Lesson Report:
**Title: Designing Practitioner‑Focused Questions for Field Reflection Papers**
This session shifted from the originally planned topic of globalization to a workshop on how to formulate effective, practitioner‑oriented questions for ambassadors and public speakers. The instructor connected core course concepts (e.g., legitimacy, sovereignty, democracy, effective state) to the practical skill of asking targeted, concrete questions that will generate useful material for students’ upcoming field reflection papers. The class also clarified expectations and logistics for the field reflection assignment and previewed the remaining arc of the course.
—
## Attendance
– Number of students explicitly mentioned as absent: **0**
– Logistics:
– Presence was contingent on **cameras being on for the full Zoom session**.
– Instructor noted taking **attendance screenshots** while students were working individually.
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Progression)
### 1. Session Framing and Logistics
– **Schedule change**
– Instructor confirmed: **no class meeting on Thursday**, partly due to Thanksgiving and the complexities of coming to campus for a single session.
– Emphasized that **today’s online session** needed to accomplish several important tasks given reduced meeting time.
– **Today’s focus vs. prior plan**
– Previously, instructor had indicated that today’s class would focus on **globalization**.
– Due to time constraints and the approaching due date of the **field reflection paper**, the focus was shifted to:
– Strengthening the **skill of asking good, targeted questions** at ambassador talks and public lectures.
– Applying course concepts to **practical, real-world questioning** rather than purely theoretical discussion.
– **Online teaching constraints**
– No access to the usual classroom whiteboard; instructor taught from home.
– Students were asked to:
– Be patient with a **more lecture-heavy format**.
– Take **detailed notes** themselves; instructor would add some key points to the Zoom chat when possible.
– **Camera/attendance policy**
– To be counted as present:
– **Cameras had to be on and remain on** throughout class.
– Instructor stressed the emotional/engagement dimension:
– Teaching to a wall of black screens is “sad and depressing.â€�
– Expressed appreciation to students who had cameras on.
—
### 2. Field Reflection Paper: Purpose, Structure, and Constraints
– **High-level purpose of the assignment**
– The field reflection paper is designed to:
– Demonstrate what each student **understands about one course concept** (e.g., legitimacy, sovereignty, monopoly on force, soft power, democracy, effective state).
– Integrate understanding from:
– Class discussions.
– Prior knowledge before the course.
– Course readings.
– Insights from a **question asked at an ambassador/public lecture or from a related speaker (e.g., ICP graduate)**.
– **Basic structure (intentionally flexible)**
– Instructor emphasized:
– **Structure is simple and not heavily graded** as long as it is coherent and clearly the student’s own work.
– A basic **paragraph-based structure** is sufficient.
– Essential components:
1. Explanation of the chosen **course concept** in the student’s own words.
2. Use of:
– Course readings
– Class discussions
– Student’s prior knowledge
to elaborate and contextualize that concept.
3. Description of:
– The **question the student asked** (or will ask) at an ambassador/public lecture.
– How the speaker’s response:
– Confirmed, expanded, or challenged the student’s prior understanding of the concept.
– Changed or deepened their perspective.
– **Content over form**
– Instructor stressed that **content and genuine reflection** matter more than formal structure.
– As long as:
– The paper clearly communicates the student’s own understanding.
– The reflections are grounded in the **student’s voice**, not machine-generated text.
– The writing is organized into readable paragraphs.
– The instructor will be “not super pickyâ€� about finer points of structure.
– **Strict warning on AI-generated writing**
– Instructor explicitly warned against using ChatGPT or similar tools to produce the paper:
– If it is “super obviousâ€� that the paper is **ChatGPT-generated “slopâ€�**, the student **will not receive a grade** for the assignment.
– Emphasis on authenticity: “Just write it yourself.â€�
– **Technical submission logistics**
– A student asked which file formats could be uploaded (noting issues with PDFs and some Word files).
– Instructor response:
– Submissions should be in **Microsoft Word format (.docx)**.
– This format is preferred because:
– It is standard on the platform.
– It facilitates **inline commenting and feedback**.
– Instructor promised to **double-check submission settings after class** if reminded.
– **Grading updates**
– Some students (particularly those whose names fall between B and A alphabetically) had not yet received midterm grades.
– Instructor stated:
– Most grades are **already posted** on eCourse (e.g., Sabina’s).
– **Remaining ~8 students’ grades** would be posted **that night**.
– A student with a B-name (Banu) was specifically mentioned as being “lastâ€� in the grading queue.
—
### 3. Why Current Questions Are Problematic: Practitioners vs. Academic Abstraction
– **Observation from ambassador/public lectures**
– Instructor has been listening carefully as students ask questions at:
– Department public lectures.
– Ambassador talks.
– Commended students for:
– Their **courage** in asking questions publicly.
– However, identified recurrent problems:
– Many questions are **excessively abstract**.
– Heavy use of **course terminology as jargon** (e.g., “soft power,â€� “legitimacy,â€� “sovereigntyâ€�) without translation into concrete, practice-oriented language.
– **Practitioners vs. academics**
– Ambassadors and practitioners:
– Are often **10–15+ years removed from formal academic study**.
– Do not necessarily think in terms of abstract political science vocabulary.
– Are focused on:
– **Projects, policies, implementation details**.
– Specific bilateral initiatives (e.g., water management project in Osh).
– Example:
– A Swiss ambassador is not sitting around thinking, “How do we increase soft power?â€� but “How do we implement this Swiss-funded water project in Osh effectively?â€�
– **Resulting miscommunication**
– When students pose abstract questions such as:
– “How can a country increase its legitimacy?â€�
– Practitioners:
– May be **confused** by the framing.
– Provide **vague or generic answers**.
– The objective for this class:
– Teach students to **translate abstract course concepts into concrete, context-specific questions** that a practitioner can readily understand and answer in depth.
—
### 4. First Activity: Translating Abstract Course Concepts for Practitioners
**Objective:**
Help students transform their planned field reflection question from a jargon-heavy/abstract question into something a practitioner would recognize as concrete and actionable.
– **Individual reflection task**
– Each student was instructed to:
1. Identify the **course concept** they plan to focus on in their field reflection paper (e.g., legitimacy, sovereignty, democracy, media independence, effective state).
2. Look at the **question they plan to ask** (or already asked) at a talk.
3. Ask themselves:
– “Am I relying on the course term itself?â€�
– Example of problematic framing: “How can a country increase its legitimacy?â€�
– Or: “Is my question phrased in terms that a practitioner (who mostly handles concrete projects) would understand?â€�
4. Spend 1–2 minutes brainstorming ways to:
– **Translate the abstract term** into accessible language and real-world phenomena a practitioner deals with.
– Students were told to **write the reformulated question for themselves**, not yet in the chat.
– **Clarifications during work time**
– A student asked whether to write their translated question in the chat:
– Instructor said: **write it for yourself** for now.
– Email backlog note:
– Instructor acknowledged multiple student emails asking for confirmation about question topics.
– Explained that this workshop was necessary before giving meaningful feedback.
– Promised to start approving/adjusting questions after students applied the day’s framework.
– **Content questions from students about ideas**
Some notable student proposals and instructor responses (used as formative examples):
1. **Legitimacy and water supply in Osh (student idea)**
– Proposed linking **legitimacy** to **water scarcity in Central Asia** and a Swiss-funded water project.
– Instructor reaction:
– Labeled as “advancedâ€� and **promising**.
– Indicated they would revisit this in more detail (used later in the Swiss ambassador example).
2. **Democracy and failure of democracy (student Ali)**
– Student wanted to:
– Name a **specific incident in a particular country**.
– Ask the ambassador about **democracy’s failures**—“when democracy failed the people.â€�
– Use that for the paper on democracy and its challenges.
– Instructor:
– Confirmed the **topic is valid and practical**.
– Stressed that the key issue is **how the question is framed**, not the topic itself.
– Promised to return to the “howâ€� of framing shortly.
3. **Media independence and democracy (student wanting to ask ICP graduates)**
– Proposed question: “Is media independence important for democracy, and if yes, why or how?â€�
– Instructor:
– Said it is a **fine** question conceptually.
– Noted that the next step would be to add **“connective tissueâ€�**:
– Linking to the specific speaker’s experience or the content of their talk.
4. **Legitimacy and documentation (student Sami)**
– Proposed tying **legitimacy** to **documentation** (e.g., passports, visas, legal documents), especially for a speaker whose career was document-centric.
– The underlying question:
– What makes a piece of paper (a document) carry such authority and consequences?
– Instructor:
– Confirmed the **idea is strong**.
– Emphasized the need to **connect to the speaker’s specific career experience**.
– Reiterated that this workshop would equip them to finalize that framing.
5. **Soft power vs. legitimacy, extremist groups (student Alla)**
– Student recalled a prior event where a peer asked: “Soft power without legitimacy?â€�
– Ambassador answered “No.â€�
– Student believed there are counterexamples such as:
– Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State using **media and international economic ties** as soft power tools despite lacking broad international legitimacy.
– Student wondered if ambassadors would be comfortable or clear in answering such sensitive questions.
– Instructor:
– Thought a **good ambassador would welcome** thoughtful questions on such topics.
– Clarified that students who had already asked questions are **not being evaluated harshly** for those earlier attempts; this is a **skill-building** workshop, not a retroactive assessment.
– Reframed today’s class as the moment to help students move from **broad, essay-prompt‑style questions to more grounded, practical ones**.
—
### 5. How to Connect Questions to the Speaker’s Topic
**Prompt from Clara:**
How to handle questions that are not directly about the ambassador’s stated topic (e.g., internal Swiss politics vs. Swiss–Kyrgyz relations)?
– **Instructor’s guidance on topic alignment**
– Priority rule:
– Your question should **connect to what the ambassador actually talked about** or their functional area of expertise.
– This signals that you:
– **Listened carefully**.
– Are not simply using the Q&A to quiz them on unrelated issues.
– Example:
– If the ambassador spoke for 30 minutes about **Swiss–Kyrgyz bilateral relations**, it is poor practice to then ask an unrelated, highly abstract question about “European politicsâ€� with no link to Kyrgyzstan or Switzerland’s role there.
– **How to broaden while staying connected**
– It is possible to:
– Start from the **ambassador’s topic** (e.g., Swiss–Kyrgyz cooperation).
– Then connect that to **wider European or global issues** that interest the student.
– Key is finding a **linking mechanism**:
– E.g., How Switzerland’s policies in Central Asia are shaped by broader European norms, EU developments, or security concerns.
– The upcoming workshop portion (see below) aimed to give a **methodical way** to identify and articulate that link.
—
### 6. Defining Legitimacy (and Why to Avoid Jargon in the Question Itself)
**Goal:**
Use “legitimacy� as a case study for how to **translate abstract terms into practitioner-usable language**.
– **Eliciting definitions from students**
– Instructor asked: “What is legitimacy?â€�
– Student responses (paraphrased and synthesized):
– **Validity / correctness**:
– Something is “seen as correct or the right way.â€�
– **Public acceptance and belief**:
– When we say a government or state “has legitimacy,â€� we mean:
– People generally see its authority as **fair, rightful, deserving of obedience**.
– People **accept** its rules and decisions.
– **Power vs. the right to use power**:
– One student distinguished between:
– Merely holding power.
– Having the **right** to exercise that power.
– Legitimacy entails the **recognized right** to govern, not just the capacity to coerce.
– **Instructor’s synthesis**
– For course purposes, legitimacy can be understood as:
– The extent to which people **trust, accept, and endorse** a government, law, or institution.
– When a law or government has legitimacy, the population is more likely to **obey voluntarily**, not just out of fear.
– **Key methodological point**
– When crafting questions for practitioners:
– **Avoid using the abstract term itself** (e.g., “legitimacy,â€� “sovereignty,â€� “soft power,â€� “effective state,â€� “failed stateâ€�) in the question.
– Instead:
– Translate the concept into **plain-language proxies or mechanisms** that practitioners recognize in their daily work:
– Trust.
– Acceptance.
– Popular support.
– Ability to enforce rules without backlash.
– Provision of public services, etc.
– Example:
– Instead of “What increases legitimacy?â€� ask:
– “In your experience, what kinds of government actions make citizens more likely to **trust** and **cooperate with** state authorities?â€�
—
### 7. Building a Model Question: Swiss Ambassador and Osh Water Project
**Purpose:**
Demonstrate, step by step, the **three-part structure** for an effective, field reflection–oriented question.
– **Context setup**
– Instructor used the **Swiss ambassador** talk as a hypothetical.
– Known facts (from event description):
– Ambassador is **Switzerland’s representative to Kyrgyzstan**.
– Talk topic: **“Bilateral relations between Switzerland and Kyrgyzstan.â€�**
– Preliminary research students should do:
– Read the **event description** carefully.
– **Google**:
– The ambassador’s name and role.
– “Switzerland Kyrgyzstanâ€� to see what projects are current (e.g., Swiss support for a **water treatment/management project in Osh**).
– Identify:
– Concrete initiatives that the ambassador is likely to mention.
– **Connecting legitimacy to a concrete project**
– Chosen concept: **Legitimacy** (trust in government).
– Chosen concrete object: **Water-cleaning or water management project in Osh**, funded by Switzerland.
– Logical bridge:
– One way for governments to **build or strengthen legitimacy (public trust)**:
– Provide or improve **public services**, especially basic needs like water.
– A water project in Osh can:
– Improve citizens’ material conditions.
– Potentially **increase the perceived trustworthiness and competence** of both the Kyrgyz government and foreign partners like Switzerland.
– **Three-part question structure**
Instructor introduced a **three-part framework** for all student questions:
1. **Priming** – Connect directly to the speaker’s talk or role.
– Show that you:
– Listened to the presentation.
– Understand who the speaker is and what they are doing.
– Example:
– “Thank you for your talk. I recently read that Switzerland is investing around $250,000 in a water-cleaning project in Osh.â€�
– Or: “You mentioned in your talk that Switzerland is funding water projects in southern Kyrgyzstan.â€�
2. **Connection** – Bring in the course concept in translated, accessible terms.
– Avoid jargon:
– Do not say “legitimacyâ€�; instead, talk about **public trust, acceptance, or confidence**.
– Example:
– “In my political science classes, we’ve been learning that governments can build **public trust** by expanding basic services like clean water, healthcare, or education.â€�
3. **Question** – Ask a focused, answerable question grounded in the above.
– Example:
– “From your experience working in Kyrgyzstan, have you noticed whether large public service projects like the Osh water initiative change how much people **trust** their government?â€�
– The instructor wrote a composite example (paraphrased here):
> 1. “I read that Switzerland is investing approximately $250,000 in a water-cleaning project in Osh.�
> 2. “In my studies, I’ve learned that public service projects like this can be an important way for governments to **increase public trust**.�
> 3. “In your experience, have you seen how big projects like this one in Osh affect the level of **trust citizens have in their government**?�
– This model illustrates:
– Clear **priming**: reference to a concrete Swiss initiative.
– Clear **connection**: translation of legitimacy into the idea of **public trust through service provision**.
– Clear **question**: specific, answerable, grounded in the ambassador’s real work.
– **Common pitfalls flagged**
– **Using the term “legitimacyâ€� itself**:
– Ambassadors may respond with something trivial like:
– “We have legitimacy because your government invited us.â€�
– Or be confused about which kind of legitimacy is meant.
– **Stacking multiple abstract terms**:
– Example student attempt: asking about **legitimacy and sovereignty**, plus foreign funding, all in one question.
– Instructor advised:
– Avoid multi-concept, multi-part questions.
– Keep the focus on **one main concept** translated into practice.
—
### 8. Second Activity: Practice Linking Concepts to a Concrete Case (Osh Water Project)
– **Class brainstorming prompt**
– Instructor asked students:
– “What is the relationship between **legitimacy** and this water-cleaning project in Osh?â€�
– In other words:
– How might such a project affect **people’s trust** in the government or state institutions?
– **Selected student responses and critique**
1. **Permission-focused framing (Ayana & partner)**
– Suggested question: “How did they get permission for that project?â€�
– Instructor feedback:
– “Permissionâ€� is **not equivalent** to legitimacy.
– Governments can legally authorize projects even if the **public does not trust or accept** them.
– Encouraged clearer focus on:
– **Trust**, **support**, or **perceived fairness**, not just formal permission.
2. **Complex multi-actor reasoning (Tamizh)**
– Broke down:
– Osh as major regional hub.
– Water as a basic necessity.
– Possible multiple investors (China, Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan).
– Questioned why Switzerland would be seen as a legitimate or special partner.
– Proposed question:
– “What gives the Swiss government legitimacy to invest in the water project, and how does that affect who gets how much water, and why not other donors?â€�
– Instructor feedback:
– Strong **substantive thinking**.
– But:
– Still uses the term **“legitimacyâ€�** directly.
– The question is **overloaded** with multiple parts:
– Donor choice.
– Allocation.
– Sovereignty/competition with other actors.
– Needs simplification and removal of jargon.
3. **Legitimacy, donors, and sovereignty combined (Akin Khan)**
– Suggested question (paraphrased):
– “How does cooperation with international donors on Osh water projects affect the internal political legitimacy of the Kyrgyz government, and how does it balance the need to attract foreign funding and maintain full sovereignty?â€�
– Instructor feedback:
– Underlying idea is valuable: how foreign aid and sovereignty concerns intersect with domestic trust.
– But:
– Again, direct use of “legitimacyâ€� and “sovereigntyâ€� in the question risks confusing practitioners.
– The question effectively contains **two or three distinct questions**.
– Advised:
– Break into **narrower, more concrete questions**.
– Translate sovereignty into language such as:
– “Control over decision-making.â€�
– “Ability to make independent choices about policies.â€�
—
### 9. Third Activity: Peer Question Practice Using the Three-Part Framework
**Goal:**
Give students hands-on practice asking each other concept-based, practitioner-style questions.
– **Setup**
– Each student:
– Chose the **course concept** they plan to use in their paper.
– Prepared a **one-minute explanation** of their understanding of that concept.
– Instructor then:
– Randomly called on **two students** (but only one was fully used due to time constraints).
– Asked the class to craft questions using the **three-part question structure**:
– Priming (connect to what the student-presenter just said).
– Connection (introduce a real-world example or context).
– Question (focused, answerable).
– **Student mini-presentation: Effective State (Altenai)**
– Altenai’s chosen concept: **Effective state**.
– Her summary:
– An effective state is one that **actually functions in practice**, not just on paper.
– It can:
– **Make and enforce rules**.
– Provide **basic public services**.
– Maintain **order within its borders**.
– Examples of effectiveness:
– **Collecting taxes**.
– Running **schools**.
– Keeping **roads usable**.
– Instructor:
– Accepted this as a succinct and adequate operationalization of “effective state.â€�
– **Peer practice question: Clara’s question**
Clara’s question to Altenai (paraphrased and then discussed):
– **Priming element:**
– Referenced Altenai’s point that an effective state:
– Ensures **public schools and universities** are functioning.
– Contextualized to:
– Kyrgyzstan currently **moving universities and schools online** due to international events/meetings and related security decisions.
– **Core question:**
– Asked whether these measures (e.g., temporary shift to online learning at the request of or in response to international organizations/visits) indicate that Kyrgyzstan is:
– An **effective state** or a **failed state**.
– **Class feedback on Clara’s question**
– Strengths:
– **Clear connection to the mini-presentation**:
– She built directly on Altenai’s mention of schooling as an indicator of effectiveness.
– Clear **priming**:
– Starts from a concrete, current situation in Kyrgyzstan that all students are living through (move to online classes).
– Reasonable **substance**:
– Raises the question of what policy decisions (like shutting down in-person classes) say about the state’s capacity and responsiveness.
– Critiques and refinements:
– **Overstated diagnostic conclusion**:
– Labeling Kyrgyzstan as either a **“failed stateâ€�** or “effective stateâ€� based on a limited measure (temporary online shift) is an analytical stretch.
– A single policy decision rarely is sufficient to brand any state as “failed.â€�
– **Terminology/jargon issue**:
– Using “failed stateâ€� and “effective stateâ€� as blunt labels:
– Risks sounding confrontational if addressed to a practitioner (e.g., an ambassador).
– Reintroduces the course jargon problem.
– Suggested improvements:
– Rephrase to:
– Ask what such measures **tell us about the state’s capacity**, priorities, or constraints.
– Avoid direct labels like “failed state,â€� instead talk about:
– **Strengths and weaknesses of state capacity**.
– Trade-offs between **security and service provision**.
– Maintain the **three-part structure** but soften the normative language.
– **Time constraints**
– Due to end-of-class time, only one peer question was fully discussed.
– Instructor indicated interest in repeating/extending this activity **next week** at the start of class, likely in person.
—
### 10. Course Trajectory and Next Steps
– **Where the course stands**
– According to the instructor:
– The class has:
– Been introduced to the **major vocabulary** of political science.
– Learned basic **frameworks** and how to use them to answer questions.
– Current stage:
– Transition from interpreting material to **building arguments and asking questions independently**.
– **Remaining weeks (week 14 → 17)**
– Not much time left; semester ends at **week 17**.
– Upcoming emphasis:
– Next week: **How to conduct research**.
– Using students’ earlier paragraphs on **political violence** as a base.
– Focus on:
– How to **integrate evidence** into arguments.
– How to complete the final step of **analysis** (not just description).
– Continued practice with:
– **Formulating practitioner-friendly questions**.
– Refining arguments for written assignments (e.g., field reflection paper).
– **Immediate procedural reminders**
– No class meeting on **Thursday** (holiday and general schedule changes).
– Students should still **plan to attend upcoming ambassador talks**:
– Tomorrow’s talk status was uncertain at the time of class.
– Students were advised:
– Assume it is happening unless officially canceled.
– If canceled, catch the **next available talk** in the series.
—
## Actionable Items
### High Priority: Before/around the Next Ambassador or Public Lecture
– **Refine your field reflection question**
– Rework your planned question to:
– Follow the **three-part structure**:
– Priming (connect to the speaker and/or specific point of their talk).
– Connection (translate your chosen **course concept** into plain language and a concrete mechanism).
– Question (focused, answerable, non-hypothetical).
– Avoid using the abstract term itself (e.g., “legitimacy,â€� “sovereignty,â€� “failed stateâ€�) in the question body.
– Ensure the question clearly links to the **speaker’s topic or expertise** (e.g., Swiss–Kyrgyz relations rather than unrelated European events).
– **Prepare for the next talk despite logistical uncertainty**
– If you intend to rely on tomorrow’s ambassador talk:
– Plan to **attend** unless you receive definite notice of cancellation.
– Have at least one **well-structured question** ready, aligned with the three-part model.
– **Re-send questions to instructor if needed**
– If you previously emailed a question for approval:
– **Re-evaluate** it using the framework from this session.
– **Reformulate** to:
– Remove jargon.
– Clarify the priming and course-connection parts.
– Then **re-send** for instructor feedback.
### Medium Priority: Before Field Reflection Paper Due Date (~1.5–2 Weeks)
– **Finalize your chosen course concept**
– Decide definitively whether your paper will focus on:
– Legitimacy, sovereignty, democracy, soft power, monopoly on force, effective state, media independence, etc.
– Make sure the question you ask at a talk is **directly relevant** to this concept.
– **Draft the reflection structure**
– Outline your paper around:
– Your **own explanation** of the concept.
– Supporting details from:
– Readings, lectures, and prior knowledge.
– Description of:
– The **question you asked** and the talk you attended.
– How the speaker’s answer influenced or changed your understanding.
– **Submit in correct format**
– Plan to submit your paper as a **.docx Word file** (not PDF), unless the instructor announces changes.
– Double-check the **upload settings** on eCourse closer to the deadline.
– **Avoid AI-generated text**
– Write the reflection paper yourself.
– Do not rely on ChatGPT or similar tools to draft the paper; risk of receiving **no grade** if it appears machine-written.
### Instructor-Focused Follow-Ups (Low–Medium Priority)
– **Finish posting midterm grades**
– Ensure that the remaining ~8 students (notably those with surnames between B and A) have their **grades posted** to eCourse as promised.
– **Verify submission settings on eCourse**
– Confirm that:
– **.docx files** are accepted.
– Students are not blocked from uploading Word documents.
– **Respond to pending question-approval emails**
– After this workshop:
– Review student questions already sent by email.
– Provide **confirmation or suggestions for reframing**, guided by:
– The three-part question model.
– Avoidance of abstraction and jargon.
– **Plan a brief follow-up exercise**
– At the start of the next in-person class:
– Continue peer practice of:
– 1-minute concept explanations.
– Three-part questions from classmates.
– Use this to reinforce:
– Translation of theory into practice.
– Precision and clarity in questioning.
—
This report should give you a detailed reconstruction of the lesson’s flow and pedagogical goals, particularly the method for transforming theoretical political science concepts into targeted, practitioner-friendly questions for the field reflection assignment.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Field Reflection Paper on a Core Course Concept
You will write a reflection paper in which you demonstrate your understanding of one key course concept by connecting our class discussions and readings to a real-world experience at a public lecture/ambassador talk. You will build this paper around a concrete, practitioner-focused question you ask (or have asked) to an ambassador/public speaker, and their response, and explain how that interaction deepened or changed your understanding of the concept.
Instructions:
1. **Choose your course concept (if you haven’t already).**
– Select **one** concept we have worked with this semester, such as:
– Legitimacy
– Sovereignty
– Monopoly on force
– Democracy / failures or challenges of democracy
– Effective vs. failed state
– Soft power, etc.
– Pick something you actually want to think about; you will need to explain it and connect it to practice.
– By this point, you “should know what you’re writing aboutâ€� because the paper is due in about two weeks; if you don’t, make this decision immediately.
2. **Anchor the concept in a real event (ambassador talk or public lecture).**
– Your paper must be built around a **field event** you attend (or already attended), such as:
– A department public lecture
– An ambassador talk
– A talk with practitioners (e.g., ICP graduates working in the field)
– This event must give you a chance to ask a question related to your chosen course concept.
– If an event is canceled or postponed, plan to attend the next one that is offered.
3. **Design a practitioner-friendly question for the speaker.**
This is the skill we worked on during the workshop: moving from abstract theory to a concrete, answerable question a practitioner can actually respond to.
a. **Start from your concept.**
– Identify the **main topic** you want to ask about (e.g., legitimacy, sovereignty, democracy, effective state, media independence, documents and authority, etc.).
– Ask yourself: *In my draft question, am I just relying on the abstract word itself (“legitimacyâ€�, “sovereigntyâ€�, “soft powerâ€�)? Or am I translating it into something concrete that a practitioner understands in terms of projects, policies, and people?*
b. **Translate the abstract term into practical language.**
– Avoid leaning on the theory word alone. For example:
– Instead of “How can a country increase its legitimacy?â€�, try:
“In your experience, what kinds of government actions make ordinary people trust the government more?�
– Instead of “soft power without legitimacyâ€�, talk about specific tools: media campaigns, cultural diplomacy, trade relationships, etc.
– Instead of saying “effective stateâ€� or “failed stateâ€� to a diplomat, talk about **whether people feel services work, whether institutions function, and whether people obey laws and trust authorities**.
– The idea from class: *practitioners are project managers*. They think in terms of **specific actions and programs**, not abstract theory. Phrase your question in those terms.
c. **Use the three-part structure we practiced.**
Structure your question as:
1. **Priming** – Connect to the speaker’s experience or talk.
– Example: “I read that Switzerland is investing in a water cleaning project in Osh,â€� or “In your talk, you mentioned Switzerland’s work on water management in southern Kyrgyzstan.â€�
– This shows you were listening and that your question emerges from their expertise, not from nowhere.
2. **Connection to course content (in translated form).**
– Briefly link this to your concept **without jargon**.
– Example for legitimacy: “In my studies, I learned that public service projects can increase people’s trust in their government.â€�
– Example for democracy: “We’ve discussed how independent media can be important for holding government accountable.â€�
3. **The actual question.**
– Ask something that the speaker can answer from their own work:
– “In your experience, have you seen large infrastructure projects like the Osh water project change how much people trust their government?â€�
– “Given your work with official documents, what makes a document ‘count’ in practice—what gives it the power to decide so much about a person’s life?â€�
d. **Check your question.**
– Make sure it:
– Is **non-abstract** and non-hypothetical (about real things, not vague “in generalâ€� questions).
– Relates clearly to the **speaker’s role** or the topic of the talk.
– Clearly connects (in your mind) to the **course concept** you will write about.
– If you have already asked your question, you do **not** need to panic or redo it; you can still base your paper on the question you asked, and use this structure to **rewrite it more clearly on paper** when you describe it.
4. **Ask your question at the event (or revisit the one you already asked).**
– If you have an upcoming talk:
1. Attend the event.
2. When Q&A opens, ask your prepared, three-part question.
3. Listen carefully to the speaker’s answer; take notes right afterwards while it’s fresh:
– What did they actually say?
– Which examples, cases, or stories did they use?
– Did anything surprise you or contradict what you expected?
– If you have **already attended** a talk and asked a question:
– Go back to your memory and notes:
– Write down the exact question you asked (or as close as you can reconstruct it).
– Write down the speaker’s answer in as much detail as you can remember.
– Note how this answer interacts with the concept you chose.
5. **Plan the structure of your paper.**
The instructor made clear that **he is not going to be picky about structure** as long as it has a sensible paragraph structure and clearly comes from you. But you still need a logical flow. One workable structure is:
1. **Introduction**
– Identify the **course concept** you are focusing on (e.g., legitimacy, sovereignty, effective state, etc.).
– Introduce the **event** (What was it? Who spoke? What was their role/position? What was the topic?).
– Mention that you will analyze how the speaker’s response to your question affected your understanding of this concept.
2. **Your prior understanding of the concept**
– Explain, in your own words:
– How you understood this concept **before** the event.
– Draw on:
– Course discussions (what we have talked about in class).
– Course readings.
– Any knowledge you had before the course.
– Keep this as concrete as possible. For example:
– For legitimacy: talk about **trust, obedience, people accepting state authority**, not just definitions.
– For sovereignty: talk about **control over territory, decision-making without outside interference**, etc.
3. **Description of the question and the speaker’s answer**
– Clearly state:
– The **question you asked** (you can present it in the clear three-part structure even if you did not phrase it that way on the day).
– Why you thought this was a good way to connect the theory to the speaker’s actual work.
– Then summarize the **speaker’s answer**:
– The main points they made.
– Any examples or cases they discussed.
– Any tensions, limitations, or trade-offs they highlighted (for example, between attracting foreign funding and maintaining sovereignty, or between security and media independence).
4. **Analysis: how the answer changed or deepened your understanding**
– This is the core of the assignment as described in class:
– Did the answer **add something** new to your understanding of the concept? What?
– Did it **change** your understanding? How and why?
– Did it **contradict** anything we have discussed in class or read about? How do you deal with that contradiction?
– Make explicit connections between:
– The concept as presented in readings/lectures.
– The concept as it appeared in the **practitioner’s real-world work**.
– For example:
– Maybe you thought “legitimacyâ€� was mostly about formal elections, but the ambassador’s answer showed you how **delivering visible services** (like water projects) profoundly affects whether people trust the government.
– Or you might see that “media independenceâ€� is harder to achieve in practice because of funding, political pressures, or security concerns.
5. **Conclusion**
– Briefly restate:
– What you now understand about the concept.
– Why connecting theory with this field experience matters for understanding politics in practice.
– You can mention any remaining questions you have, or how you might investigate the concept further.
6. **Write in your own voice; do not use ChatGPT or similar tools.**
– The instructor was explicit: if it is obvious that the paper is “ChatGPTed slop,â€� **you will not receive a grade**.
– This means:
– Do not have AI systems draft or rewrite your paper.
– Do not submit text that does not sound like your usual writing.
– The goal is to see how **you** think and how **you** understand the concept, not to see a polished generic essay.
7. **Format and submission.**
– Type your paper in **Microsoft Word** and save it as a **.docx** file.
– This format is required because it makes it easier for the instructor to comment.
– Upload the .docx file to the assignment submission link.
– If you encounter technical restrictions on file types, adjust your file format to .docx as discussed in class.
– Follow the **deadline shown for this assignment**; in class it was indicated that the paper is due in roughly one and a half to two weeks from the lesson.
8. **Final self-check before submitting.**
Before you upload, ask yourself:
– Have I clearly identified *one* core course concept and explained it in my own words?
– Have I described the **field event** and the **question I asked** (or would ask) in a practitioner-friendly way?
– Have I accurately summarized the speaker’s answer?
– Have I clearly explained how that answer **added to, changed, or challenged** my understanding?
– Does the paper read like my own writing, with a clear paragraph structure, even if it’s not perfectly polished?
If you can honestly answer “yes� to these points, your field reflection paper will meet the expectations described in the lesson.