Assessment

Students are required to summarize and discuss the available scientific evidence on a chosen public-sector policy question. The review should i) identify the public-sector policy problem and the corresponding policy, ii) define the scope of the review and describe the literature search, iii) summarize the available evidence and how this evidence was produced, iv) and critically discuss important gaps in existing research. This exercise offers students an opportunity to build their expertise in a particular policy area and begin to develop their dissertation topic.

When choosing a policy question, students should focus on ones that are amenable to evidence rather than normative questions. For instance, instead of asking whether a policy should be implemented, consider if a policy achieves a particular goal. Given the constraints of time and word count, it’s essential to select tractable policy questions. For example, asking “What works to boost naturalization rates?” might be too broad, while “Does New York fee reduction increase naturalization rates?” could be overly specific. A balanced question might be “Do fee reduction policies boost naturalization rates?”

Requirements

The review must be concise, not exceeding 3,000 words. It’s essential to choose a public policy question that allows for a review of at least five studies. The majority of studies should be published in peer-reviewed journals in Economics and/or Political Science¹. Adherence to grammar and spelling norms is expected. Students have to consistently employ either the Harvard or Chicago reference style. Please consult the UCL Library guide on referencing if you are not familar with referencing and consider using reference management software (UCL Library guide to reference management software). The final submission must be a PDF with a font size of 12, 1.5 line spacing, and page numbers.

Marking Criteria

Scope/Number of studies and replicable literature search (about 15%)
Accurate, original and purposeful summary of the studies (about 30%)
Evidence of critical and original analysis (about 20%)
Overall insight and originality (about 20%)
Writing, formatting, referencing (about 15%)

Political Science Department policy requires that penalty points be deducted for written works that are late and does not allow module convenors to grant extensions. Department policy also requires that penalty points be deducted for essays that exceed the maximum word limit. Any words in tables and graphs as well as footnotes must be included in the word count. The bibliography and (if applicable) appendices, abstract and acknowledgements are not included in the word count.

AI Guidelines and Academic Integrity

All research and writing for this module must be produced by the student. If you have another person or an AI do even parts of the research or the writing for you, this is considered academic misconduct. Any suspected Academic Misconduct will be investigated and can ultimately lead to module failure. For details see UCL Guidelines on Academic Misconduct.

In this module, you are authorised and encouraged to seek assistance from AI tools to edit your writing. Editing includes fixing typos and grammatical errors, clarifying the message of a sentence or paragraph, or cutting down text. If you choose to use AI tools to edit your writing, acknowledge your use by naming the AI tool and describing how you used it in a footnote. You should also acknowledge if another person edited your writing.

The main reason for not allowing AI for research purposes is that AI tools make severe mistakes. Summaries of academic studies produced by AI tools tend to be inaccurate, AI tools fabricate well formatted but fictitious references, and AI tools are not able to provide factual accurate explanations of theoretical concepts and statistical methods.

Important Deadlines

Oct 25, 2 PM: Register policy question via Policy Question Register
Nov 15, seminar: Report on your progress in the seminar
Dec 13, 2 PM: Submit the complete bibliography Bibliography
Jan ??, 2 PM: Submit the complete review

Examples

The PUBL0097: Review Idea Repository provides a series of ideas for policy questions. You are welcome to—but not required—to pick a question from this repository.

The Moodle for this module includes example submissions from previous years for inspiration. The published examples below are meant to provide ideas and highlight the large scope of potential policy questions. Students are not expected to write a publication-ready literature review.

Bassoli, M. and C. Luccioni. “Homestay Accommodation for Refugees (in Europe). A Literature Review”. In: International Migration Review (2023). DOI: 10.1177/01979183231172101.
Manning, N. and K. Edwards. “Does Civic Education For Young People Increase Political Participation? A Systematic Review”. In: Educational Review 66.1 (2014), pp. 22-45. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2013.763767.
Green, D. P. and A. S. Gerber. Get Out The Vote: How To Increase Voter Turnout. Brookings Institution Press, 2019.
Campana, A. and L. Lapointe. “The Structural “Root” Causes of Non-suicide Terrorism: A Systematic Scoping Review”. In: Terrorism and Political Violence 24.1 (2012), pp. 79-104. DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2011.611547.

Footnotes

There is no complete list of acceptable journals. The purpose of this requirement is not to limit the type of work you can review, but to nudge you to focus on policy questions relevant to Political Science and Economics (broadly defined). If you find yourself in a situation in which the majority of your studies is published in, for example, Sociology journals or in general science journals (e.g., Nature Human Behavior, PNAS) please talk to me for feedback.↩︎