The independent research project: Task 2 and Form RP3

A student studying Il giorno della civetta for Paper 2 proposes the research question «Come Leonardo Sciascia rappresenta la mafia nei suoi romanzi». Test it.

1. 01Apply the Paper 2 prohibition first

   The proposal is about Sciascia's novels, which includes the novel studied for Paper 2. That is a duplication of content, and the specification is explicit that a project focused on a work studied for Paper 2 receives zero for Task 2. The idea fails at the first test and must be changed, not adjusted.

2. 02Find what the rule does permit

   The specification allows a wider exploration of the author of a work studied — the life of the author, or the things that motivated them in the broader sense. So the author is not off limits; the works are. A permitted reformulation might be about Sciascia as a public figure: his role in Italian civic debate, or his relationship with Sicily as a place rather than as a subject of one novel.

3. 03Narrow it to something answerable in eleven minutes

   Come Leonardo Sciascia rappresenta la mafia nei suoi romanzi is too broad even without the prohibition: it invites a survey. In che modo l'impegno civile di Sciascia come intellettuale pubblico ha influenzato il dibattito italiano sulla giustizia is narrower, is about the author rather than the works, and is answerable with evidence.

4. 04Check the sources exist and are written and in Italian

   Before committing, spend twenty minutes searching. Are there at least two substantial written Italian sources — an interview, an essay, a newspaper profile, an academic article — that you can summarise and respond to? If the honest answer is no, the question is unusable however interesting, because Part 1 depends on named written sources and a single source caps it at 3 marks out of 12.

5. 05Check the drift risk

   The danger with this reformulation is that it slides back into the novel: every discussion of Sciascia's civic engagement will tempt you towards Il giorno della civetta. Write the boundary explicitly on your own notes — non parlo del romanzo, parlo dell'autore come figura pubblica — and prepare a redirect for the discussion: quel romanzo lo studio per la Prova 2, quindi qui mi limito al suo ruolo pubblico.

Result: The original proposal fails outright because it covers the Paper 2 work. A permitted and narrower reformulation moves from the novels to the author as a public figure — provided at least two substantial written Italian sources exist, and provided the student prepares an explicit redirect to prevent drift back into the novel during the discussion.

A student is interested in Italian food. Take that interest down to a research question that satisfies all four criteria.

1. 01Level one: the subject

   La cucina italiana. Hopeless as a research question — it is a library, not a project. But it is the right place to start, because the next two steps are mechanical.

2. 02Level two: a specific case

   Le denominazioni di origine protetta e la tutela dei prodotti tipici. Still broad, but now it names an institution and a mechanism rather than a cuisine, and institutions can be researched. Alternatives at the same level: la dieta mediterranea come patrimonio UNESCO; il cibo italiano nell'emigrazione.

3. 03Level three: the question

   In che misura la tutela DOP protegge davvero i produttori locali o serve soprattutto al marketing dell'esportazione? In che misura invites a judgement rather than a description; the alternative built into the question guarantees two sides; and the answer will require knowing how the system actually works in Italy.

4. 04Apply the two tests

   So-what test: if the answer is that it mainly serves export marketing, that has consequences for small producers, which is a real finding. Eleven-minute test: list six things you would need to know — how a DOP is granted, who applies, what it costs, who enforces it, what a specific contested case looked like, what producers themselves say. Six, comfortably, and none of them trivial.

5. 05Run the source search before committing

   Look for four substantial Italian written sources: a consortium's own material, a piece of agricultural or economic journalism, an article from a producers' association, a piece of critical commentary. Note for each the author, the outlet, the date and its main claim in one Italian sentence. If two of the four turn out to be the same press release rewritten, keep looking — Part 1 is marked on your summary of named written sources, and two genuinely different arguments are worth far more than four versions of one.

Result: Interest: Italian food. Subject: protected designations of origin. Question: «In che misura la tutela DOP protegge davvero i produttori locali o serve soprattutto al marketing dell'esportazione?» — narrow, argumentative, Italian-specific, sustainable over six lines of enquiry, and committed to only after four genuinely distinct Italian written sources were found.

On the DOP question, you have a consortium's position paper arguing that protection sustains small producers, and a piece of economic journalism arguing that the main beneficiaries are large exporters. Show how to evaluate and use the disagreement.

1. 01Name the authorship and the interest

   La prima fonte è un documento pubblicato da un consorzio di tutela, quindi da un soggetto che ha un interesse diretto nel sistema che descrive. La seconda è un'inchiesta giornalistica di un quotidiano economico. Neither observation disqualifies either source; both are necessary context, and saying them out loud is what the grid means by outlining the authors' main points and ideas rather than merely reporting content.

2. 02State each claim in one sentence

   Il consorzio sostiene che la denominazione garantisce ai piccoli produttori un prezzo che il mercato altrimenti non riconoscerebbe. L'inchiesta sostiene invece che i costi di certificazione e di controllo pesano di più sulle aziende piccole, cosicché il vantaggio si concentra in alto. Two claims, both stated as claims — sostiene, not dimostra.

3. 03Locate the disagreement precisely

   Le due fonti non discordano sui fatti — entrambe riconoscono che il prezzo dei prodotti certificati è più alto — ma sull'attribuzione del beneficio. Locating the disagreement precisely is the analytical move: many disagreements that look factual are disagreements about who benefits or about what counts as success.

4. 04Build the personal response on the disagreement

   Personalmente ho trovato più convincente l'inchiesta, non perché il consorzio menta, ma perché fornisce dati sui costi di certificazione che il documento del consorzio semplicemente non affronta. The response is justified by a reason internal to the sources — one addresses something the other omits — which is what the grid means by a personal response supported with clear justification, as distinct from a preference.

5. 05Prepare the follow-up you will be asked

   The examiner will ask whether you looked for a third view. Have the answer ready: sì, ho cercato anche il punto di vista dei produttori stessi, e ho trovato un'intervista in cui ... Preparing the obvious follow-up to your own strongest point is the cheapest possible insurance in this task, and it converts a good answer into a discussion you are leading.

Result: Two sources evaluated by authorship and interest, each claim stated in one Italian sentence, the disagreement located precisely (attribution of benefit, not the facts), and a personal response justified by what one source omits rather than by preference — with the obvious follow-up question prepared in advance.

Build the two-minute presentation for the DOP research question, with the two sources evaluated in the previous section.

1. 01Seconds 0 to 15: the question

   La mia ricerca parte da una domanda semplice: la tutela DOP protegge davvero i piccoli produttori italiani, o serve soprattutto al marketing dell'esportazione? Fifteen seconds, the question stated as a question, and nothing about how you chose it. The examiner now knows what the next hundred seconds are about.

2. 02Seconds 15 to 50: the first source, named

   La prima fonte scritta è un documento pubblicato da un consorzio di tutela. L'autore sostiene che la denominazione garantisce ai piccoli produttori un prezzo che il mercato altrimenti non riconoscerebbe, e porta come esempio i controlli sulla filiera. Named by type and publisher, main claim in one sentence, one supporting detail. Thirty-five seconds.

3. 03Seconds 50 to 85: the second source, named

   La seconda fonte è un'inchiesta apparsa su un quotidiano economico. La giornalista arriva a una conclusione opposta: i costi di certificazione e di controllo pesano proporzionalmente di più sulle aziende piccole, cosicché il vantaggio si concentra nelle mani degli esportatori maggiori. Same shape, and note arriva a una conclusione opposta, which already begins the comparison.

4. 04Seconds 85 to 110: the relationship between them

   Le due fonti non discordano sui fatti — entrambe riconoscono che il prodotto certificato si vende a un prezzo più alto — ma sull'attribuzione del beneficio. Twenty-five seconds spent on the relationship between the sources is the most valuable time in the presentation, because it demonstrates that you read them together rather than in sequence.

5. 05Seconds 110 to 120: the personal response

   Personalmente mi ha colpito che il documento del consorzio non affronti mai i costi di certificazione, ed è questo silenzio, più che i dati dell'inchiesta, a rendermi cauto verso la sua tesi. Mi ha colpito che takes the congiuntivo affronti; è questo silenzio ... a rendermi is a cleft; and the response is anchored in an omission from one of the named sources, which is precisely the justification the grid asks for.

Result: One hundred and twenty seconds allocated as fifteen for the question, thirty-five for each named source, twenty-five for their relationship and ten to fifteen for a personal response anchored to an omission in one of them — with nothing spent on how the topic was chosen.

Your Form RP3 carries the finding: «I costi di certificazione incidono proporzionalmente di più sulle piccole aziende.» Prepare for the three follow-ups the examiner is most likely to ask.

1. 01Come fa a saperlo? — the evidence question

   Lo ricavo dall'inchiesta del quotidiano economico, che riporta i costi di certificazione in rapporto al fatturato; è una fonte interessata a criticare il sistema, quindi ho cercato conferma nel bilancio pubblicato da un consorzio, dove le voci di spesa sono coerenti. The answer names the source, acknowledges its bias, and says what you did about it — which is what independent research looks like in three clauses.

2. 02E il caso contrario? — the counter-case question

   Ci sono consorzi che hanno introdotto tariffe ridotte per le aziende sotto una certa dimensione, e questo indebolisce in parte la mia conclusione; direi che il problema non è la certificazione in sé, ma la sua struttura di costo. Conceding a real counter-case and then reformulating the claim more precisely is a stronger answer than defending the original wording.

3. 03Perché importa? — the significance question

   Perché tocca una contraddizione più ampia: un sistema nato per proteggere il territorio finisce per favorire chi esporta, il che si collega al divario fra le regioni, dato che i piccoli produttori sono concentrati nelle aree interne e nel Sud. This is the connection outward that the AO4 grid rewards, and it links the project to a theme of the specification without leaving the research behind.

4. 04Add the eliciting question here, not at the end

   Lei crede che questa distinzione — fra lo strumento e la sua struttura di costo — valga anche per altri strumenti di tutela? The question arises exactly where the argument reached a judgement, which is what the interaction grid means by naturally and appropriately at different points in the conversation.

5. 05Rehearse the honest formula once

   If asked something you did not check — how many consortia have introduced reduced fees, for instance — say so and then give what you do have: questo non l'ho quantificato, ma nelle fonti che ho consultato ne ho trovati due, quindi non posso dire se sia una tendenza. Saying non posso dire is a stronger answer than a guess, and it protects everything else you have said.

Result: One finding, prepared against three predictable follow-ups — evidence, counter-case, significance — with an eliciting question placed at the point of judgement and an honest formula rehearsed for the fact that was not checked.