Module POL1019 for 2018/9
- Overview
- Aims and Learning Outcomes
- Module Content
- Indicative Reading List
- Assessment
Undergraduate Module Descriptor
POL1019: Power and Democracy
This module descriptor refers to the 2018/9 academic year.
Module Aims
This module will introduce you to some key conceptual and normative debates in democratic theory. It aims to make you aware of the nature, limitations and possible applications of a range of different perspectives, conceptual approaches, and interpretations in democratic theory. For students interested in pursuing Politics and/or International Relations as a field of study, this is a useful introduction to core concepts in democratic theory.
| On successfully completing the programme you will be able to: | |
|---|---|
| Module-Specific Skills | 1. understand the nature of democratic politics; 2. evaluate political phenomena in terms of normative criteria of democratic theory |
| Discipline-Specific Skills | 3. assess the insightfulness of different interpretations of political texts and phenomena 4. assimilate and analyse a range of sources in political theory; |
| Personal and Key Skills | 5. develop critical thinking skills, particularly in relation to normative and conceptual arguments; 6. work independently, within a limited time frame, and without access to external sources, to complete a specified task |
How this Module is Assessed
In the tables below, you will see reference to 'ILO's. An ILO is an Intended Learning Outcome - see Aims and Learning Outcomes for details of the ILOs for this module.
Formative Assessment
A formative assessment is designed to give you feedback on your understanding of the module content but it will not count towards your mark for the module.
| Form of assessment | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essay plan | 1-2 pages | 1-6 | Verbal comments from tutor and peer-review in class |
Summative Assessment
A summative assessment counts towards your mark for the module. The table below tells you what percentage of your mark will come from which type of assessment.
| Coursework | Written exams | Practical exams |
|---|---|---|
| 40 | 60 | 0 |
...and this table provides further details on the summative assessments for this module.
| Form of assessment | % of credit | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essay | 40 | 1500 words | 1-6 | Written comments |
| Examination | 60 | 1.5 hour | 1-6 | Cohort feedback/ completed marking template |
| 0 | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| 0 |
Re-assessment
Re-assessment takes place when the summative assessment has not been completed by the original deadline, and the student has been allowed to refer or defer it to a later date (this only happens following certain criteria and is always subject to exam board approval). For obvious reasons, re-assessments cannot be the same as the original assessment and so these alternatives are set. In cases where the form of assessment is the same, the content will nevertheless be different.
| Original form of assessment | Form of re-assessment | ILOs re-assessed | Timescale for re-assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essay | Essay (1500 words) | 1-6 | August/September assessment period |
| Examination | Examination (1.5 hour) | 1-6 | August/September assessment period |
Indicative Reading List
This reading list is indicative - i.e. it provides an idea of texts that may be useful to you on this module, but it is not considered to be a confirmed or compulsory reading list for this module.
Michael Walzer (1981) ‘Philosophy and Democracy’, Political Theory 9(3): 379-399.
Joseph Schumpeter (1943) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Allen & Unwin, ch.20-22.
Margaret Canovan (1999) ‘Trust the People! Populism and the two Faces of Democracy’, Political Studies47: 2-16.
Carol Pateman (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch.2.
Michael Saward (2014) ‘Shape-shifting representation’, American Political Science Review 108(4): 723-736.
Bruce Ackerman & James Fishkin (2002) ‘Deliberation Day’, The Journal of Political Philosophy10(2): 129-152.
Sheldon Wolin (1994) ‘Fugitive Democracy’, Constellations1(1): 11-25.
David Miller (1999) ‘Democracy’s Domain’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(3): 201-228.
Iris Marion Young (1989) ‘Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship’, Ethics99: 250-74.
