Montreal Protocol Case Study

Montreal Protocol Case Study

ESS/GEOG 141

Writing Assignment #3

Montreal Protocol Case Study

First Draft Due Wednesday March 10, 2007 (electronic submission)

Final Draft Due Thursday March 18, 2007 (paper copy turned in in class)

Analyze the scientific and political dimensions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Resources

  • Supplemental reading: (these will be linked in the online syllabus entry for 10/4)
  • Chapters: 1 through18 plus Appendix B in Ozone Diplomacy

Class lectures

Goal

Analyze the key issues, players and circumstances that led to the signing and ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Writing style

Analytical - emphasis on direct language, and an assessment of a complex situation within a relatively simple framework. This requires a clear (paragraph and idea) structure for your narrative.

Format

All assignments this semester will follow the conventional format for professional writing: they must be typed, double-spaced, in an easy-to-read font (Arial or Times New Roman), 12-point type, 1-inch margins, and saved as Microsoft Word or Open Office document files. We will not accept assignments submitted in Microsoft Works or Rich Text Format (RTF). If you do not have Microsoft Word or Open Office (freeware), you should arrange to obtain a copy. In the interim, University computer labs have Word. Final versions of all assignments should be hard copy (printed out). Don’t forget page numbers!!

Assignment #3 must be 5-6 pages in length and, in a logical, narrative form answer the following key questions

1) Who are the players?

2) What do they want?

3) What strategies do they pursue?

4) What are the institutional or other constraints?

5) What was the outcome? Why?

As you prepare to write, while revising, and in proofreading your final draft, make sure you have,

* Clearly stated your framework for understanding events

* Given sufficient detailed, accurate, and complete information to support your ideas (without including unnecessary minutia);

* Defined any terms or concepts that are new to you;

* Conveyed your positions clearly to your target audience;

* Expressed points made in book chapters and other sources in your own words rather than with quotes and close paraphrases. Cite ideas that are not your own using consistent formatting.

we are asking you to do something that is probably new to all or most of you.

Writing a case analysis is not like writing a term paper, and preparing to write one is also different. Here are some guidelines that will help you do this assignment.

  1. The emphasis is not on independent research. We are providing the materials you need: basically, 'Ozone Diplomacy' and our lectures. (Note that we will be lecturing on the outlines of this case BEFORE YOUR FINAL DRAFTS ARE DUE, and so you will have plenty of opportunity to get further guidance and to ask questions. You will benefit most from that if you have already started on your draft.)
  2. What does this mean for your assignment? It generally means you don't need an extensive bibliography. If you decide you only need to reference our lectures and the book, that will be fine. That also means citations can be pretty straightforward. E.g., “As Westerling suggests, ...”, “Kueppers explains that ... “ , “Benedick says ... “.
  3. The emphasis is on your sifting through a large amount of material and making your own judgments about what is important and what to skim over. This is an important skill to develop. In your professional work, it will often be the case that you will have to process a diverse set of materials, and you wont have the luxury of spending a semester to learn every detail you might possibly need to know before attempting a task.

That means we don’t want to give you too much time to slowly and carefully read Benedick in an unstructured way. We want you to use the book as a resource. When you are reviewing it, you should have specific questions in mind that you are looking for the answers to. You shouldn’t waste much time on material that doesn’t address those questions.

4. The emphasis is on concise writing. Often, it is easier to write a long paper than a short one. So we have allowed you to go to 5 or 6 pages, but you could do very well with just four IF YOU KNEW WHAT THE IMPORTANT FACTS ARE. That is, if we gave you unlimited time and space, and you told us everything there is to know about the case, you would likely cover all the important points of the case, but we might not have any way to assess whether you knew what was important or why. A short paper forces you to focus on the essentials.

5. We are asking you to describe for us in your own words: who you think the important players were in the decision making process that resulted in agreement to phase out CFC production, and why.

what you think their motivations were (you are going to have to make assumptions here, but they should be reasonable and consistent with the facts of the case).

what you think their strategies were

what institutional factors were important in shaping the outcome, and how

why you think we got the result we did

You will need to make assumptions, and we will want to see that you know your own assumptions. They should be explicit... we should not have to infer what your assumptions are based on the details of your arguments. The details of your arguments should follow logically from your stated assumptions and the information you cite from the book, the lectures, and any other sources.

Most of all with this assignment, the priority is on the clarity of your argument. Can you tell us a plausible story that makes sense of the information you have been provided?

There is not necessarily one right answer. If you make different assumptions about motives, for example, you will end up emphasizing different facts as being important to your analysis.

Top View