5SSMN226 GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS,
2019-20: MODULE OUTLINE
This note is divided into three parts:
1. An overview of the module
2. The assessment regime for the module
3. A reading list by week and topic.
1. Overview of the Module
The module objective are as follows:
• To understand the business of government.
• To appreciate different models of public service delivery.
• To assess how these services are managed.
• To explore how different stakeholders are involved in the delivery of government services.
• To examine how these services impact on stakeholders.
• To develop the capacity to critically evaluate the research and literature on these issues.
The course comprises a two hour lecture each week and a one-hour tutorial every other week. The lectures are Tuesday at 4.00 pm and the tutorial are on Friday.
In general, the course centres on the role played by government in the delivery of goods and services. More specifically, it revolves around those actors with stake in business and government and how they interact.
The lecture and tutorial topics for the respective weeks are as follows (the tutorial topics/questions are indicative, and you should check Keats to find the precise tutorial assignment and associated readings):
2. Assessment Regime
The assessment regime comprises two parts:
i) An in-depth 4,000 word essay covering a question and topic raised and covered during the module.
This first part makes-up 90% of the overall mark.
Your essay should address any one of the questions listed in the Reading List below. You will see from this Reading List that for every week, one or two questions is set out, and you can choose any of these questions to address in your essay.
The objectives for this essay are as follows:
– To encourage you to process and use various types of source data material to develop an argument.
– To prompt you to develop clear and coherent arguments.
– To allow to you explore an issue in-depth.
– To help you develop your critical faculties through evaluating the material and data you use in your essay.
– To help ensure that you develop well-grounded and supported arguments
– To encourage analytical and conceptual precision.
The assessment criteria used will be the following:
– Focus on the question: Answering the question posed.
– Structure and coherence of the essay: Clearly and rationally presenting the issues to develop a strong and plausible argument.
– Coverage of the relevant literature: Drawing upon the relevant literature in addressing the issues.
– Clarity of the arguments: Displaying an appreciation of the concepts and issues involved
– Analytical and critical insight: Challenging and appraising the quality of the literature and available
– Well grounded: Supporting and giving substance to your arguments, and avoiding speculation, prescription and unsubstantiated views.
ii) ‘Tutorial Assessment’
This element will count for 10% of the final mark. The 10% will be broken down into 5% for participation and 5% for a short end of term test:
– The 5% participation mark will be determined by an exercise at the beginning of each tutorial. You will be expected to bring along a newspaper of magazine story on any current news items which is relevant to the module and which has interested you. You need to be prepared to talk about this item at the tutorial- why it interested you and how it relates to the module. You will be awarded 1% per tutorial. As long as you bring this work along to the tutorial you be awarded this mark.
– The short 5% test will be held in Week 12. You will be asked to give short answers to five or six questions asking you to define key terms raised during the module, The examination will last 30 minutes.
3. Reading List
There is no set textbook for this module. You are encouraged to draw upon various sources: journals, newspapers, books and policy documents. There is one book which covers many of the topics explored in the module:
Flynn, N. (2017) Public Sector Management (seventh edition), London: Sage.
However, you should read widely.
The reading list for the course is set out below. It comprises two or three core reading for each week and a more extended list of additional readings. You should not feel intimidated by this reading list. The more you read the better but you can draw selectively from the list below. The reading list should also be seen as a resource to be drawn upon for your essay work, So on the topic you choose for your essay, you will want to explore many of the readings set out. At the same time, you should not feel constrained by this list and if you want to look for other readings beyond it, please do- indeed this is encouraged.
Week 1 The Nature and Role of the Government
Questions:
In the age of globalisation what role does the nation state have?
What are the arguments for and against a ‘large’ and a ‘small’ state?
How has the role of the state changed over recent years?
Readings:
Core Reading
Flynn, N. (2012) Public Sector Management (sixth edition), London: Sage. Chapt. 1
Wren, A. (2008) Comparative Perspectives on the Role of the State in the Economy in Wittman, A. and Weingast, B. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, Oxford: OUP.
Additional Readings
Crouch, C. (2014) Putting Neo-liberalism in its Place, Political Quarterly, 85:2
Jackson, P. The size and scope of the public sector: An international comparison, in Bovaird, T. and Loffler, E. (eds.) Public Management and Governance, London: Routledge.
Kay, J. (2013) Capitalism, Markets and Politics, Political Quarterly, 84:4
Mazzucato, M. (2013) The Entrepreneurial State, London: Anthem. Read the Introduction
Muir, R. and Cooke, G. (2012) The Relational State, London: IPPR. Read section 1
Dasgupta, R. (2018) The demise of the nation:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta
Tett, G. (2014) has the Nation State had its day?:
https://www.ft.com/content/3c14ccee-afc3-11e3-9cd1-00144feab7de
Week 2 Delivering Government Services: Context and Mechanisms
Questions:
Critically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of bureaucracies, markets and networks as forms of public service delivery.
Core Readings
Hood, C. (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69:3-19
Pollitt, C. (2003) Joined-up government: A survey, Political Studies Review, 1:34-49
Additional Readings
Andrews, R. (2017) When bureaucracy matters for organisational performance, Public Administration, 95:1, 115-39
Bevir, M. And O’Brien, D. (2001)New Labour and the public sector in Britain, Public Administration Review, 61:5.
Bouvaird, T. and Loffler, E. (2003) Evaluating the quality of public governance, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69:313-28
Curry, C. and Van de Walle, S. (2018) A bibliometrics approach to understanding conceptual breadth, depth and development: The case of New Public Management. Political Studies Review 16(2)-113-24
Davies, J. (2009) The limits of joined up government: Towards a political analysis, Public Administration, 87:1, 80-96.
Diefenbach, T. (2009) New Public Management in Public Sector Organizations: The Dark Sides of Managerialistic Enlightenment, Public Administration, 87:4, 892-909
Dunleavy, P. And Hood, C. (1994) From old public administration to new public management, Public Management and Money, July-Sept.
Exworthy, M. Powell, M. and Mohan, J. (1999) Markets, bureaucracy and public management; The NHS quasi market, quasi hierarchy and quasi network, Public Money and Management, 19:4, 15-22.
Goldfinch, S. and Wallis, J. (2010) Two myths of convergence in public management reform, Public Administration, 88:4, 1099-1115
Hansen, M. (2011) Antecedents of organizational innovation: The diffusion of new public management into Danish local government, Public Administration, 89:2, 285-306
Hayden, C. and Bennington, J., (2000) The Modernisation and Importance of Public Services: Multi level Networked Governance, Public Money and Management, 20: 2, 27-34.
Jacobson, C. and Jakobsen, M. (2018) Perceived organisational red tape and organisational performance in the public services, Public Administration review, 78:1, 24
Jordan, B. and Johns, N. New Labour: Trust, equality of opportunity and diversity, Social and Public Policy, 1:1
Koffijberg, J. Bruijn, H., and Priemus, H. (2012) Combining hierarchical and network strategies: Successful changes in Dutch social Housing, Public Administration, 90:1, 262-75
Ling, T. (2002) Delivering Joined up government in the UK: Dimensions, issues and problems, Public Administration, 80:4, 615-642
Lynne, L. (2005) Public Management: A Concise History of Field in Ferlie, E., Lynne, L. And Pollitt, C (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford: OUP.
Mascini, P. and Brasher, s. (2017) Choice and competition in education: Do they advance performance, voice and equity? Public Administration, 95(2) 482-97.
McGhee, D. (2003) Joined up government. Community, Safety and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender ‘active citizens, Critical Social Policy, 23:3, 345-74
McGuire, M. and Agranoff, R. (2011) The limits of public management networks, Public Administration, 89:2, 265-84
McTavish, D. (2017) Re-defining the role of the state, Public Management and Money, 37:2, 76-8
Perkins, N. Smith, K, Hunter, D. Bambra and Joyce, K. (2010) What counts is what works? New Labour and partnerships in public health, Policy and Politics, 38:1, 101-17
Week 3 Stakeholders (1): The Manager
Questions:
To what extent do you agree that management in the public sector is no different to management in the private sector?
Core Readings:
Ackroyd, S., Hughes, J. and Soothill, K. (1989) Public Sector Services and their Management, Journal of Management Studies, 26:6
Boyne, G. (2002) Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39:1.
Stewart, J. and Ranson, S. (1988) Management in the public domain, Public Money and Management, 8:1-2, 13-9
Additional Readings
Ashburner, L. Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L. (1996) Organizational transformation and top down change: The case of the NHS, British Journal of Management, 7:1-6
Baker, R. (1969) Organization theory and the public sector, Journal of Management Studies, 6:1, 15-32.
Barnes, C. and Henley, J. (2018) They are underpaid and understaffed: How clients interpret encounters with street level bureaucrats, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2):165-81
Bezes, P. and Jeanot, G. (2018) Autonomy and managerial reforms in Europe: Let or make managers manage, Public Administration, 96(1): 3-22.
Bolton, S. (2004) A simple matter of control: NHS hospital nurses and new management, Jounral of Management Studies, 41:2
Mike Bresnen, Damian Hodgson, Simon Bailey (2019) Hybrid managers, career narratives and identity work: A contextual analysis of UK healthcare organizations, Human Relations, 72(8)
Brunsson, N. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000) Constructing Organizations: The example of public sector reform, Organization Studies, 21:721
Chapman, C. (2016) How public service leadership is studied, Public Administration 94:1, 89-110
Clarke, J. (2004) Dissolving the public realm? The logics and limits of neo-liberalism, Journal of Social Policy, 33:1, 27-48
Davis, R. and Stayk, E. (2016) Senior Mangers’ Engagement in Networked Environments and goal and role ambiguity, Journal of Public Administration and Research, 26:3, 433-47
Dopson, S. and Stewart, R. (1990) Public and private sector management: The case for a wider debate, Public Money and Management, 10:1, 37-40
Fottler, M. (1981) Is management really generic? Academy of Management Review, 6:1, 1-12
Gianluca, V., Kirkpatrick, Ian Altanlar, Ali (2019) Are Public Sector Managers a “Bureaucratic Burden”? The Case of English Public Hospitals. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29 (2):193-209.
Jacobs, L. (2014) The contested politics of public value, Public Administration Review, 74:4
Jilke, S. et al (2018) Discrimination and Administrative Burden in Public Service Markets: Does a Public-Private Difference Exist? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3):423-39.
Jordan, J. (2018) Evidence form the frontline? An ethnographic problematisation of welfare-to- work administrator opinions, Work, Employment and Society, 32(1): 57-74.
Magee, J. and Frasier, C. (2014) Status and power: The principal inputs to influence for public managers, Public Administration Review, 74:3
Marquand, D. (2004) The public domain is a gift of history, Now it is at risk, New Statesman, 19 January
Martin, G. And Currie, G., and Finn, R. (2009) Leadership, service reform and public service networks: The case of cancer-genetics pilots in the English NHS, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19:769-94
Murray, M. (19775) Comparing public and private management: An exploratory essay, Public Administration Review, 35:4, 364-71
Noordegraaf, M. And Ven der Meulen, M., (2008) Professional power play: Organizing management in health care, Public Administration, 86:4, 1055-69
Pandey, S. (2016) Transformational leaders and the use of normative values, Public Administration, 94:1, 204-222
Perry, J. and Rainer, H. (1988) The public-private distinction in organisation theory, Academy of Management Review, 13:2, 182-201
Ring, P. And Perry, J. (1985) Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints, Academy of Management Review, 10;2, 276-86.
Stewart, J. and Clarke, M. (1987) The public service orientation: Issues and dilemmas, Public Administration, 65: summer, 161-77
Whorton, J. and Worthley, J. (1984) A perspective on the challenge of public management, Academy of Management Review, 6:3, 357-61
Week 4 Stakeholders (2): The Service User
Questions:
Does the co-production of public services threaten the authority and status of public service professionals, and if so why and how?
Given the imbalance in power and status between public service users and professionals, any attempt to co-produce is likely to be ineffective and tokenistic. Discuss.
Evaluate the different ways in which the service user might be involved in the delivery of public services. Is their one ‘best’ way?
Core Readings
Hyde, P. and Huw, T. (2004) Service design, culture and performance: Collusion and co-production in health care, Human Relations, 57:11, 1407-26.
Newman, J. and Vilder, E. (2006) Discriminating Customers, responsible patients, empowered users: consumerism and the modernisation of healthcare, Journal of Social Policy, 36:2, 193-209
Additional Readings
Andreassen, T. (2018) From democratic consultation to user employment. Journal of Social Policy, 47(1):99-117
Askheim, O. (2005) Personal assistance- direct payments or alternative public service, Disability and Society 20:3, 247-60
Barnes, M. Et al (2008) Designing citizen centred governance, York: Joseph Rowntree
Bartenberger, M. and Szescilo, D. (2016) The Benefits and Risks of experimental co-production, Public Administration, 94:2, 509-25
Bellemere, G. (2000) End users: Actors in the industrial relations system? British Journal of Industrial Relations,38:3, 383-405
Beresford, P. (2006) Developing inclusive partnerships: User-defined outcomes, networking and knowledge- a case study, Health and Social Care in the Community, 14:5, 436-44
Bolton, S.(2002) Consumer as king in the NHS, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15:2, 129-39
Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. (2016) Distinguishing different types of co-production, Public Administration Review, 76:3, 427-38
Buckwater, N. (2014) The potential for public empowerment through government-organized participation, Public Administration Review, 74:5
Dibben, P. And Bartlett, Local government and service users: Empowerment through user-led innovation? Local Government Studies, 27:3, 43-58
Fletcher, D. and Wright, S. (2018) A hand-up or a step down? Criminalising benefit claimants in Britain, Critical Social Policy, 38(2): 223-44
Fotaki, M. (2011) Towards developing new partnerships in public serves, Public Administration, 89:3. 933-55
Fuertes, S. and Lindsay, C. (2016) Personalisation and Street Level Practice, Public Administration, 94:2, 526-41.
Harris, J. (1999) State social work and social citizenship in Britain: From clientelism to consumerism. British Journal of Social Work, 29: 915-937
Hodge, S. Participation, discourse and power: A case study in service user involvement, Critical Social Policy 25:2, 164-79
Hudson, B. (2018) Citizen accountability in the New NHS in England, Critical Social Policy, 38(2): 418-27.
Jilke, S. (2015) Choice and equality: Are vulnerable citizens worse off after liberalisation? Public Administration, 93(1): 68-85.
Joshi, A. and Moore, M. (2004) Institutionalised Co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environment, Journal of Development Studies, 40:4, 31-49
Kessler, I. and Bach, S. (2011) The citizen-consumer as industrial relations actor: New ways of working and the end use in social care, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49:1, 80-102
Lindsay, C. et al (2018) Co-production as a route to employability, Public Administration, 96(2) 318-32.
Leadbetter, C. (2004) Personalisation through Participation: A New Script for Public Services, London: Demos.
Marinetto, M. (2003) Who wants to be an active citizen? Sociology, 31:1
Needham, C. (2009) Policing with a smile: Narratives of consumerism in New Labour’s criminal justice policy, Public Administration, 87:1, 97-116
Needham, C. (2103) Personalization: From day centres to community hubs, Critical Social Policy, 34:90
Needham, C. and Carr, S. (2012) Co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation, Social Care Institute of Excellence Research Briefing 31.
Newman, J. (2005) Enter the transformational leader: Network governance and the micro politics of modernization, Sociology, 39:4, 717-34
O’Reilly, D. And Reed, M.(2010) Leaderism: An evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform, Public Administration, 88:4, 960-78
Pedersen, J. et al (2018) Punishment on the frontline of public services, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 28(3): 339-54
Rosenthal, P. And Peccei, R. (2006) The social construction of clients by services in reformed welfare administration, Human Relations, 59: 1633-58
Scourfield, P. (2007) Social care and the modern citizen: client, consumer, service user, manager and entrepreneur, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 107-22
Zambrano, J et al (2017) Type of co-production and differential effects on organisation performance, Public Administration, 95(3): 776-70
Week 5 Stakeholders (3): The Professional
Questions:
How and why does new public management represent a threat to the public service professions?
Why and how do professions develop?
Are public sector professionals distinctive and if so how and why?
How and why is the role of the professional changing in the public services?
Core Readings
Ackroyd, S., Kirkpatrick, I., and Walker, R. (2007) Public management reform in the UL and its consequences for professional organization: A comparative analysis, Public Administration, 85:1, 9-26
Evetts, J. (2009), New Professionalism and New Public Management: Changes, Continuities and Consequences Comparative Sociology, 8:2, pp. 247-266
Ferlie, E. And Geraghty, K. (2005) Professionals in public service organizations: Implications for public sector reforming in Ferlie, E. et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford: OUP.
Additional Readings
Alaszewski, A. and Manthorpe, G. (1990) Literature review: The new right and the professions, British Journal of Social Work, 20: 237-51
Andrews, T. And Waerness, K. (2011) De-professionalisation of a female occupation: Challenges for the sociology of professions, Current Sociology,59:1, 42-58
Aneleu, S.(1992) The professionalization of social work? A case study of three organisational settings, Sociology, 26:1, 23-43
Beck, J. (2008) Governmental professionalism: Re-professionalising or de-professionalising teachers in England, Journal of Education Studies, 56:2, 119-43
Currie, G. Koteyko, N. and Nerlich, B. (2009) The dynamics of professions and development of new roles in public services organisations; The case of modern matrons in the English NHS, Public Administration, 87:2, 295-311
Davies, C. (1996) The sociology of professions and the profession of gender, Sociology, 30:4, 661-78
Evans, T. and Harris, H. (2004) Street level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion, British Journal of Social Work, 34:871-95
Filson, G. (1988) Ontario Teachers’ deprofessionalistion and proletarianization, Comparative Education Review, 32:3, 298-317
Fitzgerald, L. And Ferlie, E. (2000) Professionals – Back to the future, Human Relations, 53:5, 713-39
Friedson, E. (1984) The changing nature of professional control, Annual Review of Sociology, 10: 1-20
Harris, J. (1998) Scientific management, bureau-professionalism, new managerial: The labour process of state social work, British Journal of Social Work, 20:839-63
Kislov, R. (2016) Professionals as knowledge brokers, Public Administration, 94:2, 472-89
Kitchener, M. Kirkpatrick, I., and Whipp, R. (2000) Supervising professional worker under NPM, British Journal of Management, 11:213-26
Kitchener, M.(2000) The bureaucractization’ of professional roles: The case of clinical directors in UK hospitals, Organization, 7:129
McGiven, G (2015) Hybrid managers-professional identity work- The maintenance of medical professionalism is a managerial context, Public Administration, 93(2): 412-423.
Muzio, D., Brock, D., and Suddaby, R. (2013). Professional and institutional change: Towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 699-712.
Nancarrow, S. and Borthwick, A. (2005) Dynamic professional boundaries in the healthcare workforce, Sociology of Health and Illness, p 897-919
Noordegraaf, M. (2007) From pure to hybrid professionalism: Present day professionals in ambiguous public domains, Administration and Society, 39:761
Ozga, J. (1988) Schoolwork: Interpreting the labour process of teaching, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9:3, 323-36.
Turner, S. (2016) Hybrids and professional communities, Public Administration, 94(3):700-16
Visser, L. et al (2018) Prying eyes: a dramaturgical approach to professional surveillance, Journal of Management Studies, 55(4):703-727
Week 6 Stakeholders (4) – The Employee: Public Service Ethos and Motivation
Question:
Is the public service ethos a myth or reality?
To what extent do you agree that the public service ethos exist but is changing?
Core Readings
Perry, J. (1997) Antecedent of public service motivation, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2:181-97
Horton, S. (2006) The public service ethos in the British civil service: An historical institutional analysis, Public Policy and Administration, 21:1
Vandenabeete, W. (2015) Past, present and future public service motivation research, Public Administration 92(4): 779-789 (and see whole of this issue of Public Administration.)
Additional Readings
Bolton, S. and Wibberly, G. (2013) Domiciliary care: The formal and informal labour process, Sociology, 48:4
Crewson, P. (1997) Public service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4:99-518
Gregg, P. Grout, P., Ratcliffe, A., Smith, S.and Windmeijer, F. (2008) How important is pro social behaviour in the delivery of public services, Centre for Market and Public Organisation, Working Paper N.08/197
Giauque, D. Et al (2012) Resigned but Satisfied: The Negative Impact of Public Service Motivation and Red Tape on Work Satisfaction, Public Administration, 90:1, 175-193.
Harari, M. (2017) Organizational correlate of public service motivation: A meta-analysis of two decades of empirical research, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27: 698-84
Hebson, G. Grimshaw, D. And Marchington, M. (2003) PPPs and the changing public sector ethos: Case study evidence from the health and local authority sectors, Work, Employment and Society, 17:3, 481-501
House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (2002) The Public Service Ethos. Vol.1. London: House of Commons
Koumenta, M. (2011) Modernisation, Privatisation and the Public Sector Ethos, in Marsden, D. (ed.) Employment in Leans Years, Oxford: OUP
Qing Miao, M., Eva, N., Newman A. and Schwarz, G. (2019), Public service motivation and performance: The role of organizational identification, Public Money and Management39(2): 77-85
Moynihan, D and Pandey, S. (2007) The role of organization in fostering public service motivation, Public Administration Review Jan/Feb,40-52
Morgan, J., Dill, J. and Kalleberg, A. (2013) The quality of healthcare jobs: can intrinsic rewards compensate for low extrinsic rewards?, Work, Employment and Society, 27:5
OECD (1996) Ethics in the Public Service: Current Issues and Practice, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 14. OECD: Washington
Perry, J. And Wise, L. (1990) The motivational bases of public service, Public Administration Review, 50:3, 267
Pratchett, L. and Wingfield, M. (1996) Petty bureaucracy and woolly-minded liberalism? The changing ethos of local government officers, Public Administration, 74: 639-56
Rayner, J. Williams, H., Lawton, A. And Allinson, C. (2010) Public service ethos: Developing a generic measure, Journal of Public Administration Research, and Theory, 21:27-5
Reynears, A. (2013) Public values in public-private partnerships, Public Administration Review, 74:1
Richards, D. And Smith, M. (2000) The public service ethos and the role of the British civil service, West European Politics, 23:3, 45-66
Ritz, A. et al, (2016) Public Service Motivation: A Systematic Literature Review, Public Administration Review, 76:3 414-26
Sheaff and West, M. (1997) Marketization, managers and moral strain: Chairmen, directors and public service ethos in the NHS, Public Administration, 75:189-206
Stazyk, E. and Davis, R. (2015) Taking the high road: Does public service motivation alter ethical decision making, Public Administration 93(3): 627-45.
Steen, T. and Schott, C. (2019) Public sector employees in a challenging work environment, Public Administration, 97(1): 3-10
Tepe,M. and Vanhuysse, P. (2017) Are future bureaucrats more prosocial? Public Administration, 95: 957-975.
Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2017) Public sector motivation ad fonts: Personality traits as antecedents of the motivation to serve the public interest, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27:1, 2-35
Vandenabeele, W. (2008) Development of a public service motivation measurement scale, International Public Management Journal, 11:1, 143-67
Vandenabeele, W., Scheepers, S. And Hondeghem, A. (2006) Public service motivation in an international comparative perspective: The UK and Germany, Public Policy and Administration, 21:1
Van Ryzin, G (2016) Evidence of the end of the history of illusion in the work motivation of public service professionals, Public Administration, 94:1, 263-75.
Witesman, E. and Walters, L. (2014) Public service values: A new approach to the study of motivation in the public sphere, Public Administration, 92:2
Wright, B., Hassan, S. and Park, J. (2016) Does a public service ethic encourage ethical behaviour, Public Administration, 94:3, 647-63
Week 7 Reading Week
Week 8 Stakeholder Interaction (1): Workers and Users- Emotional Labour and Care Work
Questions:
Is emotional labour ‘good’ or bad’ for public sector workers?
Why is care work under-valued and under-rewarded?
Core Readings
England, P. (2005) Emerging theories of care, Annual Review of Sociology, 31:381-99
Morris, J. And Feldman, D. (1996) The dimensions, antecedents and consequences of emotional labor, Academy of Management Review, 21:4, 986-1010
Additional Readings
Ashford, B. And Humphrey. R. (1993) Emotional labour in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18:1, 88-115
Bailey, S. The emotional labour of healthcare assistant in inpatient dementia care, Aging and Society, 35:2, 246-69
Barron, D. And West, E. (2011) The financial costs of caring in the British labour market: Is there a wage penalty for workers in caring occupations? British Journal of Industrial Relations (Online)
Bolton, S. (2005) Women’s work, dirty work: The gynaecology nurse as ‘other’ Gender, Work and Organisation, 12:2
Cranford, C. and Miller, D. (2013) Emotion management from the client’s perspective: the case of personal home care, Work, Employment and Society, 27:5
Curley, C. and Royle, T. (2013) The degradation of work and the end of the skilled emotion worker at Aer Lingus, Work, Employment and Society, 27:1, 105-121.
Humphrey, R. (2015) The bright side of emotional labour, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36:6, 749-69
England, P. Budig, M. And Folbre, N. (2002) Wages of Virtue: The relative pay of care work, Social Problems, 49:4
Hebson, G., Rubery, J., & Grimshaw, D. (2015). Rethinking job satisfaction in care work: looking beyond the care debates. Work, Employment & Society, 29(2), 314-330.
Hebson, G., Earnshaw, J. And Marchington, L. (2007) Too emotional to be capable? The changing nature of emotion work in definitions of capable teaching, Journal of Education Policy, 22:6, 675-94
James, N. (1992) Care=organisation + physical labour + emotional labour, Sociology of Heath and Illness, 14:4, 488-509
Jervis, L. (2001) The pollution of incontinence and the dirty work of care giving ina US nursing home, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 15:1, 84-99
Kessler, I., Heron, P. and Dopsn, S. (2015) Managing patients’ emotions as skilled work, Work, Employment and Society, 29(5):775-791
Leuze, K. and Strauss, S. (2016) Why do occupations dominated by women pay less, Work, Employment and Society, 30(5): 802-820.
Lopez, S. (2006) Emotional labor and organized emotional care, Work and Occupation, 33:2, 133-60
McMurray, R. and Ward, J. (2014) Why would you want to do that? Defining emotional dirty work, Human Relations, 67:9
Payne, J. (2009) Emotional labour and skill: A reappraisal, Gender, Work and Organization, 16:3
Rubery, J., Grimshaw, D., Hebson, G., & Ugarte, S. (2015). “It’s All About Time”: Time as Contested Terrain in the Management and Experience of Domiciliary Care Work in England. Human Resource Management, 54(5),
Strauss, A., Fagerhaugh, S. Suczek, B. And Weiner, C. (1982) Sentimental work in the technologized hospital, Sociology of Health and illness, 4:3, 254-78
Stritch, J. and Villadsen, A. (2018) The gender wage gap and the moderating effect of education in public and private sector employment, Public Administration 96(4):
Theodosius, C. (2006) Recovering emotion form emotion management, Sociology, 40:5, 893-910: 690-706.
Week 9 Stakeholder Interaction (2) Government and providers- Regulation and Performance
What explains the increasing regulation of the public services and is it a ‘good thing’?
Is the greater use of performance measurement and management in the public service likely to lead to higher or lower quality services?
Core Readings
Andrews, R. Boyne, G. Law, J., and Walker, R. (2008) Organizational strategy, external regulation and public service performance, Public Administration, 86:1, 185-203
Moran, M. (2001) The rise of the regulatory state in Britain, Parliamentary Affairs, 54:19-34
Gerrish, E. (2016) The impact of performance management on public organisations: A meta-analysis, Public Administration Review, 76:1, 48-66
Additional Readings
Amirkhangan, A. et al (2018) Management and Performance in US Nursing Homes, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1): 86-103
Ball, S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity, Journal of Education Policy,18:2, 215-28
Bartle, I. and Vass, P. (2007) Self regulation within the regulatory state: Towards a new regulatory paradigm? Public Administration, 85:4, 885-905
Bevan, G. And Hood, C. (2006) What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health system, Public Administration, 84:3, 517-38
Boswell, C. (2105) The double life of targets, Public Administration, 93(2): 490-505
Cutler, T. and Waine, B. (2001) Performance management – the key to higher standards in schools? Public Money and Management, 21:2, 69-72
Hogget, P. (1996) New modes of control in the public service, Public Administration, 74: Spring, 9-32
Hood, C. et al (1998) Regulation Inside Government: Where New Public Management meets the audit explosion, Public Money and Management, 18:2, 61-68
Hood, C. James, O. And Scott, C. (2000) Regulation of government: Has it increased, is it increasing should it be diminished, Public Administration, 78: 283-304
Hood, C. (2006) Gaming in target world: The targets approach to managing British public services, Public Administration Review July/August, 515-21
James, O. and Mosely, A. (2014) Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ perceptions,, satisfaction and voice behaviour? Public Administration, 29:2
Jong, G and Witteloostuijn, A. (2015) Regulatory red tape and private firm performance, Public Administration, 93(1):34-51.
Lewis, J (2019) Performance indicators and democracy: citizens’ views on the purposes of government websites Public Money and Management 39(1): 18-25
Loon, N. (2017) From red tape to which performance results, Public Administration, 95(1): 60-77.
Martin, S et al 2016) Analysing performance assessment in the public services, Public Administration, 94:1, 129-45
Mather, K. and Seifert, R. (2014) The close supervision of further education lecturers: ‘You have been weighed, measured and found wanting’, Human Relations, 28:1
Modell, S. (2004) Performance measurement myths in the public sector. Research note, Financial Accountability and Management, 20:1
Moran, M. (2001) The rise of the regulatory state in Britain, Parliamentary Affairs, 54:19-34
Oliver, J. (2019) Do Performance Metrics and Targets Boost Trust in Government, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. 29 (2):369-372.
Propper, C. and Wilson, D. (2003) The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19:2
Saks, M. and Allsop, J. (2007) Social Policy, Professional regulation and health support work in the UK, Social Policy and Society 6:2, 165-77
Sanderson, I. (2001) Performance management, evaluation and learning in modern local government, Public Administration, 79:2, 297-313
Authors:
Elkomy, Shimaa, Cookson, Graham, Jones, Simon (2019)Cheap and Dirty: The Effect of Contracting Out Cleaning on Efficiency and Effectiveness. Public Administration Review79 (2): 193-202.
Van Thiel, S. and Leeuw, F. (2002) The performance paradox in the public sector, Public Performance and Management Review, 25:3, 267-81
Wiggins, A. and Tymms, P. (2002) Dysfunctional effects of league tables: A comparison between English and Scottish primary schools, Public Money and Management, 22:1,43-48
Week 10 Stakeholder Interaction (3) Managers and Workers- Employment Relations in the public services
Questions:
Why and how are industrial relations in the public sector different form in the private sector?
To what extent do you agree that public sector trade unions are outdated and no longer have a role?
Performance related pay is never likely to work in the public sector. Discuss.
Core Readings
Bach, S. (2002) Public sector employment relations reform under Labour: Muddling through on modernisation, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40:2, 319-339
Boyne, G., Jenkins, G. and Poole, M. (1999) Human resource management in the public and private sectors. An empirical comparison, Public Administration, 77:2, 407-20
Additional Readings
Bach, S. and Kessler, I. (2007) HRM and the New Public Management in Boxall, P. And Purcell, J. And Wright,P. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford: OUP.
Bach, S. (2010) Public Sector Industrial Relations: The Challenge of Modernisation in Colling, T. and Terry, M. (eds) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, Chichester: John Wiley.
Bach, S. and Givan, R. (2010) Regulating employment conditions in a hospital network: The case of the Private Finance Initiative, Human Resource Management Journal, 20:4, 424-439
Bach, S. And Kessler, I. (2012) The Modernisation of the Public Services and Employee Relations, Palgrave: Basingstoke, Chapts. 2 and 7
Bacon, N. and Samuel, (2017) Social partnership and political devolution in the NHS, Work, Employment and Soicety,33:1, 123-41,
Bauer, L. and Cranford, C. (2107) The community dimensions of union renewal: racialised and caring relations in personal support services. Work, Employment and Society, 31(2), 302-18
Caillier, J. (2017) The impact of high quality workplace relationships in public organisations, Public Administration: 95: 638-653
Conely, H. (2006) Modernisation or casualisation? Numerical flexibility in the public services, Capital and Class, 30:1, 31-
Cunningham, R. (2000) From great expectations to hard times? Managing equal opportunities under NPM, Public Administration, 78:3, 699-714
Eldor, L. (2018) Public sector: The compassionate workplace, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28)1): 86-103.
Entwistle, T., Marinetto, M. and Ashworth, R. (2007) Introduction: New Labour, the new public management and changing forms of human resource management, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18:9
Gould-Williams, J. (2003) The importance of HR practices and workplace rust in achieving superior performance: A study of public sector organisations, International Journal of Human Resource Management,14:1, 28-54
Grimshaw, D. Rubery, J. and Marchington, M. (2010) Managing people across hospital networks in the UK: Multiple employers and the shaping of HRM. Human Resource Management Journal , 20:4
Kirkpatrick, I. and Hoque, K. (2006) A retreat from permanent employment? Accounting for the rise of professional agency work in the UK public services, Work, Employment and Society, 20:4, 649-66
Lupton, B. And Shaw, S. (2001) Are public sector personnel managers the profession’s poor relations? Human Resource Management, 11:323-38
Marsden, D. (2004) The role of performance related pay in renegotiating the ‘effort bargain’: The case of the British public service, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57:3, 350-70
Marsden, D. And Richardson, R. (1994) Performance pay: The effects of merit pay on motivation in the public services, British Journal of Industrial Relations 32:2, 377-99
Mooney, G. And Law, A. (eds) (2007) New Labour/Hard Labour, Bristol: Policy Press, Chapt. 1
Morgan, P. and Allington, N. (2002) Has the public sector retained its model employer status? Public Money and Management, 22:1, 35-42.
Perkins, S. And White, G. (2010) Modernising Pay in the UK public services: Trends and implications, Human Resource Management, 20:3, 244-57
Prentice, G. Burgess, S. And Propper, C. (2007) Performance Pay in the Public Sector: A Review of Issues and Evidence, London: OME
Redman, T. e al (2000) Performance appraisal in an NHS hospital, Human Resource Management Journal, 10:1, 48-62
Rubery, J. and Urwin, P. (20111) Bringing the employer back: why social care needs a standard employment relationship, Human Resource Management Journal,
Stuart, M. And Martinez Lucio, M. (2000) Renewing the model employer’ Journal of Management in Medicine, 14(5/6), 310-26
Tailby, S. (2005) Agency and bank nursing in the UK NHS, Work, Employment and Society, 19:369
Townley, B. (1997) The institutional logic of performance appraisal Organization Studies, 18:2, 261-85
Week 11: Stakeholder Interaction (4) Collaboration and Joined Up Government
What are the arguments for and against joined-up government?
What are the barriers to joined-up government and how have they been overcome?
How efficient and effective is contracting out and outsourcing?
Core Readings
Bovaird, T. (2004) Public-private partnership: form contested concept to prevalent practice, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70:2, 199-215
Entwistle, T. and Martin, S. (2006) From competition to collaboration in public service delivery: A new agenda for research, Public Administration, 63:1, 233-42
Additional Readings
Alonso, J. et al (2016) Institutional, ideological and political influence in local government contracting, Public Administration, 94:1, 244-62
Askin, J. et al (2011) One stop shops for social welfare, Public Administration 89:1451-68
Bach, S. and Givan, R., (2010) Regulating employment conditions in a hospital network: the case of the private finance initiative, Human Resource Management Journal, 20:4
Bel, G. and Gradus, R. (2018) Privatisation, Contracting Out and inter municipal co-operation, Local Government Studies, 44(1): 11-21.
Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (2007) The whole of government approach to public sector reform, Public Administration Review, 67:6
Conner, T. (2016) Cultural theory and manged values: Examining trust as a motivation for collaboration, Public Administration, 94(4): 915-32
Dahlstrom, C. et al (2018) Outsourcing, bureaucratic personnel quality and citizen satisfaction with public service, Public Administration, 96:218-233.
Eikenberry, R. And Kluver, J. (2004) The marketisation of the non profit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 62:2, 132-40
Flinders, M. (2005) The politics of PPPs, the British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7:2, 215-39
Greenaway, J., Salter, B. And Hart, S. (2004) The evolution of a meta policy in the case of PFI and the health sector, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6:4, 507-21
Grimshaw, D. Rubery, J. and Marchington, M. (2010) Managing people across hospital networks in the UK: Multiple employers and the shaping of HRM, Human Resource Management Journal 20:4
H.M. Treasury Total Place: A whole area approach to public services, (2010) London: Treasury
Jaehrling et al (2018) Tackling precarious work in public supply chains, Work, Employment and Society, 33(3): 546-63
Johnston, K. (2017) A gender analysis of women in public-private-voluntary sector partnerships, Public Administration 95(1): 140-59
Lomothe, S. and Lomothe, M. (2016) Service shedding in local government, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26:2, 359-74
Lewis, J. (2005) New Labour’s approach to the voluntary sector: Independence and the meaning of partnership, Social Policy and Society, 4:2, 121-31
Lowndes, V. And Skelcher, C. (1998) The dynamics of multi organisational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance, Public Administration, 76:2, 313-33
Maccio, L. and Cristofolio, D. (2017) How to support the endurance of long term networks, Public Administration, 95: 1060-76.
National Audit Office (2013) Integration across Government,, London: NAO.
O’Flynn, J et al (2011) You win some, you lose some: Experiment with Joined up Government, International Journal of Public Administration, 34(4):2334-23507
Pollitt, C. (2003) Joined up government: A survey, Political Studies Review, 1(1): 34-39.
Reissner, S. (2019) ‘We are this hybrid’: Members’ search for organizational identity in an institutionalized public–private partnership, Public Administration 97(1): 48-63
Reynaers, A. and Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2015) Transparency- public-private partnerships: Not so bad after all. Public Administration 93(3):604-626.
Skelcher, C, Mathur, N, Smith, D. (2005) The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy, Public Administration, 83:3, 573-96
Spackman, M. (2002) Private-Public Partnerships: Lessons from the British approach, Economic Systems, 26:3, 823-301
Warsen, Rianne, Klijn, Erik Hans, Koppenjan, Joop (2019)Mix and Match: How Contractual and Relational Conditions Are Combined in Successful Public–Private Partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. 29 (3) :375-393.
Wettenhall, R. (2003) The rhetoric and reality of PPIs, Public Organization Review, 2:77-100
Week 12 The Big Society and the Age of Austerity
Do you agree that the notion of the ‘Big Society’ is just an excuse to reduce the size of the state?
Can the notion of the ‘Big Society’ be meaningfully pursued in the age of austerity?
How has austerity impacted on the design and delivery of public services?
Core Readings
Grimshaw, D. and Rubery, J. (2012),’The End of the UK’s Liberal Collectivist Social Model?’ The Implications of the Coalition Government’s Policy during the Austerity Crisis’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36,1, pp. 105-126.
Lodge, M. And Hood, C. (2012) Into an Age of Multiple Austerities? Public Management and Public Sector Bargains across OECD Countries, Governance, 25:1, 79-101
McCann, L. (2013) Reforming Public Services After the Crash: The Roles of Framing and Hoping, Public Administration, 19:1, 5-16.
Smith, M (2010) From big government to big society: Changing the state-society balance, Parliamentary Affairs, 63:4, 818- 33
Additional Readings
Bach, S. (2012) The shrinking state or the big society, Industrial Relations Journal 43(4):5, 399-
415
Barbera, C.et al (2017) Governmental financial resilience, Public Administration, 95(3): 670697.
Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (2012) The alchemy of austerity, Critical Social Policy 32(3)
Davies, J. and Blanco, I, (2017) Austerity urbanism: Patterns of neo-liberalisation and resistance in six cities of Spain and the UK, Environment and Planning, 49(7):1517-36
Diamond, J. and Vangen, S. (2017) Coping with austerity: Innovation via collaboration or retreat to the known? Public Money and Management: 37(1): 47-54
Elstub, S., and Poole, L. (2014) Democratising the non profit sector, Policy and Politics, 42:3
Evans, K. (2011) Big society in the UK: A policy review, Children and Society, 25: 164-71
Fenwick, J. and Gibbon, J., (2017) The rise and fall of the Big Society in the UK, Public Management and Money, 37:2, 126-30
Glassner, V. (2010) The Public Sector in Crisis, Working Paper 2010.07, Brussels: ETUI
Grint. K. (2011) Leading questions: If total place, big society and local leadership are the answers: what’s the question? Leadership, 7:1, 85-98
Hardiman, N. (2010) Economic crisis and public sector reform: Lessons from Ireland, UCD Geary Institute, Discussion Paper.
Hartley, J. (2015) Feeling the squeeze: Employees’ experiences of cutbacks, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4): 1279-1305.
Heyes, J. Lewis, P. and Clark, I. (2012) Varieties of capitalism, neo liberalism and the economic crisis, Industrial Relations Journal, 43:3 222-41
Kirby, B. (2010) The Big Society: Power to the people, Political Quarterly, 80:4
Ishkanian, (2014) Neo-liberalism and violence: The brig society and the changing politics of domestic violence in England, Critical Social Policy 34:333
Leggett, W. (2014) The politics of behaviour change; nudge, neo-liberalism and the state, Policy and Politics, 42:1.
Lewis, S. (2017) Public sector austerity cuts in Britain and work-life balance, Work, Employment and Society, 31(4)
Lindsay, C., Osborne, S. and Bond, S. (2014) The new public governance and employability services in an era of crisis: challenges for third sector organisations in Scotland, Public Administration 92:1.
Lownes, V. and Pratchett, L. (2012) Local governance under the coalition government: Austerity, localism and the big society, Local Government Studies, 38:1
Mycock, A. And Tonge, J. (2011) A big idea for the big society? The advent of the national citizen service, Political Quarterly, 82:1, 56-66
Myers, J. (2017) To austerity and beyond. Third sector innovation or creeping privatisation, Public Management and Money, 37:2, 126-30.
Power, A. (2014) Personalisation and austerity in the crosshairs, Journal of Social Policy, 43:4
Psimitis, M. (2011), ‘The Protest Cycle of Spring 2010 in Greece’, Social Movement Studies, 10, 2, 191-197.
Scott, M. (2010) Reflection on the big society, Community Development Journal : 46:1, 132-7
Stewart, J. (2011), ‘New development: Public sector pay and pensions in Ireland and the financial crisis’, Public Money and Management, May, pp. 223-228.
Thaler, R and Sunstein, C. (2010) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, London: Penguin.
Webb, C. and Bywaters, P. (2018) Austerity, Rationing and Inequity: Your peoples’ services expenditure in England between 2010-15, 43(3) 391-415
Specific Marking Criteria –Government and Business
Grade A++
First
90-100 All levels Outstanding answer, well written, highly structured & informed, showing striking personal insight and originality
Understanding A complete understanding of the conceptual, analytical and theoretical issues and frameworks associated with the chosen topic or question. This will be reflected in clear and sharp conceptual and analytical distinctions which allow for the development of a highly nuanced and comprehensive answer to the question or to a discussion of the chosen topic. It will also be apparent in a full appreciation of relevant theoretical and analytical models. This complete understanding will further be evident in a highly critical approach to the material, displaying, in turn, strong independence of thought and a willingness to consistently and convincingly challenge and evaluate established models and ways of thinking.
Depth of Knowledge A full appreciation of the literature and research on the chosen topic as well as of appropriate analytical and theoretical models. This appreciation will be apparent in a comprehensive review of the appropriate research literature, and in the articulation of this knowledge to develop a highly sophisticated answer which directly addresses the question posed or the topic considered. The depth of knowledge will also be articulated in the development of a thoroughly plausible and convincing evidence-based argument which address all aspects of the topic or question.
Structure An extremely clear and highly coherent structure designed to unpack and directly address the topic or question. The structure will fully support the development of a coherent, plausible and evidence-based argument. The structure will ensure that arguments are clearly rooted in authoritative sources, data and relevant examples. As introduction setting out the approach to addressing question or topic will be provided, along with a fully developed final section which summarise the main arguments and the main conclusions.
Grade A+ First
80-89 All levels Highly thoughtful answer informed by wider reading, showing clarity of thought, personal insight and originality
Understanding An almost complete understanding of the conceptual, analytical and theoretical issues and frameworks associated with the chosen topic or question. This will be reflected in clear and sharp conceptual and analytical distinctions which allow for the development of a strongly nuanced and comprehensive answer to the question or to a discussion of the chosen topic. It will also be apparent in a firm appreciation of relevant theoretical and analytical models. This almost complete understanding will further be evident in a consistently critical approach to the material, displaying, in turn, a high degree independence of thought and a willingness to strongly challenge and evaluate established models and ways of thinking.
Depth of Knowledge A full appreciation of the literature and research on the chosen topic as well as of appropriate analytical and theoretical models. This appreciation will be apparent in a thorough review of the appropriate research literature, and in the articulation of this knowledge to develop a sophisticated answer which directly addresses the question posed or the topic considered. The depth of knowledge will also be articulated in the development of a plausible and convincing evidence-based argument which address almost all aspects of the topic or question.
Structure A clear and coherent structure designed to unpack and directly address the topic or question. The structure will strongly support the development of a coherent, plausible and evidence-based argument. The structure will ensure that arguments are clearly rooted in authoritative sources, data and relevant examples. An introduction setting out the approach to addressing question or topic will be provided, along with a final section which summarise the main arguments and the main conclusions.
Grade A
First
70-79 All levels Thoughtful answer informed by wider reading showing clarity of thought and personal insight
Understanding A firm understanding of the conceptual, analytical and theoretical issues and frameworks associated with the chosen topic or question. This will be reflected in clear and sharp conceptual and analytical distinctions which allow for the development of a nuanced and comprehensive answer to the question or to a discussion of the chosen topic. It will also be apparent in an appreciation of relevant theoretical and analytical models. This understanding will further be evident in a critical approach to the material, displaying, in turn, a significant degree independence of thought and a willingness to challenge and re-evaluate established models and ways of thinking.
Depth of Knowledge A firm appreciation of the literature and research on the chosen topic as well as of appropriate analytical and theoretical models. This appreciation will be apparent in a detailed review of the appropriate research literature, and in the articulation of this knowledge to develop a sophisticated answer which directly addresses the question posed or the topic considered. The depth of knowledge will also be articulated in the development of an evidence-based argument which address the key aspects of the topic or question.
Structure A clear and coherent structure designed to unpack and directly address the topic or question. The structure will support the development of a coherent, plausible and evidence-based argument. The structure will ensure that arguments are clearly rooted in authoritative sources, data and relevant examples. An introduction setting out the approach to addressing question or topic will be provided, along with a final section which summarise the main arguments and the main conclusions.
Grade B
Upper 2nd
60 – 69 All Levels Good understanding of basic principles and relevant evidence, with a coherent and logical argument
Understanding An understanding of the conceptual, analytical and theoretical issues and frameworks associated with the chosen topic or question. Some important conceptual and analytical distinctions will made which allow for the development of an answer which directly addresses the question or the chosen topic. This understanding will further be evident in a signs of critical approach to the material, displaying, in turn, a noteworthy degree independence of thought.
Depth of Knowledge Some appreciation of the literature and research on the chosen topic as well as of appropriate analytical and theoretical models. This appreciation will be apparent in a selective review of the appropriate research literature, and in the articulation of this knowledge to develop an answer which directly addresses the question posed or the topic considered. The depth of knowledge will also be articulated in the development of an evidence-based argument.
Structure A coherent structure designed directly address the topic or question. The structure will support the development of an evidence-based argument. The structure will ensure that arguments are clearly rooted in authoritative sources, data and relevant examples.
Grade C
Lower 2nd
50 – 59
All Levels Sound understanding demonstrated with some analysis
Understanding An understanding of the key concepts and issues associated with the chosen topic or question. This understanding will further be evident in attempts at a critical approach to the material, displaying, in turn, a degree independence of thought.
Depth of Knowledge Some appreciation of the literature and research on the chosen topic as well as of appropriate analytical and theoretical models. This appreciation will be apparent in the selective use of some of the research literature, and in the articulation of this knowledge to develop an answer which addresses aspects the question posed or the topic considered. The depth of knowledge will also be articulated in the development of an argument based on some evidence and data.
Structure A coherent structure designed address key aspects the topic or question. The structure will support the development of an evidence-based argument.
Grade D
Third
40 – 49 All Levels Basic understanding of main issues demonstrated
Understanding A limited understanding of the key concepts and issues associated with the chosen topic or question. Weak attempt to directly address the question and few signs of personal insight or the use of a critical approach to the material. Few signs of independence of thought.
Depth of Knowledge Little appreciation of the literature and research on the chosen topic as well as of appropriate analytical and theoretical models. Poor use of the research literature, and in weak attempt to articulate of this knowledge to develop an answer which addresses aspects the question posed or the topic considered. Arguments weakly rooted in evidence and data.
Structure Lack of coherence in the structure and weak attempt to address key aspects the topic or question. Limited attempt to develop evidence-based argument.
Grade F +
Fail
33 – 39
All Levels Unsystematic incomplete and / or inaccurate FAIL.
Understanding Hardly any understanding of the key concepts and issues associated with the chosen topic or question. Poor attempt to directly address the question and little personal insight or the use of a critical approach to the material. Scarcely any signs of independence of thought.
Depth of Knowledge Poor appreciation of the literature and research on the chosen topic or of appropriate analytical and theoretical models. Little use of the research literature, and weak attempt to articulate this knowledge to develop an answer which addresses aspects the question posed or the topic considered. Arguments unrelated to evidence and data.
Structure Little coherent in the structure and poor attempt to address key aspects the topic or question. Weak attempt to develop evidence-based argument.
Grade F
Fail
20- 32
All Levels Unsystematic incomplete and / or inaccurate, FAIL.
Understanding Weak understanding of the key concepts and issues associated with the chosen topic or question. Issues and question not directly addressed. No personal insight or the use of a critical approach to the material. Absence independence of thought.
Depth of Knowledge No appreciation of the literature and research on the chosen topic or of appropriate analytical and theoretical models. Little use of the research literature, and little attempt to articulate this knowledge to develop an answer which addresses aspects the question posed or the topic considered. Arguments unrelated to evidence and data.
Structure No coherence in the structure or attempt to address key aspects the topic or question. Absence of any attempt to develop evidence-based argument.
Grade FF
Fail
0- 19 All Levels Unsystematic incomplete and / or inaccurate, FAIL.
Understanding Misinterpretation of the key concepts and issues associated with the chosen topic or question. Key issues and questions overlooked. No personal insight or use of a critical approach to the material. Absence any independence of thought or personal insight.
Depth of Knowledge Use of inappropriate literature and research and misunderstanding of analytical and theoretical models. Inappropriate use of research literature, and misuse of knowledge in developing an answer. Arguments contrary to evidence and data.
Structure Incoherent structure and addressing non relevant issues. Absence of any attempt to develop evidence-based argument. Poorly written.