Checklist for POLS 972 Papers
(which also applies to almost any other graduate paper)

Is the paper roughly 25 to 40 pages (double-spaced) in length?–this is the standard length of a professional article in political science.

Does it have all of the standard components of a paper?–introduction, literature review, theory, discussion of the case or analysis, conclusion, etc.

Compare the paper with your example article–are they comparable. Remember that your objective is to write a professional paper in the field of political science, not an undergraduate term paper

Is the topic sufficiently limited that you can contribute something new to the topic in 30 pages? Most papers start out too broad and need to be focused.

If you cannot find any prior literature on your topic, you should ask yourself why. Is the topic too new? Too old? Too dull? Too difficult?

What is the underlying design of your paper? If a case study, what kind of case study? If an empirical analysis, are you sure that you can access (and can transform for analysis) the data needed for the study? Do you know how to interpret the coefficient estimates (and are familiar with the problems of) of the analytical method you intend to use? If a formal analysis (e.g. game theory), do you have sufficient background to follow the relevant articles in the existing literature?

Have you located and cited all of the major prior works on the subject? Have you identified the major approaches and researchers? Are you dealing with the current literature, not just literature that is five or ten years old?

If your paper makes assertions about the lack of a particular topic or approach (i.e. "Political scientists have not considered…"), are you sure about this?

What makes the case you are studying something that a political scientist–as opposed to a journalist or an historian–should be interested in? What does it tell us about political behavior in general? Keep in mind that theory is every bit as important in a case study as it is in a quantitative or theoretical study.

What do the existing theories tell us about the behavior we would expect to find in the case? Where have these been accurate; where has the observed behavior differed significantly from what the theory would predict? What factors might account for differences between the theory and the observed behavior?

In an empirical analysis, what values do you expect for the coefficients? Which variables are likely to be collinear?

In a case study, are there processes in the behavior that we can make theoretical predictions about?

In an empirical paper, be sure to indicate where you got the data and any transformations (e.g. constant versus current prices) that were made in the data, or that you made. Were the data originally designed and coded for a purpose similar to what you are using them for?

Usually an empirical paper will analyze multiple models–these should be theoretically justified. Exploratory work is fine–everyone does it–but report the models that make the most theoretical sense, not the models that do best on the significance tests.

Be sure to check for outliers, particularly if you have weird coefficients. More generally, a time comes when you need to decide whether to believe the results–if the theory and model disagree, are there problems in the data that might explain this? Look to the existing literature for guidance.

Be sure that you are writing a political science case study and not simply an historical account–there is a big difference between these.

Use the article(s) in the literature as a guide to the level of detail you need to include. Generally you do not need to deal with basic history and geography–you can assume that the reader already knows this, unless the case is very obscure and has not been studied before. Instead, focus on the points where that are most important according to the underlying theories.

If you are comparing multiple cases, why this choice of cases? Is it most similar, most different, what?

Be sure to address both sides of any issues where there is significant controversy about what actually happened historically. Often these disagreements will not be important to your analysis and you can avoid them, but if they are important, critically evaluate both interpretations.

What have you discovered that is new? What has reinforced the existing theories and empirical studies?

Have you found issues what appeared to be appropriate for study but turned out not to be due to problems with the data or ambiguities in the empirical record?

What additional questions have been suggested by your analysis?