Exploring the Venezuelan Crisis: A Sociological Analysis through Economic and Political Regimes

This exercise is centered on data and analysis. Your task is to show that you have enough evidence to demonstrate the different sections of your argument. The data can be qualitative (e.g., public speeches, interviews, official reports, laws, decrees) and/or quantitative (e.g., census data, survey data, data on social, economic, or political indicators). In any case, the main goal is to show the alignment between your analytical claims and the empirical basis of your case.

For this exercise, it is crucial that you move from telling what happened to showing how it happened. Think of your case study as a crime scene. Just like crimes, when political processes occur, they leave a trace of clues. Your job as a detective/researcher is to collect the evidence to show how it happened. In this case, showing the “how” amounts to answering the “why” question.  

Keep in mind that you want to demonstrate, as convincingly as possible, a “probable cause.” The evidence should be strong and compelling. Presenting the “testimony” of journalists (or even academics) would be secondary to actually showing proof of how and why things happened. Unless they provide primary evidence or become “first-hand witnesses” of the events you are analyzing, their opinions are not as relevant to demonstrate your case.

Guidelines:

Your preliminary analysis of data sources should make explicit what are the steps of your argument and how they are backed up with evidence. Your submission should have at least the following:

• Tentative Title
• Explanatory Paragraph: Develop an explanatory paragraph about the event or situation of interest. This paragraph should be the main argument of your research paper, answering the “why” question. It should synthesize the two explanatory contexts that you are considering.
• Explanatory Context #1:
  • Main analytical claim:
    • Argumentative step 1.1:
      • Evidence 1.1:
    • Argumentative step 1.2:
      • Evidence 1.2:
    • Argumentative step 1.3:
      • Evidence 1.3:

• Explanatory Context #2:
  • Main analytical claim:
    • Argumentative step 2.1:
      • Evidence 2.1:
    • Argumentative step 2.2:
      • Evidence 2.2:
    • Argumentative step 2.3:
      • Evidence 2.3:

• References

Feedback for Assignment 1: