01Course Description
This seminar integrates demography, public policy, analytical methods, critical reading, and project-based learning. In Part I, participants build a common foundation in demographic evidence, the policy–program–project hierarchy, and practical analysis using Excel (and R). Week 7 concludes Part I and introduces indicators and indices as a bridge from analysis to project development and evaluation. Part II carries one policy problem of each participant's own choosing through sixteen connected stages: problem identification and evidence, problem definition and policy objective, policy options and their assessment and selection, project development and feasibility, indicators and evaluation design, statistical analysis and interpretation, external evaluation, and finally project improvement and policy improvement. Two selected papers are critically reviewed to supply the evidence base and the methodological choices behind that design. Participants finish with two deliverables: an evidence-based project report and a two-page policy brief addressed to a named decision-maker. The final presentation takes place in Week 14, and Week 15 is reserved exclusively for submission.
02Course Learning Outcomes
By the end of the course, participants will be able to:
- Explain how demographic evidence informs policies, programs, and projects, and distinguish the roles and operational relationships among these three levels.
- Prepare, analyze, visualize, and interpret demographic or policy data using reproducible workflows in Excel and R.
- Critically review two academic papers from introduction to conclusion, identifying each paper's purpose, research questions or hypotheses, methodology, results, interpretation, limitations, and conclusion.
- Compare and reconstruct methodological choices, then adapt appropriate concepts or techniques to formulate an original hypothesis and develop a justified analysis or analysis plan.
- Translate evidence into a feasible project proposal with SMART objectives, activities, stakeholders, justified indicators or indices, risks, and a monitoring and evaluation plan, and improve it through peer and instructor feedback.
03Course Structure
Foundations and Analytical Base
Participants establish the theoretical and practical base required for applied work: demographic concepts and data sources; the policy–program–project hierarchy; research design; qualitative and quantitative reasoning; and guided analysis in Excel and R. Short exercises use existing course datasets and model studies so that software skills remain connected to substantive interpretation.
Policy-Project Development and Evaluation
Weeks 8–13 carry each participant's policy problem through the sixteen stages of the policy and project development cycle — policy foundation, project design, evaluation, and improvement. Each week closes a group of stages with a document that becomes a section of the final report, so no exercise is discarded. Week 14 is the final presentation and evaluation panel. Week 15 is reserved exclusively for submission of the project report and the policy brief; the exact deadline is TBC and will be scheduled before 5 December.
From Foundations to Applied Work
Week 7 brings together the concepts and methods developed in Part I. An introduction to indicators and indices helps participants connect demographic evidence with project objectives, measurement choices, and evaluation questions in Part II.
The Part II Cycle: Sixteen Stages in Six Working Weeks
Part II follows one connected sequence. Each band below is closed by a document the participant keeps; together, those documents are the final report.
Part II Working Cycles
- Policy foundation cycle (Weeks 8–9, Stages 1–7) — define the problem from cited evidence, name the population rather than the issue label, state the policy objective, generate at least three options, assess them against effectiveness, cost, feasibility and equity, then select and justify one direction with a named decision-maker.
- Two-paper review cycle (Weeks 9–10) — Paper 1 is read for what has been tried and with what result; Paper 2 for how it was designed, measured and tested. A comparative methodology matrix links both to the participant's own design rather than merely summarizing the texts.
- Project design cycle (Weeks 10–11, Stages 8–11) — translate the selected policy into SMART objectives, components, stakeholders, work plan, budget and risks; then build indicators with explicit numerators and denominators and design the evaluation before any data exist.
- Evidence and evaluation cycle (Weeks 11–12, Stages 12–14) — test whether the project produced change using the methods from Part I, interpret the result for specific groups with limitations stated, and receive an independent verdict from a peer external-evaluation panel.
- Improvement and communication cycle (Weeks 13–14, Stages 15–16) — revise the project, recommend what should change at policy level, write the two-page policy brief, and present the full chain for panel assessment.
04Weekly Schedule
Course roadmap; policy–program–project hierarchy; identifying where personal interests, skills, evidence, and social needs meet; introduction to the integrated portfolio.
Expected OutputCore demographic concepts and statistics; population data sources; researchable questions; criteria for selecting two methodologically useful papers connected to one target issue.
Expected OutputData structure, cleaning, descriptive statistics, visualization, documentation, and movement between Excel and R; interpreting output in substantive rather than software terms.
Expected OutputResearch purpose, conceptual framework, variables and measurement; qualitative coding, thematic and content analysis; matching questions, data, and methods.
Expected OutputT-tests, ANOVA, and chi-square in Excel and R; assumptions, effect interpretation, and links to policy questions.
Expected OutputCorrelation, simple and multiple regression, categorical predictors, model interpretation, and responsible reporting in Excel and R.
Expected OutputConclude Part I by bringing together demographic evidence, the policy–program–project hierarchy, research design, and analytical interpretation. Introduce the distinction between indicators and indices, their purposes, and basic considerations for selection and interpretation. Discuss how these foundations support project development and evaluation in Part II.
Expected OutputOpen Part II by converting the Part I topic into a policy problem that can actually be acted on. Name the population — who, where, and how changing — rather than the issue label; establish what the demographic record, survey data, and administrative or disaster records can and cannot support; write the problem statement in full, covering population, place, harm, scale, demographic dynamic, and institutional gap, with every claim cited; and state what policy should achieve. An instructor demonstration carries one case through the whole chain as a model of method rather than of subject matter. Confirm both selected papers and agree the structure of the two reviews.
Expected OutputGenerate at least three genuinely distinct options for the stated objective and assess them against effectiveness, cost, feasibility, equity, and political acceptability, making the weighting explicit. Select one direction, justify it in writing, record what was rejected and why, and name the public actor who would decide: without a named actor there is no policy project. The critical review and presentation of Paper 1 supplies evidence of what has been tried elsewhere and with what result. The chosen direction is then located in the legal and administrative environment it must speak to.
Expected OutputTurn the selected policy direction into an implementable project: SMART objectives, a target population defined by inclusion and exclusion criteria, two to four components each linked to a cause identified in Week 8, stakeholders and implementer, and a work plan with a schedule. Test feasibility honestly against budget, staffing, time, and institutional capacity, and record risks with their mitigation. The critical review and presentation of Paper 2, and the comparative methodology matrix against Paper 1, justify the design, data, and measurement choices and clarify assumptions, limitations, and transferability.
Expected OutputCarry the Week 7 introduction to indicators and indices into actual measurement. Every indicator carries a numerator, a denominator, a baseline, a target, a data source, a collection frequency, and a named responsibility; composite indices are built through normalisation, weighting, and aggregation, with their interpretation limits stated openly. Then design the evaluation before any data exist: unit of analysis, target and comparison groups, before-and-after timing, threats to validity, and an explicit statement of what the design will not be able to show.
Expected OutputApply the Part I methods to the participant's own project using real, secondary, or defensibly simulated before-and-after data: paired and independent t-tests, chi-square, analysis of variance, difference-in-differences, and regression, selected to fit the design rather than chosen by habit. Interpret the result for specific groups, weigh effect size against practical significance, and write limitations before conclusions; qualitative evidence is combined with the quantitative result to strengthen the recommendation. The session closes with an external evaluation in which rotating peer panels assess each project for relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability and return a written verdict.
Expected OutputClose the cycle. Turn the evidence and the panel's verdict into two distinct revisions: what the project should do differently in targeting, components, sequencing, or resourcing; and what should change one level up at policy — eligibility, coverage, standards, coordination, or a budget line — together with who must decide it. The second half of the session is a writing clinic for the two-page policy brief: one message, the problem in three sentences, what the evidence shows, the options considered, the recommendation, and who acts, by when, at what cost. The week ends with structured peer review of the complete report draft in the methods, policy, and literature commentator roles.
Expected OutputEach participant presents the full chain in one arc: the policy problem and its evidence, the option selected and why, the project designed to deliver it, how it was measured and tested, what the analysis showed, and what should change at project and policy level. Peers sit as an evaluation panel and score against the agreed rubric, applying the methods, policy, and literature commentator roles a final time. The session closes with the course synthesis — the evidence-to-policy lesson of the whole fifteen weeks, and what carries into academic institutes, government agencies, NGOs, and international organisations — and with confirmation of final revision priorities and submission arrangements. No new content is introduced.
Expected OutputSubmit the final report package together with the accompanying policy brief. The report integrates the two paper reviews and comparative methodology matrix, the policy problem and evidence, the policy objective, options and selection, the project design with its feasibility assessment, the indicators and monitoring and evaluation plan, the analysis, results and interpretation, the external evaluation and the author's response, and the project and policy improvement recommendations. The policy brief is a standalone two-page document addressed to a named decision-maker. Supporting data, code or formulas, and the evidence trail required by the reproducibility policy are submitted with it. This week is reserved exclusively for submission; no class, presentation, peer review, or course synthesis is scheduled.
Expected OutputTBC = to be confirmed. Calendar dates for Weeks 8–15 are TBC and will be confirmed once the workshop and Quality Examination schedules are fixed; note that there is no class on Tuesday 13 October (Nawaminthra Maharat Day) or during the 30 October – 25 November holiday and University events period. Week 15 is for submission only, with the deadline to be scheduled before 5 December. Stage numbers refer to the sixteen-stage policy and project development cycle used throughout Part II. Weekly outputs support the existing assessment components; separate submission arrangements and detailed rubrics are TBC. Activities may be refined in response to participants' progress and data availability within this course structure.
05Evaluation Criteria
Part II produces two deliverables. The project report integrates the course portfolio — two structured paper reviews, a cross-paper methodological comparison, the policy problem and option assessment, an original hypothesis and analysis or analysis plan, and an evidence-based project proposal that traces the relationship from policy to program to project, including monitoring and evaluation, results, external evaluation, and improvement. The policy brief is a standalone two-page document that puts the same case to a named decision-maker. The final presentation takes place in Week 14; both deliverables are submitted in Week 15. The assessment weights below are retained from the existing syllabus.
Participation and Analytical Exercises
Active contribution to discussions, Excel and R exercises, research-design tasks, evidence-based peer feedback, and service on the external-evaluation panel. Supports CLOs 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Two-Paper Review Portfolio
Two full-structure paper reviews, two milestone presentations, and a comparative methodology matrix emphasizing method reconstruction, interpretation, and limitations. Paper 1 is presented in Week 9 as evidence for policy option assessment; Paper 2 in Week 10 as justification for design and measurement choices. Supports CLOs 3 and 4.
Applied Project Report, Policy Brief, and Final Presentation
Creative hypothesis and analytical application or plan, policy–program–project alignment, SMART objectives, action plan, monitoring and evaluation design, results and interpretation, project and policy improvement, the two-page policy brief, the final presentation (Week 14), and the revised final report (Week 15). Supports CLOs 1, 4, and 5.
06Key Materials and References
- Excel workbooks, R scripts, datasets, answer keys, and reproducible analysis guides drawn from the existing demography and public-policy course archive.
- Two participant-selected peer-reviewed papers approved for methodological depth, relevance to the target issue, and sufficient information for critical reconstruction.
- Two-Paper Review Guide and Comparative Methodology Matrix covering purpose, theory, data, methods, results, interpretation, limitations, and conclusion.
- Method references and worked examples for qualitative coding, t-tests, ANOVA, chi-square, correlation, linear regression, indicators, and composite indices.
- Stage Model and evidence-based policy readings, plus SMART Objective, Action Plan, logic-model, and monitoring and evaluation templates.
- Milestone presentation rubric and peer-evaluation sheets (details TBC), with commentator roles for methods, policy, and literature.
- Sixteen-stage policy and project development framework, used as the spine of Part II and as the stage reference in the weekly schedule above.
- Policy and Project Development Archive — a course resource library of real working project documents (concept notes, implementation plans, schedules, budget forms, competitive applications, national plans and government guidance, index construction sheets, survey and field reports, final reports, evaluations, lessons learned, and committee presentations), organised as proposals and plans, policy frameworks, and project outputs, with a suggested path through the project cycle.
- Indicators and Index teaching pack — lecture slides, composite-index construction instructions, and training workbooks (exposure, susceptibility, capacity; Japanese prefecture and Metro Manila datasets), extending the Week 7 introduction into Week 11.
- Worksheets for demographic reading, problem statement and policy decision, and the project one-pager, with the accompanying light rubric and peer challenge sheet.
- External evaluation sheet (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability) and a two-page policy brief template (details TBC).
07Course Policies
- Learning by doing: every conceptual session includes a hands-on Excel, R, paper-review, or project-design task linked to the participant's own topic.
- Reproducibility and verification: participants retain data sources, code or formulas, analytical decisions, and an evidence trail sufficient for another reader to understand the work.
- Feedback culture: peer and instructor comments must be specific, constructive, evidence-based, and linked to the agreed rubric.
- Named populations, not issue labels: every problem statement, project, and indicator must identify who is affected, where, and how that population is changing; indicators carry a numerator and a denominator.
- Method choice over technique: participants are assessed on selecting the analytical method the case requires and defending that choice, not on the difficulty of the computation.
- Responsible use of AI: AI tools may support brainstorming, coding, language revision, and analysis checks, but participants remain responsible for verifying sources, data, calculations, interpretations, citations, and submitted work.