UNIT GUIDE 2016/2017
POLI30020 How to Win a Political Argument
Teaching Block: 2
Weeks: 13-24
Unit Owner:
Phone:
Email:
Office:
Dr. Jonathan Floyd
0117 3310981 (but better to use email)
[email protected]
G.02, 3 Priory Road
Level:
Credit points:
Prerequisites:
Curriculum area:
Unit owner
office
hours:
Tuesdays 12-1pm & Thursdays 4-5pm
(Scheduled office hours do not run during reading weeks)
H/6
20
None
NA
Timetabled classes:
Lecture: Tuesdays, 11-12pm, Arts Complex: Villa 17 Woodland Road: Lecture Theatre 3
You are also expected to attend one two-hour seminar each week. Your online personal timetable will inform
you to which group you have been allocated. Seminar groups are fixed: you are not allowed to change
seminar groups without permission from the office.
Weeks 18 and 24 are Reading Weeks; there is NO regular teaching in these weeks.
In addition to timetabled sessions there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and assessments.
Reading the required readings in advance of each seminar is the minimum expectation. The University
Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student input.
Learning Outcomes
•
•
•
•
Produce sophisticated written political arguments
Produce sophisticated verbal political arguments
Demonstrate an appreciation of the relevance of truth to persuasive political argument
Demonstrate an appreciation of the relevance of political argument to political practice
Requirements for passing the unit:
•
•
•
Satisfactory attendance at seminars
Completion of all formative work to an acceptable standard
Attainment of a composite mark of all summative work to a passing standard (40 or above)
Details of coursework and deadlines
Assessment:
Summative Presentation
Word count:
N/A: 5
minutes
2500 words
Weighting: Deadline:
25%
Week 20 – date TBC
Day:
TBC
Week:
20
Summative Essay
75%
9.30am, 22/05/2017 Monday
SE3
• Summative essay questions will be made available on the unit’s blackboard page.
• Instructions for the submission of coursework can be found in Appendix A
• Assessment in the school is subject to strict penalties regarding late submission, plagiarism and
maximum word count. A summary of key regulations is in Appendix B.
• Marking criteria can be found in Appendix C.
1
Overview
If Socrates and the Sophists had ever found grounds for compromise, almost two and a half
thousand years ago, then it would look something this: A course concerned with making you better
at persuasive political argument, whilst also inviting reflections on how much the ‘truth’ matters in
such things. Each week we will consider a different set of political arguments by prominent public
figures on a particular issue, such as war, taxation, or discrimination. Each week we will analyse
these arguments and see if general lessons can be learnt regarding the art of public political
persuasion. Each week we will construct our own arguments during workshop-based seminars.
Each week, as a result, we will enhance your ability to construct and deliver political arguments, in
both written and verbal form, including your ability to discern when, if ever, it makes good
rhetorical sense to begin four sentences in a row with the same phrase, e.g. ‘each week’.
Now here’s a little quote to get us going…
‘Don’t tell me words don’t matter. I have a dream – just words. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal – just words. We have nothing to fear but fear itself – just words, just speeches. It’s true that
speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is that if we can’t inspire our country to believe again, then it
doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have, and that is why I’m running for president of the United States of
America, and that’s why we just won 8 elections straight because the American people want to believe in change
again. Don’t tell me words don’t matter!’ (Barack Obama, 2008). See here for this and a few further notable passages.
Assessments
As indicated above, there are two assessments for this course: First, a presentation; second, an
essay. The presentation will take the form of a five minute speech, accompanied by a power-point
presentation. The essay will be a 2500-word piece of work concerned with either the relevance of
truth to political argument or the relevance of argument to political practice.
Activities
Each week there will be three elements to this course. First, a lecture on some or other aspect of
‘how to win a political argument’. Second, a cluster of readings, or indeed viewings, all of which
will be available on-line so as to best reproduce the modus operandi of someone whose work it is
to produce successful political arguments week-in week-out. Third, a two-hour ‘workshop’ style
seminar concerned with producing a particular kind of political argument.
In addition, you are expected to watch Prime Minister’s Question Time 1 each week, and to prepare
a few thoughts on it for the start of our seminars (an archive of past sessions, including the most
recent ones, can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/parliament-governmentand-politics/parliament/prime-ministers-questions/). It’s on every Wednesday whilst The Commons
is in session. You’re also encouraged to watch as much of the BBC’s The Daily Politics as you can
manage, and to read as much of the last year of Private Eye as you can handle (I’ve ordered three
copies of the ‘annual’ into the library on a 1-day loan setting).
General Reading
There is no set text for this course, just as there is no course-pack. The point is to have everything
freely available, and available wherever you are, whether in the seminars or in transit. In this way,
as in others, you are prepared for a life of real political argument. You might though find the
following collections useful if you want to browse through notable speeches. For separate
discussion of either the place of truth in argument or the place of argument in politics, see the
further reading listed under weeks 22 and 23.
21 speeches that changed the world
American Speeches
1
For info, see here: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/questions/
2
British 19th century Pamphlets collection (inc. eg. Here)
British Political Speech (a brilliant archive)
Daily Telegraph’s ‘Top 25 speeches of all time’
History Place collection of speeches
New Statesman Top 10 speeches
Political Speeches by women
Speechwriters choose their favourite speeches
Weekly schedule
Week 13 - Introduction
Lecture: An Overview of the course
Reading Topic: War, pt. 1 (what could be more important than making the case for/against war?)
Seminar: Speech writing for the masses
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows:
In favour…
Hilary Benn on Syria: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/dec/03/hilary-bennairstrikes-vote-speech-full-must-confront-isis-evil-video
David Cameron on Syria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX8irawWdMc
Thatcher on the Falklands: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104948
Thatcher on Bosnia: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108346
Against…
Dahlia Wasfi on Iraq, pt. 1 and 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLolNj48IP8 and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELjgVq6GtPA
Robin Cook on Iraq: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE&t=148s (look who’s sitting
behind him!)
Martin Luther King on Vietnam: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html
Further suggested reading/viewing:
A ‘very quiet’ Thatcher, in video, and on the Falklands again
Gandhi - ‘Let no one commit a wrong in anger’
Churchill - ‘We shall fight them on the beaches’
Obama – ‘A new beginning’ (Nobel-prize winning no less; transcript available here)
Valera – Ireland neutrality speech and rebuke to Churchill (1945) – text here - (good analogy use
for week 16). See also earlier statement on neutrality from 1941. See here for context.
Week 14 - How to win a political argument (the expert’s view)
Lecture: A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma
Reading Topic: War, pt. 2
Seminar: Insults and Injuries
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows:
Hitchens vs. Hitchens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjQs_QjSwc
Hitchens vs. Galloway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLKQGwVkczg
Galloway vs. The Senate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4LDQixpCa8&t=37s
Further suggested reading/viewing:
3
Just a little more from ‘Gorgeous George’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKp-3jWABL8
Brief exchange between Kinnock and Thatcher
Osama Bin Laden – your security is in your own hands
An array of insults. Here, here and here.
Week 15 - Rhetoric, pt. 1: Macro-level argument - Progressive vs. Traditional Narratives
Lecture: The Politics of Hope and Fear
Reading Topic: Neoliberalism and its discontents
Seminar: The Priory Road Manifesto
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows:
Thatcher – The Lady’s not for turning
Barry Goldwater – Extremism in the defence of liberty
Kinnock – I warn you there will be pain
Kinnock – no such thing as society, she says
Further suggested reading/viewing:
On discontent with neoliberalism, see this article by George Monbiot, this article by Remi Adekoya
and this video by Mark Blyth (which if nothing else is a great feat of monologue). Here’s a final
riposte from Thatcher, capturing neatly a cornerstone of the neoliberal view.
For grand narratives that continue to shape our world, see:
Kruschev - Stalin and the cult of the individual (transforming the Soviet Union)
Nehru – A new star rises (giving birth to modern India)
Churchill – The iron curtain (inaugurating the Cold War)
David Ben-Gurion – this is our native land (Formative expression of Zionism)
Nasser – one of many speeches expressing ‘Arab nationalism’
Harold Ickes – what constitutes an American (Why America should join WW2 with Britain)
Jesus of Nazareth – blessed are the meek (inaugurating Christianity)
Week 16 - Rhetoric, pt. 2: Micro-level argument - Analogies, Anchor points, and
Catchphrases
Lecture: Penetrating Polemic
Reading Topic: Discrimination
Seminar: The campaign poster that changes everything
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows:
Pankhurst – Freedom or Death
Mandela – An ideal for which I am prepared to die
Angelina Grimke – the spirit of slavery is here
Macauley – England to the Jews has been less than half a country
Enoch powell – Rivers of blood
Elizabeth Cady Stanton – The male element is a destructive force
Sojourner Truth – I want women to have their rights and also ‘Ain’t I a woman?’
Desmond Tutu – ‘apartheid’s final solution’ (how’s that for an analogy?)
Further suggested reading/viewing:
JS Mill – Suffrage for Women (couldn’t resist putting a theorist in here too; could you say this in
five minutes I wonder?)
4
See also, on campaign posters:
Some of the best; a few more; and perhaps we should do something like this?
Week 17 - Rhetoric, pt. 3: Personal credibility & the wonders of ad hominem
Lecture: The political and the personal
Reading Topic: Taxes, Elites, and Oppression
Seminar: Pick the next Prime Minister
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows:
Consider the following run of coverage on Cameron and the Panama tax affair:
(and note that it’s all provided by The Guardian)
Start here (08/04/2016)
Then go here (09/04/2016)
Then here (11/04/2016)
Then here (also 11/04/2016)
And finally here (12/04/2016)
Now consider this attempt to make John Major credible, followed by this striking coverage of the
day before the election. Did the attempt work?
How did this play out? What went well? What went badly?
Further suggested reading/viewing:
Mark Blyth, concerned with wider credibility issues related to this: ‘the credibility problem is
enormous’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfRImQV4Arc
Another take on ‘tax-dodging’ (just a 1 minute video!)
Karen Brady – this is mainly fun for the rhetorical invocation of a dog, but is also very on-trend
invocation of ‘taxpayers’. See also The Taxpayers alliance (though note – the latter is only
tangentially relevant to our theme of ‘personal credibility’ this week).
Week 18: Reading week
Week 19: The Power of the Visual
Lecture: Images that make a difference
Reading Topic…actually it’s an extra task this week: Find an image that ‘made a difference’, put it
in a one-page power-point presentation, and present it in 1 minute to the group. Tell us: Why this
image? What difference did it make?
Seminar: The campaign video that changes everything
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows
Here’s a very good site – a repository of iconic photos – that you could use to complete your extra
task this week, as explained above.
Beyond these photos, look at the below, and note that you might find some of the following
images disturbing
Did the 3 million views this gathered get Trump the presidency? (Is it all about the piano music?)
Coverage of boy washed up on beach
The vulture and the girl
Nazis meet the Nation of Islam
Cameron eats a hot dog
Ten US presidential campaign videos (my favourite is ‘daisy girl’)
5
Could this be applied to politics?
The first four of these, plus Pistorius, are all about credibility, one way or another.
Saving the world in speedos
Do also bear in mind this week the visual force of ISIS ‘beheadings’. I won’t be linking to those, but
do think about the effect they have.
Further reading:
Consider further the propaganda battle between ISIS and ‘RICU’. You might not have heard of the
latter, but see here, here, here, and here. Not all of this is visual, but a large part of it is, including
the beheadings mentioned above. How, with imagery, can you campaign for or against something
like ISIS? Feel free also to browse this archive of Trump campaign videos.
Week 20: Speech week
Lecture & Seminar: The House of Uncommons
This week you will each give your political speech (assessed presentation) in front of the group.
There are no essential readings/viewings for this week. You are rather advised to draw inspiration
from the speeches and videos included above, as well as the material covered in our lectures so
far. Each of you is required to attend everybody else’s speeches. Calls of ‘here here’ and ‘order’
are optional.
Week 21: Legalism and Blame
Lecture: The battle between law and democracy
Reading Topic: The Welfare State: When official paperwork makes a difference
Seminar: The petition that changes everything
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows:
The ‘Beveridge Report’: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_07_05_beveridge.pdf
Further suggested reading/viewing:
Vladimir Putin – ‘Crimea has been an inseparable part of Russia’ (with BBC annotations)
Castro – History will absolve me
Maclean – I am here as the accuser of capitalism
Xi Xinping – responsibility to the people
Consider also both Mandela and Galloway (here in brief) from earlier weeks.
Week 22: The power of truth
Lecture: Facts and beyond
Reading topic: Post-truth
Seminar: The Crib-sheet of doom
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows:
Michael Moore – we live in fictitious times (very brief, but the phrasing is very good)
Toni Morrison – Is the bird I am holding living or dead? (some analysis here)
Further suggested reading/viewing – the point of the further reading this week is to provide a good
starting point for your summative essay, whether it’s on the relevance of truth to argument (this
week’s topic), or the relevance of argument to politics (next week’s). You are not expected to rely
upon this material, or restrict yourself to it, but I hope it will be helpful, at least as a starting point. I
6
have organised the following readings into categories, in order to render them that little bit more
helpful.
Guidance on how to produce rhetoric
Aristotle (1991) The Art of Rhetoric (London: Penguin) [bear in mind there are many other, and
free, versions of this] [Arts & Social Sciences library: PA3893.R3]
Cicero (w. James May), How to win an argument: An ancient guide to the art of persuasion
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) [Queen’s Building library, no classmark yet]
R. Dowis (2000), The lost art of the great speech: How to write one and how to deliver it (New
York, NY: Amacom Books)
J. Heinrichs (2010), Winning arguments: From Aristotle to Obama – everything you need to know
about the art of persuasion (London: Penguin).
S. Leith (2011), You talkin’ to me? Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama (London: Profile Books) [Arts
& Social Sciences library: P301 LEI]
A. Schopenhauer (w. AC Grayling) (2011), The Art of Always Being Right: The 38 subtle ways of
persuasion (London: Gibson Square)
Tacitus, On Oratory (this is a rather difficult dialogue, so don’t look into this unless you’re very
dedicated…nonetheless, if you have the stamina for it, click here)
Critical analysis of rhetoric, including the presupposition that the truth ‘matters’
Arendt – ‘Totalitarian propaganda’, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, London: Harvest (1973), 341364 [Arts & Social Sciences library: JC481 ARE]
J. Atkins, A. Finlayson, J. Martin, N. Turnbull (2014), Rhetoric in British Politics and Society
(London: Palgrave) [an edited collection with various interesting essays]. Access here.
J. Baggini (2010) Do they think you’re stupid? 100 ways of spotting spin and nonsense from the
media, pundits, and politicians (London: Granta)
A. Beard (2000), The Language of Politics (London: Routledge):
http://pmt-eu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44BU_VU1:default_scope:44BU_LMS_DS000984617
J. Charteris-Black (2005), Politicians and Rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor:
http://pmteu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44BU_VU1:default_scope:44BU_LMS_DS000984732
I. Fairclough & N. Fairclough (2012), Political Discourse Analysis: A method for advanced students
(London: Routledge)
N. Fairclough (2000), New Labour, New Language? (London: Routledge, 2000) [Arts and Social
Sciences library: P95.8 FAI]
N. Fairclough (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research (London:
Routledge) [Arts and Social Sciences library: P302 FAI; also available here]
[Note: there are various books of use by Isabelle/Norman Fairclough, several of which are in the
library, if for some reason you can’t access any of the above]
J. Greene (2013), Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the gap between us and them (London:
Atlantic Books).
Haidt, J, ‘What makes people vote republican?’
J. Mearsheimer (2012), Why Leaders Lie: The truth about lying in international politics (London:
Duckworth)
I. McLean (2001). Rational Choice and British Politics: an analysis of rhetoric and manipulation
from Peel to Blair (Oxford: OUP) [Arts and Social Sciences library: DA566.7 MAC; also available
here]
J. Powell (2010), The New Machiavelli: How to wield power in the modern world (London: Bodley
Head). See esp. pp. 33-56; 121-122; 139-146; 173-174; 191-192.
A.O. Rorty (1996), Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric (London: University of California Press) [this
includes an essay on how much the truth matters) [Arts & Social Sciences library: PA3903 ESS]
J. Stanley (2015), How Propaganda Works (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
R. Toye & J. Gottlieb (2005). Making Reputations: power, persuasion and the individual in modern
British politics (London: Tauris) [Arts and Social Sciences library: JN231 MAK]
7
R. Toye (2013), Rhetoric: A very short introduction (Oxford: OUP).
See also regular reporting in Private Eye regarding how consistent particular actors are in their
arguments, and the extent to which their arguments and actions are bound up with particular
interests, back-room deals, and so on. I have ordered three copies of the Private Eye annual into
the library with this in mind.
Soaring expressions of rhetoric, from left and right (and note: there’s plenty more by Hitchens and
Scruton, not to mention Orwell, if you’re interested – the point with these five is to consider the
more sophisticated way in which they argue, as compared to the politicians they like to critique]
C. Hitchens (2001) Letters to a young contrarian (New York, NY: Basic Books)
C. Hitchens (2012). Arguably (London: Atlantic Books)
G. Orwell (1937). The Road to Wigan Pier (various editions) [PR6029.R8.R6]
R. Scruton (2012) The Uses of Pessimism & The Danger of False Hope (London: Atlantic Books)
R. Scruton (2016) Fools and firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (London: Bloomsbury)
An ideal world of rhetoric
D. Braddon-Mitchell & C. West (2004), 'What is Free Speech?', Journal of Political Philosophy, 12.
S. Chambers (2004) ‘Behind closed doors: Publicity, secrecy, and the quality of deliberation’.
Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4), pp.389-410.
J. Cohen (2009) Philosophy, Politics, Democracy. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Dryzek, J.S., 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations (Oxford:
OUP). [Arts and Social Sciences library: JC423 DRY]
N. Cohen (2013). You can’t read this book: Censorship in an age of freedom (London: Fourth
Eestate)
R. Dworkin ‘Free Speech, Politics and the Dimensions of Democracy’ in Sovereign Virtue,
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2000) [Arts and Social Sciences library: JC575 DWO]
J. Elster (1998). Deliberative democracy: Vol. 1 (Cambridge: CUP) [Arts and Social Sciences
library: JC423 DEL].
S. Freeman (2000) ‘Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment’. Philosophy & Public Affairs,
29(4), 371-418.
T. Garton-Ash (2016). Free Speech: Ten principles for a connected world (London: Atlantic)
A. Gutmann & D. Thompson (2009). Why deliberative democracy?. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press).
J. Habermas (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) [Arts and Social Sciences library: JC423 HAB]
I. Hampsher-Monk (2011), ‘Politics, Political Theory, and its History’, in J. Floyd & M. Stears (eds.)
Political Philosophy versus History: Contextualism and Real Politics in Contemporary Political
Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [Arts and Social Sciences library: JA78 POL]
I. Hare and J. Weinstein (eds.) (2009) Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University
Press) [Wills Memorial library: KM204 EXT]
J.K. Miles (2012) ‘A Perfectionist Defense of Free Speech’, Social Theory and Practice, 38.
J. Rawls (2005). Political Liberalism (New York, NY: Columbia University Press) – political
liberalism (especially the last essay on ‘the idea of public reason revisited’) [Arts and Social
Sciences library: JC578 RAW]
R. Rorty (1989). Contingency, irony, solidarity [Arts and Social Sciences library: BD21 ROR]
[especially the material on how one converts people by sharing instances of cruelty/suffering]
J, Waldron (2012) The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)
[available here]
M. Walzer (1994). Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame, ID:
University of Notre Dame Press) [Arts and Social Sciences library: HM277 WAL]
M. Walzer (1989). The company of critics: social criticism and political commitment in the twentieth
century (London: Peter Halban) [Arts and Social Sciences library: JA83 WAL]
8
N. Warburton (2009). Free Speech: A very short introduction (Oxford: OUP)
Week 23: The power of argument
Lecture: House of Lords or House of Cards?
Reading Topic: The Black Panthers
Seminar: Explaining the world – ideas versus interests
Essential readings/viewings, to be completed before the seminar, are as follows:
This BBC radio documentary on The Black Panthers
This manifesto, as discussed in the documentary above.
Further readings:
The current register of UK MPs financial interests – click on the latest version available on this
page (they update it each month).
9
Appendix A
Instructions on how to submit essays electronically
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Log in to Blackboard and select the Blackboard course for the unit you are submitting work for. If you
cannot see it, please e-mail [email protected] with your username and ask to be added.
Click on the "Submit Work Here" option at the top on the left hand menu and then find the correct
assessment from the list.
Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure that you
have selected both the correct unit and the correct piece of work.
The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter your name (for FORMATIVE
ASSESSMENTS ONLY) or candidate number (for SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) as a
submission title, and then select the file that you wish to upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click
on the ‘upload’ button at the bottom.
You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct essay and
click the ‘Submit’ button. This step must be completed or the submission is not complete.
You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and a copy
sent to your email address for your records.
Important notes
• You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that all parts of
your work – references, bibliography etc. – are included in one single document and that you upload
the correct version. You will not be able to change the file once you have uploaded.
• Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work submitted in .rtf
(Rich Text Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use another word processing
package, please ensure you save in a compatible format.
• By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on plagiarism and
confirm that the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the word count stated on the
essay is an accurate statement of essay length.
• If Blackboard is not working email your assessment to [email protected] with the unit code and
title in the subject line.
How to confirm that your essay has been submitted
• You will have received a digital receipt by email and If you click on the assessment again (steps 14), you will see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If you click on
submit, you will not be able to submit again. This table also displays the date of submission. If you
click on the title of the essay, it will open in a new window and you can also see what time the essay
was submitted.
10
Appendix B
Summary of Relevant School Regulations
(Further information is in the year handbook)
Attendance at classes
SPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an essential part
of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, have done the required reading and
participate fully. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of
illness or for other exceptional reasons.
If you are unable to attend a seminar you must inform your seminar tutor, as well as email [email protected]. You should also provide evidence to explain your absence, such as a selfcertification and/or medical note, counselling letter or other official document. If you are unable to
provide evidence then please still email [email protected] to explain why you are unable
to attend. If you are ill or are experiencing some other kind of difficulty which is preventing you from
attending seminars for a prolonged period, please inform your personal tutor, the Undergraduate
Office or the Student Administration Manager.
Requirements for credit points
In order to be awarded credit points for the unit, you must achieve:
• Satisfactory attendance in classes, or satisfactory completion of catch up work in lieu of poor
attendance
• Satisfactory formative assessment
• An overall mark of 40 or above in the summative assessment/s. In some circumstances, a
mark of 35 or above can be awarded credit points.
Presentation of written work
Coursework must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or
Times New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double–space or single–space your essays as you
prefer. Your tutor will let you know if they have a preference.
All pages should be numbered.
Ensure that the essay title appears on the first page.
All pages should include headers containing the following information:
Formative work
Name: e.g. Joe Bloggs
Unit e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count .e.g. 1500 words
Summative work
**Candidate Number**: e.g. 12345
Unit: e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor: e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count: e.g. 3000 words
Candidate numbers are required on summative work in order to ensure that marking is anonymous.
Note that your candidate number is not the same as your student number.
Assessment Length
Each piece of coursework must not exceed the stipulated maximum length for the assignment (the
‘word count’) listed in the unit guide. Summative work that exceeds the maximum length will be
subject to penalties. The word count is absolute (there is no 10% leeway, as commonly rumoured).
Five marks will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Thus, an essay
that is 1 word over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks; an essay that is 101 words over the word
limit will be penalised 10 marks, and so on.
The word count includes all text, numbers, footnotes/endnotes, Harvard referencing in the body of the
text and direct quotes. It excludes, the title, candidate number, bibliography, and appendices.
11
However, appendices should only be used for reproducing documents, not additional text written by
you.
Referencing and Plagiarism
Where sources are used they must be cited using the Harvard referencing system. Inadequate
referencing is likely to result in penalties being imposed. See the Study Skills Guide for advice on
referencing and how poor referencing/plagiarism are processed. Unless otherwise stated, essays
must contain a bibliography.
Extensions
Extensions to coursework deadlines will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. If you want to
request an extension, complete an extension request form (available at Blackboard/SPAIS_UG
Administration/forms to download and School policies) and submit the form with your evidence (e.g.
self-certification, medical certificate, death certificate, or hospital letter) to Catherine Foster in the
Undergraduate Office.
Extension requests cannot be submitted by email, and will not be considered if there is no supporting
evidence. If you are waiting for evidence then you can submit the form and state that it has been
requested.
All extension requests should be submitted at least 72 hours prior to the assessment deadline. If the
circumstance occurs after this point, then please either telephone or see the Student Administration
Manager in person. In their absence you can contact Catherine Foster in the UG Office, again in
person or by telephone.
Extensions can only be granted by the Student Administration Manager. They cannot be granted by
unit convenors or seminar tutors.
You will receive an email to confirm whether your extension request has been granted.
Submitting Essays
Formative essays
Summative essays
Unless otherwise stated, all formative essay
submissions must be submitted electronically
via Blackboard
All summative essay submissions must be
submitted electronically via Blackboard.
Electronic copies enable an efficient system of receipting, providing the student and the School with a
record of exactly when an essay was submitted. It also enables the School to systematically check
the length of submitted essays and to safeguard against plagiarism.
Late Submissions
Penalties are imposed for work submitted late without an approved extension. Any kind of
computer/electronic failure is not accepted as a valid reason for an extension, so make sure you back
up your work on another computer, memory stick or in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive or Dropbox). Also
ensure that the clock on your computer is correct.
The following schema of marks deduction for late/non-submission is applied to both formative work
and summative work:
Up to 24 hours late, or part thereof
For each additional 24 hours late, or
part thereof
Assessment submitted over one week
late
•
Penalty of 10 marks
A further 5 marks deduction for each 24 hours,
or part thereof
Treated as a non-submission: fail and mark of
zero recorded. This will be noted on your
transcript.
The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays,
12
•
•
bank holidays and university closure days.
If an essay submitted less than one week late fails solely due to the imposition of a late
penalty, then the mark will be capped at 40.
If a fail due to non-submission is recorded, you will have the opportunity to submit the essay
as a second attempt for a capped mark of 40 in order to receive credit points for the unit.
Marks and Feedback
In addition to an overall mark, students will receive written feedback on their assessed work.
The process of marking and providing detailed feedback is a labour-intensive one, with most 2-3000
word essays taking at least half an hour to assess and comment upon. Summative work also needs
to be checked for plagiarism and length and moderated by a second member of staff to ensure
marking is fair and consistent. For these reasons, the University regulations are that feedback will be
returned to students within three weeks of the submission deadline.
If work is submitted late, then it may not be possible to return feedback within the three week period.
Fails and Resits
If you fail the unit overall, you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. In units where there are
two pieces of summative assessment, you will normally only have to re-sit/resubmit the highestweighted piece of assessment.
Exam resits only take place once a year, in late August/early September. If you have to re-sit an
exam then you will need to be available during this period. If you are not available to take a resit
examination, then you will be required to take a supplementary year in order to retake the unit.
Appendix C
Level 6 Marking and Assessment Criteria (Third / Final Year)
1st (70+)
o
o
o
o
o
2:1 (60–69)
o
o
o
o
o
Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and
critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues
A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically
structured and well-supported
Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the
question’
Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and
creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument
Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors;
written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and
bibliographic formatting
Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and
fairly extensive and accurate knowledge and understanding
Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological
issues, though not always displaying an understanding of how they
link to the question
A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at
independent thinking and is sensibly structured and generally wellsupported
Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of
works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to
be selective in the range of material used, and the capacity to
synthesise rather than describe
Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors;
written clearly and concisely; fairly consistent referencing and
bibliographic formatting
13
2:2 (50–59)
o
o
o
o
o
3rd (40–49)
o
o
o
o
o
Marginal
Fail
o
o
(35–39)
o
o
o
Outright
Fail
(0–34)
o
o
o
o
o
Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some
errors and/or gaps and some awareness of underlying
theoretical/methodological issues with little understanding of how
they relate to the question
Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather
than critical;
Tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of
reason and evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical
Good attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the
unit; but displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and
non-relevant material
Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is
sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling
errors; inconsistent referencing but generally accurate bibliography.
Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and
omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key
theoretical/ methodological issues
Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a
case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but
used inappropriately or incorrectly
Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive
description
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range
of sources
Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical
and spelling errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only
referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.
Unsatisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of subject;
limited or no understanding of theoretical/methodological issues
Very little comprehension of the implications of the question and
lacking a coherent structure
Lacking any attempt at analysis and critical engagement with issues,
based on description or opinion
Little use of sources and what is used reflects a very narrow range or
are irrelevant and/or misunderstood
Unsatisfactory presentation: difficult to follow; very limited attempt at
providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and
containing bibliographic omissions
Very limited, and seriously flawed, knowledge and understanding
No comprehension of the implications of the question and no attempt
to provide a structure
No attempt at analysis
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow
range of sources
Very poorly presented: lacking any coherence, significant problems
with spelling and grammar, missing or no references and containing
bibliographic omissions
14