Assignment 3: Stakeholder Analysis and Annotated Bibliography: Identifying

Conversations

Overview: A first step before making a reasoned argument (Assignment 4) is to listen to the

conversation. In our daily lives, issues are often framed for us as dichotomies, with two sides, a

“right or wrong” or a “for or against.” A nuanced look at any issue, however, will reveal that

there are as many sides as there are stakeholders involved. In academia, it is our responsibility to

embrace an issue’s complexity before solidifying our opinions. One way to accomplish this is to

create an inquiry question within the scope of a current debatable issue. These questions guide us

as we research an issue and analyze the major stakeholders in the issue. In this assignment, you

will choose an issue and an inquiry question within the course theme of Healthy State or outside

of the class theme. Your exploration will result in a synthesis of the major stakeholders to

present a fuller and more accurate representation of the issue than a surface glance allows.

Purpose: To inform yourself, the class, and the instructor about an issue’s complexities,

including the major stakeholders and potential arguments for the identified stakeholders.

Audience: After listening to the conversations of multiple stakeholders, you will inform your

instructor and your classmates about four stakeholders in your issue.

Field Research/Interview (optional): A major component of this analysis can be to seek contact

with actual stakeholders. You may contact at least one expert, or other important stakeholder, to

gain a firsthand account of the expert's relationship to your issue and inquiry.

Annotated Bibliography: Before writing your stakeholder analysis (details below), you will

create an annotated bibliography to document your research as you discover relevant

stakeholders. An annotated bibliography is a list of citations to books, articles, and documents.

Each citation is followed by an annotation—a brief, descriptive summary, as we learned in A1,

and an evaluative statement. The purpose of the annotation is to inform yourself and the reader

of the relevancy, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited. Note: you are not allowed to use

articles previously read for the annotated bibliography.

Requirements:

Annotated Bibliography:

• Provide six annotations, 150-200 words each—this will be done prior to the analysis itself.

• Four of the six annotations must reflect different stakeholder positions.

• Two of the annotations must come from scholarly, academic sources

• One of the annotations can come from an interview/field research with an expert

• You may not use articles previously read in class

The Stakeholder Analysis:

• Introduction: Include an interesting introduction which provides a hook for your

audience, gives a clearly stated overview of the issue or problem you are considering

(including your inquiry question that guided your research), provides background,

including the necessary history and contextual information that your audience will need

to understand your issue. You should also define unknown terms for your audience.

• Stakeholder overview: Out of your annotated bibliography you will extract four

stakeholders, bringing them together for analysis of their positions within the realm of

your inquiry question, showing your audience how each stakeholder would answer your

inquiry question.

• Development: A thoughtful and thorough analysis of relevant stakeholders that makes

clear the similarities and differences in their positions, including their relevant values,

what is at stake for them and what they stand to lose or gain by the issue’s outcome.

• Conclusion: Conclude your analysis by discussing potential arguments for each of the

four stakeholders.

• Coherence: Organize your analysis so that the paper is unified and focused. Use clear

transitions to guide readers through your stakeholder analysis.

Analysis Details

• Format your analysis and document your sources according to MLA conventions.

• Avoid distracting spelling and grammar errors to improve credibility.

• Type your analysis in a readable, 12-point font and double-space it.

Calendar:

• Annotated Bibliography and Stakeholder Analysis Workshop: Apr. 8th and Apr. 11th

• Annotated Bibliography and Stakeholder Analysis Due: Wednesday, April 13th

Paper Length:

Annotated Bibliography: Provide 6 citations, each about 150-200 words (totaling approximately

900-1200 words)

Stakeholder Analysis: 3-4 pages, double-spaced (approximately 900-1200 words)

Worth: 20% of your final course grade

**NOTE: At the end of your paper, include the following honor pledge: “"I have not given, received, or used any unauthorized assistance."

Excellent Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Stakeholder Analysis:

Development of Stakeholder

Positions

The analysis explores the

similarities and differences

in the stakeholders’

positions on the issue,

noting what they value, what

is at stake for them, and

what they stand to lose or

gain from the issue. The

analysis also shows how

each stakeholder group

would answer the inquiry

question and notes how and

why groups answer the

question in different ways.

Rather than referring to

stakeholder groups in

general terms, the analysis

cites specific evidence from

research to back up the

analysis.

The analysis explores the

similarities and differences

in the stakeholders’

positions on the issue,

though the exploration of

what they value, what is at

stake, and/or what they

stand to lose, or gain could

be more thorough. The

analysis indicates how each

stakeholder group would

answer the question, though

it could spend more time

exploring how and why they

would answer the question

in different ways. Though

the analysis cites some

sources, at times the

stakeholders are referred to

in general terms without

specific evidence from the

research to back the

analysis.

The exploration of the

stakeholders’ positions is

incomplete, and may not

explore the various

stakeholder groups’ values,

stakes in the issue, and what

they stand to lose/gain. The

analysis may not discuss the

stakeholders’ answers to the

inquiry question, or the

answers stated in the

analysis are incomplete or

not adequately developed.

The analysis speaks about

stakeholder groups in

general terms and may not

cite specific evidence,

leading to concerns about

plagiarism.

Stakeholder Analysis: Issue

introduction and

Stakeholder Overview

The analysis provides

background and contextual

information about the issue

being discussed, noting any

pertinent history, defining

important terms, etc. The

analysis clearly states the

specific inquiry within the

larger issue the student

researched. The analysis

also clearly distinguishes

four different stakeholder

groups and introduces their

positions within the realm of

the inquiry question.

The analysis includes some

background information

about the issue, though it

may need to be developed

more to give the reader

adequate context for

understanding the issue and

the inquiry. The analysis

states the specific inquiry

the student researched,

though its connection to the

larger issue could be clearer.

The analysis identifies

several stakeholder groups,

though some of the groups

may overlap, indicating the

student may not understand

the nuanced positions of

each.

The analysis provides little

to no background

information about the issue,

or the background

information that is present is

thin. The reader may have

trouble understanding the

context of the inquiry. The

analysis indicates that the

student may not have a

strong sense of the various

stakeholder positions, since

they are not well defined

and may blend into each

other.

Annotated Bibliography:

The AB represents a variety

of reliable sources,

including at least two

scholarly sources, and

balances both informative

and opinionated sources.

The information comes from

reliable research, including

library databases. It

demonstrates close and

critical reading by briefly

and objectively

summarizing the text, using

short quotations, paraphrase,

and author tags where

appropriate. The evaluation

of the source explains the

source’s reliability,

relevance, usefulness to the

project and notes major gaps

in the source.

Though there may be some

question about the reliability

of some sources on the AB,

for the most part research is

reliable. The researcher may

benefit from searching other

databases and/or resources

that are equally or more so

reliable. The bib needs a

better balance of informative

and opinionated sources.

Annotations may need more

development of summary

and/or evaluations to

understand the reliability,

relevance, usefulness to the

project, etc.

The AB does not represent

key perspectives and/or is

comprised of lower quality

sources. The bib may have

sources that are unreliable

and/or have sources from

only one database and/or

only from the web.

Annotations have weak

summaries and/or do not

provide support for source

evaluations, OR summaries

may be adequate, but

evaluations are thin or

missing.

MLA Standards

MLA style is followed

precisely. The correct

format was used for the type

of source being portrayed.

The AB is correctly

formatted: double-spaced,

entries listed in alphabetical

order, aligned left except the

hanging indent after first

line of citation, no extra

spaces between entries.

Minor citation errors are

present. In general, the

format for an AB is

followed, but one

requirement may be

overlooked.

Citation does not follow

MLA style and/or citation

errors are prevalent. The AB

may have multiple format

errors and/or does not

follow format.

Conventions and Style

The language, tone, and

voice of both the AB and the

Stakeholder Analysis are

those of a careful and

critical reader, and the

documents are edited for

clear communication that is

free of distracting errors.

While the Stakeholder

Analysis and AB could be

more carefully edited for

style, they are generally

clear and readable.

Because of poor editing

and/or style choices, the

Stakeholder Analysis and

AB are confusing or unclear

for readers.