Article Abstract:
Description:
Abstracts should be limited to a one-page, double-spaced summary of key information from each article. An abstract is not an outline of the article and does not cover every major section and finding. Rather, an abstract should highlight important information. Include the following key items:
1. Thesis (objectives)
2. Argument ( as developed)
3. Results (as demonstrated)
4. Conclusion (implications)
Example given of an abstract: (Sample)
Format for an abstract of essays and non-quantitative articles
Clarence N. Stone, “Toward An Urban-Regimes Paradigm,” Urban Politics and Urban Policy Newsletter 1 (Spring, 1987): 7-13.
Thesis: The contemporary paradigm of urban politics, derived from Paul Peterson’s City Limits, is an insufficient model of city politics, policy, and power today. Stone makes the case for an urban regime paradigm that emphasizes the continuing importance of city governments as conflict-mediators among competing interests in cities.
Argument: Paul Peterson’s theory is directly challenged as it applies to the “limits” of city politics. Stone specifically objects to Peterson’s parsimonious policy analysis which purports to show that developmental policies are the basis of all other city policies because economic competition exits and economic growth is in all cities interests. Therefore, the Peterson argument suggests that all cities follow a cooperative, non-conflictual process of adopting development policies while conflict, bargaining, and group activities take place only when there is an absence of economic competition. Cities appear to act much like business firms in Peterson’s theory, while politics and conflict are emphasized in the alternative regime theory of Stephen Elkin (1980, 1985).
Results: Stone reviews literature critical of Peterson’s thesis about developmental policy; showing that it cannot be validated empirically. Stone’s analysis and theory building are also based upon empirical research articles in the edited volume by Stone and H.T. Sanders (The Politics of Urban Development, 1987). Key points:
a. Urban regimes–communities’ governing coalition–act as a mediating force between community groups/politics and the policy outputs of the city.
b. Politics matters in all city policy areas–including developmental policies.
c. Peterson has some valid points, but his paradigm is too limiting.
d. Policies are not self-labeling; actors in the city political system have different views of what might constitute a developmental, allocational, or redistributive policy.
e. Developmental policies cannot be adopted on the sole basis of efficiency.
f. Political arrangements are of prime concern in understanding urban political outcomes.
Conclusion: He effectively argued that it is time to consider a new urban paradigm.