On Wednesday, April 18, 2018, I spoke with Professor Nicholson to discuss wrapping up my research. We went over the logistics of my upcoming presentations at the 306 Undergraduate Poster Conference as well as the SIS Undergraduate Research Symposium. We went through how to reorganize my presentation and editing details on my poster. We also discussed my final paper both regarding structure and content. Structurally, there were minor details to change. Regarding content, I am to focus on my introduction and conclusion to ensure a proper ‘flow.’ Professor Nicholson also urged me to think back about what I have learned in International Research and how I will use this to develop and strengthen my research skills in the future.

On Friday, April 13, 2018, I spoke with Dr. Boesenecker. We met briefly to discuss my abstract and the upcoming poster conference. Dr. Boesenecker was able to provide substantial feedback including how to incorporate a solid first sentence. Leading with the question itself rather than a general and broad “hook” would allow readers to know the specific content that they would be reading about.  Dr. Boesenecker also discussed the importance of using stronger methodology terminology. The use of the specific terminology would address any concerns that readers may have specific to small-n case study research. Lastly, regarding my abstract. Dr. Boesenecker suggested the use of softer language when discussing my findings. I found that my intuitions were not true and that use of softer language can allow for more discussion and elaboration rather than stating “I rejected” or “I falsely hypothesized.” Dr. Boesenecker and I also briefly discussed what to expect at the SIS Undergraduate Research Poster Conference and the ways to balance 4 months and 25 pages of research into simplified, eye-catching key terms and charts.

Professor Nicholson and I met on Wednesday, December 6, 2017, for approximately 20 minutes to discuss the transition from SISU-206 to SISU-306 and examine the three research design sketches I have completed. We discussed setting a schedule for next semester to meet more regularly once we return from break. Having these meetings scheduled will allow us both to stay in touch and allow me to set personal deadlines to allow ample time for edits, suggestions, and critique. We also discussed which design sketches I was most confident with, what changes I may have to make, and what resources I will need in SISU-306. Specifically, I decided that the small-n case study and interpretivist discourse analysis were my stronger designs over the large-n research. We discussed how the research process in SISU-206 allows for students to understand each “hat” of research by shifting their question on their topic of interest. As a new student researcher, I was not as comfortable with research when I began my large-n analysis thus my lack of confidence in continuing the research associated with it. However, I have made great progress with my small-n case comparison of Madagascar and Malaysian deforestation and reforestation rates. Professor Nicholson and I discussed how these two cases may allow for a higher analysis because of their many differences, however, it might be useful to consider more similar cases as well. Regarding the discourse analysis, Professor Nicholson suggested connecting with local resources to discuss how the negotiations for the REDD+ program came to be. To prepare for SISU-306, I will work diligently over winter break to begin reading necessary and related materials. I will make contributions to my literature review considering my previous one is not as related to my research anymore. As I look ahead to SISU-306, I am nervous yet excited about the process. I am eager to make very important decisions over the next week in preparation for my research proposal presentation and final narrative paper. Further, I am looking forward to taking the time over winter break to read further on deforestation so that I can be well prepared to carry out my research over SISU-306. My main question would be directed towards previous Olson Scholars; looking back at the research process, what would you have done differently? What measures did you take that worked and paid off? And lastly, how did you know which research method to choose if you were torn between two?

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017, I met with my faculty mentor, Professor Simon Nicholson for approximately forty minutes. Professor Nicholson is the director of the Global Environmental Politics Program at SIS. He and I discussed the general theme of my research interest; environmental sustainability. Professor Nicholson immediately reassured me that there are plenty of puzzles that are looking to be “answered” within this theme. We both agreed that my proposed topic, understanding the implications of plastic pollution, is more of a research report rather than a puzzle within international relations. I established that I do not feel tied to this question because I have a wide variety of interest within this theme.

With this in mind, Professor Nicholson asked me to write out 30-40 questions I have in regards to environmental sustainability. This exercise should help me narrow down a theme and then eventually a research puzzle. My interests range from climate change, pollution, deforestation, and sustainable development. To what degree can developed countries influence sustainable development practices in the global south? I have also become curious about culture and environment. How does culture affect the way people think about their relationship with the environment? How has culture over time changed our perception? These are just a couple of broad questions that came to mind during our meeting. I have already started my questions and noticed a trend towards my curiosity of sustainable development. As I move forward with my questions, I need to be meticulous about digging deeper into each question I have already proposed.  My main concern is narrowing down a theme in a timely manner so that I may begin reading material on basic concepts and the background of my topic. I know that there are puzzles out there, it is just a matter of finding one that I am passionate about, can perform ethical research on, and complete within the expected time frame.