Objectives: Apply content knowledge and analytic concepts from our course materials to real-world issues in the Canadian health care system. Help solidify your growing knowledge of the Canadian health care system. Help you identify where you currently have gaps in your knowledge of the Canadian health care system and work towards filling those gaps. Prepare background material for your group case analysis assignment. The Task (short version): 1. Use the case assigned to you and your group. 2. Analyze the case on your own. 3. Write up your analysis for the case on your own. For your individual case analysis, you are to answer the following six questions. For questions 1 through 4, you must complete a table (see table format document on canvas). For questions 5 and 6, you are to write a prose (essay-type) response. Your answer to question 5 is to be no more than 300 words. Your answer to question 6 is to be no more than 600 words. Things to consider including in the why/how each of these ideas is related to the case include who or what interest group is advancing this idea, is the idea contentious or well accepted, is the idea supported by research evidence or not, has the idea been in use for a long time or is relatively new, or is the idea a zombie idea. (See table format document for table to use in answering this question.) 2. Identify at least 5 different interests (i.e, interests from the 3Is; synonyms include actors or interest groups) related to the case (another way to think about this is the Whos in the 5Ws/IH map) and specify why/how each of these interests is related to the case. Things to consider including in the why/how each of these interests is related to the case include how and why this interest is involved in the case, what role the interest plays in the case, how the interest is a change-maker in this case, or how central the interest is to the case. Further specify the primary position(s) of each interest with respect to this case. Ensure that at least 3 different positions are covered in your answer across the 5 different interests. (See table format document for table to use in answering this question.) 3. Identify at least 3 different institutions (i.e., institutions from the 3Is) related to this particular case (another way to think of this is other Whats in the 5Ws/1H map) and specify why/how each of these institutions is related to the case. Things to consider including in the why/how each of these institutions is related to the case include how and why this institution is involved in the case, what role the institution plays in the case (including how the institution may shape what is and is not included in the case), what is and is not debated in the case, or how central the institution is to the case. (See table format document for table to use in answering this question.) 4. Name at least 3 prior decisions that have led to how this case got to this point in time (another way to think about this is a combination of Whats and When from the 5Ws/1H map, a further way to think about this is what decisions in the past created policy legacies relevant to your case). Briefly describe how each decision led to this point in time with respect to the current state of your case. Note that this means you will need to decide what is the current state of your case to do a good job of answering this question. (See table format document for table to use in answering this question.) 5. Review the ideas, interests, and institutions you have identified in your answers for questions 1 through 3. Which analytic category is most important to this particular case: ideas, interests or institutions? Or are two of the three most important? Or all three? Provide a rationale for your decision that talks specifically about this case. Also provide the word count for this answer. (Remember from the directions above that this answer is to be a prose answer and to be no more than 300 words. Any in-text references are included in the word count.) 6. Describe how this case is likely to unfold in the near future (i.e., the prospects for the future section of the Why in the 5Ws/1H map). In your answer to this question, you must provide at least 5 major claims about how this case is likely to unfold. Your answer must clearly identify your 5 major claims in brackets at the end of the appropriate sentence such as (major claim 1). Provide the word count for this answer. (Remember from the directions above that this answer is to be a prose answer and to be no more than 600 words. Your bracketed identification of each major claim and any in-text references are included in the word count.) To develop your position about the likely future development in this case (question 6), you may find it helpful to consider the following: What does using Roberts et al.s control knob framework and its effects on performance goals have to say about this case? What does using Piersons analytic frame of path dependence (as demonstrated in Hutchison et al., 2001) have to say about this case? What ideas in this case and the topic of this case are contested ideas (i.e., have interests arguing for various sides or interpretations of the same idea)? What are the relative strengths of the various interests associated with these congested policy spaces? Your answer to question 6 does not need to explicitly use or make reference to any of these analytic consideration.You simply need to describe how you think this case is likely to unfold in the near future, not how you arrived at this analysis. But be aware that your assessment of the case is likely to unfold in the near future must be reasonable and credible to your reader (grader) given our class material and what you’ve already laid out in your case so it is in your best interest to use the analytic frames we use in class to develop your analysis and to provide a brief rationale for each major claim. Researching your case: Each case has documents (e.g., newspaper articles, policy documents) to start you off on your analysis. You are expected to conduct additional independent research for your case analysis as well as use any relevant course material. We estimate that researching your case should take you no more than approximately 3 hours. (If you are taking more than 3 hours for research on your case, you should likely stop and ask for help from Laurie or one of the TAs.) You are not expected to know all there is to know about the case (as you might for an extended essay) but you are responsible for fleshing out the case so that you can provide strong answers to the questions in this assignment. You are also expected to find out (or confirm) the names of the key players in the case. For instance, if a newspaper article identifies the current Minister of Health of a province, you will want to confirm that that person is still the current Minister of Health of that province. To find the information you will need to answer these questions you will have to do some research online. Organizational websites, press releases, and newspaper articles are good places to start. The print media (mainly newspaper) may be particularly helpful for determining some key history components for some of these cases. You will likely not find much of help for this assignment in the academic research literature as each case is unfolding in real time and the academic literature will take time to catch up. Think about types of interest groups that might be involved in this topic. If you dont know the names of possible interest groups, know that most types of health professionals have associations (e.g., the BC Nurses Union, the Canadian Medical Association) and some have colleges that are in charge of professional regulation (e.g., the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia). Many of these exist at both a provincial and national level. Referencing: You are to provide two reference lists for your case analysis: (1) a References Cited reference list and (2) a Works Consulted reference list. The References Cited reference list: Provide in-text (even in-table) citations where relevant (., when you have obtained an idea from another document, when you are using a direct quote). Any in-table or in-text referencing must also be listed on the References Cited reference list for the case. The Works Consulted reference list: Include a reference list of additional relevant sources you used in preparing your case analysis. Additional relevant sources are defined as sources not included in the References Cited reference list. It is expected that you will have consulted works that you did not end up explicitly citing. In other words, include a case-specific list of all of the websites and other sources you visited that assisted you in your learning for your case but that did not earn their way onto the References Cited reference list. Use the APA referencing style for any references. Be sure to review your reference list for accuracy and correct use of the APA format as points will be removed for mistakes in the references and use of the APA format. Overall instructions checklist for cover page: _____ Cover page includes statement that submission is her/his own work _____ Cover page includes identification of the case number and title _____ Cover page provides word count for question 5 ? _____ word count > 300 words; stopped evaluating at 300 words _____ Cover page provides word count for question 6 ? _____ word count > 600 words; stopped evaluating at 600 words Number of missing elements in above list ________ at points for each missing element = ________ Question 1 Ideas related to this case Different ideas related to case (1 per idea) Reasonable specification of how each idea related to case (1 per specification) 1 2 3 4 5 Total Question 2 Interests related to case Different interests related to case (1 per) Reasonable specification of how each interest related to case (1 per) Specification of position of each interest (1 per) Check mark indicates different positions* 1 2 3 4 5 Total * At least 3 different positions need to be covered in answer (2 marks = 3+ interests, 1 mark = 2 interests, 0 marks = <2 interests) Question 3 Institutions related to this case Different institutions related to case (1 per) Reasonable specification of how each institution related to case (1 per specification) 1 2 3 Total Question 4 Prior decisions that led to how this case got to this point in time Prior decisions that led to how this case got to this point in time (1 per) Description of how each decision led to this point in time (1 per) 1 2 3 Total Question 5 Claim about relative importance of ideas/interests/institutions is reasonable and well defended in connection to case. Claim about relative importance of ideas/interests/institutions is somewhat reasonable and/or somewhat well defended in connection to case. Claim about relative importance of ideas/interests/institutions is not reasonable and/or not well defended in connection to case. 3 2 1 Question 6 Answer provides at least 5 distinct major claims that are reasonable and defendable given the answers provided to the previous questions (1 mark per major claim that meets these criteria) _____ / 5 Logic and Argumentation of overall answer to question #6 All ideas flow logically. Flow of information is coherent and easy to follow. Argument is clear, usually flows logically and makes sense. Logic may often fail, or argument may often be unclear. 3 2 1 Mechanics of overall answer to question #6 Language is efficient, engaging, and convincing. Sentence structure, grammar and diction excellent. Language is generally efficient, engaging and convincing but not consistently. Sentence structure, grammar and diction strong despite occasional lapses. Language is wordy and/or difficult to read. Problems in sentence structure, grammar and diction. 3 2 1 Works Consulted reference list + References Cited reference list + in-text citations Comprehensiveness & Quality of Case Research Combined reference lists demonstrate both comprehensiveness and quality of research on case Combined reference lists demonstrate some restrictions in comprehensiveness or quality of research on case Combined reference lists demonstrate limited to no comprehensiveness and low quality of research on case 3 2 1 Bonus point Individual case analysis is overall extremely comprehensive and thoughtful Yes = 1 N
