Gender and International Relations - Research Essay

Marking criteria

High Distinction

(80 and above).

Excellent standard.

Distinction (70-79)

Very good standard.

Credit (60-69)

Good standard.

Pass (50-59)

Fair or poor standard.

Fail (Below 49)

Not up to standard.

Originality of question

· The question is original and skilfully crafted to investigate an issue or problem relevant to the study of gender and international relations.

· The question well-crafted to investigate an issue or problem relevant to the study of gender and international relations, but may lack originality.

· The question is well thought out to investigate an issue or problem relevant to the study of gender and international relations, but lacks originality. There is some room for development.

· The question is only fairly or superficially well thought out and there is no originality.

· The question is incomplete.

Central Argument:

· The approach to the questions is excellent; it is addressed directly and fully. Consequently, there is a clear argument that comprehensively and accurately outlines the essay’s argument.

· The question is addressed with the argument well thought out and very well answered however, gaps and/or shortcomings are evident.

· The essay’s approach to the question and argument is not comprehensive and/or accurate.

· The question is only partially answered.

· Consequently, gaps and shortcomings exist. The approach to the question and argument is only partially complete.

· The question is only fairly or superficially well thought out.

· Consequently, the approach to the question outlines a superficial or incomplete argument.

· The question is not answered and there is no argument evident.

Use of theory and empirical evidence

· The writer provides a clear and logical argument informed by theory(ies) and supported by empirical evidence that assists in answering the research question fully and convincingly.

· The writer has critically engaged at a very good standard, identifying most key theoretical perspectives related to the topic and question.

· There is good integration of empirical evidence to support the argument.

· However, one or two major and/or some minor gaps, shortcomings, or errors are present.

· The writer has engaged at a good standard, identifying some key theoretical perspectives related to the topic and question.

· There is some integration of appropriate empirical evidence to support the argument.

· However, two or three significant and/or many minor gaps, shortcomings, or errors are present.

· The writer has only partially engaged with the theoretical perspectives related to the topic and question.

· There is minimal integration of appropriate empirical evidence to support the argument.

· Many significant gaps, shortcomings, or errors are present.

· The writer has not engaged sufficiently with the theoretical perspectives related to the topic and question. The essay has no theoretical engagement.

· It has overlooked most of the key points of the topic and question.

· There is no and/or inappropriate use of empirical evidence.

Critical Reflection

· Provides a convincing argument as to why this question is relevant and important to understanding gender and international relations.

· Demonstrates critical analysis at an excellent standard, skilfully illustrating the scope of the issue, drawing linkages between the question and broader set of questions/problems in international relations.

· Provides a good argument as to why this question is relevant and important to understanding gender and international relations.

· Demonstrates critical analysis at a good standard, however, some gaps, shortcomings, or errors are present.

· Provides an adequate argument as to why this question is relevant and important to understanding gender and international relations.

· Adequately demonstrates critical analysis. However, shortcomings, or errors are present.

· Provides a partial and/or superficial argument as to why this question is relevant and important to understanding gender and international relations.

· Partially and/or superficially demonstrates critical analysis. Many significant gaps, shortcomings, or errors are present.

· The writer has not critically engaged sufficiently enough with the topic and question.

· There is little evidence of critical analysis.

Clarity and structure

· The essay skilfully and clearly defines key issues related to the question and structured in a logical and clear manner to explore and demonstrate the central argument.

· The material is extremely well linked and organised.

· The essay defines most key issues and is structured in a mostly logical and clear manner to explore and demonstrate the central argument.

· The material is well organised, however, some shortcomings exist.

· The essay defines some of the key issues and there is adequate linking of ideas to explore and demonstrate the central argument.

· The material is adequately organised, however, gaps, errors, and/ or contradictions exist.

· The essay partially addresses the key issues. It is not well structured, and the material is fairly or poorly organised in terms of both exploring and demonstrating its central argument.

· Significant, gaps, errors or contradictions exist.

· The essay is not sufficiently structured in accordance with both exploring and demonstrating an argument.

· There are significant gaps, errors, or contradictions which heavily detract from the essay.

Research:

· The essay reflects excellent research of both scholarly and non-scholarly sources which has enabled it to write a comprehensive/excellent response to the question.

· The essay reflects very good research of both scholarly and non-scholarly sources which has enabled it to write a very good response to the question.

· The essay reflects adequate research which has enabled it to write an adequate response to the question.

· The essay reflects fair or poor research which has enabled it to write only a very basic or partial response to the question.

· The essay does not reflect sufficient research at this level of academic study.

Academic writing and word limit

· The essay is concise, articulate, and drafted to an excellent standard with zero to few grammatical and spelling errors.

· There is no academic jargon or hyperbole.

· The essay is within the word limit.

· The essay is concise, articulate, and very well drafted with only some grammatical and spelling errors.

· There is minimal academic jargon and/or hyperbole.

· The essay is within the word limit.

· The essay is well but not expressed clearly throughout. There are grammatical and spelling issues that detract from the essay’s overall worth.

· The essay contains some academic jargon and/or hyperbole.

· The essay is within the word limit.

· The essay is not clearly expressed throughout. There are grammatical and spelling issues that detract substantially from the essay’s overall worth.

· The essay contains academic jargon and/or hyperbole

· The essay is within the word limit.

· The essay is generally unclear throughout. There are frequent grammatical and spelling issues that detract significantly from the essay’s overall worth.

· The essay is significantly under or over the word limit.

Referencing (Harvard or Chicago)

· Referencing is consistent and meticulous throughout the essay outline.

· The reference list is meticulously accurate.

· Referencing is mostly accurate, but a few errors exist.

· The reference list are mostly accurate but a few shortcomings exist.

· Referencing is satisfactory, but errors exist.

· The reference list entails some shortcomings.

· Referencing is fair or poor.

· The reference list entails significant gaps or errors.

· The essay is insufficiently referenced throughout.

· The reference list entails significant gaps or are missing in places or entirely.

Initial Mark

Assessment not saved as a .docx or .doc file (-1% penalty)

Assessment not saved with correct file name (-1% penalty)

Assessment not saved with student name and ID within paper (-1% penalty)

Marking rubric not submitted with assessment (-1% penalty)

Final Mark