This assignment was designed both as a context for learning how to do interpretive inquiry and as an evaluation of what you know and can do. Given a core set of data, you will
As outcome of the process, you
You may want to work with no more than one partner. If you choose to do a collaborative paper, the final product should provide evidence of the work of two people -- more data, more readings, more of everything. The advantage of collaborative work resides in the opportunities for critical analysis of your own work.
Scholarship is inherently difficult to evaluate -- a published article can be considered a published article. I therefore begin from the principle that all assignments ought to be A-. A lower grade shall be assigned only if there is, for example, evidence that additional methodological and background readings have not been done, additional data have not been collected, writing is sloppy, APA style evidently not been followed, etc.
The grades A and A+ are reserved for exemplary and outstanding work, respectively. For example, to receive an A+, a student or student pair has to submit a paper that is at or near publishable quality. Similarly, to receive an A, the paper has to show clear promise to be, with further rounds of revisions, to come to or be near publishable quality.
A sample assignment submitted to a previous course is available as EXAMPLE. (This particular paper was in fact subsequently published.)
If you would like specific feedback, if you have questions, etc. please send request to mailto:mroth@uvic.ca and do not forget to attach your draft analyses (paper, texts) as WORD or rtf documents.
The data set consists of (a) 6 newspaper articles about the problems some people undergo in their community and (b) the transcript of a public meeting, the context of which is briefly described in the subsequent paragraphs.
The senior engineering technologist for Central Saanich prepared a report to Council that summarized the results of all other reports and proposed a series of policies and options. A large part of the report focuses on the Official Community Plan (OCP) and the Land-Use Bylaws. (This report had been reviewed and endorsed by the director of financial services and the director of planning and building services. Furthermore, municipal engineer and clerk administrator had signed to concur with the recommendations.) In particular, the report details that these existing documents (OCP, Land-Use Bylaws) do not allow the subdivision of existing rural and agricultural properties for the development of new housing units.
The direct implications of having a watermain extension are difficult to quantify. The availability of water could encourage some property owners to either develop under the existing zoning, or to apply for rezoning.
With the current Provincial support for the ALR [Agricultural Land Reserve] and given the policies of the OCP [Official Community Plan], however, it would be difficult to support any rezoning of or development of the lands zoned Agriculture.
For the lands designated Rural, the OCP and the Land Use Bylaw should continue as constraints on development. Another constraint on development would be the suitability of the soil for sewage disposal. (Memorandum, p. 7)
At issue therefore was not merely whether and how to get sufficient and suitable water to Senanus Drive but also whether any changes would allow further development of the area. Following the meeting in which the report was accepted the town council decided to provide the public with a forum in which reports and issues could be discussed. Consistent with a fundamental principle enshrined in the Official Community Plan, which states that residents and businesses would be consulted about decisions that affect the present and the future of the community, a 1.5-hour open-house event was organized; at this event, the different reports and graphics prepared by the technical presenters were made available. This event was immediately followed by a public meeting in which technical and advisory bodies made presentations (45 minutes), the public asked questions directed towards the technical presentations (15 minutes), and members of the public made comments (30 minutes).