Written Criteria For Policy-Briefs

OVERVIEW: write as if you're an advisor to decision-makers (or other clients) with the goal of synthesizing a vast amount of information, ideas, research, and analysis down to key actionable statements, then conclude with some key RECOMMENDATIONS that are persuasive.

GUIDELINES:

  • The paper should focus on an applied policy issue or problem in Earth System Science (ESS) or Social Policy that highlights the Human Dimensions of Global Change (HDGC), human-service delivery. 

  • If the focus is on HDGC you will focus on the broad arena of "sustainability" and how humans use, abuse, manage, interact-with the biosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, geosphere or sociosphere (the institutional and social environment). Keep your topic as specific as possible and avoid overgeneralization! See Forum on Science and Technology for Sustainability
     
  • Use up-to-date data and sources including human sources you contact directly.  A major criteria is timeliness and appropriateness of sources of information. But, DON'T DEPEND ON THE INTERNET ALONE - use regular library sources as well as journals, books, and even primary sources and field observation, if you can do so!

  • If the issue is a very current "hot topic" you should also include references to public opinion and media sources which may be critical to addressing"timeliness"--i.e, what do actual publics or decision-makers know and think about the issue at hand right now! In this sense, learning to think, write and research like an "investigative reporter or journalist" is very important.
     
  • In terms of writing style follow a policy-analysis or position-paper format (see "policy brief" samples given earlier).  The focus should be on being concise, precise and balanced - as if you're writing as a "policy advisor" or analyst for your "boss" or for a decision-making body that "needs facts and options" to consider before making a decision, e.g. Congressional Committee, Board, professional association, or client of some type.
 
  • Try to avoid jargon as much as possible--remember your audience are usually NOT specialists, but educated, busy decision-makers or the general public. Again, you are not trying to impress them with how much you know, but help them understand enough to make an informed decision.
 
  • Briefly explain:
    • a) what is the issue or problem
    • b) why it is important
    • c) how it got that way
    • d) what are the current views about dealing with it (present both pro's and con's--don't be "one-sided"). Then,
    • e) present recommendations for action or change in strategy in a persuasive manner.
 
  • Remember that in policy writing the goal is NOT to be exhaustive or overly-idealistic or theoretical, but realistic, practical, concise, persuasive, balanced, and applied. The goal is to present "doable" options that might lead to action or a change in strategy on the issue or problem you're addressing.
 
  • Implementation Analysis (analysis of potential barriers to implementation). Under some circumstances, you may need to consider issues such as the following (use your judgement to assess "how much" to present)--though this type of detail might follow in a "planning document" (not an initial policy brief). When in doubt check with your client or boss. Issues you "may" need to consider in an "implementation analysis":

    • Institutional:
      • Clashes with social or political institutions.
      • Conflicts with other existing laws or programs
      • Eligibility procedures clash with goals of serving people
      • Fund transfer problems
    • Psychological:
      • Offensive to clients or staff responsible for implementing
      • High degree of stigma (client issues)
      • Intensive eligibility requirements (client and staff issue)
    • Sociological:
      • Seriously misread cultural values of target population
      • May require intense and unrealistic familial support or care
    • Environmental/ecological/medical:
      • Consider biophysical “sustainability” factors such as ecology, biophysical forces
      • Consider geographical, spatial or other “environmental” limits or opportunities
      • Consider potential changes in the virus itself and/or problems in synergy with other diseases, vectors, etc?
    • Economic:
      • Cost is greater than available resources
      • Cost-benefit analysis
    • Political:
      • Over identification with one group
      • Group competition for resources (claims systems)
      • Unrealistic given current moral philosophies and sentiment

  • Reference carefully and use a diversity of sources: academic journals, the Internet, TV/Radio, interviews with people, newspapers. If publishing online use the Columbia Guide to Online Citation - by Janice R. Walker and Todd Taylor (Columbia UP, 1998).
 
  • Enhance readability via careful use of bullets, headings, icons, text-boxes, and other graphical aides to facilitate quicker understanding of the key facts and issues.

  • When you use acronyms or abreviations spell them out or reference in footnotes (unless you're sure it is common knowledge).

  • Use judiciously charts, graphs, maps, pictures to illustrate your key points!  Be careful to give credit and cite appropriately (copying graphics from the Web without giving the original URL is not appropriate).  List Figures consecutively and provide a short concise caption.
 
  • Follow a standard Style Manual such as the MLA, APA, K. Turabian, or The Chicago Manual of Style and give appropriate credit, e.g. citations, references. Most important--be consistent and follow the same style.

  • Readers often prefer to have citations accessible via FOOTNOTES. Long extensive bibliographies are NOT recommended. This distracts from the purpose of the policy document which is action and advocacy, not theoretical analysis or debate as in longer treatises or dissertations.


Checklist for Evaluation of the Policy-Brief 
    Structure (organization of the paper)    1     2     3     4     5

Style (follow Chicago Manual, etc.)      1     2     3     4     5

Grammar/spelling                         1     2     3     4     5

Quality of graphs/charts/maps            1     2     3     4     5

Accuracy of facts (error-free)           1     2     3     4     5

Conciseness (ability to synthesize)      1     2     3     4     5

Relevance/innovativeness of topic/theme  1     2     3     4     5

Persuasiveness of argument/balance       1     2     3     4     5

Timeliness (up-to-date-ness)             1     2     3     4     5

Diversity/balance/quality of sources     1     2     3     4     5


               TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE          =     50
              Points Earned           =    __
BACK TO TOP


Last Revised: March 9, 2005