Criteria and Weighting

To obtain 70% or above:

To obtain 60% or above:

To obtain 55 – 59%:

To obtain 50% - 54%:

To obtain a Fail grade of between 49 - 40 %:-

To obtain a substantial fail of between 39 - 0%:-

A critical literature review on International Relations & Diplomacy (20%)

An excellent review, demonstrating independent research (relevant and recent sources, from academic as well as practitioner sources) and critical thinking (engaging with sources rather than taking them at face value; discussing their limitations, strengths and weaknesses)

A good review that demonstrates some independent research and critical engagement with sources.Taiwan has been recently defined the ‘most dangerous place on Earth’ (The Economist, 1 May 2021). Taking into consideration political (China vs US), historical (the origins of RoC Taiwan), strategic (the geographical location of the island) and economic (microchip industry) aspects, draw possible scenarios of the next ten years in Taiwan’s global policy.

A good review, showing independent research, although sources are not always trustworthy, are taken at face value, or are outdated.

A reasonably good review, showing little independent research, although sources are not always trustworthy, are taken at face value, or are outdated.

A poor review, showing little or no evidence of independent research and critical thinking.

A very poor review, with little or no sources, and/or little or no critical engagement with said sources.

Problem definition (30%)

An excellent problem definition, very well written, making full use of one or more theoretical frameworks to structure the section.

The audience is clearly considered and the questions to be answered and preparation for analysis are clearly tailored to the audience.

A good problem definition, well written, with some integration of theoretical frameworks in its presentation.

The audience is partially considered in defining the questions to be answered.

A good problem definition, making some use of existing theoretical frameworks to build and support the argument, which may sometimes lack in clarity. Few issues may be weakly explored.

The audience may be weakly considered.

A reasonably good problem definition, making some use of existing theoretical frameworks to build and support the argument, which may sometimes lack in clarity.

The audience may be weakly explored.

A poorly written problem definition, with limited support from existing theoretical frameworks, and no or little consideration of the audience.

A very poor or missing problem definition, with little if any link between theory and practice, or not at all attempted.

Communication of findings and application of the analytical framework (20%)

An excellent communication of the analysis’ findings, with excellent choices of examples and real-life case studies that fully support the argument and apply the analytical framework.

A good communication of the analysis’ findings, with good choices for examples and real-life case studies that support the argument and apply the analytical framework.

A reasonably good communication of the analysis’ findings, with reasonable choices for examples and real-life case studies that partially support the argument and apply the analytical framework to some extent.

The communication of the findings is relatively weak, needing stronger support from examples and real-life case studies and a stronger application the analytical framework.

The communication is confusing and/or incomplete, with little or no examples and real-life case studies and application of the analytical framework.

Little evidence of understanding of the issues surrounding communication of findings and application of the analytical framework.

Critical review of your analysis and its limitations (15%)

An excellent review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses, using appropriate theoretical frameworks.

A good review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses, using appropriate theoretical frameworks.

A reasonable review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses. Stronger use of appropriate theoretical frameworks was needed.

A shallow look at the strengths / weaknesses of your own analysis, with little if any use of theoretical frameworks to structure the review.

A poor review of the analysis and its limitations, with no use of theoretical frameworks.

Little evidence of understanding of the issues surrounding data analysis limitations.

Referencing and presentation (15%)

Excellent Harvard referencing throughout the paper and an excellent bibliography/references list. The paper itself is presented in a clear, logical way, and would be appropriate for peer-review publication.

Very minor Harvard referencing errors throughout the paper and bibliography. The paper itself is presented with some style

Minor Harvard referencing issues throughout the paper and bibliography which does not detract from the academic level of the work. The paper itself is presented clearly and coherently

Harvard Referencing issues throughout the paper and bibliography detract from the academic level of study and/or the spelling and grammar errors cause the whole to be poorly presented.

Very poor Harvard referencing throughout the paper and bibliography and/or a poorly constructed paper.

Either no Harvard referencing and/or spelling and grammar detracts from the academic level required. The paper is not adequate for Master level work.