This assessment comprises 90% of module marks

Requirements

Electronic copy in MS Word submitted through Turnitin by 4pm Friday 22 September

Format of the dissertation

Title page: The individual project cover should bear the author’s surname and initials, the course name, title and the year of submission.

As well as the main body of text, there should be:

Abstract: Up to 300 words maximum

Contents page

Reference list: In alphabetical order using Harvard format

Optional components

Acknowledgements: You may wish to thank people or organisations who have been helpful completing your individual project

Glossary: If you use lots of acronyms or technical terms in the thesis this might be useful

List of tables and figures: If you have them

Appendices: As necessary. Appendices should be used for supporting material that is not appropriate to use in the main text, e.g. a copy of a blank questionnaire, a list of organisations approached, extracts from tables of published data. Do not include complete interview transcripts unless there is a very good reason (just because you have done them and it makes it thicker isn’t one of them).

Layout: The margins at the binding (left hand) edge should be not less than 25 mm and other margins not less than 20 mm. Line spacing should be ‘1.5’, except for any indented quotations or footnotes, where single line spacing should be used. The font should be 11 or 12 point except for headings and titles.

All pages, including tables and appendices should be numbered consecutively throughout the work. Tables and figures should be included as near as possible to the relevant passage of text, and numbered separately in the order of their appearance within the document.

Abbreviations should be given in brackets on the occasion of their first use e.g. Department for International Development (DFID).

Word Count: The main body of the text should be 15,000 words long. The word count includes everything that is in the main body of the text. This means that it:

Does include:

Does not include:

The references that appear in the text

Any tables and figures in the text, including their legends

Title page

Abstract

Contents table

Reference list / Bibliography

Any of the optional items, such as:

Acknowledgements

Appendices

Glossary

List of tables and figures

It is considered part of the discipline of the Dissertation to work within this word limit, and there are penalties for not doing so as indicated in the criteria below.

Some warnings

If you are pasting in figures or images watch out for the file size. You don’t want to crash Turnitin while uploading 5 minutes before the deadline. You have been warned!

Use your student account and cloud storage. Keep regular back-ups, and if you are switching between different computers (e.g. PC and Mac) make sure text doesn’t get corrupted or lost

Remember IT failure or lost files is not a valid excuse for mitigation or lateness

You must keep your Turnitin receipt to provide evidence that you submitted the work

Assessment 2 Dissertation: Marking Criteria

DOMAINS

100 – 86 Distinction

85 – 70 Distinction

69 – 60 Merit

59 – 50 Pass

49 – 40 Fail

39 – 30 Fail

29 – 15 Fail

14 – 0 Fail

Abstract

Detailed and precise abstract, with academic context and objectives of the study, theoretical approach taken, key findings and their relevance to theory and subject area.

Clear abstract informs the reader of the background and objectives of the study, approach taken, findings and their relevance to the subject area.

Good abstract but some gaps in information provided, or areas where it is not as clear or precise as it could be.

Abstract broadly introduces the work, but with inconsistencies or is over-focused on one area and omitting others.

Inadequate abstract, lacking a logical structure, or with content missing and limited overall relevance to the work which follows.

Unsatisfactory abstract which is too brief or does not adequately cover or link the elements of the work.

Very limited abstract which is too brief or fails to link the elements of the work.

Abstract non-existent or completely fails to represent the body of the work.

Theory and Knowledge

Demonstrates complex, independent, and insightful critique of a range of concepts, theoretical approaches and debates that could not be improved upon at this level, recognizing and evaluating their contested nature.

Demonstrates complex understanding and critique of concepts, theoretical approaches, and debates, recognizing and evaluating their contested nature with only minor improvements possible.

Demonstrates good understanding of concepts, theoretical approaches, and debates, showing knowledge of their contested nature. Some omissions and inconsistencies and a number of areas of improvement possible

Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of concepts, theoretical approaches, and debates. Limited recognition of their contested nature, or with a number of omission and inconsistencies that require significant improvement.

Demonstrates insufficient understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches, and debates. Key elements are missed with little recognition of their contested nature.

Demonstrates unsatisfactory understanding of concepts, theoretical approaches, and debates, with very little appreciation of their contested nature

Demonstrates a very limited awareness and understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches, and debates.

Fails to demonstrate any awareness or understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches, and debates.

Critical analysis and application

Demonstrates insightful, in-depth, and sophisticated critical analysis and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to current debates, developing or applying new knowledge or applying knowledge in a new way.

Demonstrates detailed critical analysis and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to current debates, supporting robust conclusions.

Demonstrates good evidence of critical analysis and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to support conclusions, but with some omissions or lack of clarity.

Demonstrates some good critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches, although descriptive in places, and with clear omissions, errors, and lack of clarity.

Demonstrates inadequate critical analysis and understanding of key concepts and theoretical approaches. Overly descriptive with weak conclusions.

Demonstrates unsatisfactory, poorly informed, and inadequate critical thinking. Largely descriptive and lacks clear understanding of key concepts and theoretical approaches and their consistent application.

Demonstrates unsatisfactory, invalid, and inadequate critical thinking application. Descriptive with limited evidence to support conclusions.

No critical thinking nor engagement with key concepts and theoretical approaches. Wholly descriptive and no conclusions.

Research & Information Literacy

The selection and depth of critical engagement with the source material and literature is excellent, comprehensive, nuanced, and extensive.

Demonstrates a comprehensive approach and engagement, with the critical use of research and scholarly sources which fully support the analysis.

Good depth of engagement with source material and literature. Research and scholarly sources are relevant and support the analysis, although could be more comprehensive.

Satisfactory understanding and engagement with literature, which is mostly appropriate, although may be limited or rely on core texts or non-academic sources.

Insufficient evidence of engagement with the key source material or literature. Over reliance on core texts or non-academic sources.

Limited evidence of research and use of appropriate academic sources, or research is not relevant, adequate, nor supports the analysis.

Very limited evidence of information literacy, with poor selection of source material.

No evidence of information literacy, with little or no research, or use of sources and research that lack any relevance to the analysis.

Structure and focus

Excellent focus on all elements of the assessment’s aim, scope and learning outcomes throughout.

An excellent structure that could not be improved at this level. It is logical, balanced, and develops a comprehensive and insightful argument.

Clear focus on the assessment’s aim, scope and learning outcomes.

A very strong structure that is logical and balanced, developing a convincing argument.

Addresses the aim, scope and learning outcomes of the assessment.

A very good structure, although there could be some improvements to ensure a logical, balanced and fully developed argument.

Mainly focused on the assessment and learning outcomes but occasionally wanders from the point.

A good structure although it needs could be strengthened to ensure a more logical and balanced analysis.

Insufficient focus on the assessment title and outcomes, with the topic only superficially addressed.

Structure requires improvement to provide a more logical and balanced analysis.

Minimal focus on the assessment and outcomes demonstrated.

A poor structure that is not logical or balanced.

Only intermittent connection to the assessment, with the topic only superficially addressed.

The work is not structured in any meaningful way.

Little or no connection to title and assessment outcomes with little or no consideration of the topic.

Structure lacking or entirely inappropriate.

Communication and expression

Fluent and nuanced communication with engaging and appropriate academic English expression that could not be improved upon at this level.

Excellent communication and appropriate academic expression with only minor areas of improvement needed.

Very good communication with mostly appropriate academic expression and use of English, although may lack clarity or consistency in some areas.

Satisfactory communication although some areas where academic expression, English and clarity could be improved upon.

Communication requires improvement, with some consistent issues owing to lack of clarity or academic English expression.

Communication is confused, with a lack of clarity and academic expression. Poorly written in parts with deficiencies in use of English.

Lacks cohesion, clarity & academic expression throughout. Poor quality writing with significant deficiencies in English.

No coherence or clarity and failure to meet academic level of expression. Very poor quality of academic writing and standards of English.

Academic Practice

All resources are referenced correctly in Harvard style, with no omissions or inaccuracies in the text or bibliography.

Attribution of work, quotes and paraphrasing fully in line with expectations and guidelines provided.

All resources correctly referenced in Harvard style, with only very minor omissions or inaccuracies in the text or bibliography.

Attribution of work, quotes and paraphrasing in line with expectations and guidelines provided.

Resources used are referenced in Harvard style, but with some omissions or inaccuracies in the text or bibliography.

Attribution of work, quotes and paraphrasing in line with expectations and guidelines provided.

Resources are referenced in Harvard Style, but with inconsistencies, errors and omissions in text and bibliography.

Some minor areas where attribution of work, quotes and paraphrasing does not fully meet expectations and guidelines.

Referencing is inadequate, with significant and consistent inaccuracies in the use of the Harvard system.

Over reliance in places of other work through excessive quotes or limited paraphrasing which does not meet expectations and guidelines.

Unsatisfactory referencing in text and bibliography or does not follow Harvard guidelines.

Unacceptable use of other work without attribution, which does not meet University Academic Integrity expectations.

Very little referencing of resources (in text and bibliography) or does not follow Harvard guidelines.

Unacceptable widespread use of other work without attribution, which does not meet University Academic Integrity expectations.

Little or no referencing either in text or in a bibliography.

Extensive and unacceptable use of other work without attribution, which does not meet University Academic Integrity expectations.

Substantiveness

Meets expectations (time or word count) within 10% – no penalty applied

Does not meet expectations:

± 10-19% 5 mark penalty; ± 20-29% 10 mark penalty; ± 30-39% 15 mark penalty; ± 40-49% 25mark penalty; ± 50-59% 30 mark penalty; > 60% 0 marks awarded

Timeliness

Meets deadline – no penalty applied

Does not meet deadline and no mitigation in place: 5 marks for each working day up to 9 days (= 45 marks).

10 or more days late – 0 marks