Task summary: Write a 1500-word report that develops an intervention strategy to address the problem or controversy identified in the case study you analysed in Assessment 2. Your intervention must be designed from the perspective of either a business, government or civil society organisation, and with the aim of addressing the problem you identified in Assessment 2.
Guide
This assignment builds on a case study analysis you presented in Assessment 2. In this assignment, you will return to the problem or controversy regarding business-government relations that you identified in your selected case study and design an intervention strategy to address the problem with the aim of protecting or promoting the public interest.
To complete this task, you will:
Briefly summarise the problem you formulated in Assessment 2.
Choose an organisational perspective from which you would like to propose a response to the problem: proposing action for either a business, government or civil society organisation. Whichever perspective you choose, the problem must be addressed with the aim of protecting the public interest, and you must consider how your proposal could work in practice in the specific context of your chosen organisational and case study context.
In line with the chosen perspective and grounded in the subject content, design an intervention strategy to address the problem, where the strategy involves specific prescribed action or policy from your targeted organisation (e.g. a policy or regulatory proposal that you recommend your targeted organisation should propose or directly implement, or a revised approach to partnership, social engagement or responsible lobbying from your targeted company or industry body).
Justify your intervention strategy using clear analytical and theoretical logic. In doing so, you must use empirical evidence and consider technical considerations, practicalities, and political drivers and constraints that would influence the feasibility of your intervention strategy under real-world political conditions.
Write up your report and include the following:
Summary of the problem
Outline of your proposed intervention strategy,
Detailed justification of the strategy, which is grounded in insights from theory and evidence that draw on your learning from this course.
| Assessment 3 | |
|---|---|
| Criteria | Ratings |
|
Clarity of the proposed intervention strategy
view longer description
|
Exceptional
The proposed intervention is articulated with outstanding clarity, explicitly outlining the strategy, its perspective (society, business, government), and its objectives. It demonstrates a profound understanding of the identified problem and integrates subject ideas seamlessly, leaving no ambiguity about its aims and the means to achieve them. Exceeds Expectations
The intervention strategy is presented with high clarity, detailing its perspective and goals well. It effectively connects the strategy to the identified problem and relevant subject ideas, making its purpose and execution strategy clear and logical. Meets Expectations
The proposed intervention is clearly outlined, indicating its perspective and objectives. It shows a good connection between the strategy, the identified problem, and subject ideas, though it might lack some depth in integration or explanation. The proposal meets the basic criteria for clarity and purpose. Approaching Expectations
The intervention strategy is outlined with acceptable clarity, including its perspective and intended outcomes. The connection to the identified problem and subject ideas is present but not fully developed or detailed, meeting the minimum requirements but with room for improvement. Below Expectations
The clarity of the proposed intervention strategy is somewhat lacking, with vague or incomplete descriptions of its perspective, objectives, or its relation to the problem and subject ideas. The proposal fails to fully communicate its strategy or goals, needing significant enhancements to meet expectations. Unsatisfactory
The proposed intervention lacks clarity, with little to no clear outline of the strategy, perspective, or objectives. It fails to connect to the identified problem or to incorporate relevant subject ideas, demonstrating a significant misunderstanding or neglect of the assessment criteria. |
|
Soundness of the justification
view longer description
|
Exceptional
The justification is exceptionally clear, analytically and theoretically robust, well-grounded in subject content and academic sources, and thoroughly considers feasibility. Exceeds Expectations
The justification is clear and well-founded, with a strong analytical and theoretical basis, grounded in subject content and supported by academic sources, and considers feasibility in detail. Meets Expectations
The justification is sound, with a clear analytical and theoretical basis, adequately grounded in subject content and supported by academic sources, and considers feasibility. Approaching Expectations
The justification is present but not fully developed, with some analytical and theoretical basis and reference to subject content, supported by some academic sources, and partially considers feasibility. Below Expectations
The justification is weak, lacks a clear analytical and theoretical basis and substantive grounding in subject content, is poorly supported by academic sources, and insufficiently considers feasibility. Unsatisfactory
There is no clear justification; it lacks analytical and theoretical logic, is not grounded in subject content and/or unsupported by academic sources, and does not consider feasibility. |
|
Presentation and expression
view longer description
|
Exceptional
The presentation is exceptionally logical and structured, with clear, concise expression free of errors. Referencing is accurate and perfectly consistent. Exceeds Expectations
The presentation is logical and well-structured, with expression that is clear and largely concise, containing few errors. Referencing is mostly accurate and consistent. Meets Expectations
The presentation is structured logically, with mostly clear expression and some minor errors. Referencing is generally accurate and consistent. Approaching Expectations
The presentation is somewhat logical, with expression that may lack clarity or conciseness and contains errors. Referencing is somewhat accurate and consistent. Below Expectations
The presentation is poorly structured, with unclear and/or verbose expression containing multiple errors. Referencing is inaccurate and/or inconsistent. Unsatisfactory
The presentation is disorganised, with unclear expression and pervasive errors. Referencing is largely inaccurate and/or inconsistent. unclear and/or verbose expression containing multiple errors. Referencing is inaccurate and/or inconsistent. |