Exploratory Analysis (25%) |
Outstanding selection of exploratory statistics and/or sophisticated data visualisations which illuminate the underlying data, revealing distributions / trends / relationships and associations in the data with absolute clarity. Graphics are labelled such that readers are in no doubt about what is being shown. Data may have been transformed, normalised or standardised in some way to reveal otherwise hidden patterns and justified impeccably. |
Excellent selection of exploratory statistics and/or sophisticated data visualisations which illuminate the underlying data, revealing distributions / trends / relationships and associations in the data. Graphics are labelled such that readers are in no doubt about what is being shown. Data may have been transformed, normalised or standardised in some way to reveal otherwise hidden patterns and justified. |
Good selection of exploratory statistics and/or data visualisations which illuminate the underlying data, revealing distributions / trends / relationships and associations. Graphics are labelled such that readers are able to interpret the plots with ease. |
Adequate selection of exploratory statistics and/or data visualisations which illuminate some of the underlying data, revealing some distributions / trends / relationships and associations. Graphics are labelled, but may lack clarity. Data may not be transformed, normalised or standardised in a way to reveal patterns. |
Inadequate selection of statistics or visualisations. Graphics are poorly labelled or unclear, and do not illuminate the underlying data. Data transformations are incorrect or missing. |
Negligible use of statistics or visualisations. Any visualisations are irrelevant, inaccurate, or inaccessible. The analysis shows no grasp of the underlying data. |
Use of multivariate statistical analysis or explanatory / predictive methods (25%) |
Exceptional selection of data / variables entirely appropriate for the chosen article topic. Masterful understanding of the nuances related to the careful pruning and selection of appropriate variables. Outstanding understanding of the methods employed and their interaction with the data to hand with masterful understanding of outputs produced |
Excellent selection of data / variables entirely appropriate for the chosen article topic. Highly competent understanding of the nuances related to the careful pruning and selection of appropriate variables. Highly competent understanding of the methods employed and their interaction with the data to hand. |
Good selection of data / variables appropriate for the chosen article topic. Competent understanding of the methods employed and their interaction with the data. |
Adequate selection of data / variables for the chosen article topic. Basic understanding of the methods employed and their interaction with the data. May get some of the nuances in the outputs, but may also ignore some key features in the data |
Inadequate selection of data / variables for the chosen article topic. Little to no understanding of the methods employed or how they interact with the data. |
Negligible or irrelevant selection of data / variables. No grasp of the methods or their application to the data. |
Originality, article narrative and communication (25%) |
Highly original topic selection, or of exceptional relevance to a contemporary debate in the society, the media or politics at a local, national or international level with broad interest. Article narrative shows flare or originality which draws the reader in and reveals something entirely new. Writing style is highly accessible - clear, concise and creative and the reader is left without query or misunderstanding. |
Excellent topic selection, of high relevance to a contemporary debate. The narrative is engaging and written with excellent clarity, flowing well from one section to the next. The work is of a very high standard. Writing style clear and concise with few wasted words. |
Good topic selection, of relevance to a contemporary debate. The narrative is clear and well-structured. The work shows some evidence of originality. The narrative is good and the message emerging from the analysis is conveyed well. |
Adequate topic selection, but may lack relevance or wider interest. The narrative is satisfactory but may lack clarity or logical flow ideas appearing slightly disorganised. The reader can understand the piece but may have to work hard to derive meaning from it. |
Inadequate topic selection perhaps dated or totally irrelevant to the degree programme (i.e. not even a human topic). The narrative is lacking in clarity and is difficult to follow. Deriving meaning from the work is a challenge. |
The work has no clear topic or narrative. The communication is confused, unclear, or inaccessible. |
Conceptual understanding and Critical Reflection (25%) |
Both the Article and Technical Appendix show exemplary understanding of the topic / wider issues associated with it and of the methods employed to interrogate the data. A clear understanding of any data / methodological shortcomings / issues / challenges is presented with a highly sophisticated degree of critical reflection in relation to the substantive topic and / or methods employed is demonstrated. |
Article and Technical Appendix show excellent and highly competent conceptual understanding of key concepts and theories related to both the topic and methods employed. The work demonstrates a thorough understanding of the chosen example and recognises and reflects lucidly on any shortcomings and / or the wider significance of the findings in a way that is not contrived or formulaic but shows a sophisticated level of insight. |
Article and Technical Appendix show good understanding of key concepts and theories related to both the topic and methods employed. The work demonstrates a sound understanding of the chosen example and recognises and reflects lucidly on any shortcomings and / or the wider significance of the findings in a way that is not contrived or formulaic but shows a sophisticated level of insight. |
Article and Technical Appendix show basic understanding of key concepts and theories related to both the topic and methods employed. The work demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of the chosen example and recognises and may offer only some reflection on the shortcomings of the work or not at all / contrived at the bottom end. |
Inadequate and insufficient conceptual understanding of key concepts and theories. The work demonstrates an invalid or lack of understanding of the concepts introduced. Any analysis attempted fails to support the observations made. |
Negligible or no conceptual understanding of key concepts and theories. The work demonstrates an irrelevant, inaccurate, confused, unclear, or inaccessible understanding of the concepts. |