Position Paper Guidelines

To be effective and persuasive, a position paper must take into account the most important information and ideas available.  The amount that one needs to know is defined by what is known and published, not by the amount of work one feels like doing.  Neither political candidates nor scholars can defend a mistaken position by claiming they did know about available research or ideas. Ignorance is a failure, not a defense.

The following outline suggests how to approach a position paper. Again, part of your problem is to judge what is most important to an issue.

• You must recommend what position the candidate should take on the issue, but this recommendation should be result of your research, not the starting point. Your goal is to discover what policy recommendation best fits what is known about this issue. This cannot be overstated.  Avoid the temptation to take a position before doing the research, then trying to gather evidence to support that position.
  
• Define the key issue and analyze clearly the competing positions that exist.
• What is the issue?  Often, people taking different positions about an issue define it differently.  From an analytic point of view, two distinct conceptions of an issue are important.
• How do people define the issue, taking into account their varied ways of understanding it?
• What are the social, historical, and cultural conditions that have caused this disagreement?
• What are the basic positions that are at odds, as represented by politicians, by advocacy groups, and in the media?  (You want to put aside your preconceptions about these positions, starting with the perspective that it will be the evidence you accumulate rather than your preferences or expectations that decide which to recommend.)
  
• For each important competing position,
  
• clarify the principal empirical assumptions and claims (what it says is true and factual in the world), and
  
• clarify the principal moral assumptions and claims (what it asserts is good or fair or desirable).
• It may prove useful to construct a table listing all the relevant empirical and moral claims (down the left hand side) and all the positions on the issue (along the top), showing which positions accept, reject, or ignore each claim (in the cells). 
  
• Offer the candidate arguments and evidence to defend her position
• What evidence supports the primary empirical assumptions informing her position?
• What evidence and theory support the principal predictions associated with her position?
• Can you offer evidence and arguments that suggest her position will ultimately either benefit the interests or the fulfill the moral commitments of more people than other options?
  
• Offer the candidate arguments and challenges to use against alternative positions
• Can you indicate evidence contradicting the empirical assumptions or claims of other positions?
• Can you offer evidence that their moral claims poorly fit the actual moral actions of their supporters (e.g., if you showed that "pro-life" advocates actually have little general concern for human life or that "pro-choice" advocates were actually not generally supportive of freedom of choice). Or can you show that interests are really the driving force?
• Can you use evidence or well-defended theories to challenge the predictions of opponents?
  
• Analyze the distribution of opinions
• Which relevant moral claims are accepted by near universal consensus, which have majority support, and which are strongly contested?
• Why do voters seem likely to support each of the positions that exist on this issue and how many hold each important opinion?
• To what degree do people's social positions appear to influence their position on this issue? By social position, we mean factors such as age, sex, race, education, political party membership, church membership, or income.
• To what degree do people's positions on this issue appear to reflect their attitudes about other social issues or their general ideology (e.g., how liberal or conservative they are)?
• To what degree do people's allegiances to a position seem due to practical interests, moral views, church membership, ignorance, or some other concerns in their lives?
• How committed do people seem to be to their preferred position on this issue? How deep are their feelings?
• Who will find sympathy with the position recommended for the candidate?
• This is obvious if the candidate simply takes one of the main opposed positions; it may be much more complicated if the candidate takes a subtle or innovative position.
  
• Make sure that your presentation clearly informs the candidate what is known about the underlying causal processes influencing this issue.
• What causes the "problem" to exist?
• What decides which people (or other entities such as organizations) suffer the ill effects of the "problem?"
• What causes the issue to be so divisive?
• What causes the issue to be so difficult to resolve.
• What determines which side people support?
• What determines the success or failure of alternative strategies?
• Can we learn anything valuable from the history of the issue in this country?
• What do historical and international comparisons show us about the roots of this issue and the possibilities for resolving it?
• Highlight any important facts or important arguments about causality that contradict what most people believe, expect, or want to be true. These are often the starting point of innovative policy strategies.
• For example, do people misunderstand the history of the issue, do they confuse the actual population involved in the problem, do they mistake the motives behind people's actions, or do they display ignorance about solutions in other countries?
• Be clear why these facts are important and why people probably have the wrong idea about them.
• State clearly why the candidate should take the position you recommend and defend your assessment.
• Recall that the candidate really wants to resolve divisive public issues. How does the position you advocate fit this goal? (Don't just offer your opinions, make a clear argument, supported by evidence.)
• Remember, one basic goal is to avoid antagonizing any significant groups. If a strategy can be devised that would satisfy both sides of a controversy, it is a huge success.
• Recall that the candidate really wants to win the election. Again, how does your recommended position fit this goal? How can you support that contention?
  
• Build a strong, cohesive argument that shows your understanding of the issue and what the work of social scientists can tell us about it.
• The position paper should have a clear, strong organization. The candidate should be able to find the different parts of your analysis quickly and easily. She should also find that the presentation builds in smooth and consistent manner if read from beginning to end. Facts should be clearly associated with ideas, and ideas with arguments or questions.
• The position paper should serve as a background preparation course for the candidate, not offer a speech exalting the recommended position.
• All important empirical assertions should have appropriate citations.
• Research findings are much stronger support than anyone's opinions unsubstantiated by research.