As noted in the file on FIN-1 Research Paper Procedure, treatment of the chosen topic and the selection of sources employed should be "comprehensive, balanced and adequate to the topic and treatment," with any clearly opinionated material identified as such, and with the primary source material used being printed material from reputable publishers. Following are several hypothetical examples pertaining to this.

Contextualizing References in the Source Material in Your Paper

Part of the concept of "comprehensive treatment" of the topic is the clear explication and "contextualization" of all details and references included in the source material used (as well as in the narrative that you the author are using). Just as in a novel, it must be clear how all the characters and events referenced in the paper connect to the overall context of the paper.

For example, say that you are writing on the operations of field hospitals and medical treatment on the Russian front during the Continuation War. One of the sources you have used cites the occasional difficulty faced by the medical staff when treating German soldiers who did not speak Finnish (with the medical staff itself not always knowing German). Even if the treatment of German soldiers was not the focus of your paper, if mentioned in the source material, your paper must explain why there sometimes were German soldiers who required treatment. This in turn would require a brief overview of Finland's involvement in its "parallel war" in alignment with the German military, though without alignment either to Germany's own military objectives or the Nazi political views. The paper by Rosamaaria Perttola on Väinö Linna's Tuntematon Sotilas provides one example of how this would be done.

'Balanced' Treatment of an 'Opinionated' Topic

"How can I know what I think until I read what I write?" — James Reston

Occasionally topics are chosen on which the author will have strong personal opinions, which are either recognized to begin with, or which emerge during the writing of the paper. While it is understandable that individual preferences would factor into the writing of any paper, the treatment given to the 'Finnish Institution' being covered must nonetheless be objective, treating fairly all relevant sides of controversial issues.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical paper being written on "Pet Ownership in Finland." This would clearly be a Finnish 'institution,' although one which would need to be narrowed considerably to allow a quality paper to be written within the time and length requirements of FIN-1.

Say that in the first paragraph of the paper, the reader is informed that the enormous environmental, social and economic footprint of pet ownership is one of the chief threats to Finnish economic well-being and public health, and an outrageous insult to the concept of responsible citizenship. Enormous amounts of money are being spent on pet food, clothing, grooming and pet-walking services, and veterinarians that would better be spent on the Finnish people themselves (for example elderly Finns who have no one to groom or 'walk' them, and may not be receiving an adequate diet or proper clothing). Pets are quoted as spreading disease and threatening public health, with examples given of alarming amounts of yellow snow and steaming excrement next to children's playgrounds and schoolyards, on X-C ski tracks and ice-skating rinks, and city parks and streets. Further, the un-natural imprisonment of pets inside cramped urban housing and the breeding of ever-smaller lap-dogs for self-proclaimed fashionistas to flount as cosmetic ornamentation are examples of both 'unacceptable human cruelty to animals' and a 'gross distortion of traditional Finnish values.'

There would have been more to come in subsequent paragraphs, but perhaps several issues are already apparent. While there might be jusification for such views, it is important to first remember that the 'institution' in question is "Pet Ownership in Finland." The thought that pet ownership itself is inhumane and/or a threat to national health is NOT a Finnish institution — e.g. it is not an established structure, or a belief or a concept which is broadly influential in Finland for which Finland is particularly known. In writing about "Pet Ownership" one must establish the established majority views on pet ownership, its influence socially and economically, what animals are most owned as pets, services for these animals, the history, recent trends and expected future, etc.

As an aspect of this, the paper can legitimately include 'controversial aspects' of pet ownership, and this is where both the 'objections' above as well as the responses to these by pet owners would be included. For both points of view, concrete evidence should be submitted to support the opinions of each side. Research papers must be based are based on the demonstrable evidence supporting an opinion, not on the opinion itself, or opinion supported only by other opinion.

'Balancing' the Selection of Source Material

Further to the example above, you note while reading the paper that some 70% of all the citations are from a work by 'Bai-Bai Doughies' which was published by the Canine Abolition Tribunal—Suomi. While wondering about the objectivity of both author and publisher, you also observe that Doughies' opinions alone have been used for both the reasons why pets should be banned and the reasons why pet-owners have pets to begin with, e.g. as justification for both sides of the question.

In such a case, Doughies' work would not suffice as a legitimate source for the basic paper on "Pet Ownership in Finland," e.g. as the main source to objectively describe the central institution in question. Instead, a variety of relatively neutral, objective descriptions of the status quo of pet ownership would be needed. Doughies' work could be used to illustrate the views of those who are against pet ownership at that stage of the paper, but should be clearly identified as a source with a clear bias — as would any source from the opposite viewpoint that claimed there was no justification in any opinions which opposed pet ownership.

'Supplementing' the Selection of Source Material

Even on more 'ordinary' topics than the one above, there will occasionally be only a limited number of authoritative works on a specialized topic (see for example Katri Mattila's paper on The Postal System in Finland, where she notes that almost all of the standard works on the Finnish Postal System have been produced by the same author). In such cases, try to supplement the views of the one or two works available with interviews, contemporary primary source materials, etc., to show that the views given by the few print sources available are indeed legitimate as based on the concurring opinions of others who are also familiar with the situation, evidence of what was happening at the time, etc.

Narrowing and Refining Topics

It is relatively common for students to realize as their paper drafts progress that the topic approach they first had in mind will need substantial refinement to result in a workable paper.

In the "Pets" example above, clearly the author did not have all pets in mind when starting on the paper. While many dogs may be pets, not all dogs are pets, and not all pets are dogs. In the opinions presented above clearly distinctions should be made between rural and urban dogs, working dogs (e.g. seeing-eye dogs, police and military dogs, hunting dogs, rescue dogs, etc.), as opposed to the type of dog the author apparently has in mind. Likewise, "pet ownership" would also include cats, rabbits, birds, gerbils, reptiles, fish and the like. Thus the "pets" topic would require considerable narrowing, for example to only certain types of dogs in a certain type of environment (rural, urban, professional, etc.) to enable a coherent, workable paper.