landscape, policy development role, and existing disparities make it suitable for studying federal (IDEA) and state policy implementation.
* **Research Questions:** Focused on how Virginia’s funding mechanisms and policy implementation affect educational quality and accessibility for students with disabilities, the specifics of fund allocation (Standard of Quality – SOQ – formula), and the impact of policymakers.
* **Argument/Hypothesis:** Disparities in funding, linked to the application of the state’s SOQ formula, create unequal access to services and support for students with disabilities across different districts.
* **Methodology:** Combination of statistical analysis (descriptive stats on graduation rates, funding levels) and policy document analysis (IDEA, state laws, funding formulas).
* **Identified Issues:** Funding disparities driven by federal/state sources and local tax bases, policy prioritization issues (urban vs. rural), leading to limited access, staff shortages, and poor outcomes. Focused critique on the SOQ funding formula, claiming it underfunds Virginia compared to other states and fails to allocate resources based on actual student needs (providing a staffing ratio example).
* **Conclusion/Recommendations:** Argued for equal treatment based on IDEA and the Constitution, stating the current SOQ formula fails this. Primary recommendation was to reform the SOQ formula to be more student-centered.
**7. Faculty Q&A and Feedback for Tuba**
* **Faculty Questions/Feedback:** Questioned the connection to political science (appeared more education/public policy focused). Asked for clearer definitions of variables (independent: funding mechanisms; dependent: quality/accessibility). Requested explicit statement of objectives/contributions and comparison with other states. Pushed for stronger justification of Virginia as a case study (methodological classification: typical, deviant?). Advised clarifying “statistical analysis” to reflect descriptive data use. Recommended integrating political science theories. Critiqued the extensive list of recommendations, advising modesty and focusing only on those directly supported by the findings.
* **Tuba’s Response:** Justified political relevance through the role of laws (IDEA), funding allocation decisions (tied to taxes, policymakers), and the political nature of formula creation. Reiterated Virginia’s funding disparities and policy choices as reasons for selection. Emphasized the SOQ formula reform as the central recommendation supported by the analysis.
**8. Asel’s Presentation: Comparing China’s and Russia’s Public Diplomacy in Kyrgyzstan (2010-2014)**
* **Topic:** Comparative analysis of Chinese and Russian public diplomacy strategies and tools in Kyrgyzstan during the specified period.
* **Research Question:** How did China and Russia conduct public diplomacy in Kyrgyzstan from 2010 to 2014?
* **Hypothesis:** Both used public diplomacy for influence but employed distinct tools: China focused on economic strategies, while Russia emphasized cultural ties.
* **Key Concepts:** Soft Power, Public Diplomacy, Economic Diplomacy, Cultural Diplomacy.
* **Theoretical Framework:** Used Nye’s Soft Power theory and Public Diplomacy concepts to understand the tools and goals of influence.
* **Literature Gap:** Addressed the tendency for studies to focus on either China or Russia, or neglect Kyrgyzstan as a key arena for their interaction.
* **Methodology:** Qualitative process-tracing, analyzing official documents (agreements, speeches from Chinese, Russian, Kyrgyz MoFAs) and expert interviews (9 anonymized experts). Secondary sources included media reports and press releases.
* **Key Findings (China):** Predominantly economic diplomacy (infrastructure, energy, trade projects – BRI related examples given). Cultural diplomacy was secondary. Noted a post-2020 shift towards softer image-building via aid and media messaging.
* **Key Findings (Russia):** Primarily cultural diplomacy (language, education – Russkiy Dom, Slavic University, humanitarian aid). Economic ties exist (EAEU, Development Fund) but were presented as less dominant, potentially impacted post-Ukraine war (raising questions about the 2010-14 timeframe focus).
* **Conclusion:** China and Russia pursue distinct, parallel public diplomacy campaigns shaped by their respective strengths (economic vs. cultural/historical). Kyrgyzstan navigates these non-competing influences.
* **Limitations:** Access to original language documents, lack of public opinion data, potential media bias.
**9. Faculty Q&A and Feedback for Asel**
* **Instructor Questions:** Focused on the significance (“So what?”) of the findings – what does this comparison tell us about public diplomacy or Kyrgyzstan’s situation? Also questioned the verification of expert credentials and the weight given to interviews in the conclusions.
* **Faculty Questions:** Asked for clarification on the conceptual hierarchy (Soft Power vs. Public Diplomacy vs. specific types). Probed the *causal factors* determining *why* China uses economic and Russia uses cultural approaches (beyond just capabilities/history).
* **Asel’s Responses:** Significance lies in understanding small state navigation between major powers using different influence tools. Experts verified by background/publications; findings based ~50% on interviews, cross-checked. Attributed strategy choice to Russia leveraging shared history/language and China leveraging economic strength, acknowledging impact of events like sanctions on Russia’s economic tools.
**10. Concluding Remarks**
* The instructor thanked the presenters for their efforts and the faculty panel for their time and feedback.
* A reminder was given to upcoming presenters regarding the importance of using PowerPoint for compatibility in the final defense and adhering to time limits.
* The instructor expressed satisfaction with the progress shown.
**Actionable Items:**
**1. Technical & Logistical (High Urgency – For Next Session & Final Defense Prep)**
* **All Students:** Ensure final defense presentations are in PowerPoint (.ppt or .pptx) format for compatibility. Students using Canva must verify perfect conversion well in advance.
* **All Students:** Emphasize strict adherence to time limits for the final defense presentation and Q&A.
**2. Student-Specific Follow-Up (Medium Urgency – Before Final Submission)**
* **Karolina:** Needs to prepare a clear, detailed explanation of her narrative analysis methodology (coding, criteria, application) for the defense.
* **Amira:** Must add source citations to all data visualizations. Correct any data errors/inconsistencies (e.g., COVID timeline). Sharpen the presentation’s central argument, explicitly linking distrust factors to hesitancy outcomes. Be prepared to discuss political culture and the rationale behind methodological choices (surveys/interviews vs. media analysis objectivity).
* **Tuba:** Needs to strengthen the justification for Virginia as a case study (potentially using comparative data/methodological classification). Integrate political science theory more explicitly. Refine variable definitions. Drastically condense policy recommendations to 1-2 core points directly stemming from findings.
* **Asel:** Must articulate the broader significance (“so what?”) of the comparative findings. Clarify the conceptual framework relationships (soft power, public diplomacy). Strengthen the analysis of *why* strategies differ (causal mechanisms beyond simple strengths). Ensure consistency in the discussed timeframe (stated 2010-14 vs. references to post-2020 events). Be prepared to elaborate on expert selection/validation.
**3. Instructor Notes (Low Urgency – For Future Reference)**
* Consider reinforcing instruction on interview sampling techniques to address student concerns about subjectivity.
* Continue emphasizing the importance of a clear, argument-driven structure in thesis presentations, where data serves as evidence rather than the primary focus.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
Justification: The transcript consists entirely of mock thesis presentations by students and feedback from faculty, with no mention of any assigned tasks or preparations for the next class session for all students.