2012GIR Comparative European Politics
Literature Review
2015
Literature Reviews are the starting point for any piece of research and they form part of both academic and practical work. A literature review brings together existing work on a particular issue or questions and involves identifying key contributions to the development of relevant theories, concepts and ideas. It helps researchers discover the work that has already been done in the area and ensures that they avoid simply replicating previous research. They also help researchers frame their own research task by providing them with the theoretical building blocks.
A literature review is more than an annotated bibliography or descriptive list of major works in the field because it contains a strong critical element. It goes beyond summarising the work of others by analysing their strengths and their limitations.
This assessment piece is designed to introduce you to the task of preparing a literature review by asking you to compare and contrast the two set readings from one of our topics from Lecture Weeks 2–4 (The Comparative Method, Democracy and Democratisation).
This is what you need to do:
1. Write a brief summary of each reading highlighting the author’s purpose (why have they written the piece; what are they trying to do); and how they have achieved that purpose (the way they have constructed the piece; the material they have used).
2. A discussion of the similarities and the differences between the two pieces (compare and contrast).
3. An evaluation (which one is better, in what ways, and why). In other words, if you were asked to recommend one of the readings to another student in the course, which would you recommend and why.
It is up to you to decide how to best organise your review. You might want to discuss each one separately and then adding a paragraph or two comparing and contrasting them; or you might want to organise the discussion thematically identifying how each author treats the particular aspect and discussing their comparative strengths and weaknesses. Both approaches are equally valid and your choice should be guided by the readings and your insights. (The GBS Resources Bank provides some examples of different ways to organise a larger literature review.)
Your Review should begin with a very short introduction, identifying the readings, describing the task, and outlining the way the piece is to be organised. It should finish with a very brief conclusion which restates your main evaluative points.
Try and write as clearly and concisely as possible and always run a spell check before submitting any piece of writing. Effective written communication is one of employers’ most highly rated skills and it can only be improved through practice and attention to detail. Consider giving your work to someone else to read or reading it aloud. It is surprising the errors that you can pick up by undertaking this simple task.
Reviews will be returned in week 8. General feedback (oral) as well as written individual feedback will be provided.
REQUIREMENTS
Submission: Reviews must be uploaded through SafeAssign. Drafts as well as a final submission points have been set up at L@G, see Assessment (Reviews).Please ensure the system acknowledges your submission. Some versions of safari are not compatible with SafeAssign. If you are having problems try using an alternative browser such as Firefox or Chrome.
Use a standard file name consisting of: your name, course code, assessment item name,E.g. Hollander 2012GIR Review
Referencing: use an acceptable referencing system (the Harvard system is strongly recommended). If a reference is taken from a particular page, or pages, then the page number(s) must be included (even if not quoting directly). The in-text format should include the author, date of publication, and page number.When words are taken directly from other sources (books, articles and web sites) and reproduced in a quotation marks must be used (longer quotes can be indented). If an assignment is incorrectly or insufficiently referenced according to standard styles, it will be penalised with a reduced mark.
Reference List: Entries in the reference list should be in a standard format, complete and in alphabetical order by authors’ family name. Web addresses should include date accessed/downloaded.There is no requirement to include other sources, unless you wish to do so.
Presentation:
• Use 1½ -2 line spacing. The font size should be read comfortably, Arial – 11 point, Times Roman – 12 point.
• Number all pages.
Data security & retention:
• Save your work frequently and always back up to an alternative
• Retain submission receipts.
• Keep a copy of the original work and the marked item until final grades are published.
Students may also be asked to submit their notes and drafts of written work before a final mark for the item can be awarded.
EXTENSIONS
Extensions: Requests for an extension of time for submission of an assessment item must be lodged before the due time for the assessment item. Requests for extensions must be made by emailing the course tutor.
Where an extension has not been granted, an assessment item submitted after the due date will be penalised. The official standard penalty is the reduction of the mark allocated to the assessment item by 10% of the maximum mark applicable for the assessment item, for each day or part day that the item is late. Weekends count as one day in determining the penalty. Assessment items submitted more than five days after the due date are awarded zero marks. See Assessment Submission and Return Procedures s2.11.
PLAGIARISM/ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
The University regards academic misconduct as unacceptable, because it undermines the core values of academic integrity (honesty and trust). Academic Misconduct includes the following:
Cheating in examinations and testsoccurs when a candidate:
1. communicates, or attempts to communicate, with a fellow candidate or individual who is neither an invigilator or member of University staff;
2. copies, or attempts to copy from a fellow candidate;
3. attempts to introduce or consult during the examination, any unauthorised printed or written material, or electronic calculating or information storage device; or mobile phones or other communication device; or
4. impersonates another.
Fabrication of results: occurs when a student claims to have carried out tests, experiments or observations that have not taken place, or presents results not supported by the evidence.
Misrepresentation:occurs when a student presents an untrue statement or does not disclose any information or matter where there is a duty to disclose such information or matter.
Plagiarism: occurs when the work of another is represented, intentionally or unintentionally, as one’s own original work, without appropriate acknowledgement of the author or the source. This category of academic misconduct includes but is not limited to the following:
1. collusion, where a piece of work prepared by a group is represented as if it were the student’s own;
2. acquiring or commissioning a piece of work, which is not his/her own and representing it as if it were, by:
a. purchasing a paper from a commercial service, including internet sites, whether pre-written or specially prepared for the student concerned;
b. submitting a paper written by another person, either by a fellow student or a person who is not a member of the University;
c. duplication of the same or almost identical work for more than one assessment item;
d. copying ideas, concepts, research data, images, sounds or text;
e. paraphrasing a paper from a source text, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, without appropriate acknowledgement;
f. word for word copying, cutting or pasting statements from multiple sources or piecing together work of others and representing them as original work;
g. submitting as one’s own work all or part of another student’s work, even with the student’s knowledge or consent.
A student who willingly assists another to plagiarise (for example by willingly giving them access to their own work) is also breaching academic integrity, and may be subject to disciplinary action.
Any dishonest piece of assessment will be dealt with under the University’s Student Academic Misconduct Policy.On determination that academic misconduct has taken place, the penalty which may be imposed on the student is one or more of the following:
a. a reduced or nil result for the relevant assessment item;
b. a fail grade for the course in which academic misconduct occurred;
c. exclusion from enrolment in the program for a specified period;
d. exclusion from the program; readmission to the program is at the discretion of the Faculty based on consideration of the student’s case for readmission.
If you are unsure about Academic Integrity, or would like a refresher, consider doing the Academic Integrity Tutorial which can be accessed through L@G. Just click on the ‘Students’ tab and follow the links where you will find other useful information.
