The project aims at providing students with the fundamental methodological, analytical, and theoretical tools to analyze decision and policy-making processes in modern societies. Public policies shape actors’ behavior through formal (and sometimes informal) means: they exhibit dynamism as well as stability, they distribute power and are inevitably contested. In short, public policies have a major impact on citizens and constitute constraints as well as opportunities for particular groups of citizens. As society becomes more complex and is confronted with political challenges (e.g. environmental sustainability, financial regulation, good governance), understanding the political, economic as well as social factors influencing (the formulation) of public policy is of major importance for any political analyst. In particular, the course focuses on policy areas which challenge societies, inducing deep transformations (e.g. energy, environment, migration, democratic innovations, international and European governance). This year, the students will focus on environmental and energy related issues taking place at local, regional, national and/or European levels.
The teaching method combines the added-value of lectures (introducing students to fundamental concepts and theories of policy-making) with empirical and theoretical analyses of real case-studies conducted by the students. Students apply concepts and theoretical models to an empirical analysis of a public policy of their choice (in coordination with the professor, teaching assistants, and professional experts). Regular meetings are organized with the professor and teaching assistants to receive comprehensive feedback throughout both semesters, before the final jury and the submission of their public policy analysis research paper.
Consequently, the organization of the course largely relies on students’ regular participation and commitment to field work (including the development of data collection tools, such as interviews, questionnaires or participatory observation with stakeholders and decision-makers).
The main objectives of the course are the following:
The course takes place over the entire academic year and is divided into 4 complementary modules. Each module provides students with the specific knowledge and necessary skills for the final jury and the production of a research paper.
Evaluation of module 1 - Epistémologie et méthodes de recherche
Prof. Burnay (10 points out of 20)
L’évaluation du module 1 consistera en un examen écrit de deux heures portant sur la matière vue au cours magistral durant le Q1 et permettant de s’assurer de la connaissance et de la compréhension de la matière.
Evaluation of module 2: understanding public policy analysis
Prof. Jacquet and Randour (10 points out of 20)
The evaluation of module 2 is organized in two steps.
(1) 2 points are awarded for the preparation and animation of a discussion (about 45 minutes) on the readings (collective evaluation). The oral presentations should address the main concepts covered in the articles and apply them to the study of a recent case. To foster ‘controlled’ interactions between students and increase the participation rate, you are asked to prepare an online quiz using the Wooclap tool. In short, your mission is to explain the main concepts of the article; to prepare an online quiz for the other students and finally, to identify and apply the concepts to recent political events.
(2) The other 8 points are awarded following an open-book (individual) oral exam composed of two questions. After a period of preparation, students will first answer a question on one of the articles from the compulsory reader (i.e., testing knowledge), followed by a second question focusing on the application of one of the theoretical frameworks seen in class to a current case (i.e., applying theories).
Evaluation of module 3-4: continuous evaluation
Assistant (2 points out of 20)
The work of the students will be continuously evaluated during the semester, notably regarding (i) attendance; (ii) capacity to reach the deadlines for the deliverables; (iii) the quality of the deliverables (content); (iv) the peer-review (oral) discussion of the draft paper of another group of students.
Evaluation of modules 3-4: presenting your findings (final jury)
Prof. Burnay, Jacquet and Randour, C. Hoorelbeke, N. Schutz and the Assistant + 1 external guest (8 points out of 20)
At the end of the semester, the students present their research findings in front of a jury composed of the entire teaching team and of an external guest. The (group) oral presentation lasts 15 minutes(?) and consists of a presentation dealing with (i) the research question and puzzle of the research, (ii) the method and data used, (iii) the findings, (iv) a conclusion and discussion of the findings as well as of a critical appraisal of the method used. Following the oral presentation, the jury ask follow-up questions.
Semester 2
Evaluation of module 4: writing a public policy analysis research paper
Prof. Jacquet et Randour (10 points out of 20)
Each group of students prepares a public policy analysis research note applying one theoretical approach to a ‘real-case’ public policy related to energy and/or environmental issues. A list of topics will be provided by the teaching team at the beginning of the semester. More precisely, we expect a political science puzzle (i.e., why is your topic puzzling and why should we care about better understanding the phenomenon), a research question, the collection of original data (i.e., semi-structured interviews) and the conduction of serious desk research and to critically apply the theoretical approaches and concepts seen during the course to your policy. The assessment grid used to grade the paper will be available on the Webcampus page of the course.
Semester 2
Evaluation of module 4: abstract writing
Christelle Hoorelbeke and Natassia Schutz (Pass or fail)
The students will be assessed based on the final version of their abstract. For this task, the students will not get points per se. If the abstract meets the requirements, the group will get a ‘PASS’, which will validate their final grade. If not, the group will get a ‘FAIL’ and a symbolic 6/20 for their final grade.
During the coaching sessions, each group will get the opportunity to work together, in class, on a first version of their abstract, get peer-feedback and, before handing in a final version, some personal feedback from the teacher. The assessment grid used for this task will be available on WebCampus.
Retake session
tion methods (i.e., a traditional written exam, oral exam, oral group presentations, research paper, etc.). To pass the course, students must (1) pass all 4 modules (2) and get an average of 10/20 for the academic year.
|
odule |
Prof. in charge of the evaluation |
Type of exam |
Form of the exam |
|
|
|
Module 1 |
Prof. Burnay |
Examen individuel |
Examen écrit à la fin du quadrimestre |
/10 |
|
|
Module 2 |
Prof. Jacquet & Randour |
Individual assessment |
Oral exam (in French) at the end of the semester |
/8
|
|
|
Module 2 |
Prof. Jacquet &. Randour |
Collective assessment |
Oral presentation (in English) during the course |
/2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/20 |
|
|
Module 4 |
Simon Lemaire |
Collective assessment |
Continuous evaluation (respect of deadlines, content and peer-review work) |
/2 |
|
|
Module 3-4
|
Prof. Burnay Prof. Jacquet &. Randour, Christelle Hoorelbeke and Natassia Schutz, Simon Lemaire |
Collective assessment |
Final jury - oral presentations and Q&A (in French)
|
/8 |
|
|
Module 4 |
Prof. Jacquet & Randour
Christelle Hoorelbeke and Natassia Schutz |
Collective assessment |
Research paper
Abstract writing |
/10
Pass/ Fail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/20 |
|
Evaluation of the project in detail
Semester 1
Evaluation of module 1 - Epistémologie et méthodes de recherche
Prof. Burnay (10 points out of 20)
L’évaluation du module 1 consistera en un examen écrit de deux heures portant sur la matière vue au cours magistral durant le Q1 et permettant de s’assurer de la connaissance et de la compréhension de la matière.
Semester 1
Evaluation of module 2: understanding public policy analysis
Prof. Jacquet and Randour (10 points out of 20)
The evaluation of module 2 is organized in two steps.
(1) 2 points are awarded for the preparation and animation of a discussion (about 45 minutes) on the readings (collective evaluation). The oral presentations should address the main concepts covered in the articles and apply them to the study of a recent case. To foster ‘controlled’ interactions between students and increase the participation rate, you are asked to prepare an online quiz using the Wooclap tool. In short, your mission is to explain the main concepts of the article; to prepare an online quiz for the other students and finally, to identify and apply the concepts to recent political events.
(2) The other 8 points are awarded following an open-book (individual) oral exam composed of two questions. After a period of preparation, students will first answer a question on one of the articles from the compulsory reader (i.e., testing knowledge), followed by a second question focusing on the application of one of the theoretical frameworks seen in class to a current case (i.e., applying theories).
Semester 2
Evaluation of module 3-4: continuous evaluation
Simon Lemaire (2 points out of 20)
The work of the students will be continuously evaluated during the semester, notably regarding (i) attendance; (ii) capacity to reach the deadlines for the deliverables; (iii) the quality of the deliverables (content); (iv) the peer-review (oral) discussion of the draft paper of another group of students.
Semester 2
Evaluation of modules 3-4: presenting your findings (final jury)
Prof. Burnay, Jacquet and Randour, C. Hoorelbeke, N. Schutz and S. Lemaire + 1 external guest (8 points out of 20)
At the end of the semester, the students present their research findings in front of a jury composed of the entire teaching team and of an external guest. The (group) oral presentation lasts 15 minutes(?) and consists of a presentation dealing with (i) the research question and puzzle of the research, (ii) the method and data used, (iii) the findings, (iv) a conclusion and discussion of the findings as well as of a critical appraisal of the method used. Following the oral presentation, the jury ask follow-up questions.
Semester 2
Evaluation of module 4: writing a public policy analysis research paper
Prof. Jacquet et Randour (10 points out of 20)
Each group of students prepares a public policy analysis research note applying one theoretical approach to a ‘real-case’ public policy related to energy and/or environmental issues. A list of topics will be provided by the teaching team at the beginning of the semester. More precisely, we expect a political science puzzle (i.e., why is your topic puzzling and why should we care about better understanding the phenomenon), a research question, the collection of original data (i.e., semi-structured interviews) and the conduction of serious desk research and to critically apply the theoretical approaches and concepts seen during the course to your policy. The assessment grid used to grade the paper will be available on the Webcampus page of the course.
Semester 2
Evaluation of module 4: abstract writing
Christelle Hoorelbeke and Natassia Schutz (Pass or fail)
The students will be assessed based on the final version of their abstract. For this task, the students will not get points per se. If the abstract meets the requirements, the group will get a ‘PASS’, which will validate their final grade. If not, the group will get a ‘FAIL’ and a symbolic 6/20 for their final grade.
During the coaching sessions, each group will get the opportunity to work together, in class, on a first version of their abstract, get peer-feedback and, before handing in a final version, some personal feedback from the teacher. The assessment grid used for this task will be available on WebCampus.
Retake session
| Training | Study programme | Block | Credits | Mandatory |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bachelier en sciences politiques, orientation générale | Standard | 0 | 10 | |
| Bachelier en sciences politiques, orientation générale | Standard | 2 | 10 |