1
Course Syllabus (Summer Programme)
Western Democracy in Crisis: the Rise of Populism and
Post-truth Politics (POL214G)
Contact Details for Professor
Name: Antonios Nestoras
E-mail: [email protected]
Mobile: 0489 108 243
Lectures
Tuesdays 14h00-18h00 & Thursdays 09h00-13h00
Course Description
This course will examine one of the defining political puzzles of our time: from the EU
referendum in the United Kingdom to the presidential election in the United States
and the rise of populist forces everywhere in Europe, there is a growing realization
that truth may no longer be relevant to politics. ‘Post-truth’ politics – the Oxford
Dictionaries word of the year – threatens to turn Western liberal democracy upside-
down. The public scorns at politicians, technocrats and experts; conspiracies and
viral hoaxes run rampant in social media; objective facts are less influential in
shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. We will use an
2
interdisciplinary approach – with lectures, group activities and assignments – to
examine the philosophical underpinnings, the evolution and the effects of populism.
In the course of seven weeks we will consider a range of questions such as: is
populism a crisis of democracy or a legitimate revolt of the masses against their
shrinking political importance? To what extent can populism be considered as a
descendant of eighteenth century Romanticism? What are the ‘post-truth’ challenges
to the European Union, the transatlantic security and the liberal world order?
Learning Objectives
By the end of this course, students should:
In terms of knowledge
• Have acquired profound knowledge of the theoretical and historical
frameworks in the academic literature on populism. He is able to apply these
frameworks in order to understand and interpret the current processes and
dynamics in international affairs.
• Have gained an understanding of the main actors and the main processes that
contributed to the rise of populism and is able to apply this knowledge in order
to examine current international affairs.
• Have gained insight into the broad societal context conducive to the rise of
populist politics and is able to take this societal context into account in the
analysis and interpretation of current problems in international affairs.
In terms of skills
• Have improved the ability to apply common qualitative and quantitative
research methods and is able to apply these in the field of international affairs.
• Have improved the ability to communicate clearly, fluently and accurately; as
well in a written report as in an oral presentation.
3
• Have developed the ability to apply a multi-disciplinary perspective in his
analysis of international affairs.
In terms of attitude
• The bachelor has an open and academic attitude, characterized by accuracy,
critical reflection and academic curiosity.
• The bachelor is able to work in a multi-cultural team.
Teaching Method
This is a research-oriented course with a heavy reading requirement. Students will be
given the theoretical tools to examine a populist movement of their choice (either in
groups or individually, depending on class composition). Ex-cathedra teaching will be
combined with group discussions, short essays and other in-class activities.
Course Materials
The course will not use a textbook. The professor will provide all required readings.
Course Outline
Week Topic
W1 – S1 Introduction to the Course: defining (liberal) democracy:
W1 – S2 Legal holiday – no class
W2 – S1 The liberal democratic recession and the return of authoritarianism
W2 – S2 Populism: pathological form, ideology or corrective for democracy?
W3 – S1 Other approaches: populism as a style, discourse and strategy
4
W3 – S2 Populism as an (anti)-intellectual movement: a romantic revival?
W4 – S1 Themes: globalization, immigration and foreign policy
W4 – S2 Culture: the postmodern shift in the western concept of truth
W5 – S1 Technology: post-truth culture and the network society
W5 – S2 Implications: international order, cyberspace and net-wars
W6 – S1 Presentations of Group/Individual Projects
W6 – S2 Presentations of Group/Individual Projects
W7 Final Exams
Detailed course schedule
Week 1 – Session 1 (May 23)
Introduction
• Introduction to the course: objectives, schedule and assignments
Defining (liberal) democracy: history, theory and conditions
• What is and what is not democracy? Principles and procedures that make
democracy possible. Liberal Democracy, Democratization and International
Order. Historical examination of waves of democratization.
Essential Readings
Dahl, R. A. (2000). On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, Ch. 4 & 5
Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is. and is not. Journal of
Democracy. , 23, 75-88
Recommended Readings
5
Lipset, S.M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development
and Political Legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 53, No.
1, pp. 69-105
Moore, B. (1967). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy. Boston, MA : Beacon
Press, Ch. VII
Schumpeter, J. A. (2006). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York:
Routledge, Ch. XXI & XXII
Week 1 – Session 2 (May 25)
Legal Holiday – no class
\Week 2 – Session 1 (May 30)
The liberal democratic recession and the return of authoritarianism
• The end of democratic transition, the end of democratization? Elections
without democracy. Democratic contestation and tensions. Non-democracies,
competitive authoritarianism, and illiberal democracies, pseudo-democracies
and hybrid regimes.
Essential Readings
Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs. 76(6), pp. 22-43
Diamond, L. (January 01, 2002). Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of
Democracy, 13, 21-35
Recommended Readings
Carothers, T. (January 01, 2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of
Democracy (print), 5-21
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (January 01, 2002). The rise of competitive
authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy (print), 51-65
6
Diamond, L. (January 01, 2015). Facing Up to the Democratic Recession. Journal of
Democracy, 26, 1, 141-155
Week 2 – Session 2 (June 1)
Populism: pathological form, ideology or corrective for democracy?
• Populism as a pathological form. Populism as a perennial possibility in
democracy. Populism as a political logic and legitimate revolt of the masses.
Populism as a thin-centered ideology. Characteristics and variations of left and
right populism in the West.
Essential Readings
Abts, K., & Rummens, S. (October 01, 2007). Populism versus democracy. Peace
Research Abstracts Journal, 44, 5.
Kaltwasser , C. R. (2012). The ambivalence of populism: threat and corrective for
democracy, Democratization, 19:2, 184-208
Canovan, M. (March 01, 1999). Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of
Democracy. Political Studies, 47, 1, 2-16
Recommended Readings
Laclau, E. (2007). On populist reason. New York: Verso, Ch 1 & 4
Schedler, A. (January 01, 1996). Anti-political-establishment Parties. Party
Politics, 2, 3, 291-312
Barr, R. (January 01, 2009). Populists, Outsiders and Anti-Establishment
Politics. Party Politics, 15, 1, 29-48
Mudde, C. (September 01, 2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and
Opposition, 39, 4, 542-563
Week 3 – Session 1 (June 6)
Other approaches: populism as a style, discourse and strategy
7
• Populism as a political style and as a discursive technique. Framing analysis
and populism. Populism and political communication. Populist mobilization.
Essential Readings
Hofstadter, R. (1964). The paranoid style in American politics. Harper’s Magazine
Moffitt, B., & Tormey, S. (June 01, 2014). Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation
and Political Style. Political Studies, 62, 2, 381-397
Recommended Readings
Jagers, J. & Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An
empirical study of political parties' discourse in Belgium. European Journal of
Political Research, 46, 3, 319-345
Jansen, R. S. (2011). Populist Mobilization: A New Theoretical Approach to
Populism. Sociological Theory, 29, 2
Aslanidis, P. (April 01, 2016). Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New
Perspective. Political Studies, 64, 88-104
Week 3 – Session 2 (June 8)
Populism as an intellectual movement: a revival of political romanticism
• The philosophy of Enlightenment. Rationalism, Empiricism and the concept of
truth in the Enlightenment. Romanticism as an attack on the Enlightenment.
Anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism: the lasting effects of Romanticism.
Political romanticism. Populism as a romantic revival.
Essential Readings
Outram, D. (2013). Enlightenment. Cambridge University Press, Ch. 1
8
Schmitt, C. (2011). Political romanticism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986, Ch. 2,
pp. 51-108
Recommended Readings
Berlin, I., & Hardy, H. (2001). The roots of romanticism. Princeton: Princeton Univ.
Press, Ch. 1, 2 & 7
Week 4 – Session 1 (June 13)
Themes: Globalization, immigration and foreign policy
• From mercantilism to the dominance of the (neo)-liberal model. Globalization
and its discontents in the West. Anti-globalization movements and the return of
economic nationalism.
• The anti-immigration discourse of the European far right. Anti-immigrant
frames and strategies in the European refugee crisis.
• The foreign policy discourse of left and right populist parties. Anti-American
narratives and the rise of pro-Russian populism in Europe. Europeanism
versus Eurasianism.
Essential Readings
Polanyi, K. (1946). Origins of our time: The great transformation. London: V.
Gollancz, Chapters 12 & 13
Calhoun, Craig (2013) Occupy Wall Street in perspective. British journal of sociology,
64 (1). pp. 26-38
Recommended Readings
Hjerm, M., & Nagayoshi, K. (2011). The composition of the minority population as a
threat: Can real economic and cultural threats explain
xenophobia?. International Sociology, 26, 6, 815-843
9
Balfour, R. et al. (2016) ‘Europe’s Troublemakers: The Populist Challenge to Foreign
Policy’, European Policy Centre, Ch. 4 & 5
Week 4 – Session 2 (June 15)
Culture: the postmodern shift in the western concept of truth
• Understanding the post-truth culture. From the absolute to the elusive: the
post-modern shift of the concept of truth in western societies. What is ‘new’
about fake news? The decline of truth and the rise of bullshit.
Essential Readings
Frankfurt, H. G. (2010). On bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
Introduction
Jencks, C. (January 01, 1987). Postmodern and Late Modern: The Essential
Definitions. Chicago Review, 35, 4, 31-58
Recommended Readings
Harvey, D. (2008). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of
cultural change. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 3-65
Lyotard, J. F. (2010). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge.
Minneapolis, Minn: Univ. of Minnesota Press, Appendix: Answering the
question: what is postmodernism?
Baudrillard, J. (2008). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor, Mich: Univ. of Michigan
Press, Chapter: On Nihilism
Week 5 – Session 1 (June 20)
Technology: post-truth culture and the network society
• The revolution in information technology. The Network Society: the changing
concepts of space and time. Instant communication and social media. Facts,
emotions and the psychology of the network masses.
Essential Readings
10
Bimber, B. (January 01, 1998). The Internet and Political Transformation: Populism,
Community, and Accelerated Puralism. Polity, 31, 133
Hurwitz, R. (November 01, 1999). Who Needs Politics? Who Needs People? The
Ironies of Democracy in Cyberspace. Contemporary Sociology, 28, 6, 655-661
Recommended Readings
Castells, M. (2010). The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Volume I:
The Rise of the Network Society. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell,
pp. 28-76, 440-464 and 484-509
Gilbert, D. T. (January 01, 1991). How mental systems believe. American
Psychologist, 46, 2, 107-119
Week 5 – Session 2 (June 22)
Implications: international order, cyberspace and net-wars
• From unipolar to multipolar international system. International competition in
the information domain. Cyberspace as a battle-space. Old wars and net-wars.
Information warfare, propaganda and wars of ideas.
Essential Readings
M, . M. M. E. (June 01, 2010). From Global Village to Virtual Battlespace: The
Colonizing of the Internet and the Extension of Realpolitik. International
Studies Quarterly, 54, 2, 381-401
Eriksson, E. A. (September 01, 1999). Viewpoint: Information warfare: Hype or
reality?. The Nonproliferation Review, 6, 3, 57-64
Recommended Readings
Hughes, R. (2010). A Treaty for Cyberspace. International Affairs, 86, 2, 523-541
Dugin, Alexander. The Fourth Political Theory (London: Arktos, 2012), pp. 11-31.
Millerman, M. (2014) ‘Theory Talk #66: Alexander Dugin on Eurasianism, the
Geopolitics of Land and Sea, and a Russian Theory of Multipolarity’
Week 6 – Session 1 and Session 2 (June 27 and June 29)
11
Presentations of group/individual project
Week 7 (exam date and time tbc)
Preparation and final exams
Course Assessment
The students will be evaluated on the basis of their performance as follows
• QQCs 25%
• Group or
Individual Paper 35%
• Final examination 40%
• TOTAL 100%
Description of Assignments and Grading Criteria
QQCs (25%): The course involves a demanding reading schedule and discussion of
assigned readings in class forms a major part of each session. In the beginning of
each lecture, the students will have to submit a Question, a Quote and a Comment
for each assigned reading. QQCs are designed to ensure student participation and a
structured, meaningful discussion of texts in the class. (The professor will provide a
template). Grading: 0.5 points for each QQC, plus bonus points for consistency.
Group/individual Research Paper (35%): Using the theoretical frameworks of the
literature presented and discussed in class, students will be asked to examine one,
two or more populist movements. The projects will examine the main narratives and
strategy of the populist actors along the following axes: reasons for emergence,
intellectual and cultural context, electoral base and targeted groups or constituencies,
12
narratives used in foreign policy-globalization-immigration, policy implications and
influence, stance on fake news, appeals to emotion and conspiracy theories. The
final format of this assignment will depend on final class size and composition.
Depending on class size, the groups may consist of two or three students; or, if class
is too small, the students may tackle the assignment with individual research papers.
Depending on class composition and language range the case studies can vary from
Brexit to Trump, from Russian foreign policy narratives to Le Pen’s French Front
National, etc. Week 6 of the course will be dedicated to the presentation of on-going
projects, discussion and exchange of ideas in the class. This will be an opportunity
for the students to get feedback from the professor and fellow students for their on-
going projects, with the primary purpose of sharpening the theoretical consistency,
the argument and focus on their own research papers. [Deadline for submission: end
of Week 6 (July 2), via Turnitin]
Final exam: will include 10 multiple choice questions (10%); two long open answers
on definitions and concepts approximately half a page each (20%); one long answer
comparing/contrasting theoretical approaches (30%); one longer essay, two pages
maximum (40%).
Detailed grading criteria and rubrics for each assignment to be provided
Grading Scale of Vesalius College
Vesalius College grading policy, in line with the Flemish Educational norms, is now
as stated follows:
Letter grade Scale of 20 Scale of 100
A 17.0-20.0 85-100
A- 16.1-16.9 81-84
B+ 15.3-16.0 77-80
13
B 14.5-15.2 73-76
B- 13.7-14.4 69-72
C+ 13.1-13.6 66-68
C 12.3-13.0 62-65
C- 11.5-12.2 58-61
D+ 10.7-11.4 54-57
D 10.0-10.6 50-53
F 0-9.9 0-49
Additional Course Policies
Late papers will not be accepted unless there are serious legitimate reasons.
Provision of a signed medical note is required, and notice must be given prior to the
deadline.
Academic Honesty Statement
Academic dishonesty is NOT tolerated in this course.
Academic honesty is not only an ethical issue but also the foundation of scholarship.
Cheating and plagiarism are therefore serious breaches of academic integrity.
Following the College policy, cheating and plagiarism cases will be communicated in
writing to the Associate Dean for Students and submitted to the Student Conduct
Committee for disciplinary action.
If you refer to someone else’s work, appropriate references and citations must be
provided. Grammar, spelling and punctuation count, so use the tools necessary to
correct before handing in assignments.
14
15
Appendix 1: Major Learning Objectives, Teaching Methods, Testing and Feedback Questionnaire
Course code and course name: POL214G – Western Democracy in Crisis: the Rise of Populism and post-truth politics
Instructor: Nestoras
Summary:
Number of assignments used in this course: 2
Number of feedback opportunities in this course (either written or oral): each session (oral); after presentation (oral); assignment (written)
Number and types of teaching methods: Ex-cathedra – Class discussion – Audio-visual – In-class activities (sorting, concept mapping, etc.)
Does your course require graded student oral presentations? No
Major Learning Objectives Course Learning objectives
addressing the Major
Objectives (choose the
most important ones that
your course actually
addresses)
Methods used to Teach
Course Objectives
Methods (and
numbers/types of
assignments) used to test
these learning objectives
Type, Timing and
Numbers of Feedback
given to Student
The bachelor has a profound
knowledge of the main actors
and the main processes in
European and global
international affairs and is able
to apply this knowledge in the
current international affairs.
The bachelor has gained an
understanding of the main
actors and the main processes
that contributed to the rise of
populism and is able to apply
this knowledge in order to
examine current international
affairs.
Ex-cathedra
Class discussion
Audio-visual
Activities
Final exam
QCCs
Research project
Feedback on QCCs during
class discussion
Oral feedback after
presentation of project
Written feedback with
grades
The bachelor has a
demonstrable insight in the
theoretical and historical
The bachelor has a profound
knowledge of the theoretical
and historical frameworks in
Ex-cathedra
Class discussion
Final exam
QCCs
Feedback on QCCs during
class discussion
16
Major Learning Objectives Course Learning objectives
addressing the Major
Objectives (choose the
most important ones that
your course actually
addresses)
Methods used to Teach
Course Objectives
Methods (and
numbers/types of
assignments) used to test
these learning objectives
Type, Timing and
Numbers of Feedback
given to Student
frameworks in the academic
literature on international
affairs. He is able to apply these
frameworks in order to
understand and interpret the
current processes and dynamics
in international affairs.
the academic literature on
populism. He is able to apply
these frameworks in order to
understand and interpret the
current processes and
dynamics in international
affairs.
Audio-visual
Activities
Research project Oral feedback after
presentation of project
Written feedback with
grades
The bachelor has insight into the
broad societal context and is
able to take this societal context
into account in the analysis and
interpretation of current
problems in international affairs.
The bachelor has insight into
the broad societal context
conducive to the rise of
populist politics and is able to
take this societal context into
account in the analysis and
interpretation of current
problems in international
affairs.
Ex-cathedra
Class discussion
Audio-visual
Activities
Final exam
QCCs
Research project
Feedback on QCCs during
class discussion
Oral feedback after
presentation of project
Written feedback with
grades
The bachelor knows and is able
to apply common qualitative
and quantitative research
methods and is able to apply
these in the field of international
affairs.
The bachelor knows and is
able to apply common
qualitative and quantitative
research methods and is able to
apply these in the field of
international affairs.
Ex-cathedra
Readings
Class discussion
Research Project Oral feedback after
presentation of project
Written feedback with
grades
17
Major Learning Objectives Course Learning objectives
addressing the Major
Objectives (choose the
most important ones that
your course actually
addresses)
Methods used to Teach
Course Objectives
Methods (and
numbers/types of
assignments) used to test
these learning objectives
Type, Timing and
Numbers of Feedback
given to Student
The bachelor has an open and
academic attitude, characterized
by accuracy, critical reflection
and academic curiosity.
The bachelor has an open and
academic attitude,
characterized by accuracy,
critical reflection and
academic curiosity.
Ex-cathedra
Readings
Class discussion
Final exam
QCCs
Research project
Feedback on QCCs during
class discussion
Oral feedback after
presentation of project
Written feedback with
grades
The bachelor is able to apply a
multi-disciplinary perspective in
his analysis of international
affairs.
The bachelor is able to apply a
multi-disciplinary perspective
in his analysis of international
affairs.
Ex-cathedra
Readings
Class discussion
Research project Oral feedback after
presentation of project
Written feedback with
grades
The bachelor is able to work in
a multi-cultural team.
The bachelor is able to work in
a multi-cultural team.
Class discussion
Activities
Presentation of project Once after the presentation
Student will receive
feedback from the whole
class
The bachelor recognizes the
importance of life-long learning.
- - - -
The bachelor is able to
communicate clearly, fluently
The bachelor is able to
communicate clearly, fluently
Class discussion Presentation of project Once after the presentation
Student will receive
18
Major Learning Objectives Course Learning objectives
addressing the Major
Objectives (choose the
most important ones that
your course actually
addresses)
Methods used to Teach
Course Objectives
Methods (and
numbers/types of
assignments) used to test
these learning objectives
Type, Timing and
Numbers of Feedback
given to Student
and accurately; as well in a
written report as in an oral
presentation.
and accurately; as well in a
written report as in an oral
presentation.
Activities feedback from the whole
class
The bachelor is able to include
ethical judgments in his analysis
of current problems in
international affairs and assesses
the impact of these ethical
judgments on the solutions
proposed for current
international affairs.
- - - -
19
Appendix 1: Rubric for Research Paper 200-level
Criterion Description Points Comments (or directly in paper)
Introduction and Research Question / Statement / Puzzle
( /8 Points)
Explain Choice of Topic and why it is academically relevant /2
Clear and Concise Research Question / Research Statement /4
Outline of structure of the paper and main argument /2
Literature Review
( /12 Points)
The literature review identifies the relevant (i.e. to the chosen topic) arguments and debates in the literature and places the student’s own topic in the wider academic context
/3
It compares, contrasts and synthesizes the main authors and arguments /3
It evaluates strengths and weaknesses of the literature and identifies clear gaps the student’s paper addresses
/3
Based on the Literature Review, the student also identifies major theories and core concepts that have been applied by authors to the topic at hand and applies some of them in the analysis part of the paper (see Analysis / Discussion criteria)
/3
Methods
( /8 Points)
The student chooses, explains and justifies an appropriate method to tackle the research question
/4
The student demonstrates the ability to select and present suitable data for the analysis /4
Analysis / Discussion
Extensive Analysis and Arguments supported by strong empirical examples and data /8
Use and synthesis of a good number of sources and references to support key arguments directly addressing the research question
/8
20
Criterion Description Points Comments (or directly in paper)
( /32 Points) The student explains and shows awareness of appropriate theoretical debates that have been used in the literature to examine similar problems and applies some concepts to the analysis
/8
Critical and dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of core assumptions and arguments of other authors in non-prejudicial and open-minded manner
/8
Structure
( /20 Points)
The paper is structured in a coherent and logical way – with clear subsections – supporting the clarity of the argument and analysis
/10
A coherent line of argumentation, linking empirical examples back to answering the main research question.
/10
Formal Aspects
( /10 points)
Correct use of language (spelling, grammar, expression) /3
Correct citation and bibliography /3
Appropriate Number of Sources /4
Conclusions
( /10 points)
Stating in clear and succinct manner the result of the analysis and main answer to the research question
/4
Critical, open-minded and non-defensive evaluation the validity of the student’s own arguments and results to explore further avenues of research
/6
TOTAL Final and Overall Comments: Total
21
EXPLANATION OF POINT VALUES FOR EACH MARKER
Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-) Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) Fail (F)
Introduction and Research Question / Statement / Puzzle
(8 points maximum)
2
1,5 – 1
0,5 – 0
Choice of Topic The author provides a clear and convincing explanation of
the choice of topic and highlights its significance The author provides an explanation which is,
however, not fully convincing No or very weak
explanation provided
Clear Research Question / Clear
Research Statement
4 3-2 1,5 - 0
The author provides a clear and meaningful research question. The research question is focused enough to
enable an in-depth analysis and is relevant and ambitious enough to allow for original and critical engagement with
empirical developments, theories and author debates. The author provides a research statement on how to
tackle the overarching research question.
The author provides a research question, but it lacks clarity, conciseness or is not
ambitious enough (self-evident research question). Muddled or unclear research
statement
Poorly designed research question
No research statement
Outline of Structure and Main Argument
2
1,5 – 1
0,5 – 0
The author provides a clear outline of the main argument and will how she/he will structure the paper
The author provides an outline of the main argument and an indication of the structure
– but lacks clarity No or very weak outline
Literature Review Analysis (12 points) 3
points per marker
3 – 2.5
2 – 1,5
1 – 0
22
Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-) Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) Fail (F)
Relevant arguments and debates /
academic context
The literature review identifies the relevant (i.e. to the chosen topic) arguments and debates in the literature
and places the student’s own topic in the wider academic context
The literature review identifies some relevant (i.e. to the chosen topic) arguments
and some debates in the literature. The student places his or her own topic in an academic context – but this is not fully
explored
No relevant literature is provided or only weakly explored. Limited or no wider academic context
provided
Compare, Contrast and Synthesis
The student compares, contrasts and synthesizes a wide range of key authors and arguments in the literature
review
The student mentions some of the key authors and arguments, but does not fully
and actively synthesize the material or compares and contrasts in a limited manner;
or only does one of the two
No or very weak synthesis and/or
comparing & contrasting or
arguments and authors
Evaluation of Strengths/Weaknesses
and Gaps
The literature review evaluates strengths and weaknesses of the literature and identifies the relevant gaps the
student’s paper addresses
Some strengths and weaknesses of the literature are identified but the gap the
student’s paper seeks to address is not fully clear
No or very weak evaluation – gaps not explained or weakly
explained
Identifying Key Theories and Core
Concepts
Based on the Literature Review, the student also identifies major theories and core concepts that have
been applied by authors to the topic at hand and applies some of them in the analysis part of the paper (see
Analysis / Discussion criteria)
The student identifies theories / concepts, but they are not completely relevant and/or
not clearly and correctly defined
No or irrelevant theories/concepts
identified
Methods (8 points) –
4 points per descriptor 4 3-2 1,5 - 0
Appropriate Method The student chooses, explains and clearly justifies an appropriate method to tackle the research question
The student chooses a method, but it lacks proper justification and is only partially
relevant / or not fully explained
No or irrelevant methods – no or weak
explanation/justification
23
Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-) Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) Fail (F)
Selection of suitable Data
The student demonstrates the ability to identify and present suitable data for the main analysis
The student identifies and presents some data, but not always the most suitable
No or poorly selected/presented data
Analysis/Discussion
(32 points) 8 – 6,5 6 – 4 3 - 0
Extensive Analysis and Arguments with
empirical examples, data and facts
Analytical arguments are illustrated with the help of clear and insightful empirical examples. The author frequently substantiates arguments with the help of up to date data.
The arguments are presented in a succinct way so as to answer directly the overall research questions and sub-
questions, ensuring a high level of relevance.
Arguments are occasionally supported by empirical examples. The author occasionally
substantiates arguments with the help of data even though this data is outdated.
Arguments are not always linked back to the main research question
Arguments are mostly unsubstantiated claims,
absence of data or empirical examples and large passages that do
not address the research question, undermining the
relevance of the main body.
Synthesis of wide range of sources
Wide use and synthesis of sources and references to support key arguments directly addressing the research question. The use of literature displays the author’s in-
depth knowledge of the subject-matter.
Occasional use and synthesis of sources and references to support some arguments –
some but not all arguments directly address the research question (i.e. passages of
irrelevant analysis/discussion)
No or very weak synthesis of sources –
arguments do not address the research
question directly
Explanation and application of
theory/concepts
The student explains and shows awareness of appropriate theoretical debates that have been used in the literature to examine similar problems and applies
some concepts to the analysis
Some application of concepts/theoretical aspects of the analysis in the paper
No or very limited explanation and
application of theories and concepts
Evaluation of arguments
Critical and dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of core
assumptions and arguments of other authors in non-
Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of some assumptions and arguments, but often
counter-arguments are not presented or
No or very limited evaluation of strength
and weaknesses –
24
Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-) Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) Fail (F)
prejudicial and open-minded manner (including the presentation of counter-arguments)
straw-man arguments are provided. Some evidence of selective argumentation
highly biased or selective line of argumentation
Structure ( /20 points) – 10points per
marker 10 – 8,5 8 – 5 4 - 0
Clear Structure The paper is structured in a coherent and logical way – with clear subsections – supporting the clarity of the
argument and analysis
The structure is generally logical and coherent, but at places unclear – the sub-
sections could be clearer or better organized
No or very unclear/incoherent
structure
Clear and coherent line of argumentation
A coherent line of argumentation (red thread running through the entire paper), linking theories and empirical examples back to answering the main research question.
Argumentation line is not always clear or coherent – theories and examples are not always linked back to the main research
question
Unclear / absent line of argumentation –
fragments not linked to the research question
Formal Aspects (10)
Language and Spelling Correct use of language - correct spelling, grammar, and
English expression (3 – 2.5) Use of language with occasional flaws in
spelling, grammar and expression (2 – 1,5)
Very flawed use of language with many
spelling and grammar mistakes
(1-0)
Citation Correct and consistent use of citation method and correct
bibliography (3 – 2.5) Occasional mistakes in citation method and
bibliography (2 – 1,5)
Recurring mistakes in citation and
bibliography (2 – 1,5)
25
Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-) Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) Fail (F)
Number of Academic Sources
Appropriate number of academic sources used (please check progression document for your specific Major:
Business Studies: at least 12 sources; CMM: 20, IA: 10-15) (4 - 3,5)
Acceptable number of sources
(3 – 2)
Inadequate number of sources used (1,5 – 0)
Conclusion (10)
Results (4) The student states in clear and succinct manner the result of the analysis and main answer to the research question.
(4-3,5)
General conclusions are provided, but research question is not fully answered. (3 –
2)
Unclear conclusions / absence of conclusions. Research question is not
answered
(1,5 - 0)
Evaluation of own arguments and further avenues for research
(6)
Critical, open-minded and non-defensive evaluation the validity of the student’s own arguments and results to
explore further avenues of research (6 – 5)
Some evaluation of the validity of own arguments, but more critical engagement
with own arguments and further avenues for research not fully developed (4,5 – 3)
No or weak evaluation of own arguments. No
or weak outline of further research
avenues
(3 – 0)