Canadian Democracy
Research Essay Rubric
The research essay is described as follows:
One of the interests in this course is about how political institutions contribute to producing outcomes. For this assignment, you are asked to produce a twelve-page paper on a Canadian political institution, paying particular attention in describing and evaluating how the institution produces outcomes.
The papers can take different forms. Some may be “positive” papers, in the sense of advancing arguments about how institutions produce certain outcomes. For instance, one could write a paper on the federal spending power, evaluating whether it has produced greater national unity or has in fact increased national disunity. Others may be “normative” papers, in the sense of advancing arguments about whether particular institutions are normatively desirable, or whether certain kinds of institutional reform should be embraced.
A central goal of the essay involves research and description. A successful essay will need to have done the research to locate documents about the reform in question. This work need not be difficult, particularly if one consults with librarians about research strategies if there are problems finding relevant materials. It nevertheless is not work that is easy to do at the very last minute. In terms of description, the paper needs to be able to describe the linkages being proposed between institutions and outcomes, both by the proponents of a reform, but also by other observers. Finally, the paper asks for some analysis and reflection about the arguments treated in the paper.
Grading Rubric: Questions asked of the paper during grading
Topic and Argument:
Does the paper clearly set out its topic and its argument? Does this line of argument structure the paper? Are the various parts of the paper relevant to advancing that line of argument[unique_solution]
Description and Analysis: /55
Does the paper clearly describe the linkages between institutions and outcomes?
(e.g. It is one thing to state that McMaster’s Academic Dishonesty policy reduces plagiarism. It is another to explain that the policy reduces plagiarism by imposing the risk of penalties on those who plagiarize. And it is a yet a fuller explanation to note that the policy reduces plagiarism through several means, including providing reminders that plagiarism is not acceptable in the university community (and thus helping create a culture of academic honesty) as well as introducing penalties to make plagiarism risky. Given space restraints, not all institution-outcome linkages can be provided in minute detail, but there is an expectation that claims of linkage central to an argument (such as proportional representation will create more minority or coalition government situations) will be followed by a description of how the workings of the institution produce the outcome (why does proportional representation create this effect?).
Does the paper demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the topic through careful critical anaysis? Does it recognize and engage with counter arguments? If it is a “normative” paper, does it clearly present and defend its choice of normative criteria?
Research: /10
Has the paper assembled a set of sources that allow for a close engagement with the questions of the paper? Do they provide resources to discuss the different positions that exist with respect to the paper’s questions? Are the key assertions and points of analysis in the paper supported by claims and evidence found through research?
Presentation and Citation:
Is the paper clearly organized and clearly written?
Are ideas taken from other sources properly recognized through citation?
Are citations presented consistently and correctly?
Is a bibliography provided? Is it presented correctly?
(Note: Please choose a standard referencing format such as Chicago or MLA, and use it consistently. Where specific arguments or claims are being referenced, be sure to include the page number in your citation. The bibliography/works cited pages do not count against the page count. Please also note that a failure to cite sources properly often constitutes a form of academic dishonesty and lead to the application of the relevant McMaster policies).
| Exemplary | Accomplished | Developing | Unsatisfactory | |
| Topics & Argument | The paper is narrowly focused enough that it can develop a depth of analysis. A thesis statement provides the focal point for the paper and the various parts of the paper develop it. | Topic and thesis provide adequate direction for the paper. The thesis is the focal point for the paper for the most part. | The topic is too broad or general to provide analytical traction. Alternatively, the thesis is somewhat unclear and needs further development. Focal point is not maintained across the paper | The topic is not clearly defined. There is no organizational logic to the paper. |
| Description | Pays close attention to detail when describing institution-outcome linkages; complete explanation of the linkages | Provides attention to detail in describing linkages; sufficient explanation of the linkages | Tends to draw linkages at the level of correct statements of linkage, but with little to no explanation or detail | Fails to draw linkages or incorrectly links institutions to outcomes |
| Analysis | Shows a sophisticated understanding of the topic. Critically analyzes by engaging counterarguments and competing perspectives in order to draw thoughtful conclusions | Demonstrates an understanding of the topic. Compares arguments, considers couterarguments, but broader connections are not explored | Provides a general understanding of the topic but with liited critical analysis. Summarizes more than analyzes | Shows a lack of understanding of the topic. Analysis is superficial and opinion-based rather than based on critical analysis |
| Research | A range of relevant academic and para-academic (e.g. think tank) sources are mobilized to support all aspects of a complex analysis. | Academic and para-academic sources are used, but at times they are insufficient or not well enough matched to support the analysis | A quality source or two is used but there is not enough to support the paper. Or a paper filled with quotations that are not well integrated or described | Academic and para-academic sources are too few in number, or not much used, or do not support |
| Presentation & Citation | Yes to all of the questions above | Yes to most of these questions | A good number of inconsistencies in the referencing and bibliography, or the paper is poorly organized and poorly written
| Both the referencing and the writing/organization show significant weaknesses; Work is presented at below an acceptable standard for a second year course |