Coursework and Viva

To complete this module, students have to submit an evidence memo on a study (component “coursework”, 50%) and engage in a 20-minute in-person conversation with the instructor about their evidence memo (component “viva”, 50%). The evidence memo critically discusses one of the eligible studies (henceforward “core study”) in the context of the wider literature on the public policy question to which this study speaks. The list of eligible core studies is below.

The evidence memo should summarize the evidence that the core study provides on a public policy question (about 1/3 of the memo) and highlight important research gaps on the basis of the core study and the broader evidence base (about 2/3). In order to highlight research gaps, students are expected to systematically review the literature on their policy question. It is recommended that the evidence memo includes appendix tables providing a structured summary of the research approach and key findings of all studies included in the evidence memo.

The evidence memo serves as a foundation for a subsequent conversation with the instructor and provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate their understanding of the available evidence on the public policy question to the instructor. The conversation will center on two sets of questions: i) questions related to the student’s understanding of the core study at the center of their evidence memo and ii) questions regarding their analysis of the existing research gaps on the public policy question. You are allowed but not required to bring a printout of your evidence memo and all studies you cite in your memo. You may use the Print@UCL service.

Eligible Core Studies

Abdelgadir, Aala and Fouka, Vasiliki (2020). Political Secularism and Muslim Integration in the West: Assessing the Effects of the French Headscarf Ban. American Political Science Review, 114(3), pp. 707–723.
Allcott, Hunt and Gentzkow, Matthew and Mason, Winter and Wilkins, Arjun and Barberá, Pablo and Brown, Taylor and Cisneros, Juan Carlos and others (2024). The Effects of Facebook and Instagram on the 2020 Election: A Deactivation Experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(21), pp. e2321584121.
Bertocchi, Graziella and Dimico, Arcangelo and Lancia, Francesco and Russo, Alessia (2020). Youth Enfranchisement, Political Responsiveness, and Education Expenditure: Evidence from the US. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(3), pp. 76–106.
Enikolopov, Ruben and Korovkin, Vasily and Petrova, Maria and Sonin, Konstantin and Zakharov, Alexei (2013). Field Experiment Estimate of Electoral Fraud in Russian Parliamentary Elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(2), pp. 448–452.
Fang, Albert H and Guess, Andrew M and Humphreys, Macartan (2019). Can the Government Deter Discrimination? Evidence from a Randomized Intervention in New York City. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), pp. 127–141.
Hainmueller, Jens and Cascardi, Elisa and Hotard, Michael and Koslowski, Rey and Lawrence, Duncan and Yasenov, Vasil and Laitin, David D (2026). The Socioeconomic Returns to Citizenship: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123(5), pp. e2516178123.
Lee, Matthew H. and Beck, Molly I. (2021). Assessing the Impact of Holocaust Education on Adolescents’ Civic Values: Experimental Evidence from Arkansas. Evaluation Review, 45(6), pp. 334–358.
Marbach, Moritz and Hainmueller, Jens and Hangartner, Dominik (2018). The Long-Term Impact of Employment Bans on the Economic Integration of Refugees. Science Advances, 4(9), pp. eaap9519.
Mo, Cecilia Hyunjung and Conn, Katharine M. (2018). When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? A Quasi-Experimental Study of National Service. American Political Science Review, 112(4), pp. 721–741.

Requirements

The evidence memo must be concise, not exceeding 1,000 words (excluding bibliography and appendix). 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 familiar 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

The evidence memo will be assessed along three dimensions:

Accuracy in describing available evidence (about 25%)
Critical analysis of available evidence (about 55%)
Purposeful writing, formatting, referencing (about 20%)

Political Science Department policy requires that penalty points be deducted for written work that is late, and it does not allow module convenors to grant extensions. Department policy also requires that penalty points be deducted for work that exceeds the maximum word limit. Any words in tables and graphs as well as footnotes throughout the main text must be included in the word count. The bibliography, appendix, abstract and acknowledgements are not included in the word count.

The conversation will be assessed along four dimensions:

Describing results and methodology of the core study (about 25%)
Describing main results and general research approaches within the evidence base (about 25%)
Explaining and discussing research gaps in the evidence base (about 40%)
Precision in answers (about 10%)

The conversation will be recorded for the purpose of marking.

AI Guidelines

In this module, you are authorised and encouraged to seek assistance from AI tools. If you decide to use AI tools, you must disclose their use. It is always considered academic misconduct to copy and paste text generated by AI tools into your memo (see the next section). If you use AI tools to edit your writing (e.g., fixing typos or grammatical errors), disclosure of AI use in the first footnote (by mentioning the model name and number) is sufficient.

If you choose to use AI tools for any research purposes, you must critically engage with their output. Critical engagement with AI output depends on the specific use case, but it often requires a strategy to verify the output produced by the AI tool. This strategy must be described in an appendix to your submission. You must also name the AI tool(s) you used, include the model number(s), and list all prompts in the appendix.

For example, if you choose to use AI tools to assist with a literature search, you must describe a strategy to verify that the set of studies returned by the AI tool is complete and that no relevant studies are missing. In practice, this likely means complementing the AI output with another manual search strategy to ensure that other relevant studies are not omitted.

Academic Integrity

All research and writing for this module must be produced by the student. If you have another person do even parts of the research or the writing for you, this is considered academic misconduct. Any undisclosed use of AI tools is also 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.

Important Deadlines

Nov 06, 2 PM: Register your core study Study Register
Dec 18, 2 PM: Submit the complete bibliography Bibliography
Jan 12, 2 PM: Submit evidence memo
— –, - PM: Conversation on evidence memo

Examples

This is the first year with this assessment format, so there are no example submissions from previous years. In previous years, however, students summarized and discussed the available scientific evidence on a public-sector policy question of their choice in a paper of 3,000 words. Examples of these reviews are available on Moodle.

This year’s written component puts more weight on the critical discussion of the evidence, at the expense of a more detailed literature summary. Students still have to review the evidence base on their policy question, so the underlying work is similar, but the written product is shorter.

The published examples below are literature reviews that involve the same kind of work you will do here, namely searching for studies systematically and discussing them critically. Of course, you are not expected to write a publication-ready literature review yourself.

Bassoli, Matteo and Luccioni, Clément (2023). Homestay Accommodation for Refugees (in Europe). A Literature Review. International Migration Review(forthcoming).
Manning, Nathan and Edwards, Kathy (2014). Does Civic Education For Young People Increase Political Participation? A Systematic Review. Educational Review, 66(1), pp. 22–45.
Green, Donald P and Gerber, Alan S (2019). Get Out The Vote: How To Increase Voter Turnout. Brookings Institution Press.
Campana, Aurélie and Lapointe, Luc (2012). The Structural “Root” Causes of Non-suicide Terrorism: A Systematic Scoping Review. Terrorism and Political Violence, 24(1), pp. 79–104.