8113	Assessment Initial Draft	Final Draft comments
Abstract	The abstract is good.	Good.  This would probably be better if a little longer and fuller, even as an abstract.  Still, this is clear and to the point.
Research Question	The research question is stated clearly and seems reasonable.  It is perhaps stated too unilaterally.  We would reasonably expect that the "dependent variable," parents' health, would also affect the "independent" variable," transfers from children to parent, so that we have reciprocal or simultaneous causation (with all the resulting complications for the data analysis).	Largely unchanged; okay.  This should be revised for greater clarity.
Literature Review	The literature review is in fairly good shape. It covers a fair range of relevant materials and focuses effectively on how they relate to the current project.  Three revision goals for improvement stand out: (1) the argument in some parts of the review are hard to follow (e.g. the last two paragraphs seem to be inconsistent and should be revised for clarity); (2) the literature review would benefit from an opening that lays out what the literature aims to show; and (3) it will help to briefly discuss some of the relevant literature based on research outside of China.	The content remains the same, although reorganized a bit that increases clarity.  Combining the "Background" and "Literature Review" sections would help the organization also.  The review still could be a bit fuller at this point, but it is well focused on research issue and largely effective.  It still does not refer to the potential issues involving reciprocal causation.  The paragraph on filial piety as a current influence needs some citations to be convincing; the presence of a historic ideological convention does not tell us what influence it has in reality.
Data & Analysis	The data seem appropriate.  It is not clear why the proposal appears to ignore the value of the data being longitudinal.  The longitudinal data structure may help solve some of the problems the proposal mentions regarding spurious relationships.  It might be worthwhile to start investigating approaches to panel data analysis.  (Also, you might check if the Spring statistical courses will cover longitudinal techniques.  Perhaps discuss this with your advisor.) The proposal neglects any discussion of income or wealth.  One important determinant of transfers between parents and children is their relative economic circumstances.  Money tends to flow from the more affluent to the less affluent in kinship transfers.  The proposal should: 1) consider this dynamic in the literature review, 2) indicate the availability of information in the data to cope with this, and 3) include it as an element of the plans for data analysis.	The data, unchanged, are fine.  The proposal still ignores the issue of the relative economic status of parents and children.  It is plausible that the rapid economic growth and broad economic transformation of China has the result that children are typically better off than their parents.  Still, some children presumably fall short.  The proposal should acknowledge this issue and suggest a plan to cope with it (or, provide an argument why that is not necessary in the case of China).  Emotional and instrumental (as in child care or housework) support can also flow more in the direction from older parents to adult children.
Causal Interpretations	The causal interpretation needs development.  What are the principal ideas from the literature review that seem to apply to the research question?  How is this research design a response to, or extension of, previous research ?  And, how will the research incorporate the expected pattern of bi-directional causality?  (Note that longitudinal data can be used to overcome, or at least diminish the analytic problems due to mutual causation.)	While the proposal provides a reasonable assessment of the value of children's support for elderly parents, it still neglects an analysis of reasons why this support will vary, which is presumably at the center of the proposed study.  Currently the proposal reads as if the variation in children's support varies randomly, perhaps reflecting the range of emotional attachments.  Certainly, we would expect that variations in individualistic emotional attachments influence transfers, but we would also expect that some social regularities have an influence.  We expect these to be at the center of a study of adult children's support of their parents, not simply dismissed or ignored. Also, the flows of support - economic, instrumental, or emotional - may range anywhere from greatly benefiting the elder parents to greatly benefiting the adult children.  Much of the proposal now stresses possible flows toward elderly parents while neglecting support in the other direction.  However, elderly parents can provide childcare for their adult children, they can be a source of emotional support, and they might even have more money to spare.  The consideration of bi-directional flows of support also brings back the issue of bi-directional causality.  When elderly parents are in good health, they have greater capacity to support their adult children and less need for support from them.  We reasonably expect that the health of elderly parents affects the exchange of support between them and their adult children, at least as much as those exchanges affect parents' health.  The proposal should consider this as an analytical issue and as a methodological one.
Research Contribution	The value of the research is implicit in the literature review and elsewhere, but the proposal should address this issue directly.	The proposed project still awaits an assessment of its potential contribution.  This should be stated clearly, not requiring us to infer it.
Citations & Bibliography	The presentation of citations and the bibliography seem fine.	The reference structure is good.
Quality of Writing & Organization	The writing would benefit considerably from another revision that fixes the grammatical and syntactic flaws	The writing is okay, but it still could use some editing for weaknesses in the prose.
Priorities for Revising / Responsiveness to Feedback	The proposal is developing well overall.  Figuring out how to resolve the problem of mutual causation seems crucial.  Gaining greater understanding of the data and how you might use its longitudinal character will be important for all parts of the research design, but may be particularly valuable for resolving the mutual causation issue.  Refining the hypotheses to represent a more nuanced causal model is also a good idea.	While the proposal display some effort went into the revisions, greater attention to the feedback provided to the last version would have been useful.
Miscellaneous Notes
Proposal		The general research goals and data are good in the abstract, but causal assessments are weak and the research design underdeveloped.  The final proposal is fair, but it could and should have been better.
Class Overall		A reasonable effort through class.