Research Quality & Content
Quality of the research question, data and methods documentation, accuracy of the analysis, and strength of the interpretation and implications.
Final Project
Weight
30% of final grade
Components
Proposal, policy brief, and presentation
Work Format
1–3 students
Submission
Canvas
Students may work individually or in a group of two or three to complete an original research project on a topic related to public administration or nonprofit management. The project should develop a research design that includes an introduction, brief literature review, data, methods, results, and discussion and conclusion. At least one visualization of the analysis results must be included. Students may use any appropriate quantitative analysis technique, including methods learned in other courses. The project begins with a short proposal early in the semester, and the completed work is communicated through a policy brief and an oral presentation during the final week of classes.
Component Weights
| Component | Percent of Final Grade |
|---|---|
| Project Proposal | 1% |
| Policy Brief | 15% |
| Presentation | 14% |
Component 1
Project Proposal
Submit a short proposal that sets the foundation for your final project: the question you intend to answer, what you expect to find, and the data you will use to test it. This is a planning checkpoint rather than a draft of the brief. Its purpose is to surface problems with scope, data availability, or measurement early enough that you can still change direction, and to give me something concrete to give you feedback on.
Use this project proposal template and submit your completed proposal as a PDF.
Required content
- Title and contact: A working title and the name and email of each team member.
- Research question: Your research question or questions, stated clearly.
- Hypothesis: What you expect to find, where a hypothesis applies to your question.
- Data: The unit of analysis, plus a variables table listing each variable, its type (independent, dependent, or control), how it will be measured and conceptualized, and its source. For secondary data, give the dataset name and web address; for data you collect yourself, describe the collection process, including survey or interview details and expected counts.
- Methods (optional): One to three sentences on the methodological approach you expect to use.
“TBD” is an acceptable answer for a data source you have not settled on yet. The proposal is graded on completeness and the seriousness of the thinking, not on having every detail resolved. A proposal that names a real question and an honest gap is worth more than one that invents certainty it does not have.
Component 2
Policy Brief
Write a policy brief that communicates your research purpose, methods, findings, and implications to policymakers, community stakeholders, and other audiences with varied technical backgrounds. A policy brief is the format think tanks and research organizations use to put evidence in front of decision makers: it leads with the finding and its relevance, supports the argument with purposeful visuals, and documents the underlying research so a skeptical reader can evaluate it. Submit the brief as a PDF file.
FormatPDF policy brief
Length2–6 pages
Visuals2–5 charts or tables
AudiencePolicy and community audiences
Required sections
- Title and authors: A clear, informative title and the names of all team members.
- Key findings: A short opening summary, three to five bullets, stating what you found and why it matters before the reader reaches any methodology.
- Issue and objectives: The policy issue, research question, objectives, hypothesis, and significance of the topic.
- Methods box: A visually distinct box or sidebar documenting the data source, unit of analysis, scope or timeframe, key variables, and analytical approach, with at least one descriptive statistics table or figure.
- Findings: Results from the hypothesis test with supporting figures and a clear explanation of statistical significance in plain language.
- Implications and limitations: What the evidence means for policy decisions or recommendations, what the study cannot establish, and useful directions for future research.
- References: A complete list of cited studies using one consistent citation style.
The methods box is required and is not optional formatting. Documenting your data and analytical approach is what separates a policy brief from an opinion piece, and it carries substantial weight in the Research Quality criterion below.
Create every table and figure specifically for the brief. Screenshots from software output are not permitted. Choose visuals that carry a key finding rather than displaying all results, apply the data visualization principles covered in class, and include an AI use statement.
Component 3
Presentation
Deliver a 6–9 minute presentation that clearly communicates the research purpose, data analysis, findings, and implications. Create a slide deck for the presentation; you are not expected to present from the brief itself. Use charts, tables, or figures purposefully, and tailor your language and explanations to policy and community audiences with varied technical backgrounds.
Suggested flow
- Frame the projectIntroduce the policy issue, research purpose, and significance.
- Explain the approachDescribe the dataset, variables, unit of analysis, and analytical methods.
- Lead with the findingsHighlight the key results with visuals and explain statistical significance.
- Close with meaningDiscuss implications, limitations, and useful directions for future research.
Rehearse for timing, smooth transitions, and cohesive delivery. All team members should contribute and be ready for Q&A. Submit the slide PDF before presenting. Reading speaking notes or a script verbatim will result in a very low grade. Include an AI use statement.
Shared evaluation
How the policy brief and presentation are evaluated
The three criteria below are applied once across the policy brief and the presentation, which together account for 29% of the final course grade. The project proposal is graded separately on completeness.
Visual Design & Communication
Clarity, accuracy, and accessibility of the brief, tables, figures, organization, writing, and references.
Presentation Delivery & Knowledge
Preparation, timing, team participation, audience-centered delivery, command of the research, and responsiveness during Q&A.
View the detailed evaluation rubric Expand to compare performance descriptions for all three criteria.
The performance band indicates the percentage of points earned within a criterion; the Weight column determines that criterion’s contribution to the project grade.
| Criterion | Exemplary 95–100% |
Proficient 80–94.9% |
Developing 40–79.9% |
Needs Improvement Below 40% |
Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research Quality & Content | The question, objectives, and hypothesis are precise and significant. Data source, unit of analysis, scope, variables, and methods are fully documented. Results are accurate, statistical significance is interpreted correctly, and conclusions directly answer the question with thoughtful implications and limitations. | The research design is coherent and the analysis is accurate overall. Required data and method details are present, with only minor omissions. Findings answer the question, though parts of the interpretation, implications, or limitations could be developed further. | The purpose or hypothesis is only partly clear. Important data or method details are incomplete, and the analysis or interpretation contains gaps. Connections among the question, results, and implications are present but underdeveloped. | The research question is unclear or the methods are incomplete or inappropriate. Key information such as data source, unit of analysis, or scope is missing. Major analytical errors or unsupported conclusions prevent the findings from answering the research question. | 50% |
| Visual Design & Communication | The brief tells a clear, compelling research story and leads with the finding. Purpose-built tables and figures are accurate, readable, well labeled, and consistent with visualization principles. The methods box is complete and easy to locate, writing is accessible, and references are complete and consistent. | The brief is clear, organized, and visually effective overall. Tables, figures, headings, the methods box, writing, and references support the story, with only minor issues in labeling, hierarchy, density, accessibility, or consistency. | The main message is visible, but dense text, weak hierarchy, inconsistent formatting, or underdeveloped visuals reduce clarity. The methods box is thin or hard to find, some tables or figures lack context or labels, and references or writing need additional editing. | The brief is difficult to navigate or read. The methods box is missing or uninformative. Visuals are missing, misleading, poorly labeled, or reproduced as software screenshots. Organization, writing, or incomplete references significantly obstruct understanding. | 20% |
| Presentation Delivery & Knowledge | The presentation is confident, cohesive, engaging, and within the 6–9 minute limit. All members contribute meaningfully, visuals support the explanation, technical content is accessible, and responses to questions demonstrate strong command of the research and its implications. | The presentation is clear, prepared, and appropriately timed overall. Team participation, visuals, and explanations are effective, with minor issues in pacing, transitions, reliance on notes, audience engagement, or Q&A responses. | Delivery is uneven or relies heavily on notes. Timing, transitions, team participation, or audience adaptation need improvement. Responses to questions demonstrate partial understanding of the methods, findings, or implications. | The presentation is unprepared, difficult to follow, substantially outside the time limit, or read from a script. Participation is seriously imbalanced, and the presenters cannot clearly explain or defend essential elements of the research. | 30% |