Senior Research Seminar

PS 400 8/7/14

Senior Research Seminar Carnegie 305, Mondays 7-10 pm, Fall 2014

Instructor: Paul Dosh Cell: 651-641-0416 Email: [email protected] Office: Carnegie 203H Office hours: Sign up via GoogleDoc Course Resources: www.macalester.edu/academics/las/facultystaff/pauldosh/courseresources

Welcome! This research seminar is a workshop where Political Science seniors come together to complete capstone projects with regular peer review and instructor guidance. Projects are then shared with academic and community audiences through at least one of four options: conference presentation, journal publication, community publication, or civic engagement presentation.

In addition, this peer workshop supports other academic and professional objectives. Perhaps you are trying to publish a paper from last semester and need feedback on how to revise and submit it. Maybe you have a conference presentation coming up and need to do a rehearsal. Or you might be applying for a fellowship or graduate school and need your drafts workshopped. These kinds of additions to our seminar are welcome and encouraged.

Publication and Public Presentation Options Each participant will make plans to either publish or present their research findings in either an academic or community forum. Typically, your publication or presentation will not occur until after the conclusion of our seminar, so whether or not you follow through is ultimately up to you, but you are required to set your plan into motion this semester. The four standard options are:

1) Academic Journal Publication. You submit a 25-30 page version of your paper for publication to an academic journal. You will submit your article manuscript at the end of Fall semester. See list of journals at the end of this document.

2) Civic Engagement Community Publication. You submit a shortened and jargon-free version of your findings to a non-academic community publication. You will communicate with the editor prior to submitting your work, to ensure a good fit. Thus, it is likely you will have secured a commitment to publish your work before the end of the semester, though your article probably will not appear until Spring. Another option is to publish a version of your findings in a country that you studied, in English or another language.

3) Academic Conference Presentation. You present a 25-30 page version of your paper at a local, regional, or national conference. It can be an undergraduate, graduate, or professional conference. Your actual presentation is probably beyond the scope of this seminar, however, you are obliged to apply and seek travel funds. See list of conferences at the end of this document.

4) Civic Engagement Community Presentation. You arrange a public presentation of your research findings in a non-academic community venue that is relevant to your research topic. This can be in the Twin Cities, in your hometown, or another place that you will visit over winter or spring break. Your presentation could be its own event or part of some larger gathering. If your project focuses on a community group, you could present your findings to the group that you studied.

Expectations I expect you to choose a research topic about which you are enthusiastic! No doubt each of us will have weeks where our work seems to drag and we want a change of pace, but we want our seminar to be a place where students come together to work on exciting projects. Many alumni look back on senior projects as one of their favorite experiences, where they got to immerse themselves in a project. This is a rare opportunity, so make good use of it.

I expect you to give equal attention to this 4-credit seminar as you would any other class. In a typical week early in the semester, you should spend about five quality hours on your research project (reading, taking notes, looking for sources, consulting with others, writing, thinking). Some weeks you will need to spend time reading assigned texts and often peer reviewing the work of other students. When a major deadline approaches, you will spend considerably more time writing, but these are guidelines to help you pace yourself in the early weeks, when the major deadlines seem far away.

I expect you to respect the work of your peers through thoughtful and constructive written and verbal comments and critiques. This is a two-way street. Each of us must be open to the idea that we have good ideas to offer and that we can learn from our peers as well.

I expect you to be assertive and communicate with me about your needs, and especially to communicate in advance if you will be late or absent. This syllabus spells out a detailed plan of action for the semester that may appear rigid, but is actually flexible. The syllabus is my effort to provide you with a detailed roadmap. Whether or not you take my exact directions is subject to negotiation.

On-Time Work Policy Setting and meeting deadlines is an important professional skill. The syllabus provides “default” deadlines for assignments. You are expected to either meet these deadlines or arrange alternate deadlines in advance. Because of the emphasis on peer review, it is especially important that you turn in your work on time. As in life, if you cannot meet a deadline, it is your responsibility to communicate about when your work will be complete. Not respecting deadlines will lower your Class Engagement grade.

Students with Special Needs I am committed to providing assistance to help you be successful in this course. Students seeking accommodations based on disabilities should meet with Lisa Landreman, Associate Dean of Students. Call x6220 for an appointment. I encourage you to address any special needs or accommodations with me as soon as you become aware of your needs. More info at www.macalester.edu/studentaffairs/disabilityservices. Students Experiencing Challenge or Crisis Macalester is fortunate to have a full complement of professionally trained staff to support students experiencing a challenge or crisis in their lives. When a personal challenge or crisis occurs, it often has an academic impact and may require flexibility around course responsibilities. In such situations, also talking to a trusted professor can be helpful. It can be difficult to approach a faculty member about personal issues, but if I can be of help, please don't hesitate to talk to me.

Readings Most of your readings will be from a list of your own creation, focused on your research topic, as well as reading of drafts by your peers. On some days, I will give presentations on topics such as research design, theoretical framing, manuscript preparation and submission, and methodological issues, but much of our time will be devoted to workshopping each other’s drafts. You will be give informal updates and presentations on their research most weeks of the semester.

There are also several assigned readings, which are available on Moodle:

•Dosh, Paul. 2002. “Peace After Terror: Reconciling Justice and the Rule of Law in Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala.” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 29 No. (): 98-104. •Kaplan, Emma. 2012. “Resisting Collective Remembrance in the Post-Pinochet Era: The Disappearance of Chilean Identity and the Rise of the Political Right.” Paper presented at the XXXII Annual ILASSA Student Conference, at the University of Texas at Austin (February 2-4). •Przeworski, Adam, and Fernando Limongi. 1997. “Modernization: Theory and Facts.” World Politics, Vol. 49 (January): 155-183. •Rebert, Trudy. 2005. “The Alternative Street: Gangs as Sites of Urban Governance.” Exploratory paper written for Urban Politics in Latin America, Macalester College (Spring). •Roh, Kaitlin. 2009. “Obama, Iran, and the Possibility of Democratization.” Guest lecture in POLI 140 Foundations of Comparative Politics, Macalester College (Spring) (10 min). [Note: screened in class; not available on Moodle] •Sample Abstracts. •Siavelis, Peter. 2005. “Electoral System, Coalitional Disintegration, and the Future of Chile’s Concertación.” Latin American Research Review, Vol. 40, No. 1 (February): 56-82. •Stegner, Grant, and Cory Turner. 2006. “Nationalism as an Impediment to Democratic Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Iranian and Russian Nationalism.” Politica, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Spring): 66-89. •Strickling, Robert. 2012. “Funding, Coordination, and Public Opinion: Political Obstacles to Electrical Grid Modernization in the Americas.” Paper presented at the European Commission for Political Research, in Exeter, England (June 28). •Write Well Microlectures. Available at: www.macalester.edu/cst/initiatives_and_programs/WriteWell/Index.html.

ASSIGNMENTS Deadlines and Submission Format •Documents for group review are due via Dropbox by 5 pm. •Written assignments to be graded should be submitted in hard copy to Paul’s mailbox in the Poli Sci office by 4 pm (i.e., before the office closes). When submitting a hard copy assignment, you should proofread it again after printing it.

Summary of Assignments

Assignment (% of course grade) Due Date Class Engagement (15%) Ongoing Research Topic Statement* Fri Sept 5 (due via email to whole class) Exploratory Paper #1 Draft* Sun Sept 14 (Dropbox) Revised Exploratory Paper #1 (10%) Fri Sept 19 (hard copy) Exploratory Paper #2 Draft* Sun Sept 28 (Dropbox) Revised Exploratory Paper #2 (10%) Fri Oct 3 (hard copy) Outline Assignment* Sun Oct 12 (Dropbox) Post-Seminar Plans* Thur Oct 16 (Dropbox) Presentation of Ongoing Research (10%) Mon Oct 20 or Mon Oct 27 Research Paper Rough Draft* Sat Nov 8 (Dropbox) “Final” Research Paper (25%) Mon Nov 24 (hard copy) Final Research Presentation (15%) Mon Dec 1 or Mon Dec 8 Revised Final Paper (15%) Fri Dec 12 (hard copy)

* Assignment ungraded, but contributes to Class Engagement grade. SYLLABUS

Date (meeting Seminar Agenda Assignment dates in bold) Research Topic Statement (due via Fri, Sept 5 email to entire class) •Introductions •Seminar overview •Asking a good research question •Workshop Research Topic Statements •Read and comment on everyone’s Mon, Sept 8 •Research involving human subjects; SSIRB Research Topic Statement •Capstone Components: Literature Review •Read: Rebert (2005), Dosh (2002) •Discuss samples by Rebert and Dosh •Form initial peer review groups (x2) •Analysis of nocturnal stimulant options •Exploratory Paper #1 Draft Sun, Sept 14 (Dropbox) •Read and comment on Exploratory Mon, Sept 15, •Library session (7-8 pm) rough drafts for your peer review Library 206 •Workshop Exploratory Drafts group Fri, Sept 19 •Revised Exploratory #1 (hard copy) •Conference presentation rehearsal, "Metropolitan Mayors Against Neoliberalism? Urban Development and the Center-Left in Lima and •Read: Kaplan (2012), Siavelis Mexico City" (Paul) (2005; pp. 56-61 only), Mon, Sept 22 •Set presentations dates Przeworski & Limongi (1997; pp. •Capstone Components: Theoretical Framing 155-159 only) •Critique Kaplan, Siavelis, and Przeworski & Limongi •Check-in and consultations: Progress on Exploratory #2 •Exploratory Paper #2 Draft Sun, Sept 28 (Dropbox) •Read and comment on Exploratory •Workshop Exploratory Drafts Mon, Sept 29 #2 rough drafts for your peer •Introduce Outline assignment review group Fri, Oct 3 •Revised Exploratory #2 (hard copy) •Check-in and consultations •Capstone Components: Titles, Abstracts, and Audience •Critique Strickling and sample abstracts •Capstone Components: Public Presentation •Read: Sample Abstracts, Strickling Mon, Oct 6 •Critique Roh (2005) (10 min video watched in class) (2012) •Introduce Rough Draft assignment •Invited Carleton lecture (partial) rehearsal, "Demanding the Land: Urban Movements and Building Dignity in Peru’s Marginalized Neighborhoods" (Paul) Sun, Oct 12 •Outline Assignment (Dropbox) Mon, Oct 13 •Capstone Components: Visual Communication •Read and comment on everyone’s •Critique sample set of PowerPoint slides •Advanced PowerPoint tools Outline •Workshop Outlines Mon, Oct 20 •Presentations of Ongoing Research FALL BREAK •Presentations of Ongoing Research Mon, Oct 27 •Introduce Post-Seminar Plans assignment Sun, Nov 2 •Post-Seminar Plans (Dropbox) •Capstone Components: Outstanding Writing •Glance briefly at everyone’s Post- •Discuss Write Well microlectures Seminar Plans; don’t need to read •Discussion of Post-Seminar Plans them fully. Mon, Nov 3 •Critique Stegner & Turner •Take notes on 10 Write Well •Introduce Rough Draft peer review expectations Microlectures •Form new (and possibly smaller) peer review groups •Skim: Stegner & Turner (2006) for Rough Drafts. •Research Paper Rough Draft Sat, Nov 8 (Dropbox) •Read and comment on Rough •Workshop Rough Drafts Drafts for your peer review group. Mon, Nov 10 •Set individual deadlines and agenda for Nov 17 Use peer review form; cc your feedback to Paul. Mon, Nov 17 •Introduce Final Presentation assignment Mon, Nov 24, Show up. 6:30-7:15 pm, •“Final” Research Paper (hard Turn in your 30-40 page paper. CRSL (Chapel copy) Eat cake. basement) THANKSGIVING BREAK Mon, Dec 1, •Final Research Presentations Davis Court Mon, Dec 8, •Final Research Presentations Davis Court Fri, Dec 12 •Revised Final Paper (hard copy) Descriptions of Assignments

Research Topic Statement Your initial research topic statement is intended to help you get started. Begin with the research question that interests you. Try to make your question specific, enticing, feasible, and original. It can also be a set of related questions. Spend 2-3 pages describing the topic and how you plan to study it. Identify one or more bodies of literature that will likely frame your project (e.g. social movements, U.S. Congress, urban politics, democratization). Get started on a bibliography that will grow from week to week.

Exploratory Papers For each of these two assignments, you will explore your broader research topic by writing a short paper on one aspect of it. For example, if you envision a two-country comparison, this paper could focus on a single country. If you envision a comparison of three outcomes in a single country, you could write about one of the three outcomes. For most projects, one of these two exploratory papers should be an argumentative literature review on 4-5 articles/books focused on a key theme of your project.

Although this is one step in a larger research process, this 8-10 page paper should be a “finished product” in terms of having an argument, well-revised writing, and good formatting. Include an abstract (about 50 words) at the top of the first page. On the final page, discuss the future direction of your research. The bibliography may contain sources that are not cited in the paper, but that you anticipate using in your overall research project. You can view sample Exploratory Papers on the Course Resources page.

Outline Assignment For this assignment, you will reach beyond the limits of your research thus far to create a research agenda. Thus, in parts where you haven’t yet done enough to fill in a component, take your best shot at filling in what you expect to find. A sample Outline can be viewed on the Course Resources page. Your outline should include:

1) Broad Central Question: What interesting and puzzling overarching question are you trying to answer? (e.g., what causes democratization movements to succeed?)

2) Specific Central Question: How specifically will your paper contribute to our understanding of the broad question? (e.g., what explains contrasting levels of democratization in Brazil and South Africa in the 2000s?)

3) Related Key Questions: These 1-3 questions can be part of your argument, or separate claims.

4) Research Design: In just a few lines, describe your case selection (if you have cases), the logic of your case selection, the data you will use, and the limitations of your research design.

5) Key Scholar #1: Summarize the theoretical position/argument of the most important scholar who writes on your subject. Do you anticipate that your argument (which you have not yet finalized) will agree with her, disagree with her, or modify her claims?

6) Key Scholar #2. As #5, but also, how does this scholar relate/speak to #5.

7) Key Scholar #3. As #5, but also, how does this scholar relate/speak to #5-6.

8) Tentative Argument: Reviewing what you’ve written for #1-7, sketch a tentative argument that answers your central question, even though you know this argument will change in the coming weeks. Try and write this in one or two sentences.

9) Write an abstract of your paper based on #1-8, even though you haven’t yet written the paper.

10) Write a title and sub-title for your paper.

11) Revise components #1-4 based on what you ultimately wrote in your abstract

Post-Seminar Plans Whether you plan to publish or present your findings, and whether you plan to do so in an academic or community forum, you must prepare a detailed game plan for how you will successfully pursue this important component of your project. This short document should begin with a brief narrative explaining your plans and the rationale behind them. In another section, include all details relevant to your plans. These might include: the name of the conference, venue, or publication; the name, email, web site, and mailing address of the editor or contact person; relevant dates for submission, publication, or presentation; a draft cover letter with a temporary paragraph describing the project; a draft abstract to accompany your cover letter; your personal timeline for getting everything done; your plan for applying for travel funds including amounts, dates, and airfare estimates; and/or a summary of formatting requirements that submissions must conform to for a particular journal.

Presentation of Ongoing Research and Final Research Presentation You will give both a mid-semester 10-minute Presentation of Ongoing Research and an end-of-semester 15-minute Final Research Presentation. Both presentations should be tightly prepared and within the time limit. Presentations are evaluated in writing in terms of Argumentation, Evidence, Oral Communication, and Visual Communication. In preparation, you should practice with a friend listening and with a stopwatch.

Your Presentations of Ongoing Research should be formal and polished in terms of style and delivery, but since the work you are presenting is in progress, you should focus on 1) the parts that are farthest along and thus most ready to be subjected to criticism; and 2) some attention to how you will proceed, so the Q&A session can provide you with input on next steps.

Your Final Presentation is more comprehensive, but you still will not have time to present every detail of your project. Focus on your core argument and giving us a sense of the scope of the project. Be aware that your audience (our seminar group) is already familiar with your project and has read multiple drafts of your work; use this to your advantage in making maximum use of your allotted time.

If you wish to use a slide presentation (not required), please coordinate with others presenting on the same day so the needed files are on the same laptop (if it’s a Mac, be sure you have the correct adaptor). With any technology presentation, you should arrive early to set up and make sure everything works.

Spend time preparing for the Q&A. You want to save some material for the Q&A, so that you have more to talk about. Anticipate likely questions and prepare for questions that you would like to be asked. “Final” Research Paper This 35-40 page version should be a finished, polished product, despite the fact that the subsequent assignment challenges you to further refine your work. Details forthcoming.

Revised Final Paper Whether you are presenting your paper at a conference or submitting it for publication, it is almost guaranteed that 1) page and word count limits will require you to substantially shorten your paper; and 2) this process of revision will make your paper stronger. By reducing your 35-40 page paper to a document of perhaps 25 pages, you will be forced to weed out the “merely very good” and retain only the very best. It’s a challenging process that will make you a better writer.

Class Engagement and Peer Review The full engagement of every member of this workshop seminar is essential to the success of our class and the success of your project. Perhaps more than any class you have taken, this seminar requires that you support each other and take an active interest in each other’s research. It is crucial that you make time for each of your peers’ drafts, as they are counting on you.

You will earn a grade in Class Engagement based on attendance, informal updates on your research, a Presentations of Ongoing Research, peer review of your classmates’ work, careful reading of assigned texts, completion of several ungraded written assignments (e.g., Exploratory Drafts, Outline), and your engagement of your classmates.

People have different ways in which they best engage. Some methods of engagement include active listening, thoughtful preparation for class, sharing a well-formulated idea with reference to another person’s ideas, off-the-top-of-your-head reactions to new ideas, helping a classmate understand a concept, coming to office hours, and creative completion of assignments.

You get the picture: different people have different learning styles. Some are listeners, some are more visual, some need to speak or write things down to understand them. I am open to suggestions as to how we can make our class a better environment for you to learn and teach with each other.

Peer Review Form for Research Papers

Name of Paper-Writer: Your Name:

Argumentation 1) In one sentence, try and summarize the main argument. If the argument is unclear, make note of this.

2) Is the logic of the argument clear? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the argument?

3) Does the author introduce alternative explanations? Are they serious alternatives or "straw man" arguments? Does the author convincingly refute these alternatives?

Research 4) What parts of the project seem well researched? What areas need further attention?

5) Does the paper choose depth, breadth, or a balance of the two? Is this the right choice given the argument?

Writing 6) Does the paper's organization fit/support the central argument? How could organization be improved?

7) What parts of the paper are best written? What parts need further revision?

8) Are topic sentences and transitions clear and helpful? Whether or not subheadings are included, are they necessary? How do/would subheadings help/hinder the communication of this paper?

9) Is the paper's length appropriate given its content? Could the argument be made more effectively in fewer pages? Or would the argument be enhanced by a longer paper?

Theoretic Framework 10) Does the author engage academic works as scholars in a conversation or as mere fact archives? How could this be improved?

11) Is the author contributing to a scholarly conversation or simply summarizing it? What suggestions do you have here?

Creativity 12) What creative aspects grab your attention (e.g. visuals, clever framework, innovative approach)?

13) What ideas can you offer to make this research project even more engaging? ASSESSMENT

Assessment Overview Major assignments are assessed with written feedback as well as a summary mark/letter grade. For example, an Exploratory Paper might receive detailed comments and a mark of “Very good/B+.” In addition, major assignments are assessed with respect to various criteria, such as “Argumentation: Fairly good” or “Evidence: Excellent,” with accompanying written comments and suggestions for further improvement. Minor assignments are assessed with written feedback that informally comment on specific criteria, but these assignments are not given a summary mark/letter grade.

Summary Marks

Not yet satisfactory (less than a C-)* Generally satisfactory (C-) Satisfactory (C) Fair (C+) Fairly good (B-) Good (B) Very good (B+) Excellent (A-) Outstanding (A)**

* Work that is not yet satisfactory does not yet meet minimum standards. Consultation with instructor is required, sometimes followed by a re-write and sometimes followed by a whole new assignment.

** Work marked as outstanding is excellent with respect to all relevant criteria and also exhibits a superlative quality that distinguishes it as outstanding.

Assessment Criteria and Rubrics Each assignment is assessed in terms of three or four criteria. Papers are evaluated with respect to the criteria of Argumentation, Evidence, and Written Communication, and sometimes with respect to the criterion of Visual Communication if the paper has visual elements. Presentations are evaluated with respect to the criteria of Argumentation, Evidence, Oral Communication, and Visual Communication.

The criteria are all described here, and a rubric is provided for each. Criteria descriptors are cumulative, so each successive descriptor also assumes the elements of those listed above it. All rubrics are illustrative and provide a guide to the skills you should focus on developing. They are not rigid assessment tools, since a given paper or presentation might include more advanced elements while omitting more basic elements and/or might fulfill the expected elements with varying degrees of quality. I use the same rubrics for all my courses, so some references (e.g., to simulations) are not be relevant to this seminar. Argumentation (papers and presentations)

Satisfactory. Paper or presentation advances an argument in order to answer a specific question. Argument is organized logically with a clear introduction, a “roadmap” or other set of cues to guide the reader/audience, and a conclusion. Fair. Analysis of evidence supports the argument. Fairly good. Paper or presentation acknowledges evidence that runs counter to the argument in order to boost author’s credibility by showing that she is aware of other perspectives. Good. Contrary evidence is not only acknowledged, but is also either refuted or framed in such a way that such evidence bolsters argument, rather than undermining it. The entire paper or presentation revolves around the central argument. Very good. The argument is shown to be relevant to broader scholarly, theoretical, conceptual, and/or civic debates, with reference to specific authors or theoretical perspectives. Excellent. The paper or presentation makes an original contribution to one or more of those debates.

Evidence (papers and presentations)

Satisfactory. Paper or presentation makes ample use of specific readings and authors. Papers correctly cite sources. Analytic Papers and Research Papers include a properly formatted bibliography. Fair. Use of evidence identifies key ideas and interesting details and demonstrates a deeper reading of sources. Fairly good. Specific concepts and theories are not only identified but are presented in a way to concisely inform the reader/audience of their important elements. For Analytic Papers and Research Papers, bibliography reflects a diverse array of sources. Good. Evidence is organized around the key components of the argument. For example, an argument-driven organization is often (but not always) more effective than a strictly chronological organization of evidence. For simulations, preparatory handouts reflects good knowledge of issues Very good. Skillful weeding out of evidence that is perhaps interesting, but unnecessary and/or not relevant to argument. For presentations, in-depth reading and preparation permits concise answers to questions Excellent. For research papers, bibliography reflects an extensive effort to gather sources of data. For presentations, great familiarity with the material enhances ability to connect with the whole audience. For simulations, preparatory handouts reflect sufficient knowledge of issues and characters to anticipate and engineer interesting conflicts among participants that will provide opportunities for learning.

Written Communication (papers)

Satisfactory. A lack of obvious rrors makes it klear that the the final hard copy version was carerefully proof-read before it being turned it in. Fair. Clear structure allows reader to know what paper is saying and when. Each topic sentence reflects the content of its corresponding paragraph. Fairly good. Paragraph breaks are effective. Manuscript vernacular evades obstruse obfuscation. Good. Section headings say a lot with few words. If no section headings are used, clear and effective transitions guide reader from one section to the next. The paper is the correct length given what you have to say. Very good. Paper has good flow from one section to the next. Some topic sentences are imaginative and memorable. Excessive repetition of the same word(s) is avoided. Excellent. Without sacrificing rigor, the text overcomes the rigidity that often characterizes academic writing, making the paper a pleasure to read. The reader is able to focus entirely on the ideas of your paper, without ever being distracted by problems with the writing. Final presentation is tight and polished. If this “book is judged by its cover,” it will be judged “perfect.”

Oral Communication (presentations)

Satisfactory. The orderliness of your notes and your respect for the time limit makes it obvious that you have done a start-to-finish rehearsal of your talk. Fair. You always face the audience when you speak (and not the board). For Partisan Narratives, presenters stay in character during entire narrative and during Q&A. Fairly good. You like, totally, avoid, um, verbal crutches, or whatever, y’know? During the first minute of your presentation, you make an effort to connect with your audience. Good. Very well rehearsed. Notes are effectively prepared for minimal disruption. Strong beginning and strong finish. Pace of delivery allows you to cover a lot of ground without losing audience. You enunciate clearly. Very good. Tightly rehearsed. Minimal use of notes. Engaging style of delivery. Dynamic variation in tone and volume of delivery. Q&A is at least as strong as your initial remarks. Excellent. Presentation is so well rehearsed that parts of it are practically memorized, even if you still have notes in your hand. Superlative preparation permits you to focus almost entirely on the audience as you hardly need to think about your talk.

Visual Communication (presentations and some papers)

Satisfactory. Professional appearance communicates to audience that presentation is a significant opportunity for them to learn. Fair. Any visuals you show your audience (e.g. slides or a handout) are projected at a speed or distributed in a way that allows people an appropriate amount of time to absorb the visual information without losing track of what you are saying. Fairly good. Slides and/or handouts are crisp and not cluttered with too much text or too many images. Good. You make eye contact with your audience and you do not stare at a single individual or section of the room. Use of handouts or the board helps students engage the material. Graphs, charts, and tables are generally re-drawn by you so as to include only the visual information that is essential to your presentation or paper, leaving out other data or elements. Any slides that are projected enhance and supplement the presentation without “stealing the show” from you, the presenter. Very good. Body language enhances presentation and movement is purposeful and not due to nervousness (though it’s okay to be nervous!). For simulations, all elements of physical classroom environment (e.g. chair and table set- up, nametags and/or name placards, removal of excess furniture from room, info on board, distribution of handouts carefully planned) are thoughtfully prepared and/or arranged to reinforce the exercise. For papers, visuals relate directly to the argument. Excellent. Partisan narrators create lasting and memorable impressions, perhaps accenting their personas with props or a costume. For papers, an original figure or table captures the core argument and helps communicate its substance to the reader.

Selected Journals Macalester Students Have Published In (notes in yellow are from 2013) American Undergraduate Journal of Politics & Government Dartmouth Law Journal Journal of Undergraduate International Studies Politica (Berkeley), appears to be defunct Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs

Selected Other Possible Journals Critique (graduate/undergraduate student journal; lilt.ilstu.edu/critique/writers.htm), focuses on Marxism Harvard Journal of HIspanic Policy (isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k71111) Journal of Politics and Society (Columbia; Jan. due date) Michigan Journal of Political Science (umich.edu/~mjps/submissions.html), Last activity on Facebook was 2011 Midwest Journal for Undergraduate Research Missouri Valley Social Science Journal, Global Topics (anselm.edu/nhiop/research/arc/intaffairs/global+topics/), haven't published since 2011 On Politics (onpolitics.ca/archive.html) Stanford Undergraduate Research Journal Student Journal of Latin American Studies (UT Austin; sjoflas.org), Last submissions call was Fall 2012 Undergraduate Journal of Social Sciences (soshjournal.org), Last issue was Spring 2011

Selected Conferences At Which Macalester Students Have Presented Institute of Latin American Studies Student Association (ILASSA; UT Austin) Macalester’s Pi Sigma Alpha Undergraduate Research Conference Midwest Political Science Association conference (Chicago) National Conference on Undergraduate Research (Utah) North Central Council of Latin Americanists (NCCLA; Wisconsin) Notre Dame’s Human Development Conference St. Thomas Undergraduate Research Conference

Selected Other Possible Conferences Association of Academic Programs in Latin America and the Caribbean (aaplac.org) Illinois State University Conference for Students of Political Science Midwest Association for Latin American Studies (malasnet.org) Midwest Political Science Undergraduate Conference (public.wartburg.edu/mpsurc) Minnesota Political Science Association (mnpsa.org) Ohio University Latin American Studies Program (ohiou.edu/latinamerican) Pacific Coast Council on Latin American Studies (pcclas.org) Southwest Council of Latin American Studies (in March) Undergraduate Latin American Studies Symposium at Birmingham-Southern College (bsc.edu/academics/las/symposium.htm) University of Florida Center for Latin American Studies (conferences.dce.ufl.edu/LAS).