Assignment 3: Case study essay
Assignment 3: Case study essay
Start Assignment
DueAug 7by5pm
Points100
Submittinga file upload
Teaching Period 2, 2023
CULT2005 Ethics in the Social Sciences
Assignment 3:Case study essay
Team/Individual task:IndividualWord limit:1500 words (+/-10%)Weighting:45%Due date:5pm AEST Monday 7 August 2023 (Exam Period)
After you have read this information, head over to theAssignment 3 Q&Adiscussion board to ask any questions and see what your peersare saying about this assignment.
Assignment overview
To pass this subject of study, you must achieve an aggregated grade of at least 50%. Although this assignment is not a mandatory submission, completing this assignment will give you the best chance of achieving this minimum requirement.
Choose a case study from the nine provided inAssignment 3: Case studies. Consider what dilemmas are presented by the case study, and how these issues might be informed by the theories examined in this subject. For this essay, you will need to choosetwoof the following theories to apply to the case study:
Universal ethical egoism.
Act utilitarianism.
Rule utilitarianism.
Divine command theory.
Kant's duty ethics.
Ross's prima facie duties.
Nicomachean virtue ethics.
Confucian role ethics.
Indigenous Australian philosophy.
Extra readings and resources that may be used for this task are listed with each case study.
This assignment supportsSubject Learning Outcomes 1, 3 and 4.
If your studies have been adversely affected by circumstances beyond your control, you may request an extension using the following options.
Note: A request must be made within 48 hours of the assignment due date.
Request an extensionView an existing requestAssignment details
The following is a guide outlining what should be included within each section of your essay:
Theintroductionshould identify the case study that you have chosen and the two theories you are going to apply to the case. Detailed in marking criteria 1.
Thefirst section of the bodyshould detail the dilemmas presented by the case study. This is where you should provide some facts around the case. These may include academic material from the additional readings, legislation, policy, scientific/medical evidence, statistics, government and NGO reports, etc. This will be the foundation of your ethical analysis and is detailed in marking criteria 2.
Thesecondsection of the bodyshould analyse how your two theories apply to the case. This will include:
applying all components of each theory to the case study
the strengths and weaknesses of applying each theory to the case study
providing consideration of the result of using each theory for all stakeholders impacted by the case study.
You can conduct this analysis separately or juxtapose both theories throughout the structure of the report; you have creative licence in expressing the analysis. This section should form the bulk of your essay and is covered in marking criteria 3, 4 and 5.
The final section of the bodyshould attempt to provide a feasible, workable and ethical solution to the dilemma. You will do this by synthesising the main arguments that you've previously made throughout the body, and should particularly draw upon the strengths discussed. This is covered in marking criteria 6.
A note on researchYou are expected to read widely for this assignment (minimum of 8 references and 6 of these need to be scholarly references), and identify a range of reputable sources that will be useful to complete the essayseeAssignment Support: Academic literacyfor assistance. It would be particularly beneficial to make use of the readings provided to you for each case study, however, you are strongly encouraged to supplement the research by finding your own.
Wikipedia will not be considered a legitimate reference. Please be advised that websites are of inconsistent value and you need to be vigilant in your use of various websites (this includes blogs, YouTube, social media platforms, etc). Resources that are not peer-reviewed will be excluded from the 6 scholarly references required and will instead be counted as external references. You are strongly advised to use the WSU library web page to locate resources for this task.
Key information
You may also wish to read through theAssignment 3 FAQs (DOCX 133KB)Download Assignment 3 FAQs (DOCX 133KB)and watch theAssignment 3 overview and instructions videoto check your understanding of the assignment requirements.
Note:the reference list is not included in the word count.
Assignment tip
View the marking guide under 'Assignment criteria' to see a detailed breakdown of how your work will be assessed. This is an excellent place to start your preparations for this assignment.
Refer back to the marking guide frequently to make sure you are meeting the requirements.
Supporting documents
Supporting resources
Supporting resources
Harvard WesternSydU referencing style guide (PDF 199 KB)Links to an external site. (Western Sydney University Library 2022).
Harvard WesternSydU style In-text citations(Links to an external site.)(Western Sydney University Library 2022).
Library Study Smarta library resource that will assist you in completing your assignments (Western Sydney University Library, 2021).
Western Sydney University Library has further information about referencing on theirReferencing and citationpage.
Assignment 3: Case studies.
Assignment support: Academic literacy.
The following resources from the Study Smart Zone may help you to plan your essay:
Analysing the assignment question (Western Sydney University 2018).
Essay tone(Western Sydney University 2018).
Study Smart essay drafting tool(Western Sydney University 2018).
Submission details overview
This assignment will be submitted through Canvas. When you are ready to submit your assignment, select the 'Start Assignment' button at the top of this page. You will be taken to the 'File Upload' tab, where you can choose your file or submit your URL.
Please note: When you submit your assignment through Canvas, you are also submitting the assignment through Turnitin, which is a text-matching service that compares your work with an international database of information sources. You will need to agree to using it.
Once you have submitted your assignment, select 'Submission Details' on the right of your screen to view your originality report if you haven't already done so.
Please allow a 24-hour turnaround for an originality report to be generated.
Resubmissions after the due date without prior approval from your Subject Coordinator may not be marked.
Assignment support
Don't forget that in addition to your OLAs who provide discipline-specific content advice, you can access the 24/7 draft writing service from Studiosity.
If you need assistance with academic feedback on a draft of your assignment, seeAssignment support: Studiosity.
Assignment criteria
Introduction to the case study and two theoretical frameworks.
Background evidence for the dilemmas presented by the case study.
Theoretical application.
Critical analysis.
Implications for relevant stakeholders.
Provision of a solution to the case.
Academic literacy (written expression, grammar and structure, spelling and punctuation, references).
Your work will be assessed using the following marking guide:
Assignment 3 marking guide
Criteria No Pass Pass5064% Credit6574% Distinction7584% HighDistinction85100%
Introduction to the case study and two theoretical frameworks
(10%) Does not clearly choose a case study. May not clearlyidentify two theoretical frameworks fromwhich to examine the case study ordoes not demonstrate an adequate understanding of these theories. Case study identified but may not clearly outline the main issues presented. Identifies the two theories that will be applied. Case study and main issues clearly outlined. Overview of two relevant theories. May provide a justification for the applicability of both theoretical frameworks. Case study and main issues clearly outlined. Detailed justification for why the two theoretical frameworks are applicable to the case. Case study and main issues clearly outlined. Persuasive justification for using the two chosen theoretical frameworks.
Background evidence for the dilemmas presented by the case study
(16%) Little or no reviewof the dilemmaspresented by thecase; alternatively,there may be aninadequate level of discussion orresearch to support what information isprovided.
Significantmisunderstandingon the nature ofthe ethical dilemmas presented by the case study. Some evidence is present, although this section may be lacking demonstration of why this case study is an ethical dilemma. Further reading for the review would have been appropriate to provide a more considered overview of the dilemmas presented by the case study. Provides a fair review of the dilemmas presented by the case study. Further reading may have helped provide a more detailed discussion on the issues presented, or what makes these dilemmas ethical in nature. Provides a detailed review of the dilemmas presented by the case study. Student demonstrates a substantial understanding of the many ethical dilemmas presented by the case study and shows a significant understanding of the facts pertaining to the case study. Comprehensive, well-researched and well-supported review of the dilemmas presented by the case study. High level of research on the ethical dilemmas highlighted by the case study and a profound understanding of the facts pertaining to the case study.
Theoretical application
(16%) Many components of one or both theories are missing from the application to the case study; alternatively, there is an erroneous application of one or both theories to the case study, or only one theory is applied from those listed in the assignment description. There is a general application of one or both theories to the case study; alternatively, the application of one theory may be lacking in comparison to the other. Provides a sound application of both theories, although more detail on one or both would have provided a stronger or more accurate assessment. Most components of both theories are applied to the case study with only some errors or gaps. Both theories are applied to the case study in great detail, although one may be more detailed than the other. Most, if not all, components of both theories are applied with accuracy and in reference to the identified dilemmas. Provides a holistic and complete application of each theoretical framework to the case study. All components of both theoretical frameworks are detailed to a meticulous standard in reference to the identified dilemmas.
Critical analysis
(16%) There is a lack of analysis and critique of the strengths and weaknesses of one or both theories (in light of the case study), or, there may be considerable errors in the critique. (Failure to adequately integrate research into the critical analysis). Considers the strengths and weaknesses of applying at least one of the two theories, however, more accurate details are required as there are some gaps, errors or inconsistencies. There is a sound discussion of the strengths and weaknesses in applying both theoretical frameworks to the case, although some arguments could be elaborated or clarified (using the evidence provided). Provides a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of applying both theoretical frameworks to the case. Demonstrates a very good understanding of the potential benefits and problems of using these theories (based on the evidence provided). Provides an exhaustive critique of the application of both theoretical frameworks to dilemmas presented in the case study. This includes a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, comparing and contrasting their effectiveness in addressing the core issues (based on the evidence provided).
Implications for relevant stakeholders
(16%) Stakeholders are not identified, or the discussion on the impact of the dilemmas on these stakeholders is either inaccurate or inadequately provided. Considers at least one major stakeholder, however, a more detailed discussion would be appropriate. Further research should be conducted to provide appropriate evidence. Considers many stakeholders and provides a sound discussion on the impact of the application of both theories, although more detail would be beneficial. Some research conducted to support this discussion. Considers most stakeholders and the impact of using both theories on them, supported with substantial research. Provides a discussion of all stakeholders and details the potential impact of the use of both theories on each stakeholder, from an individual level to the wider community. This is considered with relevant research material that supports the suggestion that these results may occur.
Provision of asolution to the case
(16%) Does not provide a solution to the case, or it is not feasible to implement. Little or no consideration of the ethical analysis was made throughout the paper. Significant improvements needed. Provides a solution to the case, however, this may require further development, and may not necessarily be feasible or workable. There is scope for further supporting evidence of the analysis made in the paper. Acknowledges the main arguments made throughout the paper to provide a workable solution to the case study, although more reference to the analysis would be beneficial. Uses all arguments made throughout the paper to provide a workable solution to the case study. Uses evidence to demonstrate that this solution is built upon the analysis and is the most workable option. May juxtapose this solution with potential ramifications. Synthesises all arguments made throughout the paper to provide a feasible and workable solution to the case study and all dilemmas, which builds upon the strengths of both theories to provide persuasive justification for the use of this solution. Uses supporting evidence to illustrate the potential benefits while acknowledging the shortfalls that may result.
Academic literacy (written expression, grammar and structure, spelling and punctuation, references)
(10%) Written expressionis unclear andpoorly structured.Does not demonstrateengagement withacademic sources; alternatively, thereputability of some resources used is unclear. Many errors ingrammar or sentence structure.Insufficient orincorrect referencing.
Requires significantimprovements inthe development of academic literacy skills.
Recommend Study Smart Advisors for academic literacy tuition. Adequate written expression. Some errors in grammar, structure, spelling or punctuation detract from the clarity of the arguments made. Referencing is provided, although there may be erroneous or absent citations. Demonstrates some engagement with academic sources, but would have benefited from wider reading or differentiating between reputable resources. Consider recommending Study Smart Advisors for specific issues. Clear written expression with few errors in grammar and sentence structure. Demonstrates consistent engagement with a range of academic and reputable resources; scope for further reading and research. Referencing is generally formatted correctly, though there may be errors in citation style or a lack of consistent referencing where required. Clear and well-focused written expression. Minimal errors in grammar and sentence structure. Demonstrates substantial engagement with a wide range of academic and reputable resources References are properly cited using HarvardWesternSydU citation style. Flawlessly written expression. No errors in grammar or sentence structure. Demonstrates significant engagement with a wide range of academic and reputable resources. References are perfectly formatted using the HarvardWesternSydU citation style.
References
Western Sydney U Lib 2017,In-text citation using the HarvardWesternSydU Style, 3 August, online video, viewed 7 June 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX-w8gwMTbQ>.
Case study 6: Domestic violence and protecting the community
You have just started your first job as a police officer at a local station. The station is a good place to work, your colleagues are supportive and look out for each other. One night shift you are called to a disturbance reported by a neighbour. They have heard screaming and objects being broken. The address seems to be known to your partner. Your partner has been working at the station for a couple of years and has only ever performed her policing duties on shift with you to a high standard. As you approach the home, your partner tells you to let her handle the issue and to say nothing to anyone about what you will encounter. Upon the door opening, you realise that you are at the home of the stations sergeant. There is the smell of alcohol from her. There is another woman in the home who has bruising on her face and who is emotionally distort. There are clear signs of an altercation between the two. Your partner talks to your sergeant. It is clear, that this is not the first time that she has been called to the house. Your sergeant is apologetic for the call out and minimises the situation. When you take the woman aside and ask her if she wishes to press charges, she quietly says it was 'just a silly fight, nothing to worry about' and she does not wish to press charges formally.
You and your partner return to the patrol car. You find out that your sergeant lives with her same-sex partner but has not disclosed her sexuality to her colleagues at the station. Your partner notes that she prefers to handle these (regular) call outs informally as she respects the sergeant and she 'has a good heart'. She is a high-ranking woman who faced challenges getting to her position and is a big support of other women officers at the station. Also, by making these matters official it would likely out your sergeant. Besides, your partner doesnt really think it is domestic violence if it is between two women just heated arguments that can get out of hand. The following day your sergeant approaches you to thank you for your discretion about the previous evenings events.
You feel very uncomfortable that this issue has not been reported in any way especially given police officers are sworn to protect the community. But you are new to the station and your career, do not wish to get your sergeant into trouble and 'out' her. Do you address this incident, or do you say nothing?
[Case study was inspired by contributions from: Dr Toby Miles Johnson, DrKate Linklater and Dr Ashlee Gore]
Additional resources
'I am more than the violence I survive: Reflections from the policing family violence storytelling project(Caulfield 2021).
A double edged sword: Discretion and compulsion in policing domestic violence(Diemer et al. 2017).
Police perpetrators of domestic violence: What do we know and what can be done?Links to an external site.(Douglas & Goodmark 2015).
Policies, procedures and risk aversity: Police decision-making in domestic violence matters in an Australian jurisdiction(Meyer & Reeves 2021).
Police prosecutors and LGBTIQ intimate partner violence, victims, and perpetrators: An empirical studyLinks to an external site.(Miles-Johnson & Ball 2021).
Queensland police grappling with 'concerning increase' in domestic violence by officers but most victims aren't reporting, advocates sayLinks to an external site.(Gleeson 2022).
