UNIT GUIDE 2016/17
SOCI20032 Goffman, the Self and Interaction
Teaching Block: 2
Unit Owner:
Phone:
Email:
Office
Unit owner
office hours:
Weeks: 13-24
Dr. Kieran Flanagan
Level:
0117 954 5565
Credit points:
[email protected]
Prerequisites:
G3. 3 Priory Road
Curriculum area:
Mondays 15:00 – 16:00pm and Thursdays 14:00 – 15:00pm
I/5
20
None
N/A
Scheduled office hours do not run during reading weeks, though you can still contact tutors
for advice by email and to arrange individual appointments
Timetabled classes:
Lecture:
Mondays 12:00 – 13:00pm
Seminars: Tuesdays 9:00 – 11:00am
Wednesdays 11:00am – 13:00pm
Room G.02, 10 Priory Road
Room 1G6, 12 Woodland Road
Room LG3, 10 Priory Road
You are expected to attend ONE 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
 Demonstrate an understanding of Goffman’s style and focus in ways that mark his distinctive
sociological properties
 To apply his concepts to areas of hazard involving the presentation of the self in everyday life in a
variety of settings
 To understand the moral basis of his contributions to understanding the self, the role and its realisation
in contemporary society
 To grasp his sociological debts to Simmel and Durkheim and to show how Goffman exploits their
concepts.
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)
1
Details of coursework and deadlines
Assessment:
Word count: Weighting: Deadline:
Day:
Formative - essay 1,500 words
0%
9:30am on 8 March 2017 Weds
Summative 3,000 words 100%
9:30am on 25 May 2017 Thurs
essay




Week:
19
Summer Assessment
Period
Summative essay questions will be made available on the SOCI20032 Blackboard site.
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.
Teaching arrangements:
There is one lecture and one two hour seminar each week. Students are expected to attend the lectures after
which a detailed summary will be given out.
For tutorials, a method built up over the years of teaching Goffman is used. This involves dividing students
into groups of four, where each summarise an article – advice is given at the first tutorial. Taking it in turn, one
collates the four and gives me a copy. I will make up copies for the whole tutorial. These are really exercises
in the art of précis but also in working together. The outcome is that we cover all the compass points of
Goffman and students become immersed in how to write on him. At the end of the course, the students have
a really good bank of material and know well what to read and look for in the case of Goffman – no mean feat!
We will work out a schedule for the whole semester in the first seminar. I want to mix this method with a bit
more practical work, notably of exploring how Goffman’s concepts arise in a bafflingly wide area of application.
I look forward to taking soundings on what topics you would like to explore further.
Unit aims




To explore the writings of a uniquely influential sociologist and have a sound grasp of his texts
To understand the context of Goffman’s work and his intellectual debts
To develop the sociological imagination in ways which facilitate understanding of the applications
of Goffman’s conceptual arsenal
To decipher the nuances of a complex sociological thinker
Transferable skills




Team work and collaborative presentations
Ability to develop library based sources and journal articles in areas pertinent to Goffman
To write clearly and concisely
To speak up in a group situation (seminar) and defend your own views
Development and feedback



Acquisition of a sense of working together handling a complex sociologist
Feedback on the formative essay – all students are expected to see the unit owner about their
essay – as far as possible in office hours or by arrangement outside these. The purpose is to go
over the essay and pick up points for improvement. The meetings will be constructive, the aim
being to work out good aspects of the essay and to find scope for producing something even
better on the summative essay.
Much concern with the formative essay will be about issues of bibliographical initiative, bright
ideas pursued, arguing on paper and the utilisation of critical wits.
2
Unit Description:
This unit, one of the few in the United Kingdom is mainly concerned with Goffman’s earlier writings, those
which have had the greatest impact in sociology. Although his earlier writings were completed by the end
of the 1960s, Goffman is one of the few American sociologists whose reputation has endured, if not
greatly expanded since then. As Thomas Scheff has observed, ‘Erving Goffman is probably the most
widely read sociologist in the history of the discipline’. It is noteworthy that Laurie Taylor, asked to find
three influential thinkers in the social sciences for his programme Thinking Aloud, selected Foucault,
Benjamin and Goffman as his three. The Radio Times notes on the programme, transmitted 4th
September 2013 at 4.00 p.m. (Radio 4), indicated that Goffman is ‘widely considered one of the most
influential sociologists of the 20th century’. It is a measure of Goffman’s fame that he is being subject to
archival attention such as undertaken in relation to Durkheim, C. Wright Mills and Weber. In response to
this enlargement of interest, lecture 2 considers these developments where his distinctive sociological
traits have been passed on to his daughter Alice who has generated an enormous controversy over her
recent ethnographic explorations of urban life.
There are few more idiosyncratic, original thinkers in sociology than Erving Goffman. If greatness in
sociology is measured by the number of edited collections devoted to his work, and the number of his
citations, then Goffman is on a winning streak. Terms such ‘stigma’, ‘total institutions’ and ‘deference’,
first coined by him, have entered the public domain as ‘ordinary’ words. His sociology has had a profound
impact on other disciplines, such as mental health, anthropology, social policy and criminology to name
a few. Bauman and Bourdieu both indicate an enormous debt to Goffman and all his works. His concepts
have extensive influence in an astonishing number of areas ranging from sexual identity, concentration
camps, casinos, leg amputations, public executions, to forms of manners for business executives, plastic
surgery and the issue of face transplants. Properly used Goffman, is a fantastic resource for ideas for
undergraduate dissertations.
Although he died in 1982, he has left a legacy to contemporary sociology that has still not been spent.
Too unsystematic a thinker to leave a school of thought to shape his legacy, Goffman also created a
series of peculiar worlds that were distinctively his own inventions and which were very peculiar to his
ethnographic imagination. What other thinker could look at the management of embarrassment, the
passing rites of the stigmatised, the way inmates stay sane in a lunatic asylum and the face-work
necessary to establish conditions of trust and distrust in a cynical world where appearances can be so
easily counterfeited? In reading Goffman, one recognises the world as it is, not as it should be, and that
whiff of ‘real life’ in all his works gives him an enduring fascination. The key to understanding Goffman is
to treat him as an ethnographer of genius, but one concerned with the morality of social interaction as
realised in an increasingly sophisticated cosmopolitan culture.
The world has changed in ways that seem to affirm the basis of Goffman’s sociology and his belief that
in social interaction the actor is very much on display. This is an image conscious age, one where much
attention is given to skills in body language. The body comes to express symbols of worth according to
its shape, its clothing and its manner of appearing. To that degree, identity is an accomplishment as the
actor strives to reconcile idealised presentations with the less sympathetic interpretations made by his or
her audience. Appearance is closely linked to the issue of the credibility of the actor. The manner of
appearing matters, for as Wilde wittily said, only shallow people do not judge by appearances. The
management of appearances has become a vital ingredient of the service industries, where the self is
out for hire and where roles are to be commodified as part of the package. Somehow, outlets for selfinvention and self-improvement have combined to liberate the self but also to entrap it. The outcome is
to render the self on alert to misunderstandings but also bound to minimise these if credibility in
enactment is to be secured. Social media and the Internet have amplified these hazards.
If appearances matter so much, then the scope for deception increases. Misleading impressions are
endlessly possible and, as people are misled, they can become cynical. If the counterfeit rules
excessively, then trust in appearance risks collapsing. Even if appearances become the yardstick of
judgement of social credibility, the self is left with the dilemma that the actor is more than his or her
appearances and needs to be judged accordingly. In asking the ultimate question ‘who am I?’ the self is
presented with a plethora of options to answer this vexed Hamlet-like issue. Is the self to be better
adjusted through forms of social improvement, such as therapy, or by following the advice of ‘style
3
experts’, or by altering appearances altogether by recourse to plastic surgery? A further complication is
that the Internet now offers the means of downloading the resources to construct almost any identity,
such as one of a Goth or a transvestite – the list of possibilities is endless. All seem to offer a virtual
community of support. In all these matters, Goffman illuminates. Of late, he has become enormously
important as a resource for handling the sociological implications of cyberspace, hence the lecture
devoted to the issues raised.
The cynicism so prevalent in debates on postmodernity can be easily traced back to Goffman. He
scrutinised worlds of impression management, where actors make a living out of the regulation of
appearances, many of which express mere facades of interest. He was concerned with their stratagems
of survival in little worlds governed by their own interaction orders, where rules of sincerity and insincerity
seem to have become mixed up. These worlds and orders are characterised by testing and suspicion,
and it is the ambition to know of these that haunts Goffman’s writings, and perhaps, which gives him an
enduring significance in sociology. He was unique and his like is unlikely to come again. His ethnography
was ruthless in its dissections of life as lived in the raw. In a curious way, his work is a warning to the
wise not to look too closely at social interaction lest too much is seen that would destroy the basis of its
‘natural’ construction. Like Simmel, who greatly influenced him, Goffman was a one off, whose deeply
individual sociology re-cast the expectations surrounding the discipline.
Week 13
23rd January
Characterising the uncharacterisable: Erving Goffman
There is an enormous amount of commentary on Goffman, as the selection below indicates. Many of
these essays appraise the early texts of Goffman and are well worth exploring.
Essential Reading
By far the best introduction and overview of Goffman is:
Greg Smith, Erving Goffman, London: Routledge, 2006.
It is concise, authoritative and to the point – well worth having and the only one to be so recommended.
Pay very close attention to:
Gary Fine and Greg Smith, eds., Erving Goffman, vol. 1, Parts 1, 2, 3.
For an unexpected appraisal of Goffman, see:
Alan Bennett, ‘Cold Sweat’, Writing Home London: Faber and Faber, 1994, pp. 302-312. Course pack
For more general assessments of Goffman, see:
Pierre Bourdieu, ‘Erving Goffman: Discoverer of the Infinitely Small’, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 2,
no. 1, 1983, pp. 112-113. (Read in conjunction with the Bennet essay on ‘Cold Sweat cited above).
Randall Collins, ‘The Passing of Intellectual Generations: Reflections on the Death of Erving Goffman’,
Sociological Theory, vol. 4, no. 1, 1986, pp. 106-113.
Alvin Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, pp. 378-389. Course pack
Eliot Freidson, ‘Celebrating Erving Goffman’, Contemporary Sociology, vol. 12, no.4, July 1983, pp. 533539. Course Pack
Thomas J.Scheff, Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm for Social Science, chapter 1. Course Pack
4
Further Reading
The four main studies of Goffman are:
Tom Burns, Erving Goffman.
Jason Ditton, ed., The View from Goffman.
Phillip Manning, Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology.
A.Javier Traveno, ed. Goffman’s Legacy. Pay particular attention to the introduction which
is superb. See pp. 1-49.
Simon Johnson Williams, ‘Appraising Goffman’, The British Journal of Sociology, vol.37, no.3, September
1986, pp.348-369.
John Lofland, ‘Erving Goffman’s Sociological Legacies’, Urban Life, vol.13, no.1, April 1984, pp. 7-34.
Mark N. Wexler, ‘The Enigma of Goffman’s Sociology’, Quarterly Journal of Ideology, vol.8, no.3, 1984,
pp. 40-50.
Dell Hymes, ‘On Erving Goffman’, Theory and Society, vol.13, no.5, September, 1984, pp. 621-631.
Robin Williams, ‘Erving Goffman: An Appreciation’, Theory, Culture & Society, vol.2, no.1, 1983, pp. 99102.
Anthony Giddens, ‘Erving Goffman as a systematic social theorist’, in Social Theory and Modern
Sociology, chapter 5, pp. 108-139.
Michael Stein, ‘Sociology and the Prosaic’, Sociological Inquiry, vol. 61, no. 4, November 1991, pp. 421433.
lan Dawe, ‘The under-world of Erving Goffman’, The British Journal of Sociology, vol.24, 1973, pp. 246253.
James J. Chriss, ‘Looking back on Goffman: the excavation continues’, Human Studies, vol. 16, 1993,
pp. 469-483.
Jef C. Verhoeven,’An Interview with Erving Goffman, 1980’, Research on Language and Social
Interaction, vol. 26, p. 3, 1993, pp. 317-348. (Also in Gary Fine and Greg Smith, eds., vol. 1, Erving
Goffman.
Phillip M. Strong, ‘The importance of being Erving – Erving Goffman, 1922 to 1982’, Symbolic Interaction,
vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 145-154.
For a nice concise and up to date appraisal of Goffman, see:
Michael Hviid Jacobsen, ‘Introduction: Goffman Through the Looking Glass: From ‘Classical to
Contemporary Goffman’, in Michael Hviid, Jacobsen, ed., The Contemporary Goffman, pp. 1-47.
Note the voluminous bibliography attached to this introduction.
For a useful account of the way Goffman does not ‘fit’ contemporary sociological thought see:
Massimo Conte, ‘Little naked pangs of the self: the real performance of the self and the function of trust
in Goffman’s action theory’, International Review of Sociology, 18:3, 2008, pp. 375-392.
Notes:
5
Week 14
30th January
Goffman the quixotic and Alice in Wonderland
Sociology itself is not immune to superstars whose mere names ‘rock’, so that students would feel ’must’
see and hear, cases in point being Bauman, Bourdieu and Giddens. The first two have had
documentaries made on their sociological insights, such is their status which reaches far beyond the
‘mere’ discipline of sociology. Sometimes the deification is retrospective and a star is in ascent, Goffman
being a case in point. The gathering of archives, edited volumes and journals devoted to their views and
the minute inspection of their biographies form part of this elevation to stardom.
In Goffman’s case an oddity has emerged in the enormous controversy surrounding the ethnography of
his daughter Alice, also in relation to her first publishing venture. She was a keynote speaker at a recent
British Sociological Association conference. Her book On the Run on young blacks in West Philadelphia
is a present generating enormous controversy in the mass media not least concerning her relationship
to the image she has generated of their subterranean lives, especially in dealings with the police. It is
ironical that the controversy surrounding her father’s relationship to portrayals of his Scottish tribe on the
island of South Unst has been inherited by the daughter in her ethnographic dealings with her sociological
flock. An enormous number of issues emerge that go to the heart of sociological identity and practice,
not least over matters of ownership and authenticity of what is represented, for whom and by whom.
Essential Reading
A most peculiar sociological animal, Goffman always aroused dispute and curiosity: see
Yves Winkin, ‘Goffman’s Greenings’, in Michael Hviid Jacobsen, ed., The Contemporary Goffman, pp.
51-63.
For an effort to write a biography of Goffman, see:
Yves Winkin, ‘Erving Goffman: What is a life? The uneasy making of an intellectual biography’, in Greg
Smith, ed., Goffman and Social Organization: Studies in a sociological legacy, pp. 19-41. Course
pack
Dimitri N. Shalin, ‘Interfacing Biography, Theory and History: The Case of Erving Goffman’, Symbolic
Interaction, vol. 37, no. 1, 2013, pp. 2-40 Course pack
P. Miller, Dimitri Shalin Interview with Peter Miller about Erving Goffman entitled ‘The Perilous Journey
of the Self and the Salvation of Private life: Reflections From Dmitri Shalin’s ‘Interfacing Biography,
Theory and History: The Case of Erving Goffman’, Bios Sociologicus: The Erving Goffman Archives,
2013, pp. 1-4.
A sense of the enormous controversy generated can be found in the sympathetic article by Gideon LewisKraus, ‘The Trials of Alice Goffman’, The New York Times Magazine, 12th January 2016. Course Pack
Further Reading
For those with literary dispositions, two Irish works offer parallel insights.
Flann O’Brien, At Swim-two birds where the characters in three different stories revolt against the author
over the manner of their portrayal.
Brian Friel, Making History concerns the way a broken-down failure of a prince is turned into a hero for
vested interest groups – i.e. the Irish – who need somebody to believe in. It is this issue of contested
interest groups that throw light on the activities of the Goffmans.
Two useful articles which chronicle the rise of a sociological super star are:
6
S. Clegg, ‘How to become an Internationally Famous British Social Theorist’, The Sociological Review,
vol. 40, no. 2, pp.576-598.
Marco Santoro, ‘From Bourdieu to Cultural Sociology’, Cultural Sociology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3-23.
Reflecting life with Goffman and the peculiarities of his biography, see:
Gary T. Marx, ‘Role Models and Role Distance: A Remembrance of Erving Goffman’, Theory and Society,
vol.13, no.5, September 1984, pp. 633-648.
The Marx recollections should be read in conjunction with:
Michael Delaney, ‘Goffman at Penn: Star Presence, Teacher-Mentor, Profaning Jester’, Symbolic
Interaction, vol. 37, no. 1, 2013, pp. 87-107.
Both deal with the fraught relationships between student and supervisor. Each is a tale of unrequited
regard.
These two essays should be read in conjunction with the horribly accurate (ideal Christmas present!)
work just published by Tiphanie Rivière, Notes on a thesis, London: Jonathan Cape, 2016.
The rise of concerns with reflexivity has generated an expansion of the archives pertaining to ‘great’
sociologists. The minutest details on their lives is excavated in painstaking detail. Notable examples
are to be found in relation to Durkheim (see for example the many issues of Durkheimian Studies)
but also Weber. In his case, see for example:
Lawrence A. Scaff, Max Weber in America. See also Chapter 13, ‘The Invention of the Theory’ which
provides a fascinating account of the background to Weber’s great two essays on the Protestant
Ethic.
Illustrating how recent is the ‘discovery’ of Goffman as a ‘super star’ see:
Sherri Cavan, ‘When Erving Goffman Was a Boy: The Formative Years of a Sociological Giant’, Symbolic
Interaction, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 41-70.
As discussed in lecture 3, one of the mythologies surrounding sociology’s claim to be a science is that
much of its fieldwork cannot be replicated. It is often unique to the person. Some of these issues emerge
in:
Kieran Flanagan, Sociology in Theology: Reflexivity and Belief, chapter 2 ‘To the Western Isles: The
visions of Goffman and Synge’, pp. 47-79.
What is new is the expectation those studied might object to their portrayal. Such was the case with the
study of the island by Goffman which formed the basis of his legendry work: The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life. He was worried that the islanders might have objected to the image he drew from their
lives. These hesitations have been visited on to his daughter Alice in relation to her ethnographic study
of a ghetto in West Philadelphia.
As with her father, her Ph.D., was converted into a best-selling work entitled On the Run’, also her first
book. It has generated enormous controversy not least because an anonymous sixty page document
was produced castigating her fieldwork and claiming that what emerged was a work of Romantic
imagination. As with the father, she exercised enormous ethnographic skill in chronicling the fraught lives
of those she lived with. Her weakness, was that she spoke too well for them. Lawyers got in on the act,
claiming that she disregarded the need to report crimes committed – the implication being that she sided
too heavily with the underdogs of society. Issues of academic freedom, the rights and duties of
ethnographers and the whole issue of who owns the image of those studied have emerged in ways that
undermine the autonomy of sociological exploration.
7
See also on-line:
Isaac William Martin, ‘Academia on the Run’ Essays Society, 19th September 2016.
For a remarkable case of an ethnography of ethnography look up under Alice Goffman and find:
The Internet accused Alice Goffman of Faking Details in Her Study of a Black Neighborhood. I went to
Philadelphia to check.
The author characterises Alice as hyperempathic. He thinks clearly that she is in for more skirmishes
between lawyers and journalists and rival academics. Aptly, he concludes that she is trapped in
‘defending her reputation, empathy for her attackers, and a sense that if she defends her work too
earnestly, she could harm the people she loves’.
Notes:
Week 15
6th February
Goffman’s intellectual debts
Essential Reading
A good place to start is:
A. Javier Trevino, ed., Goffman’s Legacy, chapters 7-10.
Collins, Randall, ‘Erving Goffman and the Development of Modern Social Theory’, in Jason Ditton, ed.,
The View from Goffman, pp. 170-209. Course pack
Gary D. Jaworski, ‘Park, Doyle & Hughes: Neglected Antecedents of Goffman’s Theory of Ceremony’,
Sociological Inquiry, vol. 66, no.2, May 1996, pp. 160-174. Course pack
A. Javier Trevino, ed., Goffman’s Legacy, chapter 5.
Murray S. Davis, ‘Georg Simmel and Erving Goffman: Legitimators of the Sociological Investigation of
Human Experience’, Qualitative Sociology, vol.20, no.3, 1997, pp. 369-388.
8
Further Reading
For a useful overview of his debts, see:
Frances Chaput Waksler, ‘Erving Goffman’s sociology: An introductory essay’, Human Studies: vol.12,
nos.1-2, June 1989.
See also Michael Hviid Jacobsen and Soren Kristiansen, ‘Labelling Goffman: The Presentation and
Appropriation of Erving Goffman in Academic Life’, in Michael Hviid Jacobsen, ed,,The
Contemporary Goffman, pp. 64-97.
On symbolic interaction, see:
Jerome G. Manis, & Bernard N. Meltzer, eds., Symbolic Interaction, chapters 1,3,9,18, 21,29.
Gregory P. Stone & Harvey A. Farberman, eds., Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction,
chapters 2,5,7,15,30,30,39-43
Howard S. Becker & Michal M.McCall, eds., Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies.
Alan Swingewood, A Short History of Sociological Thought, chapter 7.
Irving M. Zeitlin, Rethinking Sociology: A Critique of Contemporary Theory, chapters 14-17.
On Durkheim and his influence on Goffman’s notion of the sacred and interaction ritual see:
David K. Brown, ‘Goffman’s Dramaturgical Sociology: Developing a Meaningful Theoretical Context and
Exercise Involving “Embarrassment and Social Organization”’, Teaching Sociology, vol. 31, no. 3,
2003, pp. 288-299.
Cahill, S.A., ‘Following Goffman, Following Durkheim into the public realm’, Research in Community
Sociology, Supplement (1): 1994, pp. 3-17.
Miller, D.L.,’Ritual in the work of Durkheim and Goffman: the link between macro and the micro’, Humanity
and Society, vol. 6, 1982, pp. 112-134.
W.S.F.Pickering, ed., Émile Durkheim, Durkheim on Religion, chapter 4.
See also:
Erving Goffman, ‘The Interaction Order’, American Sociological Review, vol.48, 1983, pp.1-17.
Paul Creelan, ‘The Degradation of the Sacred: Approaches of Cooley and Goffman’, Symbolic
Interaction, vol.10, no.1, 1987, pp. 29-56.
Spencer E. Cahill, ‘Following Goffman, Following Durkheim into the Public Realm’, chapter 91, of Gary
Fine and Greg. Smith, Erving Goffman, vol. IV.
Susan Birrell, ‘Sport as Ritual: Interpretations from Durkheim to Goffman’, Social Forces, vol. 60, no. 2,
1981, pp. 354-376.
On debts to Simmel, see:
Gregory W.H. Smith, ‘Snapshots “sub specie aeternitatis”: Simmel, Goffman and formal sociology’,
Human Studies, vol.12, nos.1-2, 1989, pp. 19-57.
Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, introduction, part 4, sections 1,3, 5-6 and part 5, sections
1, 3-44.
Georg Simmel, The Philosophy of Money, preface, introduction and chapters 5-6.
David Frisby, Simmel and Since. Essays on Georg Simmel’s Social Theory.
David Frisby & Mike Featherstone, eds, Simmel on Culture.
Notes:
9
Week 16
13th February
The little world of Goffman’s impression management
This lecture considers Goffman’s first publication: Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. This work,
published in 1959 and based on his Ph.D. has had a profound impact on changing the rhetoric and
expectations of sociology. Its importance was recognised in a poll undertaken by the International
Sociological Association in 1998 to find the most important works in sociology of the 20th century, where
it was ranked tenth. This exercise in exploration of the dilemmas of social manifestation as empowered
but compromised has had a profound impact on later studies of cyberspace, where the sectioning of the
self has become a domain property of the Internet.
Essential Reading
Erving Goffman, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
Pay close attention to:
Phillip Manning, Erving Goffman, chapter 2.
Yves Winkin, ‘Baltasound as the Symbolic Capital of Social Interaction’, in Gary Fine & Gregory W.H.
Smith, eds, Erving Goffman, London: Sage, 2000, vol. I, pp. 193-212. Course Pack
Anthony Giddens, ‘On “Rereading The Presentation of Self”: Some Reflections, Social Psychology
Quarterly, vol. 72, no. 4, December 2009, pp. 290-95. Course pack
Soren Kristiansen, ‘Erving Goffman: Self Presentations in Everyday Life’, in Michael Hviid Jacobsen, ed.,
Encountering the Everyday: An Introduction to the Sociologies of the Unnoticed, pp. 211-33.
Course pack
Further Reading
Important in terms of assessing the notion of the actor (both theatrical and sociological) is:
Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man, especially chapters 2, 4, 6.
See also:
A Javier Trevino, ed., Goffman’s Legacy, chapters 3-4.
More general material can be found in:
Gary Fine and Greg Smith, eds., Erving Goffman, vol. II, chapters 40, 43, 48-52.
Simon Callow, Being an Actor.
Don Mixon, ‘A Theory of Actors’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 13, 1983, pp. 97-109.
Thomas Miller, ‘Goffman, Social Acting and Moral Behaviour’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
14:2 July 1984, pp. 141-163.
For two interesting essays that relate to Presentation of Self, see:
Peter K. Manning, ‘Continuities in Goffman: The Interaction Order’, in Michael Hviid Jacobsen, ed., The
Contemporary Goffman, pp. 98-118.
10
Notes:
Week 17
20th February
Deference and Demeanour
Essential Reading
In this lecture I want to concentrate on a famous essay of Goffman:
Erving Goffman, ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanour’, Interaction Ritual, pp. 47-95. Course
pack
Massimo Conte, ‘Little naked pangs of the self: the real performance of the self and the function of trust
in Goffman’s action theory’, International Review of Sociology, vol. 18, no.3, 2008, pp. 375-392. Course
pack
Further Reading
See also:
Gerald Mars & Michael Nicod, The World of Waiters
Kieran Flanagan, Sociology and Liturgy: Re-presentations of the Holy, chapters 7-8.
Laura Bovone, ‘Ethics as Etiquette: The Emblematic Contribution of Erving Goffman’, Theory, Culture &
Society, vol. 10, no. 4, November 1993, pp.23-39.
Norbert Elias, The History of Manners.
Michael Hviid Jacobsen, ‘Recognition as Ritualised Reciprocation: The Interaction Order as a Realm of
Recognition’ in Michael Hviid Jacobsen, ed., The Contemporary Goffman, pp. 199-231.
There is a pile of references available on forms of manners and etiquette as related to the construction
of honour and devout recognition. Note also material that appears on the etiquette surrounding the use
of the Internet and Facebook. Increasingly employers are studying the capacities of students to handle
matters of etiquette.
Notes:
11
Week 18
Week 19
1st March
6th March
Reading week
Facework: managing sincerity and insincerity
Essential Reading
For the primary texts of Goffman see:
‘On Face-Work’, in Interaction Ritual, pp.5-45.
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Erving Goffman, ‘Face Engagements’, in Behaviour in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization
of Gatherings’, pp. 83-111.Course pack See also chapter 2, Introductory Definitions, pp. 13-30.
Georg Simmel, ‘The Aesthetic Significance of the Face’, in Kurt Wolf, ed. Georg Simmel 1858-1918, pp.
276-281. Course pack
Further Reading
For other relevant source material, see:
K. Hwang, ‘Face and Favour: The Chinese Power Game’, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 92,
no. 4, pp. 944-974.
D. Yau-fai Ho, ‘On the Concept of the Face’, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 81, no.4, 1976, pp.
867-884.
Anthony Synnott, ‘Truth and goodness, mirrors and masks – part 1: a sociology of beauty and the face-,
The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 40, no.4, 1989, pp 607-635 & Part II
Joanne Finkelstein, The Fashioned Self.
Thomas Miller, ‘Goffman, Social Acting and Moral Behaviour’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
vol.14, no.2, July 1984, pp. 141-163. (KF)
Andrew Travers, ‘The Identification of Self’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol.25, no.3,
1996, pp. 303-340.(KF)
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray.
Efrat Tseelon, ‘Is the Presented Self Sincere? Goffman, Impression Management and the Postmodern
Self’, Theory, Culture & Society, vol.9, no.2, May 1992, pp. 115-128.
Barry Smart, Facing Modernity: Ambivalence, Reflexivity and Morality, chapter 5.
K. Dellinger & C. Williams, ‘Makeup at Work: Negotiating Appearance Rules in the Workplace’, Gender
and Society, vol.11, no.2, 1997, pp. 151-177.
James T. Siegel, ‘Georg Simmel Reappears: ‘The Aesthetic Significance of the Face’, Diacritics, vol. 29,
no. 2 (Summer 1999), pp. 100-113.
Thomas J. Scheff, ‘A New Goffman: Robert W. Fuller’s Politics of Dignity’, in Michael Hviid Jacobsen,
ed., The Contemporary Goffman, pp. 185-198.
Again, one is faced with a dilemma over the amount of material that is available on the face. It ranges
from cosmetics (for male and females) to plastic surgery on the face, to face as identity and so on. The
literature is massive!
Notes:
12
Week 20
13th March
Stigma and the normal
Essential Reading
The primary sources of Goffman for this lecture are:
‘Embarrassment and Social Organization’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face
Behaviour, pp. 97-112.
Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order, chapters 6 and 7.
Harold Garfinkel, ‘Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies’, in Jerome G. Manis & Bernard N.
Meltzer, eds., Symbolic Interaction. A Reader in Social Psychology, pp. 205-212. Course Pack
Carolyn Ellis, ‘“I hate my voice”: Coming to terms with Minor Bodily Stigmas’, The Sociological Quarterly,
vol.39, no.4, pp. 517-537. Course Pack
Further Reading
For the secondary literature, see:
Luc Boltanski, Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics
Helmut Kuzmis, ‘Embarrassment and Civilization: On Some Similiarities and Differences in the Work of
Goffman and Elias’, Theory, Culture & Society, vol.8, no.2, May 1991, pp. 1-30.
Michael Schudson, ‘Embarrassment and Erving Goffman’s Idea of Human Nature’, Theory and Society,
vol.13, no.5, September 1984, pp. 633-648.
Bernard N. Meltzer, ‘Reconceptualizing Embarrassment: A Reconsideration of the Discreditation Thesis’,
Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1996, vol.20, pp. 121-138.
Edward Gross & Gregory P. Stone, ‘Embarrassment and the Analysis of Role Requirements’, in Gregory
P. Stone & Harvey P. Farberman, eds., Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction, pp. 174190.
Andrew Travers, ‘Destigmatizing the Stigma of Self in Garfinkel’s and Goffman’s Accounts of Normal
Appearances’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol.24, no.1, March 1994, pp. 5-40.
It is difficult to think of a more fecund concept in sociology than that of stigma. It is a term which has
percolated into everyday life and into a remarkable range of disciplines to cover a truly extensive range
of permutations and aspects of the human condition which are deemed impaired.
Notes:
13
Week 21
20th March
Normal appearances
Essential Reading
The main basis for this lecture arises from the essay by Goffman, ‘Normal Appearances’, chapter 6 in
Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order.
Read in conjunction with:
Black Hawk Hancock and Roberta Garner, ‘Towards a Philosophy of Containment: Reading Goffman in
the 21st Century, The American Sociologist, vol. 42, 2011, pp. 316-340. (treat as an e.journal article).
Course Pack
Barbara A. Misztal, ‘Normality and Trust in Goffman’s Theory of Interaction Order’, Sociological Theory,
vol. 19, no. 3, November 2001, pp. 312-324. Course Pack
Paul Creelan, ‘Vicissitudes of the Sacred: Goffman and the Book of Job’, Theory and Society, vol. 13,
1984, pp. 663-695. Course Pack
Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Fear, chapters 2-3.
Notes:
Week 22
27th March
Goffman in Cyberspace
As you are only too aware, there is an enormous amount of interest, debate and worry about issues
arising over current debate on cyberbullying, sexual abuse and other areas of the dark side of the
Internet. Please do not explore these areas which might generate distressing issues. These are
not the concerns of the lecture. Rather interest is in the material generated which links some insights of
Goffman, notably passing, co-presence and embodiment to the circumstances of Internet exchange. The
lecture is not on the sociology of cyberspace per se but what pertains to Goffman. As you might infer,
the possibilities are legion and there is only one lecture. Listed below are some items that might help to
get you started.
Essential Reading
A particularly good place to start is:
Richard Jenkins, ‘The 21st-Century Interaction Order’, in Michael Hviid Jacobsen, ed., The Contemporary
Goffman, pp. 257-274.
Hugh Miller, The Presentation of Self in Electronic Life: Goffman on the Internet (download from Google)
– interesting sketch.
14
Bernie Hogan, ‘The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and
Exhibitions Online’, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, vol. 30, no. 6, 2010, 377-386.
Course Pack
Shanyang Zhao, ‘The Internet and the Transformation of the Reality of Everyday life: Toward a New
Analytical Stance in Sociology’, Sociological Inquiry, vol. 76, no. 4, November 2006, pp. 458-474.
Course Pack
Further Reading
For a slightly odd account of how this famous work can be applied in cyberspace, see:
Ben Agger, Oversharing: Presentations of Self in the Internet Age
See also:
There is some whacky stuff around on Goffman and cyberspace. The quality is often (very) uneven. See
for example:
Patrick Stokes, ‘Ghosts in the Machine: Do the Dead live on in Facebook’, Philosophical Technology –
online publication – get through Google/Google Scholar
Richard S. Ling, ‘The Mediation of Ritual Interaction via the Mobile Telephone’, Handbook of Mobile
Communication Studies, 2008.
Rich Ling, ‘The ‘Unboothed’ Phone: Goffman and the Use of Mobile Communication’, in Michael Hviid
Jacobsen, ed., The Contemporary Goffman, pp. 275-292. (Attached to the essays is a stunningly
large bibliography on the sociology of mobile phones).
Nicola Wright, ‘Death and the Internet: The implications of the digital afterlife’, First Monday, vol. 19, no.
6, 2nd June 2014. Get through Google/Scholar.
Bullingham, Liam and Ana C. Vasconcelos, ‘”The presentation of self in the online world”: Goffman the
study of online identities’, Journal of Information Science, 4th January 2013 – published online (!)
– see library catalogue.
Laura Robinson, ‘The cyberself’ the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction and the digital age,
New Media Society, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 93-110.
Trevor Pinch, ‘The Invisible Technologies of Goffman’s Sociology from the Merry-go-round to the
Internet’, Technology and Culture, vol. 51, no. 2, April 2010, pp. 409-424.
Notes:
15
Week 23
24th April
‘Where the action is’
Essential Reading
Erving Goffman, ‘Where the action is’, Interaction Ritual, pp. 149-270.
Kieran Flanagan, ‘Vice and Virtue or Vice Versa: A Sociology of Being Good’ in Kieran Flanagan and
Peter C. Jupp, eds., Virtue Ethics and Sociology: Issues of Modernity and Religion, pp. 104-124.
Course pack
James F. Cosgrave, ‘Goffman Revisited: Action and Character in the Era of Legalized Gambling’,
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, vol. 1, no.1, June 2008, pp. 80-96. Course
pack
Alexander Pushkin, ‘Queen of Spades’ (in any of his collection of short stories).
Further Reading
Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, chapters 2-3.
Kieran Flanagan, ‘Postmodernity and Culture: Sociological Wagers of the Self in Theology’, in Kieran
Flanagan and Peter C. Jupp, eds., Postmodernity, Sociology and Religion, pp. 152-173.
Robert Musil, The Man without Qualities
Vicki Abt, James F. Smith and Martin C. McGurrin, ‘Ritual, Risk, and Reward: A Role Analysis of Race
Track and Casino Encounters’, Journal of Gambling Behaviour, vol. 1, no. 1, Spring/Summer 1985, pp.
64-75.
Mike Featherstone, ‘The Heroic Life and Everyday Life’, Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism
and Identity, pp. 54-71.
Paul Middleton, Martyrdom: A Guide for the Perplexed, chapter 2.
Georg Simmel, ‘The Adventure’ in David Frisby and Mike Featherstone, eds. Simmel on Culture, pp. 221232.
Notes:
Week 24
1st May
Reading week
16
Formative essay questions
1. If the stigmatised are so fascinated with passing themselves off as ‘normal’, what techniques best
‘work’?
2. In Goffman’s realm, why might ‘normal appearances’ be treated with such suspicion?
3. How might Goffman be invoked to understand life in cyberspace?
4. Why does etiquette still matter?
5. What debts did Goffman accumulate for the construction of his sociology?
6. Is presentation of self an exercise in paranoia or does the actor have real grounds to be concerned
about manners of appearing?
7. Is the Book of Job a ‘good’ way to read Goffman and all his works?
8. How would you appraise the sociological significance of Goffman?
9. Is ‘where the action is’ in reality a voyeur’s charter?
10. Can the face be sculptured into any shape?
17
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 1-4), 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.
18
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.
19
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.
20



The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays, 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.
21
Appendix C
Level 5 Marking and Assessment Criteria (Second Year)
1st (70+)
o
o
o
o
o
2:1 (60–69)
o
o
o
o
o
2:2 (50–59)
o
o
o
o
o
3rd (40–49)
o
o
o
o
o
Excellent knowledge and understanding of the subject and
understanding of theoretical & methodological issues
A coherent argument that is logically structured and supported by
evidence
Demonstrates a capacity for intellectual initiative/ independent thought
and an ability to engage with the material critically
Use of appropriate material from a range of sources extending beyond
the reading list
High quality organisation and style of presentation (including
referencing); minimal grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent
and engaging style
Very good knowledge and understanding of the subject and displays
awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues
A generally critical, analytical argument that is reasonably well structured
and well-supported
Some critical capacity to see the implications of the question, though not
able to ‘see beyond the question’ enough to develop an independent
approach
Some critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the
prescribed reading list; demonstrating some ability to be selective in the
range of material used and to synthesise rather than describe
Well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written
clearly and concisely; fairly consistent referencing and bibliographic
formatting
Good comprehension of the subject, 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
Capacity for argument is limited with a tendency to assert/state opinion
rather than argue on the basis of reason and evidence; structure may not
be evident
Tendency to be descriptive rather than critical, but some attempt at
analysis
Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit;
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
Satisfactorily presented: but 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
22
Marginal
o
Fail
o
(35–39)
o
o
o
Outright
o
Fail
(0–34)
o
o
o
o
Shows very limited understanding and knowledge of the subject and/or
misses the point of the question
Incoherent or illogical structure; evidence used inappropriately or
incorrectly.
Unsatisfactory analytical skills
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow range
of sources.
Unsatisfactory presentation e.g. not always easy to follow; frequent
grammatical and spelling errors and limited or no attempt at providing
references and containing bibliographic omissions
Shows little or no knowledge and understanding of the subject, no
awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues and/or fails to
address the question
Unsuccessful or no attempt to construct an argument and an incoherent
or
illogical structure; evidence used inappropriately or incorrectly
Very poor analytical skills
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow range
of sources.
Very poor quality of presentation and limited or no attempt at providing
references and containing bibliographic omissions
23