Video summary

Online Information Session & Training Workshop for the Tsinghua Global SDG Case Competition 2026

Main summary

Key takeaways

Educational

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons from the session

Purpose and framing of the competition

The workshop introduces the Tsinghua Global SDG Case Competition 2026 as a platform for teams worldwide to:

  • Conduct public policy case studies using real-world scenarios
  • Develop practical solutions that advance social, economic, and environmental targets aligned with the SDGs
  • Build capacity to apply public policy/MP (public management) theories to real governance challenges

Host organizations’ rationale for case-based learning

Case-based learning is presented as a bridge between:

  • Classroom theory and real public administration practice
  • Text-based knowledge and unpredictable real-world problems
  • Global concepts and China’s local governance context

The organizers emphasize outcomes such as:

  • Analyzing complex public problems
  • Decision-making under pressure
  • Ethical judgment and public values

Workshop structure (sessions covered)

  1. Welcome & introductions

    • Greetings from the Chinese academic hosts and institutions
    • Overview of schedule

  2. Competition briefing

    • Rules, registration process, timeline, milestones
    • Topic selection and report requirements (proposal + full report)

  3. SDG case reporting / writing workshop

    • How to structure the case proposal and the 8,000-word report
    • How to write a strong case narrative and integrate theory
    • Writing “dos and don’ts” and self-evaluation criteria

  4. Q&A

    • Eligibility, deadlines, fictional characters, team composition, focus level (local vs global), advisors, etc.

Competition overview: participants, eligibility, and team rules

Who can participate

The competition is open to current enrolled students globally, including:

  • Undergraduate students
  • Postgraduate students (Master’s and PhD)

Team composition

  • 1–4 members
  • A leader is required
  • Mixed backgrounds are allowed (e.g., undergrad + postgrad), with questions clarified that registration can be treated as postgraduate teams when relevant (details in Q&A)

Case submission constraints

Submissions must be:

  • Written in English
  • Based on unpublished/original research
  • Free from copyright disputes

Additional requirements:

  • The case study must be based on real-world dilemmas and field research
  • Characters should not be fictional

Team profile accuracy

  • Use official, full academic institution names
  • Team profiles cannot be altered after submission
  • Incorrect profiles may lead to temporary return of the proposal

Detailed timeline & milestones (as stated)

Registration + case proposal submission window

  • June 15 to July 20
  • Deadline: 2:00 PM Beijing time (registration + initial proposal)

Stage 1 results

  • Around July 31: announce first-round winners moving to full report stage

Full case analysis report submission

  • Deadline: September 22 at 2:00 PM Beijing time

Between September 22 and October 14:

  • Report review / reveal

  • October 14: announce finalist teams proceeding to on-site finals in Beijing

    • For international teams, may be via online platforms

Final defense and awarding ceremony

  • November 1

Submission requirements and evaluation rubrics (step-by-step)

Stage 1: Case Proposal (1,500 words)

Must include (examples of required components)

  • Case title
  • Background and controversy/dilemma
  • Objectives and significance
  • Research plan (expanded later via workshop)

Evaluation rubric (100 points total)

  • 40% Topic selection
  • 30% Case outline and dilemma
  • 30% Research and interview plan

Practical guidance emphasized

  • Include primary data / original research
  • Show research feasibility
  • Specify:
    • Who you will interview
    • Timeline
    • Research method/form
  • Demonstrate understanding of:
    • Relevant literature
    • Institutional/law/regulatory background

Stage 2: Full Case Analysis Report (8,000 words target)

Structure: two major parts + discussion questions

  • Case body (~4,500 words)
    • Chronological narrative leading to a decision point
  • Case analysis (~3,500 words)
    • Diagnosis using theory to reveal dynamics and offer recommendations
  • Discussion questions (3–5)
    • Meant to provoke debate based on the case

Evaluation rubric (100 points total; split as described)

  • Topic selection: 10 points
  • Storytelling: 30 points
  • Conflict-provoking: 20 points
  • Research methods: 10 points
  • Analysis and conclusion: 30 points

Final stage: Presentation + expert Q&A

  • Finalist teams present their work:
    • On-site at Tsinghua University (for international teams possibly online)
  • Includes:
    • Defense of case narrative, case body, case analysis
    • Live interactive Q&A with global experts

Awards mentioned

  • 1 team first prize
  • 2 teams second prize
  • 3 teams third prize
  • All finalists receive honorable mention

Publication opportunity

Strong cases may be selected for publication in the China Case Bank and also with Springer Nature (subject to peer review).

Publication partner workshop (Springer Nature)

A Springer Nature representative (book editor) covers:

  • Springer Nature’s broad academic publishing scope and many editors worldwide
  • The publishing process:
    • Submit book idea/proposal
    • Editor review and internal/external evaluation
    • Contracting and manuscript submission
    • Editorial supervision + production timeline (often 4–5 months, varies)
    • Marketing/promotion after publication
  • Manuscripts are structured into components such as:
    • Title, front matter, text body, back matter
  • Cases may be published as chapters in an edited volume (if agreed)

SDG case reporting / writing methodology (most actionable part)

Core principle: case reports are not “success stories”

A strong case:

  • Does not just praise a program’s success
  • Includes tension, stakeholder conflicts, budgetary trade-offs, and environmental constraints
  • Is described as “unsoft, shaky, pro-provocative”—deliberately engaging and controversial enough to analyze

How to craft the case proposal (Stage 1) — key method

  • Choose a specific, observable event or policy dispute (not a broad slogan)
  • Use an “event formula”:
    • Context
    • Protagonist’s facing conflict/dilemma
    • Forced choice among options (A/B/C)
  • Provide a research plan showing:
    • Primary data importance
    • Feasibility (who/when/how you interview)
    • Literature grounding and institutional background (laws/regulations/prior research)

How to write the full case analysis report (Stage 2) — structure + techniques

Part 1: Case body (narrative)

Recommended flow:

  1. Hook / setting
    • Who, where, when
    • Protagonist
    • Immediate threat/timeline
    • The dilemma
  2. Action / initial intervention
    • Describe the public policy/fiscal reform or action attempted
  3. Reaction / stakeholder backlash
    • Responses from residents, companies, NGOs, governments
    • Include citizen concerns, financial constraints, political pressures, etc.
  4. Outcome
    • May be open-ended to continue debate
    • Ends with unresolved next-step questions

Part 2: Case analysis (theory-driven diagnosis)

  • Use theory to uncover hidden causal mechanisms not obvious from the story alone
  • Theory selection guidance:
    • Avoid “too hot” (too grand/high-level) or “too cold” (too obvious/common-sense)
    • Aim for middle-range theories for governance diagnosis
  • Technique mentioned:
    • Interlock case facts with theory (e.g., discretion/street-level bureaucracy)
  • Recommendations:
    • Diagnose using theory after “zeping” (connecting) case facts and theoretical framing
    • Do more than describe—explain dynamics and propose informed recommendations

Case-writing dos and don’ts (explicit rules)

Do

  • Conduct ground observation and focus on active policy debate
  • Focus on spaces where multiple valuable social goals conflict
  • Use:
    • Past tense
    • Objective case facts
    • Sequential numbering
    • APA 7th edition citations

Don’t

  • Don’t write like a news report
  • Don’t write like a policy memo (keep narrative separate from analysis; recommendations belong in analysis)
  • Don’t use biased, value-loaded descriptions (e.g., “brilliant mayor,” “stubborn citizen”)
    • Let facts/data speak

Self-evaluation checklist (judge the quality before submission)

Confirm whether the case is:

  • Engaging, clear, people-focused (storytelling)
  • Analytically deep with sound logic
  • Uses theory appropriately and integrates it through the facts
  • Raises a genuine challenging policy dilemma
  • Includes primary research
    • Original interviews and field work

Q&A: key clarifications

  • How specific should the problem be? Prefer local and specific (hometown is fine) because you can observe deeply; still requires strong theoretical analysis.

  • How many teams/spots advance to round 2? No fixed number; depends on proposal quality.

  • Can characters be fictional? No—must be based on real-world experiences and field research.

  • Eligibility if a student graduates in July 2026? Depends on active student status at registration or during the proposal submission stage.

  • Do you need an advisor? Not required as a field; can be left blank; advisor can be anyone supporting guidance.

  • Team can be mixed universities? Yes; teammates may come from different universities.

  • Focus local vs global? Either allowed; local focus encouraged if you have strong on-the-ground observation.

  • If you can’t access the WeChat group Not required; follow the website and contact via email.

  • Need data availability proof? Providing it in the proposal is considered ideal.

  • Can the case be from past years? No strict time limit stated; can happen at varying times (no “must be recent” requirement described).

Speakers / sources featured (as named in the subtitles)

  • Simo — English Case Program Coordinator, China Case Center for Public Policy and Management (CCCPPM), Tsinghua University
  • Cha / speaker with PowerPoint — China Case Center for Public Policy and Management host presentation (title not explicitly clear in subtitles)
  • Penny Posu — Tsinghua SDG Institute (co-host)
  • Jennifer (Lio Junjun) — TAS / Chinua University Science Park (sponsor)
  • Leslie Chen (Charu) — Mata Eco (supporting partner/sponsor)
  • Johnny Huan — Global SDGs and Leadership Development Center (GSLDC) (honorable international academic partner)
  • Emily — Springer Nature (book editor / representative)
  • Mr. Francisco Gary — mentioned as elite advisory council leader (World Intellectual Property Organization former Director General)
  • Mr. Zahuling — mentioned as elite advisory council leader (International Telecommunication Union former Secretary-General)
  • UNITAR — referenced as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research
  • Global Youth Leadership Development Center (GYC) — referenced as a nonprofit youth leadership organization
  • UN agencies / institutions mentioned — WHO, WTO, UNESCO, UNDP, ITU, ILO/UNP (as mentioned), UNIDO, Asian Development Bank, ADB/AI[B] (as spoken), World Bank (as examples)

Original video