Reconstruct the core elements of this book – namely: the theory, the method, and the relevance to the
literature (a.k.a. literature review). Must address the following: 1) Identify the central puzzle(s) and the theory(-
ies) that resolve the puzzle(s). This treatment should identify the variables and the causal claim(s) that
specifies how the variables are related. explain the causal logic. This is simply the reasoning behind the causal
claim(s). For example, we know that plants need sunshine in order to grow. This constitutes a causal claim with
an independent variable (sunshine) and a dependent variable (growth). The causal logic tells us how sunshine
leads to growth. Within your papers, you must try to describe how the claim works. (In this example, you would
explain the process of photosynthesis.) 2) Describe and explain the author’s methodology, namely: how does
the author test the theory? Let’s borrow from the prior example to clarify what I mean, here: our author is
investigating the relationship between sunshine and the growth of plants. The author divided a sample of
seedlings into a test and control group, and then exposed the former to the stimulus (sunshine) while excluding
the stimulus from the latter. Then, the author measured the results over time. This brief explanation covers the
main structure of the test. To take your explanation to the next level, try to explain why the author made the
choices they did, and why these decisions are valuable (i.e. do they enhance validity or eliminate bias?). You
will find that good social science is deliberate. There is a reason behind each and every methodological choice.
Now, you should be able to identify aspects of the reasoning and qualify the value of choices drawing upon a
basic understanding of social science methodology. That being said, the authors we read will also make clear
their reasons, so successfully completing this section largely involves paying attention. When the author begins
to discuss how a test was conducted, the reasons will not be far behind. This is standard practice. In addition to
exploring the nature of the test, your treatment should also consider: How do they measure the variables?
What are the sources of data and evidence? What are the obstacles that the author confronted and how were
they overcome? Just as above, none of this is hidden from view. The authors will describe and explain
everything they did. You just need to train your brains to pick up on it. 12 3) Explore how the author locates the
book within a larger body of literature (i.e. How does the text compare with other works within a given subfield?
What are the common themes/arguments? Does this work represent a departure from the norm?). To address
this section, look to the author’s own literature review and commentary. Present specific scholars alongside
their particular ideas while explaining how the author frames their relevance. This should not be a long section
of the paper – maybe 2/3rds of a page; but it should be precise – packed with names and their relevance. Two
additional points of note: a) Your formal citations in this section should reference the core subfield book as
opposed to the source material you’re describing. This is because you are detailing how our subfield author
frames the relevance of a paper or article. You are not otherwise representing your interpretation of the source
material. b) Please adopt the following format when describing literature in the body of the paper: author’s last
name (year of publication). For example, if you are describing a study by an author with the last name Smith,
you would simply write: Smith (2019) conducted case studies that provide valuable insight into voter responses
to negative campaigning. Keep in mind that this does not constitute a formal citation. You would still have to
footnote corresponding to the reference in the paper’s narrative. 4) Identify a research question inspired by
what you’ve read. Briefly describe a method you think would help you answer the question, and why answering
the question would contribute positively to political science. Like task #3, this should not be a long section of
the paper – maybe 2/3rds of a page. Successful papers will cover all of the above, while demonstrating a
thorough knowledge of the assigned reading. I hope most to see awareness, understanding, and effort.
Additionally, note the following assignment requirements: – Your paper must be 5 pages long (no more, no
less). – Format the paper to 1-inch margins, double-spaced, with a 12-point Times-Roman or Garamond font. –
Cite actively and appropriately from the book – this is your sole source for the paper. Do not conduct any
outside research. – USE FOOTNOTES ONLY FOR CITATIONS. – On the coversheet template, you will note
that there is a place for an ‘Abstract’. Please make an attempt at an abstract. Remember: the abstract should
describe what your paper accomplishes, rather than simply describe the book the paper is about.