support@essaywritingexpert.orgTopic Detail
Academic year / semester 2024-2025
Module code and title 7IR001/UC3 – International Relations theories, concepts and
debates
Module Leader Mauricio Palma-Gutierrez
Assignment name Summative Assessment: Literature Review
Assignment type Coursework
Assignment weighting and size 100%, 2,000 words
Assessment unpacking video location https://canvas.wlv.ac.uk/courses/46904/pages/coursework
summative-assessment?module_item_id=2000535
‘What’s my assignment?’ unpacking date
(if applicable)
Week 2
Formative submission date (if applicable) Weeks 6 and 9
Formative submission method (if
applicable)
Online in Canvas
Formative feedback date (if applicable) Weeks 7 and 9
Summative (i.e., final) submission date Week 12
Summative submission method Online in Canvas
Assignment requirements Students will produce a critical literature review (2000
words), which should:
1. Explore in depth one of the following concepts covered
throughout the module:
Anarchy
Balance of Power
Diplomacy
Empire
Foreign Policy
Global South
Globalisation
Great Power
Hegemony
Human Rights
Transnational actor
Interdependence
International Organisations
International Society
Patriarchy
Peace
Postcolonialism
Security
Security Dilemma
Sovereignty
Small state
State
2
Topic Detail
2. Students should explore the chosen concept in depth, by
assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the existing
literature on it. To do so students must:
– Begin with a comprehensive literature search using
academic databases, scholarly journals, books, and
reputable websites to search for relevant literature related
to your chosen concept.
– Evaluate and select at least six relevant scholarly sources,
after considering their quality and relevance. Keep in mind
factors such as the credibility of the author, the publication
venue, the methodology employed, and the currency of the
research. Importantly, choose sources that contribute to
your understanding of the topic.
– Organise the selected literature thematically or
chronologically, depending on the nature of your chosen
concept and the key themes emerging from the literature.
Identify common trends, debates, and areas of consensus or
disagreement among scholars.
– Summarise the main ideas, arguments, and methodologies
of each source in your literature review.
– Identify gaps and contradictions in the selected literature
and highlight areas where further research is needed to
advance the understanding of the concept.
3. Afterwards, students should produce a critical piece of
writing (2000 words), which should:
– Provide a critical analysis of the literature, focusing on the
strengths and weaknesses of existing research. In so doing,
evaluate the reliability and validity of the methodologies
employed, assess the theoretical frameworks used, and
consider alternative perspectives or interpretations.
– Synthesise the findings from different sources to identify
overarching themes, patterns, or theoretical frameworks
that emerge across the literature, while comparing and
contrasting the perspectives of different authors.
– Discuss the theoretical contributions of the analysed
literature to IR. Consider how the findings of individual
studies contribute to theoretical debates, empirical
knowledge, or methodological approaches.
– Conclude by summarising your main findings, identifying
key gaps or areas for further research, and proposing future
directions for scholarship in the field. Highlight the
3
Topic Detail
significance of your research topic and the contributions of
your literature review to advancing knowledge in IR.
Learning outcomes – Critically analyse and evaluate major IR theories and
articulate informed perspectives on paradigmatic debates in
the field – Employ key IR concepts to construct an argument, to
analyse historical process and contemporary events
effectively – Reflect critically on contemporary and historical issues in
global affairs – Analyse complex IR concepts, theories, and case studies,
and synthesise insights from multiple perspectives
Assessment criteria
(see rubric below for performance
criteria)
Purpose of literature review (20%)
Content and Analysis (20%)
Organisation and Structure (20%)
Register and Mechanics (10%)
Length (10%)
Quality and number of references (10%)
Critique (10%)
Characteristics of a good submission A good submission comprises at least five characteristics:
– The submission clearly displays the author’s own critical
viewpoint on the chosen concept
– The argumentative points made are based on the visible
reflection and analytical dissection of relevant scholarship
– Points made are sufficiently problematised and illustrated
using relevant examples
– The document’s structure is fully cohesive, congruent, and
organised as an academic literature review
– Writing style (including wording and syntax) as well as
referencing are impeccable.
Additional instructions Referencing and formatting requirements:
– All students are expected to cite and reference academic
literature in their assignments according to the American
Psychological Association (APA) style. For more tips on
referencing please use the Skills for Learning guides:
https://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills-for-learning/referencing/
– Students must ensure that the literature review adheres to
the following formatting standards:
*Title page
* Double-spaced lines
* 12-point font size (Arial or Times New Roman)
4
Topic Detail
* Include page numbers
Professional Body requirements None
University regulations University’s Academic Regulations
Academic Integrity Policy
Level and Mark Descriptors
Support Student Support and Wellbeing
Study Guides
Skills for Learning – Introduction to Academic Study Skills
Academic English Language Skills
You should also refer to your Course and Module Guides
Date by which feedback will be provided Two weeks after submission
Feedback format Complete rubric and specific comments on Canvas.
Resit details In the event that you do not achieve a passing grade on
your initial submission, you will have the opportunity to
resit the assignment. The resit submission will follow the
same guidelines and assessment criteria as the original
submission, with a few additional requirements:
Resit submission type: The resit submission will be a
revised version of your original work, addressing the
feedback and areas for improvement identified by the
marker.
Highlighting changes: When submitting your resit, please
ensure that you highlight or clearly indicate the areas of
your work that have been reworked or revised. This can be
done by using a different colour text, highlighting the
changes, or providing a separate document outlining the
modifications made. This will help the marker to easily
identify how you have addressed the original feedback and
where improvements have been made.
Resit submission date: See Canvas for submission date.
Please make sure to submit your revised work by this date
to be considered for reassessment.
Resubmission requirements: Your resit submission should
demonstrate a significant effort to improve upon the areas
of weakness identified in the original feedback.
By carefully reviewing the feedback provided on your
original submission and making a concerted effort to
address the identified areas for improvement, you can
increase your chances of success on the resit submission. If
you have any questions or concerns about the resit process
or requirements, please do not hesitate to reach out to your
Module Leader for guidance and support.
Assessment Rubric
5
Excellent & Outstanding
(80% +)
Very Good (70-79%) Good (60-69) Pass (50-59%) Fail (0-50%)
Purpose
(20 marks)
The review’s purpose and
argument are absolutely
clear and defined.
The review is always
congruent with the main
argument.
The review’s purpose and
argument are clear and
generally well defined.
The review is generally
congruent with the main
argument.
The review’s purpose and
argument are generally
clear. There are some minor
imprecisions.
The review occasionally
digresses from the main
argument.
The review’s purpose and
argument lack precision.
The review occasionally
digresses from the main
argument.
The review’s purpose and
argument are not clear.
The review frequently digresses
from the main argument.
Content &
analysis (20
marks)
The review’s central
purpose is always
supported by valid and
relevant information.
The review provides a
distinctively critical analysis
of the key academic
approaches towards the
chosen concept.
The reader gains valuable
and novel information from
the review.
The review’s central
purpose is supported by
valid and relevant
information, for the most
part.
The review provides a
comprehensive analysis of
the key academic
approaches towards the
chosen concept.
The review’s central purpose
is supported by valid and
relevant information, with
some imprecisions.
The review provides a basic
analysis of the key academic
approaches towards the
chosen concept.
The reader acquires some
useful information from the
review.
The review’s central purpose
is supported by some valid
and relevant information,
without the required depth.
The analysis provides a basic
level of insight of the key
academic approaches towards
the chosen concept.
The reader acquires an
overview of the literature on
The review’s central purpose is
not supported by enough
relevant information.
The analysis falls short in
providing valuable insights or
explanations, resulting in
limited useful information for
the reader.
6
The reader gains valuable
information from the
review.
the chosen concept from the
review.
Organisation &
structure
(20 marks)
There is a logical and
articulated arrangement of
ideas throughout the
review.
The reader can follow the
argument easily at all
times.
Transitions make sense in
the context of the overall
argument or narrative.
They follow a clear and
rational sequence.
There is a logical
arrangement of ideas
throughout the review.
The reader can follow the
argument easily for the
most part.
Transitions make sense in
the context of the overall
argument or narrative.
They follow a clear and
rational sequence.
The arrangement of the
ideas is logical for the
review’s most part.
The reader can follow the
argument in general.
While most of the paper
demonstrates logical and
smooth transitions, there are
some sections that could be
improved for better clarity
and coherence.
The arrangement of ideas is
generally logical, with
limitations in some sections.
There are occasional
difficulties in following the
argument.
The transitions between ideas
are not fully clear or effective.
The connections between ideas
are unclear or abrupt, making it
challenging to understand the
intended argument or narrative.
Articulation between ideas is
not smooth. Key transitions in
the text are difficult to follow.
Register &
Mechanics (10
marks)
The writing is engaging and
convincing.
The tone is professional
and suitable for an
academic paper.
The writing is engaging.
The tone is professional
and suitable for an
academic paper.
Sentences are worded well.
The tone is generally
professional and suitable for
an academic paper. Most
word choices are
appropriate. They convey
meaning, but they lack
variety and sophistication.
The tone is generally
professional and appropriate
for an academic paper.
However, there are several
instances of poor word
choices.
The tone is unprofessional and
not suitable for an academic
paper for the most part. Most
word choices are imprecise.
The wording of many sentences
is confusing.
7
Sentences are
exceptionally worded.
Sentences are varied in
structure, length,
complexity, and depth of
information.
Word choices are precise.
The writing is error-free.
Sentences are varied in
structure, length, and
complexity.
Word choices are precise.
The writing is mostly error
free.
There are only few
sentences that are poorly
worded.
Most sentences are varied in
structure, length, and
complexity.
The writing has some minor
errors, but they do not
interfere with meaning.
Most sentences are
reasonably well-worded and
structured.
Sentences exhibit some
variety in structure, length,
and complexity.
The writing has some minor
errors, but they do not
interfere with meaning.
There is a limited variety in
sentence structure, length, and
complexity.
The writing is full of errors that
might interfere with meaning
and distract the reader.
Length
(10 marks) The review’s length is
within the word count
requirements of the
assignment.
The review’s length is
within the word count
requirements of the
assignment.
The paper’s length may
deviate from the required
word count, but not by more
than 10%.
The paper’s length may
deviate from the required
word count by more than 10
and less than 20%.
The review’s length is
considerably shorter or longer
than the required word count of
the assignment (more than
20%).
Quality &
number of
references
(10 marks)
More than sufficient use of
legitimate sources to
support the author’s
claims.
Sufficient use of legitimate
sources to support the
author’s claims.
The information provided
is credible and reliable.
Legitimate sources are used
to support the writer’s
claims, yet the quantity is
insufficient.
Legitimate sources are used to
support the writer’s claims,
but these are not accurate,
and their quantity is
insufficient.
The reader may question the
credibility and reliability of
certain information, including
some of the critical sources.
The information provided
is credible, reliable and
novel.
Critique
The information provided is
credible and reliable for the
most part.
The information provided is
generally credible and reliable.
The review demonstrates a
limited degree of originality.
(10 marks)
The review demonstrates a
high level of creativity,
originality, and
autonomous thinking.
The review presents
unique and innovative
ideas or perspectives
beyond conventional
thinking.
The review demonstrates a
high level of creativity and
originality.
The review demonstrates
creativity and some degree
of originality.
The review presents
unique and innovative
ideas or perspectives
beyond mainstream
thinking.
The review presents
conventional ideas or
perspectives in creative
manners.
The review is based on
conventional ideas, presented
in a conventional manner.
The review fails to bring an
autonomous perspective to the
topic.
8