Political Science Case Study

Case studies provide a form of experiential learning that exposes you to real-world scenarios and challenge your thinking as an organizational-level leader. The cases present ideas, issues, and problem-solving dilemmas you could face in your career. The objective of studying cases is not to second-guess decisions from the past but to provide a cognitive framework for solving problems in the future. In its basic form, the case study methodology consists of two parts: problem framing and analysis. Framing is the reasoning process used to gain understanding of the context of the case in order to make better decisions. The categories used for framing the problem – key players involved, their interests, facts, assumptions, paradigms/mental models, and issues – relate to the elements of thinking that you were exposed to during Phase 1 in the DCL material L103 & L104, the concept of design from ADP 5-0, as well as the understand element of mission command. For complex cases, framing is typically done first to set the conditions for the analysis. The detailed analysis begins by examining the decision-making within the case and actions you would take in similar circumstances. This is followed by an examination of the implications and consequences of the decision making, an attempt to make meaning for future application.

The below prompts will help you frame your case study and address specific questions that are required (when reading your case study take notes according to the below prompts):

• Key Players and Interests: Who are the key players and what are their interests? Interests include needs, wants, desires, concerns, and fears.

• Facts and Assumptions: What are the key facts and assumptions necessary for understanding this case study? Facts include key events that impact decision making. Assumptions are the best guess about the current or future situation that is assumed to be true in the absence of facts.

• Paradigms: What are the paradigms or mental models of the key players? Paradigms are generally accepted models or patterns that have had repeated validation (“conventional wisdom”). They may be rooted in doctrine or tradition and are often reinforced by ideology and dogmatic belief systems. Many paradigms are rooted in cultural background and are not visible to the owner of them.

• Problem Identification: What are the main issues or problems facing the key players?

Format of your case study (the case study contain at minimum the four elements below):

1. Introduction: Identify the key issues of your case study and try to formulate a thesis/ purpose statement and summarize the outcome of your analysis in up to two sentence.

2. Background: Provide background information (facts and assumptions)

3. Analysis: Here is where you will conduct your analysis/ answer the specific questions associated with the case study (this should be a level 1 header and write each question and then add your response after each question).

4. Recommendations: Address what could have been done different using a sergeant major’s perspective and how can you develop members of your organization to prevent these types of actions (this is a key component of the case study).

B530A- Case study 3

5. Do not forget to proof your final document for submission.

The case study responses should focus on more than just providing doctrinal definitions. How well you demonstrate your knowledge of the concepts and theories and your understanding of its applicability through an analysis will help determine your grade (i.e., how these facts affect a period of history, how the introduction of this organism into the ecosystem affects the environments, how this sequence of events led to the development of …).

Your case study should be well written. We will look for specific elements when reading a paper. Refer to the prompts below and the grading rubric for details.

A. Focused: Your case study address all parts of the questions without many random ideas, which have little or nothing to do with the questions. Students often think that adding random factor or ideas will help improve their grade because they know them. The opposite is true – adding random, unrelated ideas or facts usually result in the reduction of points from your grade.

B. Structured: You know what you want to write, but your ability to communicate that knowledge to your instructor depends on how well you structure your paper. Take the time to make a rough outline of what you want to write and in what order you want to present it. Stream of consciousness writing (putting things on paper as you think of them) will result in a mediocre grade at best.

C. Documented: Contrary to the True/False or Multiple Choice Questions, your paper must go beyond a simple statement of fact. The instructor is looking for the correct content, yes, but more importantly, for your understanding of the content and application. So, always include relevant facts, figures, examples, and tests (the phosphate test showed a ph. of …), etc. With the writing assignment, how well you document your content will often make the difference between an A and B grade.

D. Well Presented: Students who do not use the accepted rules of English are often thought to be less competent or knowledgeable than those who do. If you have all of the elements of a well-written paper, but your use of language, sentence structure, or spelling make it difficult to read or understand what you are trying to say, your grade will suffer. Make sure you use good sentence structure, grammar, and spelling.

B530A- Case study 4

This assessment target ELOs 400-SMC-1015.08 (L110: American Civil Military Relationships), 400-SMC-1015.17 (L211: Organizational Stress), and 400-SMC- 1015.24 (L308: Leadership in Irregular Warfare)

Assignment Instructions: Analyze the concepts and theories you read about in L110, L211, and L308; utilizing key language and terms from these concepts and theories, read the case study “Fall of the Warrior King” (Located in BB) and analyze the concepts you read about in civil military relations, organizational stress, and leadership in Irregular Warfare and answer the below questions.

1. Identify some of the operational and combat stress reactions of the organization and what the SGM could have done to assist the commander in developing a resilient organization (L211).

2. Describe Irregular Warfare and how the actions of the organization has an impact on the local population and its ability to conduct operations. (L308)

3. After examining this case study, analyze and describe civil military relations and the role of the Sergeant Major in civil military relations. Finally describe how the Sergeant Major can assist in restoring military professionalism to the organization to gain the trust of the American people. (L110)

* Note as you write this case study it is imperative that you discuss concepts and theories that you read about and demonstrate your ability to analyze a situation and apply the relevant leadership competencies and attributes.

** There is no minimum page or word count (you are expected to adhere to current APA standards in the overall format of your case study i.e. cover page, reference page if required) associated with this case study. The quality of your responses will have an impact on your final outcome.

However, it is expected that you write thorough and comprehensive, focused, structured, documented and well-presented material.

SMC Form 1009W (writing rubric) will be used to assess this written work.

B530A- Case study 5

Sample layout of case study.

Introduction

Provide an introduction of the case study and what are some of the issues/ problems associated with the case study (key palyers, etc). The goal of this case analysis is to highlight/ frame ……………. (Here you should be looking at the central topics of what you are analyzing (ELOs) and write up a purpose or thesis).

Background Information

Address some key facts based upon your reading and analysis and link them to the ELOs associated with the case study.

Analysis

A suggested method is to write the questions and then compose your response after each question.

Question 1. Describe xxxxxxxxxxx

Answer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Question 2 Identify xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Answer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Recommendation

Address what could have been done different using a sergeant major’s perspective and how can you develop members of your organization to prevent these types of actions (this is a key component of the case study).

* Adhere to APA 7e formatting standards