RPP #10

I met with my mentor, Professor Wanis-St. John, for the last time this semester on December 6, 2017, for about half an hour. We tried to meet every other week over the course of the semester, generally for about a half hour to an hour each time, but because of mutual scheduling difficulties it ended up being about every three weeks. However, we still managed to meet about 5 or 6 times, and his suggestions, advice, and questions were always incredibly helpful in shaping how I thought about my project and the decisions I ended up making. For the last minute, we mostly discussed my next steps. Both of us agreed that I would go forward with a small-n case study, using Mill’s Method of Agreement. Professor Wanis-St. John approved my cases, the Dayton Accords and the Good Friday Agreement, and also helped me clarify my justification for them, which is something I struggled with in the research design sketch. The Good Friday Agreement was fairly inclusive, while the Dayton Accords were not, which supports the comparative aspect of my choice of methodology. Furthermore, they are similar in scope- both are European agreements from around the same time, and both of them had failed during previous attempts at peacemaking. As I go forward with my final narrative paper, I will also go through the course readings in more depth to substantiate my justification for choosing these cases. Professor Wanis-St. John also approved my variables, and suggested I include international support and the use of NATO/military leverage as intervening variables as well. Finally, he suggested over the break I look for two books published by the main negotiators for both of my cases, George Mitchell for the Good Friday Agreement and Richard Holbrooke for the Dayton Accords, to use as starting points for the research I will do in 306.
We touched briefly on the progress I’ve made this semester with this research project. I started out really having no idea what kind of methodology I would choose. I only had previous experience with large-n statistical analysis, but I knew that wasn’t something I really wanted to do again, and that I didn’t think would work very well for my topic because there have been so few cases of women’s inclusion in peace processes. It’s been wonderful experience this semester to be able to come to my mentor with all of these questions about what I was finding, and what was important versus what was just interesting. We both felt pretty early on that a small-n case study would most effectively answer my puzzle of how much women’s inclusion matters, and while our conversations were steered in that direction, he also very gamely helped me with my other research designs. I don’t have really any questions about 306, but I am looking forward to finally really getting the whole process started next semester.