Management

CRITERIA FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION

Originality of case and quality of sources.

(20%)

Research case not original.

Few/no primary sources. Few/no secondary sources. No refereed papers.

Research case not original. Minimal primary sources. Minimal secondary sources. Two refereed papers.

Original research case. More than adequate primary sources. More than adequate secondary sources. More than two refereed papers.

Original research case. Impressive primary sources. Impressive secondary sources. Impressive refereed papers.

Original research case. Outstanding primary sources. Outstanding secondary sources. Impressive refereed papers.

Level of analysis and use of BSP concepts.

(25%)

Analysis absent. Little use of BSP concepts.

Minimal analysis (i.e. perspectives identified and described, but only superficially related). General use and understanding of BSP concepts demonstrated.

More than adequate analysis (i.e. perspectives identified, described and differences and similarities discussed). In- depth use and understanding of BSP concepts demonstrated.

Impressive analysis (i.e. relations between different perspectives integrated and implications noted). Impressive nuanced use and understanding of BSP concepts demonstrated.

Outstanding analysis (i.e. nuanced identification of different perspectives and contradictions within sectors; relations between perspectives integrated and implications, patterns and contradictions discussed). Original and outstanding nuanced use and understanding of BSP concepts demonstrated.

Substantiation of arguments and quality of discussion.

(15%)

No discussion or argument.

Minimal explanations to substantiate points. Adequate discussion.

Convincing arguments to substantiate points. Thoughtful discussion.

Relevant and convincing arguments to substantiate points. Thoughtful and in-depth discussion.

Relevant, convincing and nuanced arguments to substantiate points; different perspectives integrated. Outstandingly thoughtful and in-depth discussion.

Critical thinking and reflection.

(15%)

Not demonstrated.

Minimal critical thinking and reflection evident.

Effective critical thinking and reflection evident.

Superior critical thinking and reflection evident.

Outstanding critical thinking and reflection evident.

Quality of conclusion.

(10%)

Simplistic; superficial. Irrelevant ideas presented.

Rather simplistic but relevant.

Succinct and thoughtful.

Insightful and thoughtful with broader implications noted.

Insightful, thoughtful and original with broader implications noted.

Organisation of report.

(5%)

Poorly organised.

Relatively well organised.

Well organised. Effectively organised.

Attractively organised.

Correctness of referencing.

(5%)

Poorly referenced.

Referencing sometimes correct.

Referencing mostly correct.

Almost completely correct referencing.

Completely correct referencing.

Clarity of expression.

(5%)

Unsatisfactory; not clear.

Satisfactory but with difficulties.

Some language mistakes; basically well written.

Very well written with few minor mistakes.

Excellent writing.