Chapter 7.

The Research Report

Lesson 6 consists of an interactive lecture session lasting about 2½ to 2¾ hours. There are several optional in-class assignments. At the end of the lesson, you will assign students to critique groups to work on course scenarios or actual social problems.

The lecture is as follows:

1. Review of Lesson 6 (15 minutes). Review Lesson 6 objectives. Review Lesson 6 homework. Resolve any outstanding questions the students may have from Lesson 6.

2. Preview of Lesson 7 (15 minutes). Preview Lesson 7, using the chapter outline above.

3. Lecture (2 hours and 15 minutes). The main lecture portion will teach students to compose a complete research report including a recommended policy, as follows:

(a) Writing the research report (45 minutes).

(b) Rules for drafting policy (1 hour).

(d) Assignment of course scenarios or actual social problems (15 minutes).

NOTE from Mark: Pipit, I’m not sure how long the assignment of course scenarios at the end of the lesson should take. I put in 15 minutes. If you think it should be more time, please make the appropriate change there and above (in the 2 places the times are added up).

At the end of this lesson, students should be broken into groups corresponding to the number of social problems or scenarios you choose to assign. Ideally, the number of students in each group should allow for each student to research and write a meaningful portion of the research report (that is, the problem statement, the ROCCIPI explanation of the role occupant’s behavior, etc.). You may choose to assign specific sections of the research report to individual students or have the group decide. In either case, students should know when they are required to finish their section and submit their work for group critique. More on the structure of critique groups is at the end of this chapter.

3. Introduction

The first six chapters introduced the concept of using legislative policy to deal with social problems and how to identify and analyze the problematic behaviors that contribute to these social problems. In the course of these chapters we have used the problem of traffic jams to give you experience in every step of the problem-solving methodology. This chapter shows how to combine all of the steps you have learned into a formal research report that can be used to justify your legislative policy proposals.

4. Writing a research report

A research report is a tool to control the quality of a draft policy or law. This report gives the drafters and other parties the information required to review (or check the quality of) the proposed policy or law. It is also an advocacy document justifying and arguing for the solution the drafter proposes by relying on the drafter’s (1) quality of research, (2) soundness of logic, and (3) ability to make the reader see the benefits of the chosen policy solution over other alternatives, including doing nothing (that is, maintaining the “status quo”).

(a) Function of the research report

The research report serves several functions. First, it justifies the choice of policy by detailed and systematic analysis of the social problem using logic based on experience. Second, it provides information to the reader about the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion. Finally, it provides information and justification for the policy or law makers (in addition to the drafters) that they can use to influence other decision makers.

(b) Structure of the research report

The research report described in this textbook contains four parts: (1) identification of the characteristics and scope of the social problem, (2) explanations of the problematic behavior(s) that contribute to the social problem, (3) proposed solution(s) to the social problem, and (4) provisions for implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the proposed solution(s).

(1) Part 1 — Identification of the characteristics and scope of the social problem

Part 1 of the research report identifies the scope of the social problem, including identifying probable role occupants and implementing agencies.

(2) Part 2 — Explanations of the problematic behavior(s)

Part 2 of the research report systematically examines each ROCCIPI factor for the identified role occupants and implementing agencies, explaining how each factor contributes to the problem. Make sure to acknowledge factors that do not contribute and briefly explain why.

(3) Part 3 — Proposal(s) for solution

Part 3 of the research report contains proposed solutions addressing every contributing ROCCIPI factor. These proposed solutions are then transformed from separate proposals into a single unified policy statement.

(4) Part 4 — Implementation, monitoring, and evaluation

Part 4 of the research report proposes implementation, monitoring, and evaluation provisions, as well as provisions for making future changes. First, it must include provisions for effectively implementing the proposed policy. Second, it must include provisions for monitoring the proposed policy after implementation. That is, it should have an adequate control and evaluation mechanism to measure the policy’s effect and effectiveness. Finally, it must include a procedure for making necessary changes in areas in which the policy falls short of expectations.

(c) Checklist for the research report

Figure 7.1 provides a detailed outline for drafting a research report.

NOTES:

1. The English version of Box 4.11 from the Seidman Manual for Drafters is reproduced below.

2. I assume the Indonesian translation of the Seidman book is accurate, so you should only have to make the corrections noted below to that text when inserting it into the Indonesian version of this textbook.

3. I have made the following changes, which are mostly marked in red in the text:

(a) I renumbered the outline to match our own textbook’s format. (These changes are NOT marked in red and don’t need to be made to the Indonesian version if it is too much work.)
Old order = I. A. (i) (a) (1)
New order = I. 1. (a) (1) (A)

(b) The text of the footnotes (footnotes 25 and 26) is included in the text as a “NOTE” rather than in a footnote.

(d) References to “Chapter 7” [of the Seidman book] are changed to “see below in this chapter”.

(e) References to “steps” in the outline are changed to “sections”. And a reference to “this Part” is changed to “this section”.

(g) Certain examples in the text (marked in red) are put into parentheses. These may be deleted to shorten the length of the outline, if you think they are unnecessary.

Note that this checklist includes provisions in brackets with respect to the location of history and comparative law materials. For drafters, these suggest discretionary choices. Ordinarily, drafters should discuss history in only one place in the research report. Comparative law and experience — relating to other countries’ efforts to use law to resolve similar problems — almost invariably contributes primarily to weighing social costs and benefits of alternative solutions. Nevertheless, as indicated, a drafter may decide to include that experience elsewhere in the report.

To reiterate: This outline should be treated as a flexible guide, not a straitjacket. Every research report constitutes a special case. Vary from this outline at will — but be sure that you can explain why you do so.

I. Introduction

[NOTE: While not required, a ‘grabber’ paragraph — a gripping anecdote or a shocking statistic — at the beginning of a report may serve to attract the readers’ attention to the social problem’s importance and the necessity of considering a possible legislative programme to resolve it. If used, it should lead logically into the body of the report as here outlined.]

1. Brief statement of the problem and the bill’s proposed solution.

2. Fitting the social problem addressed by the bill into the larger context. Frequently, the problem constitutes a small part of a much larger one. (For example, in China, the bill to set up a central bank comprised part of an extensive legislative programme to restructure the banking and financial system.) The research report’s introduction should indicate the particular problem’s relationship to the larger social problem and that larger legislative programme.

[3. History of the general problem (see note at the head of this checklist).]

4. A brief statement of the problem-solving methodology, showing how it structures the report’s contents, including a brief outline of the report (see below in this chapter on form).

II. The Difficulty the Bill Will Address

1. Mini-introduction.

[Relate the specific difficulty to the larger context; indicate the difficulty statement’s function in the logic of problem-solving, and outline the content of this section (for details on ‘signposts’, see below in this chapter).]

2. The nature and scope of the difficulty’s superficial manifestations as they affect human, physical, or financial resources.

[(a) Frequently the social problem manifests itself as a problem in resource allocation. (For example, as underground water pollution, unemployment, inadequate public transportation, or insufficient rural clinics.) If the social problem appears first as a question of resource allocation, the drafters should here describe the nature and scope of the resources’ misallocation.]

[(b) Under this heading, as under most of the headings of this checklist, drafters should include the relevant descriptive hypotheses and the data that warrant them.]

3. Whose and what behaviors constitute the difficulty?

[(a) Law can only address behaviors. Having identified the misallocation of resources, this section of the report should describe the relevant primary role occupants and implementing agencies and the aspects of their behaviors that prove problematic. (Not infrequently, even the difficulty’s superficial manifestations consist of problematic behaviors, like unfair trade practices, domestic violence, motor vehicle traffic problems or dishonest banking practices. In those cases, the drafters can readily combine sections 2 and 3.)]

[(b) In describing the role occupants and their behaviors which comprise the social problem, drafters should differentiate between the several sets of role occupants. (For example, in discussing surface water pollution, rather than lumping the people who dump pollutants into streams and rivers in one group, the drafters should separate them into different sets of role occupants: farmers who permit the run-off from their heavily fertilized fields to flow into streams and rivers; industrial users who dump industrial wastes there; and householders who get rid of household wastes in the same place.) The explanations for each of these sets of role occupants’ behaviors undoubtedly differ, so to change those behaviors, the drafters will first have to identify the specific causes for each, and then draft measures to change those causes. Because the problem-solving methodology’s solutions logically derive from explanations, to ignore these differences among role occupants and the different causes of their behaviors make it likely that the bill will not induce all the new behaviors needed to solve the problem.]

[4. Comparative law and experience (see note at the head of this checklist).]

[5. History of the difficulty (see note at the head of this checklist).]

6. Who benefits and who suffers from the present situation.

[A significant part of the social cost-benefit analysis of the preferred solution — that is, the social impact statement — should focus on the new law’s probable impact on different groups in society. To articulate the impact of existing law on these groups constitutes a necessary predicate for that social impact statement.]

7. Mini-conclusion.

[Summarize the section; indicate the connection between the statement of the difficulty and the explanations section that follows (for details on ‘signposts’ see below in this chapter).]

III. Explanations of the Causes of the Behaviors that Comprise the Difficulty

1. Mini-introduction.

[Describe the function of explanations in the logic of problem-solving; and outline this section’s contents (for ‘signposts’ see below in this chapter).]

[2. Where relevant, discuss history and comparative law as possible sources of hypotheses as to explanations (see note at the head of this checklist).]

3. With respect of role occupant A and behavior 1:

[The research report should group together the explanatory hypotheses and the evidence relating to each set of behaviors. Occasionally, a drafter may want to vary this practice. For example, if dealing with three role occupants and behaviors all subject to the same existing rules of law, a preliminary section on the law followed by three separate analyses of the OCCIPI factors causing the three different behaviors might provide a more effective organization of the report.]

(a) The state of the existing law (‘rule’) as it presently bears on the behavior or role occupant A as identified in the difficulty part.

[Actors behave within a cage of laws. Almost invariably, by the time a law comes to the point of drafting, earlier laws have addressed the difficulty, although frequently under a title different from that under consideration. (For example, suppose the Ministry of Health desires a new law concerning prenatal health and care for pregnant women. No law by that name may presently exist. A great deal of law, however, may bear on the subject, including laws relating to health care delivery generally; ordinary tort law defining the responsibilities of physicians and hospitals to their patient; and even seemingly more remote laws relating to nutrition and work place safety.) Usually, more than one law relates to any given social problem. Drafters must resist the temptation to search only for a law that has a name similar to the title of the social problem in question. Instead, they should take care to discover all the legislation (from the constitution through legislation enacted by national and provincial legislatures to administrative regulations) that bear on their particular problem.]

(b) The non-legal factors that may affect the problematic behaviors.

(NOTE: In almost every case, one or other of these categories may appear ‘empty’; no causal factor of the kind the category suggests seems to exist. Do not feel obliged to say something about a category if, after thinking about it, you have nothing to say.)

(1) Objective factors:

(A) opportunity;

(B) capacity;

(D) the effect of the role occupants’ decision-making process on their decisions.

(NOTE: This becomes especially important where a role occupant must decide how to behave in the context of a complex organization — almost always in the case of implementing agencies (see Chapter 4 above).)

(2) Subjective factors:

(A) the role occupants interest (‘incentives’), including the effect of potential sanctions;

(B) ideology (values and attitudes) as it affects the role occupants’ behavior.

(c) [Where relevant, the foreign experience as to possible causes of the behaviors at issue (see note at beginning of this outline).]

4. If more than one role occupant or problematic behavior exists, repeat section 3, for each successive set of role occupants and their behaviors.

5. If implementing agency behaviors seem problematic, repeat the steps suggested in section 3 for the implementing agency.

[The behavior of the implementing agency constitutes a factor in the primary role occupant’s circumstances that to one degree or another the role occupant takes into account. An implementing agency’s officials act in the face of a rule addressed to it. (See Figure 1.1. “Why people behave as they do in the face of a law”, on page ___.) An explanation for those officials’ behavior in the face of a rule follows the same general structure as an explanation for any other role occupant’s behavior in the face of a rule. To analyze the causes of the implementing agency’s problematic behaviors, therefore, use the same checklist for non-legal factors mentioned above under section 3.

[Because implementing institutions always comprise complex organizations, however, analysis usually requires focus on the implementing agency’s decision-making processes (see Chapter 4 above). Almost invariably, the research report will have to review the causes of problematic behaviors of central agency decision-making officials.]

6. [Foreign law (see note at the head of this checklist).]

7. Mini-conclusion.

[Summarize this section, and reiterate the connection between explanations and solutions. The mini-conclusion may contain a brief list of the explanation for each set of behaviors identified in the difficulty section. That list comprises a summary of the causal factors which the preferred solution — the proposed bill’s detailed measures — must alter or eliminate to induce more desirable behaviors (for ‘signposts’ see below in this chapter).]

IV. Proposal for Solution

1. Mini-introduction.

[Note the requirements that the logic of problem-solving imposes on the proposed solutions, and outline this Part’s contents. For further details on ‘signposts’ see below in this chapter.]

2. List alternative potential proposals for solutions that logically seem likely to alter or eliminate the causes of existing problematic behaviors.

[(a) The persuasiveness of a justification to a considerable degree depends upon whether you have convinced the readers that you have considered all the logically-possible potential measures for inducing the behaviors desired; and that, all things considered, your preferred solution (the specific measures in your bill) really does constitute the best available.]

[(b) Drafters may obtain ideas for alternative solutions from three principal sources: comparative law and experience; scholarly books and journals; the drafter’s own ideas.]

3. Describe the details of your bill’s major provisions.

[(a) This section should describe and explain every important provision of your bill. If the bill seems unusually long and detailed, you may consider, in addition to the research report’s more general analysis, using an annotated bill to explain specific provisions’ details.]

(b) This section should include a detailed description of the proposed implementing agency, with a special focus on its decision-making processes and the provisions for participation, accountability and transparency.]

4. Demonstrate how the preferred solution addresses the causes of the difficulty as revealed in the explanations section.

[In effect, use the ROCCIPI research agenda as a device to predict the behaviors of the bill’s addressees.]

5. Analyze the costs and benefits of your bill.

(a) Economic costs and benefits.

(b) Non-quantifiable social costs and benefits.

(1) Impact of the bill of different social groups, especially on the poor, women, children and minorities.

(2) Impact of the bill on valued but poorly represented interests, especially on the environment, human rights, and the rule of law and the prevention of corruption.

6. Monitoring performance:

(a) Show how your bill provides for monitoring and evaluating its implementation.

[Here list alternative monitoring devices and give reason for one(s) included in your bill.]

(b) [Foreign experience in monitoring implementation of analogous laws (see note at the head of this checklist).]

7. Mini-conclusion (see below in this chapter).

V. Conclusion (see ‘signposts’ below in this chapter)

5. Notes on writing style for the research report

This section provides specific guidance about how to write the research report (that is, the style of the report).

(a) Use clear and simple language

Keep the language of the report clear and simple. The depth of your analysis and quality of logic can easily be lost in an attempt to impress the reader with the size of your vocabulary.

(b) Write clear sentences

You should use the following general rules in crafting clear sentences in your report.

Rule 1. Write brief sentences. These should generally be no more than about 17 words long. More words that that are not likely to be understood by many readers. If a sentence is too long, break it into shorter sentences.

Rule 2. Place the most important concept at the end of the sentence. (This is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.)

Rule 3. Keep together the subject and the verb, the parts of a compound verb, and the verb and object. Thus, the sentence core should be as follows: subject – verb – object.

Rule 4. Use as few conjunctions (such as “and”, “or”, “but”) as possible.

Rule 5. Write sentences using nouns and verbs rather than using adjectives and adverbs.

Rule 6. Avoid connective words and phrases (such as “however”, “thus”, “therefore”, or “It is a fact that…”).

Rule 7. Avoid passive sentences. Instead, use active sentences.

Rule 8. Avoid the verb “to be”, in any form. (This is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.)

NOTE: Glenn and I are not sure whether the rule about “avoiding the verb ‘to be’ ” applies in Indonesian. If it does NOT apply, please OMIT this rule here. [See pp. 196 and 273 in the English version of the Seidman manual.]

[Optional]
In-Class Assignment:
Writing Clear Sentences

Rewrite the following sentences more clearly.

1. “An important reason why local government councilors do not adequately serve their constituents is that they do not really have the necessary experience or knowledge as to how to meet the demands of their jobs.”

2. “Ministers seldom, if ever, hold hearings involving all the stakeholders, nor do they often request notice and comment, prior to promulgating subsidiary legislation.”

(From Seidman, Seidman, and Abeysekere, Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change: A Manual for Drafters, Exercise 7.2, pg. 197 (English version).)

(c) Use “signposts” to guide the reader through the problem-solving methodology

It is important to provide a brief explanation of the problem-solving methodology in your introduction to the research report and then to provide updates throughout the report on your progress in using the methodology. These updates are called “signposts” because they tell readers where they are, where they have just been, and where they are going next.

For example:

“The previous section identified the social problem of traffic jams in Makassar and identified the behavior of ankot drivers stopping at unmarked stops as a contributing behavior. The problem-solving methodology requires that we next examine what factors influence the ankot drivers to act as they do. By understanding this we can create a policy that will efficiently and effectively deal with the problem.”

(d) Mention sources of information used in the research report

Provide references or citations to the sources of information you use in the research report (such as facts, data, and quotations) using (1) footnotes, (2) endnotes, or (3) bibliographic references. It is best to use a standardized format, if one exists, for citations, but any format that clearly identifies the source so that a reader may locate the information will be sufficient.

6. Rules for drafting policy

As noted at the beginning of this textbook, the focus here is on informal policy development and not the techniques of formal bill drafting. However, there are general rules that should be followed so that all the hard work you put into the research report is translated into an effective policy or law. They are the following:

Rule 1. Avoid vague language.

Rule 2. Avoid ambiguous words.

Rule 3. Cover the entire “domain”.

Rule 4. Use rigorously consistent language.

Rule 5. Avoid redundancy.

Rule 6. Adopt words from related policies or laws.

Rule 7. Avoid ambiguous modifiers.

Rule 8. Use ‘and’ and ‘or’ carefully.

Rule 9. Keep sentences short.

Rule 10. Use tabulations freely.

Rule 11. Draft in the positive.

Rule 12. Avoid using the verb ‘to be’.

Rule 13. Use vocabulary adapted to the policy’s readers.

Rule 14. Put the most important concepts at the end of the sentence.

Rule 15. Avoid incorporation by reference.

(These rules are adapted from Seidman, Seidman, and Abeysekere, Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change: A Manual for Drafters, chapter 10, pp. 255–277 (English version).)

(a) Rule 1 — Avoid vague language

Vague language is often language that is open to subjective interpretation. Words like ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ are often found in policies that are vague and that lead to problems. Such words could mean something entirely different to different people that read the policy or law and must therefore be avoided whenever possible. Nevertheless, there are limited situations in which words such as ‘reasonable’ may be preferred over an unmanageably long list of more-specific criteria. However, the drafter should try to avoid this; otherwise, the drafter must take into careful account the potential outcome of using this type of vague language.

You must also be careful when not to use overly broad definitions. (For example, using a general term such as ‘vehicle’ when you really mean ‘automobile’ may lead to unintended consequences, since ‘vehicle’ also includes bicycles, motorbikes, trains, airplanes, and boats.)

[Optional]
In-Class Assignment:
Avoiding Vague Words

Rewrite the following sentences to correct the vagueness in them.

1. “A landlord shall properly cover a rubbish bin under the landlord’s control.”

2. “A bus shall carry no more than a reasonable number of passengers.”

(From Seidman, Seidman, and Abeysekere, Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change: A Manual for Drafters, Exercise 10.1, pg. 263 (English version).)

(b) Rule 2 — Avoid ambiguous words

Ambiguous language is a subset of vague language. Language that is vague has several, possibly even hundreds, of interpretations, but language that is ambiguous has a discrete (or limited) number of possibilities.

For example, a law may require a tax on ‘all Indonesian books’. What does this mean? It can mean, ‘all books written in the Indonesian language’, or it can mean, ‘all books produced in Indonesia’ (regardless of the language in which the book is written).

(c) Rule 3 — Cover the entire “domain”

Sometimes a drafter is unintentionally vague when dealing with numbers and dates. Be precise and cover the entire “domain” when referring to numbers and dates.

For example:

If you were born on October 16, 1984, would you believe yourself fortunate or unfortunate after reading the following provisions (or would you be unsure)?

“(a) All persons born before October 16, 1984, are eligible for a one-time disbursement of Rp. 1,000,000.

“(b) Those persons born after October 16, 1984, are not eligible for this one-time disbursement.”

(d) Rule 4 — Use rigorously consistent language

When drafting a policy or law, never use a different word to mean the same thing, nor the same word to mean a different thing. (For example, if you write a policy or law to prohibit carrying ‘knives’ on school property, do not later in the policy or law refer to knives as ‘weapons’.) To make sure that you don’t make this mistake, have a colleague proofread your work.

(e) Rule 5 — Avoid redundancy

The English legal tradition has many phrases, such as ‘null and void’ and ‘cease and desist’, that seem to confer on the person who uses them the status of having a deep understanding of the law, if not a legal degree. In fact, such phrases are holdovers from the days when those who wrote legal documents were paid by the word and thus benefited from using multiple words when one would do just as well. Beyond creating extra work, such redundancies make the policy or law less accessible to the layperson by implying that one must obtain a legal education to understand such arcane phrases. Avoid using redundant words and phrases.

(f) Rule 6 — Adopt words from related policies or laws

Along with maintaining consistency within a given policy or law, the drafter should strive to be consistent within a group of related (or companion) laws. If the policy or law you are drafting is one of several (or many) laws dealing with the same general subject (for instance, a set of related traffic regulations), use the terms in the same way as they are used in the existing laws to avoid confusion.

(g) Rule 7 — Avoid ambiguous modifiers

Take care when using modifiers (that is, adverbs, adjectives, and past participles). Sometimes placement of the modifier may leave the reader wondering what, precisely, the modifier actually modifies. (For example, consider the sentence, “The girl gave the balloon to the boy filled with helium.” Who or what is “filled with helium”? The balloon or the boy?)

Be particularly careful when using modifiers near a series of items. (For example, consider the sentence, “This Act applies to charitable hospitals, clinics, and medical facilities with more than 100 beds.” Does “charitable” apply to hospitals only or to hospitals, clinics, and medical facilities? Similarly, does “with more than 100 beds” apply to medical facilities only, or to hospitals, clinics, and medical facilities?)

In short, ensure that there is no doubt about what each modifier (whether word or phrase) actually modifies.

[Optional]
In-Class Assignment:
Avoiding Ambiguous Modifiers

Rewrite the following sentences to correct ambiguous modifiers.

1. “A claimant shall give notice of intention to hold the city liable upon his claim within two weeks after the accident.”

2. “Once a valid collective bargaining agreement has been entered, neither employer nor union may rescind the contract because of hardship.”

(From Seidman, Seidman, and Abeysekere, Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change: A Manual for Drafters, Exercise 10.4, pg. 267 (English version).)

NOTE: Glenn and I are not sure whether the rule on “ambiguous modifiers” applies in Indonesian. If it does NOT apply, please OMIT this rule here and in the summary at the beginning of this section; also, omit the in-class assignment related to it. [See pp. 266–267 in the English version of the Seidman manual.]

(h) Rule 8 — Use ‘and’ and ‘or’ carefully

The word “and” is a conjunctive word. The word “or” is a disjunctive word. You should be very careful when using “and” or “or” by assessing whether the meaning requires a disjunctive word (for instance, ‘A or B’), a conjunctive word (for instance, ‘A and B’), or an overlap of both (for instance, ‘A or B, or both A and B’). Whatever the case, make sure that the language used makes the meaning clear and does not lead to ambiguity.

For example:

1. Consider the ambiguous sentence, “Husbands and wives may execute the sale of real property.” Clearly a husband and wife together may execute a sale, but can a husband or wife alone execute a sale?

2. Consider the ambiguous sentence, “Husbands or wives may execute the sale of real property.” Clearly a husband alone may execute a sale and a wife alone may execute a sale, but may they both together execute a sale?

3. Now consider the unambiguous sentence, “A husband or a wife, or both a husband and a wife, may execute a sale of real property.” Clearly any combination of husband alone, wife alone, or husband and wife together may execute a sale.

NOTE: Glenn and I are not sure whether the rule on “ ‘and’ and ‘or’ ” applies in Indonesian. If it does NOT apply, please OMIT this rule here and in the summary at the beginning of this section. [See pp. 267–268 in the English version of the Seidman manual.]

(i) Rule 9 — Keep sentences short

Keep sentences short. The longer your sentence, the greater the likelihood of violating one or more of these rules when writing your policy. Usually 40 to 50 words, at the most, should allow you to get your idea across clearly. Thus, you should break long sentences into shorter ones.

(j) Rule 10 — Use tabulations freely

Using tabulation (such as enumerated lists or bullet points) to list elements of the policy or law can reduce wordiness and aid in understanding.

For example:

The sentence, “A local government shall maintain national roads, local roads, bicycle paths, and footpaths,” can be modified to read as follows:

“A local government shall maintain the following:

“(1) National roads.

“(2) Local roads.

“(3) Bicycle paths.

“(4) Footpaths.”

(k) Rule 11 — Draft in the positive

You should nearly always draft in the positive, not the negative. (For example, consider the previous sentence, but drafted in the negative: “You should nearly always, not draft in the negative, but in the positive.”) Drafting in the positive tends to lead to shorter sentences that are easier to read and that lead to less confusion.

[Optional]
In-Class Assignment:
Drafting in the Positive

Rewrite the following sentences in the positive.

1. “Indigent persons, other than those with no children, may be sheltered in hotels at the expense of the Department of Welfare.”

2. “No person who is not a citizen may fail to register annually as such.”

(From Seidman, Seidman, and Abeysekere, Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change: A Manual for Drafters, Exercise 10.7, pg. 273 (English version).)

(l) Rule 12 — Avoid using the verb ‘to be’

In English, the verb “to be” is highly ambiguous. It can mean ‘exist’, ‘shall be considered as’, ‘has the characteristics [or qualifications] of’, and many other things. It is also used in the passive voice, which should be avoided whenever possible in favor of the active voice. In drafting a policy or law, another verb (other than “to be”) can almost always be substituted to produce a more precise meaning. Avoid using the verb “to be”.

NOTE: Glenn and I are not sure whether the rule on “using the verb ‘to be’ ” applies in Indonesian. If it does NOT apply, please OMIT this rule here and in the summary at the beginning of this section. [See pg. 273 in the English version of the Seidman manual.]

(m) Rule 13 — Use vocabulary adapted to the likely reader

Adapt your language to the anticipated audience, with the following prohibitions:

(1) Do not use legalese. [For English version: Avoid words and phrases such as ‘herein above’ and ‘hereinafter’.] [For Indonesian version: Avoid words and phrases such as ‘_____’, ‘_____’, and ‘_____’.] Such words do nothing to add to the clarity of the rule and may make it less accessible to average citizens.

NOTE: Please insert 2 or 3 examples of Indonesian “legalese”. There may be some in the Indonesian version of the Seidman book.

(2) Avoid obscure, arcane, uncommon, or foreign words.

(3) Never use a “deeming” provision (for instance, ‘A is deemed to be B’). These are provisions that establish a “legal fiction”. Avoid these devices.

For example:

Consider the following “deeming” provision: “In this Act, horse-drawn carriages are deemed to be automobiles.” Imagine how little confidence a layperson would have in public officials if those officials actually believed that a horse-drawn carriage was an automobile. Second, if you find yourself grouping horse-drawn carriages and automobiles together in the same rule, maybe you should re-examine the premise of your policy or law. You should deal with this directly by rephrasing the provision as follows: “All rules applying to automobiles apply to horse-drawn carriages.”

(n) Rule 14 — Put the most important concepts at the end of the sentence

As with the research report, the most important concepts belong at the end of the sentence. Conversely, place subordinate clauses and concepts first.

For example:

Consider the sentence, “The judge shall, after the parties have presented their cases, decide the matter promptly.” The most important part of the sentence (“The judge shall … decide the matter promptly”) is split up between the beginning and the end of the sentence. It may be rewritten (and improved), as follows: “After the parties have presented their cases, the judge shall decide the matter promptly.”

(o) Rule 15 — Avoid incorporation by reference

It is tempting for drafters simply to refer to, for instance, the definition of a term in another law, instead of reproducing the definition in their own policy or law. This may save time for one drafter, but adds to the time spent by every citizen or lawyer that refers to the law later. Often, instead of scrambling to find the law referred to, readers wrongly assume they know the definition, which may lead to confusion.

Teaching Notes

Critique Groups

Critique groups are a crucial part of learning the problem-solving methodology. The critique groups provide students with a peer review of their work and the opportunity to exercise their knowledge of the methodology by engaging in constructive criticism of others. You may find that after several weeks of critique groups, student knowledge of the methodology will be greatly increased.

The students should now have all the information they need to complete a research report, including a proposed policy. For the remainder of the course they will hone their skills by actually working on a social problem in their community or on one of the problem scenarios provided in the back of the textbook.

At the end of this lesson, you should break the class into groups corresponding to the number of social problems or course scenarios chosen. Each student will be responsible for one or more sections of the research report and will be required to present that work to the group at a critique session that will take place during normal class hours. You may assign the section(s) or you may want to permit each group to choose who will work on each section.

Critique groups should begin 2 weeks after Lesson 7 (this lesson), to allow the students working on the first sections to conduct research and write their portions of the report. You may want to meet with these students before they present their sections to the group, to ensure that they are on the right track. The strength of the first critique group meeting will often determine the quality of the remaining critique group meetings.

One or two days before each critique group meets, the student responsible for writing a section to be critiqued should present the written section to the other members of the group.

At each critique group meeting, the student will make a brief oral presentation of his or her draft section. The other students will then ask questions regarding the section and provide constructive criticism. The student who is presenting will be expected both (1) to defend the reasoning of the draft section, and (2) to incorporate suggestions into a final version of the section.

Students who are not presenting are expected to be prepared to offer constructive criticism. (You may require them to write a one-paragraph critique before each critique group meeting to ensure that they are participating.) These students should also be reminded that the success of the group’s work will depend on their well-reasoned suggestions.

Critique group sessions should be scheduled so that all students have a chance to present their sections by the next-to-last class meeting. When all of the sections are completed, each critique group should combine them into a single final research report.

During the last class meeting, each critique group will have a chance to present its research report to the other critique groups. If a group researches actual community social problems, it would be useful for the stakeholders or government officials concerned with the problem to be present for this presentation.

7. Further reading

The following materials provide further information about the issues discussed in this chapter and may be referred to for additional information.

[English:] Ann Seidman, Robert B. Seidman, and Nalin Abeysekere, Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change (English version), Kluwer Law International, Boston, Massachusetts, 2001. Chapter 4 (pages 85–123), chapter 7 (pages 187–201), and chapter 9 (pages 231–254).

[Indonesian:] Ann Seidman, Robert B. Seidman, and Nalin Abeysekere, Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change (Indonesian version, 2d ed.), ELIPS II National Library, Jakarta, 2002. Chapter 4 (pages ___–___), chapter 7 (pages ___–___), and chapter 9 (pages ___–___).

NOTE: For all chapters in this book, please only reference the version of the Seidman book appropriate to the version of this textbook (that is, English or Indonesian, respectively).

Ann Seidman, Robert B. Seidman, and Nalin Abeysekere, Assessing Legislation: A Manual for Legislators, online at http://www.bu.edu/law/lawdrafting/manual/, 2003. Chapter 9.

Manasse Malo and Sri Trisnoningtias, Community Research Methodology, PAU-IIS, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.

NOTES:

1. Please correct the non-Seidman reference, if necessary.

2. Please add references to any other appropriate (Indonesian) materials.

2. Please do this for all the chapters.