Franklin Roosevelt Economic Policy with Saudi Arabia

Three main instructions. I will show what my original paper instructions were. Then I will show what the revision is neede. Then I will show what my professor said I had to do in order to get full credit.
============================================================================
ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Sections of this assignment have been adapted from research prospectus guidelines promoted by New York University and Yale University:

A research proposal is a road map for the entirety of your future work on the research project; it is not simply a preliminary sample of the project. Do not include detailed exposition of any part of your data; rather, use examples only insofar as they help to clarify the objectives and process of your projected research. The overall length of research prospectus varies but should be approximately 6-8 pages, double-spaced, plus a bibliography.

The basic structure of the prospectus should be as listed below. This template is not intended to be a rigid formula, but a guide to help you structure your proposal and make sure that you are not omitting any major components. Sections may be re-ordered or combined as appropriate, in consultation with your instructor. There should also be an introduction and thesis statement to frame the work, although this section is not graded/assessed as such, merely as part of the whole.

There will not be heavy supervision of your topic selection, but it will be based on the following question: , but it will be important that your research proposal is for original research that has not been done before and that you do not believe others are doing in a similar way. The rubric to grade this assignment will be entirely new, based upon a section-grading framework of 5 points per section, and there are 5 sections in total.
Section

Explanation

Literature Review
This section surveys the existing scholarship, summarizing the arguments prior studies have advanced and briefly contrasting their conceptual frameworks and methods. Your treatment of the literature should help to identify the gaps, blind spots, and interpretive errors that make your own proposed intervention productive. In many cases, there will be more than one intersecting body of literature that is relevant to the project – not only the work that directly addresses your substantive area of inquiry, but work that deals with the broader and more abstract questions that you are raising (for instance, comparative concepts of communal or national identity before the rise of the nation state).

Research question(s), hypotheses, and analytical framework and its significance

This section should begin with a succinct and pithy statement of the question (or perhaps the interrelated questions) you propose to pursue. If you cannot express it in one to three sentences, it is probably because your project has not yet completely crystallized. Once you’ve articulated your question in a direct and concise form, you can go on to elaborate on it. Explain how pursuing this question will contribute to broader understanding in your field and the literatures you discuss in (2). Articulate your working hypotheses or the analytical framework you will adopt to address these questions and organize your collection and interpretation of information (e.g. texts, data, interviews). Remember, this is a proposal for research that you have not yet carried out; at most, it can project results based on your preliminary research and relevant existing secondary research that you hope to substantiate when your collection and analysis of data is complete. This element involves stepping back from your immediate scholarly question to place it within a larger picture, explaining the broader impact and benefit of the new approach you are proposing to your problem (and the costs – intellectual, political, social – of failing to understand it).

Methodology/Timeline

This section describes the conceptual framework and theoretical angle of your project, making clear why each is the most appropriate approach to the problem you are addressing. Here, you should build on the literature-review section to demonstrate how your approach contrasts with, supplements or corrects existing conceptualizations of and approaches to the research problem. A provisional timetable for completion of the project might include research and chapterwriting goals for each semester, when and for how long you plan to visit archives or do fieldwork.

Chapter Outline

A tentative proposal for the internal organization of the project should state the material that each chapter will cover, and convey how each chapter fits into the larger project. Why are the chapters ordered the way they are? Are they more or less discrete, or are they tracing an overarching narrative trajectory?

Bibliography

This can be simply a list of sources, or you can annotate the list, according to the Chicago Manual of Style. There are also a number of ways in which you can organize the sources: for example, you can separate them into primary and secondary sections, or divide the sources up by chapter.
============================================================================
Revision Instructions
“RESEARCH PAPER III: Revision Edition”

SPECIFICS CHECKLIST:

1) Choose either Research Proposal I or Research Proposal II for your revision.

2) Read the paper comments and/or grading rubric feedback from Professor Kirsch.

3) Attempt to incorporate the feedback into a new draft of your proposal, whether it’s a new database search (perhaps with assistance from Political Science Librarian Hong Wang, please let me know if you’d like to get connected with her again), a writing proofread (perhaps with University Writing Center assistance–please let Professor Kirsch know if you need help getting connected with this resource).
============================================================================
The email my Professor Sent
I need to do my job here, and give you some honest feedback. I feel this paper lacks focus, and could do with both some serious page cutting, scaling back of the research question, and hypothesis refinement. I also believe that your paper sets a scene on the first two pages by borrowing quite a bit of language from your literature review sources, which could be 1) quoted more purposefully, and 2) gotten rid of.

Most of this can be done by focusing more on the literature review, and separating your literature review sources from your infomation sources.

I understand that this is hard to read, and probably not the reaction you wished for from me. I say again that the amount of effort you have expended is clear, but I must use the same rubric I use for all papers in this course to apply to yours. I am prepared to say that if you turned the paper in as is, the point breakdown would probably be the following:

Lit Review: 4/5

Hypothesis: 3/5

Methodology: 4/5

Chapter outline: 5/5

Bibliography: 4/5

This would add up to 20/25, which is functionally equivalent to a B-. Your overall grade in the course is looking like either a B+ or A-, it’s difficult to say, but handing the paper in as is might be a decisive factor in leaning toward a B+ overall, though it’s hard to say for sure without all of the discussions being graded yet.

I appreciate that this is difficult to read, and does not seem to add up given the amount of time and effort you’ve already put in to this project. I will attempt to give you some feedback that you can use to improve your paper, and perhaps raise your grade if you’re able to complete all of this.

Firstly, your literature review is certainly thorough on the historical substance of the events you describe, but it needs to be more focused in political science. If you do a search of political science journals rather than all journals, it would help you obtain a more focused literature review around the question you’re asking. It would help, for example, clarify what is meant precisely be a “financial” benefit to the United States. I realize that you have identified four different major dependent variables in your research section, but the literature review may help you see how this has been researched previously in political science, and what kinds of variables they have used to measure the questions surrounding this issue. This will help you either choose one or develop a superior measurement.

Second, your bibliography can be cleaned up in four ways: a) you can separate out the literature review sources from the data/archive/information sources; b) you can integrate the short paragraphs you have written into the text of your literature review and methods sections (with footnoted OR parenthetical citations, as well as inclusion in the bibliography), and remove those paragraphs from the bibliography c) remove those sources that are extraneous to one research question and dependent variable, rather than 4 or 5 (inflation, public opinion, total government money spent, total trade between the two countries, Saudi soldier training…). d) Use the JSTOR or EBSCO tool, or any online tool, to help you generate a proper citation format from the Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition).

Third, your hypothesis needs much more attention. You have a question about both the political and financial effects, and then you pivot toward how both “groups” will be “dissatisfied” once they know the outcome of all of your research. It’s overly broad and is contributing to how much you are grasping at virtually any spect of this to analyze. You need to focus on one thing, one outcome, one variable, one effect, one (maybe two) measurable outcomes that have not so far been,–or not so far sufficiently been–explored in the peer-reviewed political science literature.

Fourth: No, this research would not take seven months and minimal financial investment. This research project as outlined would take a minimum of 5 years, possibly 10, and the public opinion surveys (four) would cost many thousands of dollars. That’s fine, in and of itself, but I think it demonstrates just how far-reaching this would be, and if something is this far-reaching, it will inevitably result in people reading it looking for the central question rather than the researcher spending much time on it, which is more useful.

And finally: I would really encourage you to lose the introduction and maybe even the conclusion. You are not being graded on either, and they maybe are even distracting you from the main focus, which is to find and justify a new research project. This might help you focus on what is vital and cut away the rest. Your chapter outline, though I gave you full credit, can be substantially cut as well, which I think is clear from the rest of this feedback.

I would much rather be in your position as a student than in the position of someone who has done no thinking on this topic, and already has a paper to edit, rather than coming up with one from scratch. You’re starting with 17 pages of deep thinking, I would encourage you to turn in a paper that is no more than 8 total, including the bibliography. May 8 next Friday is the final day I will accept any work, so you can take until then, despite what the assignment says.
============================================================================

I need this paper to be more focused. It needs to be more focused on one question. Which will be the economic policies. Apparently I wrote too much and did too much work before and it was too confusing. Which is why I am here cause i see that as completely unfair but I guess what ya gonna do haha.