teacup. [ 掲示板 ] [ 掲示板作成 ] [ 有料掲示板 ] [ ブログ ]

 投稿者
  題名
  内容 入力補助画像・ファイル<IMG> youtubeの<IFRAME>タグが利用可能です。(詳細)
    
 URL
[ ケータイで使う ] [ BBSティッカー ] [ 書込み通知 ] [ 検索 ]


Presentation Preparation

 投稿者:Saoriメール  投稿日:2008年12月17日(水)09時28分46秒
返信・引用
  Dear All,

Hope you are doing well. Alessandro, thank you for the significance paragraph.

Just to note that the next meeting will be held on 18th Thursday afternoon. Please be there at the study room, as we will prepare for the presentation.

Also, if anyone have time to go to Jimushitsu today, would you please ask the staff how many minutes we have for the presentation? In our case, we are doing one presentation with two groups together, does it means we have 30 min? or 15min? Thank you.

Saori
 
 

SIGNIFICANCE PARAGRAPH

 投稿者:Alessandroメール  投稿日:2008年12月16日(火)22時49分17秒
返信・引用
  Hi folks,

here is the proposal for the paragraph that I just sent Pasha:

"Significance of this research

The internal policy of Czech Republic on the Missile Defense System is relevant not only for that country, but for the entire area and for the world.
Such a system, in fact, will impact on the national security of Czechs, but also on the regional and international order. What makes it interesting to study the case of Czech Republic is its “dual” condition of recipient of US' funds or policies and of member of the European Union (that has different interests and policies).
Moreover, the matter covers a particular relevance also for Japan, that is a participant in this program and that has showed a particular know-how and commitment towards the Missile Defense System.
In brief, this topic will allow us to draw strategic lessons on a multi-level basis: national, regional and international."
 

Next meeting..?

 投稿者:Alessandroメール  投稿日:2008年12月15日(月)14時39分20秒
返信・引用
  So guys and girls, next meeting confirmed for tomorrow, 18h, study room.

See ya,
Ale
 

Next Meeting on Tuesday 16th

 投稿者:Saoriメール  投稿日:2008年12月13日(土)10時40分27秒
返信・引用
  Dear Everyone,

Just I need to confirm that the next meeting will be held on Tuesday 16th, right??I will come to Univ's Study room after work, will be there around 18:00. Someone kindly feedback to me, please.

To share information, the whole result will be noticed to us within two days after presentation on 24th. Hoping we all get wonderful Christmas Gift from Prof. Santa Clause!!

Saori
 

Method

 投稿者:Alessandroメール  投稿日:2008年12月11日(木)19時40分30秒
返信・引用
  Dear All,

I'm sorry I couldn't attend the meeting today, but I had to wait in my room for a delivery of Nippon Express.
I look forward to meet the other members of my sub-group, so that we can start working.
I would like, anyway, to have some reassurance about the method: which framework of analysys are we gonna choose in order to make the findings comparable?
I proposed the POLICY CYCLE one, that is the most used while talking about public policies. I know that it requires the effort of going back to the theory while working, but good projects are usually characterized by rigourous frameworks. Otherwise, in particular since our topic is really broad, we risk to write a lot of opinions without underlining concrete findings.
What do you think about it?

Thank you very much for reading. And see you soon!

Bye,
Ale
 

Dear Mutsumi-san,and Lisa

 投稿者:Saoriメール  投稿日:2008年12月 6日(土)11時05分53秒
返信・引用
  After read your message, I imagine how it was difficult for both of you to come to this conclusion. It is very hard for me to lose both of you from our team. Having said that, thank you for being honest and giving us your sincere message. Although it is very sad, I decided to accept and respect your decision.

Also, please accept my thousand apologies for not being able to help both of you during your consideration process. I wish I were more supportive enough to prevent this loss, I am so sorry.
 

apology for you all

 投稿者:Mutsumiメール  投稿日:2008年12月 6日(土)02時13分20秒
返信・引用
  Hello everyone,

I have to apologize for this sudden decision, after consideration, Lisa and I think we would like to drop out of this team. Because of our low contribution to the current discussion, and for that we have too many people to put together each opinion.

As for your concern about there should be one Japanese student in the team members, so I asked Prof.Akiyama by e-mail and here is his reply:

・Each team must be composed of more than two members. But to be honest,as the budget is limited, it is difficult for a team with too many people be chosen. As for such team, feasibility and the team-building will be evaluate very strictly.
(If we drop out,your each team would have 4 people. It's better, we think.)

・It is NOT necessary to have a Japanese student in the team.(However, people who will graduate this spring must assure that they can attend the presentation next year.)

In that case, I(Mutsumi)  think it would not be disadvantageous to you guys if I drop out of your team.I'm truly sorry, and I sincerely apologize to you for dropping out just before the presentation.

We should have told you this directly face to face, but since we don't have much time until next time we meet, we had to send this mail to you all for it is urgent. However, if there's anything we could help about the topic, you can still ask us without hesitation.

Best,
Lisa and Mutsumi
 

The 1st Draft

 投稿者:Pasha  投稿日:2008年12月 4日(木)20時42分56秒
返信・引用
  Here is the draft of OUR project:)) Please free to comment on it!! It is just the 1st, very raw, draft.

"Overseas Project
(Tentative Outline)
1st Draft
Participation of Central European States in The US National Missile Defense:
Pros and Cons for The National Interests of Czech Republic/Poland/Hungary (pick up one)
Aim:
- to evaluate reasons (political, economic as well as historical and physiological) adopted by the Respective Governments of the Central European countries (Countries) to participate in The US National Missile Defense (NMD);
- to weigh the credibility of the official stance on the issue against the incentives of the public so as
- to examine whether the respective policies of the Governments are truly expressive of their nations wish and address national interests, or otherwise are driven by the political pragmatism of the momentum – in order
- to find out whether Participation of the Countries in the NMD (Participation) is regarded, both from the government and public perspectives, as essential  to state policy on national security.
- Finally these findings will be used to answer the question whether the Participation is capable to bolster national security of the Countries with political consequences acceptable to the respective nations (including both governments and citizens) and therefore is in the best interest of the Countries.
Interim objectives:
- to find out > whether there is a national consensus on the issue of the Participation;
> what reasons the general public raise in support or in opposition to the government policy;
> whether those reasons rational (politically calculable and predictive) or they are adopted due to perceptions beyond political management (cultural background, historical experience, etc).
- to prove, or disapprove, the argument, popular within curtain segment of general public as well as within explicitly anti-American or somewhat anti-American political circles, that the Participation is the evidence of power-projection of the US seeking world dominance, and that the Countries have no truly independent stance in this initiative and therefore the Participation is by no means answering their national interests.
- to point out fluctuations, both in public and within government,  in political perceptions of the NMD, assessing those changes from immediate (current political situation/ reactive/ ‘compensating’ political steps), short-term (current policy/tactical maneuvering) and long-term perspective (political strategy/national doctrine), domestically and, to a lesser extent, internationally.
Research Plan
1. Official Policy Dimension
Analysis of Governmental Policies regarding NMD (Search for political, or otherwise, reasons behind participation):
Material: > official documents of the Country: announcements, declarations, articles, political doctrines (white papers) etc.
> official documents of the US Governments containing proposals to the Country to participate in the NMD (including their references and interpretations on the receiving side).
Additional sources: interviews with the officials (governments, respective departments, think tanks participating in national policy-making process), which will provide insights on FPM.
Method: comparison of official documents with their current interpretations so as to evaluate the consistency of the former, which, in an essence, will help to assess the stability and coherency of the national policies related to the Participation.
2. Public Opinion Dimension
Analysis of Non-Governmental opinions, being generated within the public (Evaluation of public response to the government’s actions; incorporation of updates):
Material: press, internet, periodicals, statistics: articles and critical analysis by independent analysts/think tanks/academics, results of national surveys etc.
Additional sources: interviews with the public representatives: newspaper editors, opposition politicians, academics, representatives of different social and professional groups (students, military officers, technicians, historians, etc.).
Method: to compare viewpoints drawn from various open resources representative of a broader political as well as social structure of the public; to detect and exclude purely subjective incentives (sensitive to current changes in political environment) so a s to find common rationale behind public support or opposition to the Participation per se and to Government policies related to it.
3. Objectification and Logical Steps of The Research:
One-Team Variant:
In order to enhance the objectiveness of the research The Research Team will be divided into two groups. Both groups will follow the Research Plan as outlined above while at the same time acting semi-independently from each other - one focusing on elements that speak in favour of the Participation, the other – on aspects that are against it.
Individual division of labour will follow the structure of 1 and 2.
Methodologically the research work will follow the principles of Lincoln-Douglas debate framework (Positive Constructive group vs Negative Constructive group).
Depending on the number of members, the third group may be formed which will be given a task to evaluate and compare the data gathered by the first two groups and to provide “independent” conclusion.
Otherwise, the evaluation will be done by both groups together.
Two-Team Variant:
In order to enhance the objectiveness of the research two Research Teams will follow the Research Plan as outlined above while acting semi-independently from each other – Research Team 1 focusing on elements that speak in favour of the Participation, Research Team 2 – on aspects that are against it.
Individual division of labour will follow the structure of 1 and 2.
Methodologically the research work will follow the principles of Lincoln-Douglas debate framework (Positive Constructive team vs Negative Constructive team).
The evaluation of the interim research results will be done by both Teams together, therefore the findings of the Teams will be synthesized in one comprehensive conclusion."
 

(無題)

 投稿者:Pasha  投稿日:2008年12月 4日(木)20時33分40秒
返信・引用 編集済
  O-o-okey!:) First things first! To begin with, please refer to these basic materials and websites on NMD:
Missile Defense Agency (US Defense Dept.), in particular:
- Ballistic Missile Defense System Overview (PDF) - http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bmdsbook.pdf
- Proposed U.S. Missile Defense Assets In Europe (the ones related to Czech Republic) http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/thirdsite.html
- which would present you the issue from a military perspective.
For US government’s (political) perspective, see:
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD-23  - http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-23.htm - the document that started the whole thing
National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense Fact Sheet from the White House - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030520-15.html
US State Dept. Statement on Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement Between the United States and the Czech Republic - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/07/106923.htm
The Agreement itself - http://www.aic.cz/cms/Agreement_EN.pdf
For advanced:) reading on US defense strategy please refer to Quadrennial Defense Review 2006 - http://www.forscom.army.mil/reeng/1-PMD/2006QDR.pdf
Of course, you can also find useful Wikipedia:) - at least it provides understandable additional info.
Also I VERY much recommend you to read the Russian President Speech at Conference on Security Policy in Munich:
-  http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/2008/summer2008/speech-by-russian-president-vladimir-putin-at-the-43rd-munich-conference-on-security-policy.html,  -
thanks to it the Czechs, and at the very least the Czech government,  was once again reassured that the NATO is still very important.
In all, this speech, already famous worldwide, and reactions to it provided by different media (German - http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,467183,00.html, Czech - http://www.radio.cz/en/news/88217, Chinese – http://www.chinadaily.net/world/2007-02/12/content_806872.htm) are very helpful to understand incentives of small European countries to participate in the NMD, NATO or being otherwise involved in regional and global security (military) frameworks.
…And looking further ahead. Concerning making up the list of persons we can interview. Well, as for politicians, anybody would do, but as for academics and other representatives of the public sector, I suggest you, while you search for analytic materials from all kinds of resources, please, pay attentions to authors of those materials, in particular to their place of residence. If they are Czech or foreigners who are currently residing in the Czech Republic, it means he is our guy and qualifies to enter our list of potential interviewees.
Good luck.
 

A FRAMEWORK: POLICY CYCLE

 投稿者:Alessandroメール  投稿日:2008年12月 4日(木)19時09分26秒
返信・引用
  Dear All,

here is a conceptual framework we can keep in mind while working.

POLICY CYCLE

1. Agenda setting (Problem/Issue identification)
2. Policy formation
3. Decision
4. Policy implementation
5. Policy analysis and evaluation (continue or terminate)

DEFINITION: The policy cycle is the term used to describe the lifespan of a policy, from its formulation, to the review. It comprises: needs assessment / agenda setting; planning / policy formulation; policy implementation; policy monitoring; and evaluation and feedback. (by European Commission)

We can focus on one single point or take everything into consideration.
If you want to know more on each point, here are two useful references:
- http://www.geocities.com/~profwork/pp/agenda/index.html (clic on each yellowe balloon to have details on each phase)
-  http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/About_the_department/publications/policies/Governing_Queensland/Policy_Handbook/cycle/cycle/

I would also ask PASHA to post here his project for people who didn't join today's meeting.

Thank you and see ya next week!

Ale
 

レンタル掲示板
/3