Lesson Report:
Okay, here is the lesson report generated from the transcript:
**Lesson Report**
**Title: Senior Thesis Mock Defense and Feedback Session**
This session featured mock defense presentations from four senior thesis students (Yulia, Akhtana, Sormat, Farhunda). The primary objectives were for students to present their research progress, including methodology, theoretical frameworks, findings, and limitations, and to receive critical feedback from a faculty panel to refine their work and presentation skills before the final defense.
**Attendance**
* Number of students mentioned absent: 0
**Topics Covered**
**1. Opening Remarks & Administrative Tasks**
* **Thesis Title Submission:** Instructor reminded students of the email from Mr. Atzinger containing a Google Doc. Students must list their final thesis titles in English, Russian, and Kyrgyz in the document ASAP, specifically before the lunch break, as it needs to be sent *today*.
* **Assessment Criteria Reminder (for Panel):** The instructor reminded the panel (mentioning Dr. Chulaginov) that the assessment for the mock defenses would be on a 1-10 scale, with decimals permissible. A ’10’ signifies a strong understanding of the topic, clear and digestible presentation for non-experts, and overall engagement, not necessarily PhD-level perfection.
**2. Student Presentation 1: Yulia – Domestic Violence Discourse & Political Response**
* **Topic:** “The Intersection of Domestic Violence, Horror Dynamics, and Political Response: Design of Political Reactions in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan (2017-2020)”
* **Research Question:** How does public discourse on domestic violence shape political reactions in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan?
* **Hypothesis:** Political response is absent until specific cases generate significant public discourse.
* **Theoretical Framework:** Utilized Feminist Theory (Butler’s gender performance, de Beauvoir’s ‘othering’), Socio-cultural Theory (cultural norms, privatization of domestic violence), and Public Choice Theory (politicians’ self-interest driven by public pressure).
* **Methodology:** Comparative analysis (Qualitative/Quantitative) of two high-profile cases (Saltanat Nukenova, Burulai Turdaaly Kyzy). Data sourced from Instagram and YouTube comments (11k for Burulai, 5k for Saltanat initially, filtered to 2k each based on likes/interaction). Manual comment categorization into victim-blaming, victim-support, political, and equal justice themes, using a percentage formula (example provided).
* **Findings:** Both cases showed initial institutional inaction followed by response only after significant public/media attention. Differences noted: Saltanat case discourse linked more to systemic political criticism; Burulai case focused more on police failure. Victim support percentage was lower in Saltanat case (focus on punishment) vs. higher in Burulai case (more emotional/personal). Hashtag usage also differed (#Zaslhanat more organized vs. #Burulai more localized).
* **Limitations:** Missing/deleted comments, thematic overlap in comments requiring subjective categorization, platform algorithm bias, and significant translation challenges (Kyrgyz/Russian to English, losing nuance like sarcasm/irony).
* **Feedback (Panel):**
* Acknowledged progress.
* **Presentation Skills:** Advised against reading heavily from notes; maintain eye contact.
* **Methodology:** Need explicit justification for selecting the two specific cases (why crucial?). Clearly articulate how the three distinct theories (feminist, socio-cultural, public choice) are integrated to form a cohesive argument. Explain the comment classification procedure in detail (selection of categories, link to theory).
* **Literature:** Include more scholarly work specific to the Central Asian context.
* **Limitations:** Explain *how* limitations (especially translation) were mitigated or addressed.
* **Causality:** If claiming discourse *causes* response, demonstrate the temporal sequence clearly.
* **Clarity:** Specify variables and conclusions more clearly.
**3. Student Presentation 2: Akhtana – Media Securitization of Pro-Palestinian Protests (US)**
* **Topic:** “Apollonia Soft Threats in Urgency: How does the mainstream media contribute to the securitization of pro-Palestinian protests in the US in the years 2023 and 2024?”
* **Research Puzzle:** Understanding the public discourse justifying controversial institutional reactions (police mobilization, administrative/legislative measures) to US pro-Palestinian protests post-October 7, 2023.
* **Research Question:** How does mainstream media contribute to this securitization?
* **Hypothesis:** Media frames protests as a threat to US identity and political stability.
* **Theoretical Framework:** Copenhagen School Securitization Theory and Robert Entman’s Framing Theory.
* **Methodology:** Qualitative, interpretive case study (US context) using discourse analysis. Sources: Fox News and CNN articles (Oct 7, 2023 – Dec 31, 2024). Sample: 430 articles analyzed (350 Fox, 80 CNN) from an initial pool of 2,800 found via News API/Google Search. Analysis guided by securitization theory elements (threat object, source, measures, sector) and framing (salience).
* **Findings:** CNN presented as more neutral but focused on confrontation, public order disruption, and sensationalism, while also covering democratic expression aspects. Fox News actively engaged in securitization, framing protests as threats to American/Jewish identity (Societal Sector – linking to anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism, leftist ideology) and political stability (Political Sector – framing protesters as manipulated by external enemies like Iran/China/Hamas and internal NGO proxies to destabilize the US). Anti-Semitism was a common theme in both outlets but more frequent in Fox News.
* **Contributions/Limitations:** Extends theory, provides empirical data, policy suggestions. Limited by dataset size for detailed narrative, descriptive nature (no direct causality), doesn’t explore motives.
* **Feedback (Panel):**
* **Clarity:** Articulate the “puzzle” more clearly (what’s counterintuitive?). Spend slightly more time explaining the hypothesis. Define the case study type (e.g., typical, crucial). Explain data sampling/cleaning briefly. Justify/source the guiding analysis questions. Improve visual clarity (e.g., legends for charts). Correct spelling: Margaret *Hermann*.
* **Literature:** Include more US-specific scholarly literature. Connect findings explicitly back to this literature (similarities/differences).
* **Analysis:** Show *temporal variation* in themes over the study period (Oct ’23 – Dec ’24).
* **Methodology Terminology:** Reconsider if “discourse analysis” is the overall *research method* or the *data analysis technique*.
* **Impact:** Consider discussing the real-world political impact of the observed media framing (Akhtana connected this to survey data).
* **Presentation:** Avoid rushing; ensure correct grammar tense; face the audience.
**4. Student Presentation 3: Sormat – Rahmon’s Stance on Islam in Tajikistan**
* **Topic:** “Assessing the Malik [Emomali] Rahman contradictory stance towards Islam in Tajikistan within the context of creation of the Islamic State [nation-building]” (Clarified focus is nation-building).
* **Research Puzzle:** Examining the contradictory perception (threat vs. opportunity) of Islam by President Rahmon within Tajikistan’s nation-building process, despite Islam’s mobilizing potential.
* **Research Question:** How does Rahmon perceive Islam in the nation-building process? (Sub-questions on alignment of Leadership Trait Analysis (LTA)/Operational Code (OpCode) with policies).
* **Hypotheses:** H1: Islam perceived as threat. H2: Islam perceived as opportunity.
* **Conceptualization:** Islam = Hanafi school practical practices. Political Leadership = Defined via M. Hermann’s LTA/OpCode/policy actions. Threat/Opportunity = Quantitatively measured via analysis variables.
* **Methodology:** Content analysis of 20 speeches (1998-2005) using Margaret Hermann’s LTA and Nathan Leites’ OpCode frameworks. Data from official websites, news agencies, YouTube transcripts. Policy data from official sources.
* **Analysis/Findings:** Visualizations presented for OpCode (suggesting Rahmon is “selectively hostile” – believes cooperation is best but conflict most effective) and LTA (suggesting high conceptual complexity, high self-confidence, manipulative, believes world is zero-sum, tackles constraints but works behind scenes).
* **Limitations:** Lack of spontaneous speeches, translation issues (Tajik->English), personal safety preventing direct requests/interviews.
* **Feedback (Panel):**
* **Clarity/Structure:** Confusing presentation (3 Qs vs 2 Hypotheses). Simplify complex LTA/OpCode visuals and methodology explanations for the audience. Clearly define core concepts like “threat,” “opportunity,” and the specific definition of “Islam” used. Explicitly state the temporal scope.
* **Conceptual Framing:** Justify the assumed dichotomy/tension between Islam and nationalism/nation-building. Consider potential endogeneity (do policies shape leadership style or vice-versa?). Explore potential links to Rational Choice theory given the threat/opportunity framing.
* **Source Validity:** Address the issue of whether analyzed speeches reflect Rahmon’s personal views or those of speechwriters, and its implication for LTA/OpCode validity.
* **Literature:** Connect findings to literature on other post-Soviet states or leadership studies in the region.
* **Scope:** Consider analyzing domestic vs. international dimensions (two-level game) of using Islam.
**5. Student Presentation 4: Farhunda – Tribalism & State Formation (Afghanistan/Iran)**
* **Topic:** “Tribal System and State Formation comparative study of Afghanistan and Iran”
* **Research Question:** How have tribal structures influenced state formation and political stability in Afghanistan and Iran?
* **Thesis Argument:** State failure/success is determined not by tribalism itself, but by the state’s approach: Co-optation in Afghanistan led to fragmentation, while Repression in Iran led to centralization (at a cost).
* **Methodology:** Qualitative comparative historical analysis using secondary sources (books, articles, reports) and process tracing. Temporal scope not explicitly stated but implied long-term historical analysis.
* **Theoretical Framework:** Max Weber (monopoly on violence) and Historical Institutionalism (path dependency).
* **Case Analysis:** Contrasted Afghanistan’s history of co-opting tribal leaders (leading to weak central institutions) with Iran’s post-1925 history of repressing tribal power and centralizing the state. Noted intra-country variations in treatment of different tribes.
* **Implications/Limitations:** Findings relevant to other states with strong tribal structures. Limitations include reliance on English sources, lack of fieldwork/interviews, focus on male elites.
* **Feedback (Panel):**
* **Conceptual Clarity:** Define “tribalism” explicitly and operationally upfront. Establish the *existence* of tribal influence on state formation (citing literature) before analyzing *how* it influences. Specify the temporal scope of the analysis.
* **Methodology:** Clarify relationship between historical analysis and process tracing (perhaps just call it process tracing).
* **Context:** Incorporate demographic context (majority/minority tribal ratios) and how it might affect state strategy (co-optation vs. repression).
* **Analysis:** Explore determinants of co-optation longevity (Afghanistan) and repression success (Iran). Visualize key historical timelines/events or tribal vs. administrative maps if possible.
* **Literature:** Frame the study’s relevance to broader literature on tribalism/state formation (MENA, Sahel) earlier and connect findings back explicitly.
* **Limitations:** Specify how the stated limitations impact *this specific study’s* findings.
**6. Break and Informal Discussion**
* A 10-minute break was taken.
* Brief informal discussion occurred involving sharing snacks (Kashgar nan bread, raisins).
**Actionable Items**
* **Urgent (Due Today):**
* **Students:** Ensure final thesis titles (English, Russian, Kyrgyz) are submitted via the Google Doc link provided by Mr. Atzinger *before the lunch break*.
* **For Instructor / Panel Review:**
* **Assessment:** Continue using the 1-10 scale for evaluating mock defenses based on the criteria discussed.
* **Feedback Consistency:** Ensure panelists provide consistent guidance on methodological terminology (e.g., discourse analysis) and expectations for justifying choices (cases, theories).
* **For Future Planning / Student Guidance:**
* **Core Concepts:** Remind students of the critical importance of clearly defining and operationalizing core concepts (e.g., tribalism, securitization, specific interpretations of Islam) early in their research and presentations.
* **Argument Connection:** Emphasize the need to continuously link data, analysis, and findings back to the central research question and hypothesis throughout the presentation.
* **Justification:** Reinforce the requirement for clear justification of methodological choices (case selection, theoretical frameworks, analysis techniques).
* **Presentation Clarity:** Advise students on simplifying complex information and visuals for audience comprehension, managing presentation density, and practicing delivery (eye contact, pacing).
* **Source Critique:** Encourage students to proactively address source limitations (e.g., speechwriter influence on LTA, translation issues, source bias) and explain mitigation strategies.
* **Literature Engagement:** Stress the importance of situating their research within existing scholarship, both for context and for highlighting their contribution.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Thesis Title Submission
This task requires you to finalize and submit the title of your thesis in three languages using a shared Google Document. This is an administrative step necessary for the thesis process, ensuring your title is correctly recorded in English, Russian, and Kyrgyz.
Instructions:
1. Locate the email sent to you yesterday by Mr. Atzinger. This email contains a link to a Google Doc.
2. Open the Google Doc shared by Mr. Atzinger.
3. In the designated space within the Google Doc, accurately list the final title of your thesis in English.
4. Accurately list the final title of your thesis in Russian.
5. Accurately list the final title of your thesis in Kyrgyz.
6. Complete this task as soon as possible, specifically before the class breaks for lunch today, as this information needs to be finalized and sent out today.