SS60044W Dissertation

SS60044W Dissertation

Permission granted to reproduce solely for the purpose of teaching and learning at the University of West London and its approved academic partners.You are provided with study materials for your personal use only. You must not share these with others or upload them to websites. Any student who is found to have shared materials, particularly for personal gain, will be subject to disciplinary action if appropriate. 

Module content

The aim of the module is to conduct a piece of either theoretical, philosophical, historical or empirical research in the field of politics and international relations (PIR) under supervision of a member of staff from the PIR Subject Group. The module will support students in generating and analysing data, writing a literature review and in presenting findings in an academic context.

The module gives students experience of designing, carrying out and writing up a substantial piece of self-initiated research according to the methodological and professional standards of the discipline. It tests students’ abilities to select a topic area, operationalise variables or otherwise make concrete an investigative method (whether empirical or based on theoretical, comparative or historical research); practically and procedurally investigate a research question; analyse data and/or textual sources and report this data analysis; conduct a literature review; and write the whole project up in good academic English.

The dissertation provides the culmination of the undergraduate student’s training in research methods. It allows the student to demonstrate their research potential and is important not only as a piece of assessed work but as a way of demonstrating research skills to prospective employers. Under supervision of an allocated tutor, students’ work on a project that has been approved by the supervisor. 

Students should refer to their Course Handbook for a detailed outline of how this module forms part of their course.

Learning materials

The reading list for this module is available on Blackboard in the module area and online by searching readinglists. This shows real-time availability of books in the library and provides direct links to digital items, recommended by your lecturer.

Remember to log into Blackboard daily to receive all the latest news and support available at your module sites!

Subject guides (libraryguides) are also available to help you find relevant information for assignments, with contact details of the Subject Librarian for your School.

All students have access to a large catalogue of textbooks by Bloomsbury Publishing (previously Palgrave Macmillan. You can access it via https://app.kortext.com/identity/signin, scrolling down the list of institutions to University of West London and then using your UWL student login. We will make heavy use of this great resource, so do make sure you become familiar with it early on.                          

Maintaining Academic Honesty and Integrity

Academic Integrity means avoiding plagiarism and cheating and owning your own work, the use of essay mills and AI content is also considered academic misconduct. This is when you submit a piece of work which is not completely your own, but which you are presenting as your own without acknowledging the author or properly referencing the original source. All your work must demonstrate Academic Integrity; it must be an honest and fair submission, complying with all the requirements of the assessment. Failure to meet these standards of behaviour and practice is academic misconduct, which can result in penalties being applied under the Academic Offences Regulations. You can get support with your academic writing by speaking to our Study support team.                           

Meeting Deadlines

You should always try your best to submit your work on time. If you have exceptional circumstances that mean you are not able to submit a piece of coursework on time, apply online for an extension. An extension will mean that coursework submitted up to 10 days late will not be penalised for late submission. Normally if you submit work late, the maximum mark you can receive is the pass mark.

You can ‘self-certify’ 3 assessments per academic year, for either an extension or mitigation. Self- certification means that a decision is made based on the reason you give for your request, but you do not need to provide documentary evidence. Once you have used your 3 self-certifications, you would need to provide evidence to support any further claims.

Getting Support

There may be times when you experience circumstances outside of your control and talking to your Module Leader and other support services available to you in the university will help keep you on track with your studies. You can access information on support services and further guidance at our Support for current students page.

If your circumstances mean that you are not able to submit at all or are unable to attend an in- person assessment like an exam or in-class test, then you can request mitigation for the assessment. Approved mitigation means that you can have another attempt without penalty if you fail an assessment or do not submit.

If you request an extension or mitigation before the deadline you can choose to self-certify, without providing evidence, so long as you have a valid reason. You can only self-certify three assessments per academic year. If you have used all your self-certification opportunities, or requested mitigation after the deadline, you will need to provide evidence of your exceptional circumstances for your request to be granted. 

Your Students’ Union Advice Team will be able to support you through the process.                           

Preparing for your Assessment

A key part of your learning will be preparation for your summative assessment. Some modules have formative assessments where feedback is provided, and this will help you to better understand what is required of you when you submit your summative assessment. Please see below guidance on your formative assessment and how to access your feedback.

Summative Assessment 1 

The project should be between 5,000-9,000 words, although the upper end will not be strictly enforced (but do not exceed 10,000 words). This wide range is meant to take account of the various types of methods (empirical research with quantitative or qualitative data, or theoretical, comparative or historical research.

Non-empirical literary review-based dissertations are generally longer than empirical ones, and qualitative projects are generally longer than quantitative projects. Non-empirical projects may end up being closer to (and sometimes exceeding) 9,000 words, while quantitative work is likely to be towards the lower end of the range. As a general guideline a good quantitative project is not often longer than 7,000 words and may be considerably less. This does not include the following: acknowledgements, contents page, appendices, footnotes and references.

Submitting, feedback & grades online using Blackboard

Main objectives of the Assessment

Assessment briefing is detailed in the lecture series and in supervision sessions with your supervisor. You will have four workshop sessions in the beginning of the semester and thereafter supervision is by appointment with your supervisor. SEE YOUR SUPERVISOR REGULARLY (especially early on).

Marking scheme for all assessments

Marking criteria for written assessments 

Written assessments are assessed on four major criteria. Aspects of these factors are often more important than others, but each piece of work can be considered on all four factors. Where a piece comes in high on all four, as described for a specific mark band, the piece of work will therefore be at the top end of that band. 

Answer: The extent to which the answer addresses the question or issue

Coherence: The extent to which each statement follows from previous statements. The extent to which the structure overall is coherent.

Argument: The extent to which there is a convincing line of argument running throughout the work.

Evidence: The extent to which claims are supported by relevant and appropriate published research evidence and/or theoretical argument.

Below are given typical profiles for each band of work. Where the category criteria in a band are well met this would tend to indicate the highest mark if not elevation to the band above. Where there are several descriptive statements for one category (especially for the Fail categories), the statements describe different sorts of work characteristics, which would meet the category criterion. All statements need not apply. Where several negative statements do apply, this would tend to lower the work down to the bottom of the mark band if not into the band below. First class (70% +)

A first class answer would be exceptionally good, given a typical undergraduate experience, with the better answers excelling on the criteria listed below.

Answer: Answers question fully and explicitly, particularly, where relevant, in the areas requiring greater analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

Coherence: (Almost) the entire work is clearly linked and structured.

Argument: Has a line of argument that is clear and convincing.

Evidence: Gives thorough and extensive evidential support and/or extensive critical knowledge of theoretical position(s).

To obtain marks in the 80s, in addition to these criteria, work would need to

Be of near publishable quality Be innovative by:

• containing original insights and/or
• making unusual but valid observations and/or
• including creative, valid suggestions for further research and/or theory and/or
• showing evidence of discovery and understanding of latest research and/or
• other outstanding relevant merit

Upper second class (60% – 69%)

Upper second answers are clearly very competent. A typical answer would meet the following criteria:

Answer: A substantial attempt to answer the question with, where relevant, adequate emphasis on the more analytical components.

Coherence: Relationships between statements and sections are generally easy to follow.

Argument: Has a clear line of argument.

Evidence: The need for evidence and/or published theory is clearly recognised. Most important claims are supported by such relevant and clearly identified evidence.

Lower Second (50-59%)

Lower second answers are at least basically competent in the area of the topic set. A typical answer would meet the following criteria:

Answer: An answer which occasionally deviates from the question, or one which uses relevant material ineffectively.

Coherence: Relationships between statements and sections are sometimes hard to follow. The naïve reader would find difficulty in appreciating the flow, or sometimes even the point, of the material.

Argument: The line of argument, though discernible, is unconvincing.

Evidence: Provision of supporting evidence and/or published theory is intermittent or irregular. The need to support all claims may appear to be not fully recognised.

Third class (40% - 49%)

Third class answers demonstrate some relevant knowledge and understanding in the topic area but have the following weaknesses:

Answer: Substantially fails to answer the question or address the topic. Relevant material may be poorly presented, or irrelevant material (although in the general topic area) might be accurately presented.

Coherence: Relationships between statements and sections are difficult to recognise. Material may be list like. A basic structure or flow is hard to discern even for a reader conversant with th