Identify an empirical puzzle and discuss why existing literature on this topic fails to fully explain it. It will require you to conduct your own literature review to be able to discuss extant literature and its shortcomings. As you decide on your topic and identify the empirical puzzle, make sure to consider why it is important.
A successful well-written paper should include the following:
A clear statement of the empirical puzzle. You can focus on the variation in the actions of relevant actors or the outcomes of said actions/polices under different settings across time and space. This can be stated as a why question. “Why do some international institutions exercise more extensive autonomy, while others only exercise limited autonomy in policy making?” “Why do some states wait long years before joining an international institution, while others join shortly after its founding?” “Why do some states violate treaty obligations, while others go to great lengths to avoid violating treaty obligations?” “Why do some international organizations include various complex substructures (e.g., EU institutions), while others are composed of relatively simple structures (e.g., including fewer governing bodies such as NATO).” Alternatively, you can focus on a recent or current event that cannot be fully explained by the existing literature. US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement or Brexit, for example, can be motivating cases for a paper that focuses on questions related to when and why states exit and rejoin different institutions.
A clear review of the relevant literature on the topic. You can start with the assigned readings on the topic. Your review should go beyond the assigned readings. You can use Google Scholar, JSTOR and the Library to identify most relevant and recent research on the topic. As you read more, you may need to adjust your puzzle. Alternatively, you may identify a new and more interesting puzzle. You can conduct your literature review in two steps. First step can involve exploring the extant literature and identifying an empirical puzzle that has not been fully addressed. Second step can involve delving into the studies that are directly relevant to your topic to narrow down your review.
A clear discussion of the shortcomings in studies that are directly relevant to your topic. In this final section of the paper, you will discuss why the existing research fails to answer the question you posed or the example you provided. This is the most important part of your paper where you show your understanding of the literature and your ability to critically evaluate its shortcomings. You should also consider the so what? question.
