Posted: January 6th, 2023

Public and Third Sector Economics

Public and Third Sector Economics

Coursework (CW) 1:

This will consist of a portfolio, which provides evidence of various tasks completed throughout the module. These include for example, the application of theory to real examples, and the relating to public and third sector organisations. [LO1]

Your portfolio will include work you complete throughout the semester.

The portfolio is based on 2 core pieces of work:

Submission of an Article Review (1000 words) 25%

The CW1 grade will be calculated as the average of the scores obtained in 2 above individual tasks. However, if you don’t complete both tasks, you will automatically get a failing grade to the whole work (CW1).

1. Article Reviews (25%)

You will need to submit an article review from the seminar articles. The articles are being uploaded on course resources. A template that includes the information that you should include is provided below (page 6). The table should not be part of your submission, the review should be submitted as a short essay. However, the template below provides the type of information that should be included in the review.

An article will be assigned for informal feedback, students are encouraged to submit an article review on the selected article for formative feedback.

Guidelines on Article Reviews

i) Language

-In some reviews there are some grammars or spelling mistakes. I would really like you to double check the language before submitting your article review as the information presented may not be very clear.

-It is important to understand that for an ‘academic-style’ piece of writing, you have to make everything that you write crystal- clear and your writing needs to be formal. In particular, students should use the correct terminology (i.e. you need to talk like an economist). Avoid describing the impact of x on y as huge, tremendous or anything like that, instead discuss the significance, percentage change etc.

-Avoid informal expressions too.

-Also, if you have any issue with the language, use only short and clear sentences.

ii) Structure

– A very important point is that you should do your article review in an essay format so
-Essays need to be clearly structured with an introduction (stating the problem of interest and presenting the context, ideally introducing a brief outline of what is to come: the main thesis, and the main finding of the article, in a couple of sentences.

-For an article review, there should at least be an introductory paragraph, a main body and some form of concluding comments with the Assessment of the article and its implications.

-The main part needs to discuss the methodology and data and link this to the findings. It cannot be just a list of topics. Remember the article review is not a summary of the paper, you don’t need to list everything, and you shouldn’t describe the sections of the paper or all the variables or hypotheses.

-You cannot refer to section 1, or table 5 etc. It’s not a summary of the paper, you should discuss the points in terms of significance and importance, and again you don’t need to list everything. Please see section below as well.

-Also please avoid writing the Assessment on the main part. This part is about the article that is being reviewed only.

iii) How to deal with an ’empirical paper’

-You should aim for a neither too vague/nor too specific strategy. Neither too vague means that it might not be enough to write in two sentences what the message of the article is, but not too specific means that the student does not have to discuss all specific features of the statistical methods, or every single variable on the dataset involved.

iv) Critical and Analytical skills; How to formulate ‘critiques’, put the paper in a ‘broader context.

-You cannot only describe the paper and there is a need to go further. However, it is best to avoid “artificial” criticism or vague statements. The very best reviews are those that have been able to place an article in its context and in the literature, by referring to other readings or to what have been discussed in the course.

-Please do have a reference section at the end of your article review with at least 1-2 references, other than the papers cited in the article you are reviewing. This does not count in your word limit.

Other comments
Your reviews need to be no more than 1000 words. Any content beyond the limit won’t be marked.

The submission deadline for the article review is 21st November 2022 by 12 Noon. You need to include the title of the article on the top with the name of the article, authors, journal, year. Again, this does not count to your word limit.

Formative Feedback

Clinics will be held on the teaching Week 8 in which you can receive formative feedback on article review. Based on the feedback, you can improve the quality of the review.
You should upload your article review via Turnitin no later than 18 November 2022

Article Review Template: What you should include?
[You should do your article review in an essay format so do not use the article review template]

Author Author’s name
Title Title of article / book chapter
Source Journal / book
Summary: thesis & main points Give the thesis statement of the reading – one or two sentences in the article (normally in the introduction or abstract) that summarise it. Often starts with something like ‘this paper will argue’ but can be more subtle.
Write down a summary of the main points /central arguments the made by the author. This includes but not limited to the background, rationale, objectives, methods, key results, and limitations.
Type of evidence Explain the rationale, describe the type of evidence used to support the thesis & arguments e.g. econometric (write down sample, time span)/qualitative evidence (case study, interviews, etc)/theoretical paper (no empirics), sources of information, methods, findings/results
Response:
-Assessment
– Implications
– Personal reaction Assessment: Are you convinced by the author’s argument? Explain why.
Things to think about:
Is the argument convincingly supported by the evidence?
– Is the evidence relevant to the argument and conclusions? Is the evidence strong enough to support the author’s arguments? Is there evidence that contradicts/weakens the author’s argument? Does the evidence agree with other sources? Are there exceptions to the argument that the author hasn’t acknowledged?
Does the author pay attention to alternative arguments / explanations?

Implications: How do the arguments made by the author fit into a wider context?
– How does it fit with other reading? What new course-related information did it contain?
– Who might find this reading useful? Could this reading lead anyone to change the way they approach this issue or the way they work? What are the implications for policy?

Personal reaction: Note your reaction to the reading. Which ideas did you find particularly interesting? Do you have questions that are not answered by the reading? Are there parts you found confusing and could have been addressed better?

Tasks
Deadlines Grades Post Date
Oral Poster Presentation 25/10/22 Tuesday N/A
Digital Poster Submission 31/10/22 Monday by 12 Noon 21/11/22
Article Review Submission 21/11/2022 Monday by 12 Noon 12/12/22

Assessment Rubric
The assessment rubric on the next page shows the complete criteria of the CW1 and how you will be assessed.

Case Study Poster Marking Scheme 25% (Assessment grade guidelines)
Criteria Weighting 1-34% 35-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100%
Style 20% Weak narrative of the slides in the poster.
Inefficient use of space, no balance between text and visual items. Vague narrative effect of the slides in the poster.
Some use of visual items but clear links with text are sometimes missing. Reasonable narrative effect of the slides in the poster.
Fair attempt made to balance text and visuals but vague analysis and basic interpretation. Good narrative effect of the slides in the poster with clear elements of the case and questions under analysis.
Good attempt made to balance text and visuals. Very good narrative effect of the slides. in the poster.
Very good balance between text and visuals. Excellent narrative effect of the slides in the poster.
Excellent balance between text and visuals. Exceptional balance throughout between text, and more visual items such as tables, arrows, graphics, photos, schemas.
Exceptional narrative effect of the slides in the poster. Key points are excellently highlighted visually.
Analysis of the Questions 40% Analysis of case and questions under analysis is weak, too descriptive.
No stakeholder matrix is provided.
Vague analysis, too descriptive. Lacks critical analysis, too descriptive. Weak use of data. Inadequate interpretation.
Stakeholders are identified, but Power/Interest matrix is not provided. Reasonable critical analysis of questions and case under analysis. Fair attempt made to identify stakeholders but vague analysis and basic interpretation about the Power/Interest matrix.

Good critical analysis with clear elements of the case and questions under analysis.
Some of the stakeholders are identified and plotted correctly with insufficient discussion. Very good critical analysis of the case and questions under analysis. Data sourced and information presented sourced limited to case study.
Some of the stakeholders are identified and plotted correctly in the matrix. Good discussions provided associated with examples. Excellent critical analysis of case study and questions under review. Excellent use of information and data. Convincing with wider reading.
Most of the stakeholders are identified and plotted correctly in the matrix. Excellent discussions provided associated with examples. Outstanding critical analysis of case study and questions, interpretation linking the analysis to current affairs. Highly convincing.
Most of the stakeholders are identified and plotted correctly in the matrix. Outstanding discussions provided associated with examples.
General content 20% Organisation of presentation, Research on organisation, clarity of argument/ position, conclusions achieved.
The information presented about the VO is not concise; some information or background are included even if not essential to the argument.
The organisation, structure, and standard of presentation of the work are poor. Decision making strategy in the third and public sector are not clearly illustrated. The organisation, structure, and standard of presentation of the work are weak. Decision making strategies presented lack clarity and coherence throughout. The organisation, structure, and standard of presentation of the work are good. Decision making strategies are generally clear and coherent. The organisation, structure, and standard of presentation of the work are of a high standard. The work exhibits clear organisational structure and distinction of the decision-making process between the third sector and public sector organisations. The organisation, structure, and standard of presentation of the work are of a very high standard. The work exhibits an excellent clarity in distinguishing the organisational structure and decision making process with similar coherence and logic evident. The organisation, structure, and standard of presentation of the work are of an exceptional standard. The work exhibits an outstanding clarity in distinguishing the organisational structure and decision making process with similar coherence and logic evident
The main objectives are exceptionally presented in the audience.
All ‘need-to-know’ information about the case study is clearly presented to strengthen the arguments made.
Presentation 20%
(Class presentation 10% + Quality of the final poster 10%) Poster (Turnitin) – No structure, no introduction without conclusions.
Title or narrative headings are missing.
Poster (Turnitin) – Poor structure, vague introduction and/or conclusions.
Inadequate referencing.
Narrative headings are not appropriately used.
Poster (Turnitin) – Reasonable structure, overall flow, introduction and conclusions. Reasonable referencing.
Reasonable use of narrative headings.

Poster (Turnitin) – Good structure, overall flow, introduction, and conclusions. Good referencing.
Good use of narrative headings.

Poster (Turnitin) – Very good structure, overall flow, introduction, and conclusions. Very good referencing.
Very good use of narrative headings.

Poster (Turnitin) – Excellent structure, overall flow, introduction, and conclusions. Excellent referencing.
Excellent use of narrative headings. Poster (Turnitin) – Outstanding structure, overall flow, introduction, and conclusions. Outstanding referencing. Appropriate use of narrative headings at the top of the slide that encapsulate the essence of the argument.

Class presentation – No
Class presentation – Yes (You are not marked on the strength of the oral presentation in class. You will be given full marks when you present your poster)

Article Review Marking Scheme 25% (Assessment grade guidelines)
Criteria Weighting 1-34% 35-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100%
Clarity and style of writing 20% Introduction of article under review lacks important elements, a thesis is missing.
Presentation is weak and writing is inaccurate. Vague introduction, thesis not accurate.

Presentation is weak and style of writing is vague, with some inaccuracies. Reasonable introduction of article under analysis.

Fair attempt made but vague analysis and basic interpretation. Good introduction with clear elements of the article under analysis.
Presentation of information is not always clear and concise. Very good introduction.

Very good analysis, with some issues in the presentation or style of writing. Excellent introduction of the article review and description of thesis.
The information is concise and presented at a high level of clarity and precision. Excellent introduction of the article review and the thesis of the article is clearly stated.
Overall information presented is exceptionally clear and concise. The style of writing is formal and the correct terminology is used.
Content 40% Analysis of the article is weak, important elements are missing. No Assessment or discussion of implications. Lacks critical analysis, too vague, weak or inaccurate. Weak description of the article and important elements are missing. Inadequate Assessment. Reasonable article review. Fair attempt made but some elements are missing, vague analysis and basic Assessment. Good article review. Good description of the key aspects of the article. Assessment of the article and discussion of implications lacks necessary support. Very good article review. Very good description of the key aspects of the article. Assessment of the article and discussion of implications in terms is vague. Excellent article review. Excellent presentation of all the key elements of the article. Demonstrates a very good understanding of the topic and wider reading. The article review is of an exceptional standard. It sets out the theory/ concept the paper is set out to test, it describes the theory/data/ empirical methods, what are the findings and how they relate to the theory involved, what are their implications.
Critical and Analytical Skills 20% Absent Assessment of the article and discussion of implications. Weak Assessment of the article and discussion of implications. Reasonable article review. Fair attempt made to evaluate the article with basic interpretation. Good article review. Good Assessment of the article. Implications are vague. Very good article review. Very good Assessment of the article and interpretation of findings. Discussion of implications could be further developed. Some critiques may not be well reasoned. Excellent article review. Excellent Assessment of the article, convincing discussion of implications. Critiques are well reasoned. Exceptional standard of article Assessment and discussion of implications. The article review is able to place the article in its context and in the literature, by referring to other readings and to course material. The article review is able to explicit the links between different sections of the course and how the article relates to the overall issue of public and third sector economics. All critiques are exceptionally well reasoned.
Structure 20% No structure, no introduction without conclusions.
The correct format for the article review is not used. Poor structure, vague introduction and/or conclusions. Inadequate referencing.
The format for the article review is not appropriately used. Reasonable structure based on the suggested formal for the article review, overall flow, introduction and conclusions. Reasonable referencing.

Good structure, overall flow, introduction, and conclusions. Good referencing.

The format of the article review is well used. Very good structure, overall flow, introduction, and conclusions. Very good referencing.

The format of the article review is very well used. Excellent structure, overall flow, introduction, and conclusions. Excellent referencing.

Excellent use of the article review format. Outstanding structure, overall flow, introduction, main body and conclusions. Very good referencing. Based on the format provided, it sets out the theory/ concept the paper is set out to test, it describes the data/ empirical methods, what are the empirical results and how they relate to the theory involved, what are their implications.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Public and Third Sector Economics