Strategic Law Enforcement

Clear, concise, well-structured introduction.

Uses three elements of an introduction: Contextualising the problem; Statement of the problem; Response to the problem

Combines all three elements of an introduction coherently.

Combines all three elements of an introduction coherently.

Provides a stepwise plan for the paper

Combines all three elements of an introduction coherently.

Provides a stepwise plan and displays a well thought out approach, indicating specific examples to be used

Does not appear to contain any clear argument, either in the introduction/ conclusion or in the main body.

Does not link the example(s) used to the argument (if there is one) and there is no sense of the paper working towards making the reader understand the position of the author

Indicates that there might be some position taken in the paper, but this is not made explicit and does not come through in the main body.

Makes an attempt to build up a convincing case, but fails to adequately link the examples and ideas used to the central point of the paper’s argument.

Key requirements can be discerned from the paper but not with clarity.

Some type of statement of argument in the introduction and conclusion, but reference to the argument in the main body is vague.

Relates the examples used to the central argument, and there is a sense of a case being built. However, there are some instances where the links between them are unclear.

Key requirements identified and presented although may be a little inconsistent.

The Argument drives the use of examples and ideas, though there is potential for improvement in the delivery and/or linkage back to the core of the paper.

Key requirements identified and presented.

Clear statement of argument in the introduction and conclusion, and indirectly mentioned with the main body of the paper.

The Argument drives the use of examples and ideas, though there is potential for improvement in the delivery and/or linkage back to the core of the paper.

Key requirements clearly identified and presented.

Clear and well-integrated sense of argument that flows through the entire paper.

Does not use appropriate evidence or argument.

The support chosen is generally taken out of context or misrepresented, and opposing viewpoints are not adequately dealt with.

Either does not use examples and/or quotes, or they are chosen poorly and they do not assist the argument being made (if one exists in the paper)

Use some appropriate evidence and argument in the paper.

The support chosen is broadly in alignment with the core argument of the paper, though there may be some misinterpretation of evidence and contradictory statements.

Alternative viewpoints are not particularly well addressed

Use appropriate evidence and argument in the paper.

Uses quotes, though they may not all be relevant or used to best effect.

The examples used are chosen to support the argument, though they may not always do so effectively.

Integrates evidence and supportive arguments.

The support chosen is generally in alignment with the core argument of the paper and acknowledges alternative viewpoints.

Uses appropriate examples and quotes, though they may not be used to best effect.

The examples used are engaging and reasonably well chosen to best support the argument.

Integrates appropriate evidence and argument.

The support chosen is in alignment with the core argument of the paper and successfully engages with alternative viewpoints.

Uses appropriate examples and quotes.

The examples used are interesting, engaging and well-chosen to support the argument.

Integrates appropriate evidence and argument in a sophisticated manner.

The support chosen is entirely in alignment with the core argument of the paper and successfully engages with alternative viewpoints.

Cleverly uses appropriate examples and quotes. The examples used are interesting, engaging, and well-chosen to best support the argument

Descriptive approach, lacking in analysis of the issues.

Discussion largely absent.

Does not address the core concerns of the question, and uses examples that are poorly, or not at all, related.

Provides only a repetition of others viewpoints

Demonstrates a case that is related to the topic, though it wanders off topic and/or addresses areas that are of little or no concern to the question at hand.

Makes some attempt to consider both sides of the discussion but not with a demonstrated understanding of the issues.

Develops a case that addresses most of the concerns of the paper and stays mostly on topic.

Provides a sense of balance to the discussion, although inconsistent in approach.

Develops a sound case that addresses most of the concerns of the paper and stays on topic.

Discusses both sides of the issues in a concise manner.

Establishes a solid case that addresses almost all of the specific concerns of the question.

Demonstrates clarity around the discussion

Is entirely focused on the core concerns of the question, and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the relevant issues.

Displays an advanced understanding of both sides of the issues.

Is able to introduce new ideas.

Lacks a structured conclusion. Repeats points already stated.

Introduces new ideas/ information

Provides well-balanced conclusion with a synthesis of key findings/ arguments.

May provide some direction for further research required.

May point to some limitations of methodology/theory/data.

Provides well-balanced conclusion with a synthesis of key findings/ arguments.

Provides a direction for further research required.

Points to any limitations of methodology/

theory/data.

Paper does not demonstrate engagement with the relevant literature.

Sources are of marginal quality.

Fewer than 15 independent sources (not including text book, study guide or course readings)

Demonstrates some supportive academic literature, but does not account for the different positions of authors within the ongoing debate within the discipline.

Sources are generally poorly selected.

15 or more diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journals, books and reports.

Demonstrates a “for and against” approach to the literature, with some attempt to integrate and address the difference between these positions.

Sources are in general less directly relevant to the topic.

20 or more diverse sources generally relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journal, books and reports.

Demonstrates a solid engagement with the literature.

Some sources are less directly relevant to topic.

20 or more diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journal, books and reports

Demonstrates a solid engagement with the literature and acknowledges the concerns raised by alternative positions in the literature.

25 or more diverse sources generally relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journal, books and reports.

Demonstrates a sophisticated engagement with the current literature, correctly identifying both the argument that support the position taken, and successfully addressing concerns raised by different or opposing views.

All sources are current and valid.

25 or more diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journal, books and reports.

Absence of correct referencing throughout the paper.

The error rate is so high as to render the meaning of the paper to be almost impossible to understand.

Few (if any) referenced ideas, facts or opinions.

No consistent referencing standard applied.

Numerous grammatical errors are present, and this affects the ability to understand the meaning of what is said

Some ideas or facts are attributed, and there are gaps in referencing and/or over reliance on direct quotation to convey conceptual information.

Non-Oxford system used and/or many errors are present.

Many grammatical errors. At times the meaning of what is written is affected by these errors.

Most ideas or facts are attributed, although there may be some gaps in referencing and/or reliance on direct quotation to convey conceptual information.

Broadly compliant with Oxford system.

Inconsistent use of page numbers and/or referencing of online documents.

Some grammatical errors. Generally the meaning of what is written is clear.

References all of the appropriate ideas and facts within the paper, and provides some synthesis from a number of sources.

Compliant with Oxford system, with few errors.

Few grammatical errors. Mostly the meaning of what is written is clear

References all of the appropriate ideas and facts within the paper, and provides some synthesis from a number of sources.

Compliant with Oxford system, with no errors.

Very few grammatical errors. The meaning of what is written is clear

Demonstrates a sophisticated use of referencing material, arguments and factual information, including synthesis from a number of sources.

Fully compliant with current Oxford system.

No grammatical errors. The meaning of each sentence is always clear and easily understood.