theory review of Weber
Order Description
Students are required to write a short paper (1000 words +/- 10%) which reviews Max Weber’s foundational contribution to our understanding of political leadership based on the reading provided on L@G (see the reading in Week 1 folder) and any further reading they wish to do.
The Theory Review will be assessed against the following criteria: analysis, understanding, evaluation, organisation, communication.
The Review needs to do the following:
1. Provide an overview of Weber’s main ideas and themes
2. Develop an evaluation focusing on the question of whether Weber provides a useful
theoretical framework for understanding leadership and distinguishing between different types of leaders.
In many ways, the task is similar to a movie review, which first explains the plot and then comments on the performance of the actors, director and other features and offers an assessment on whether it succeeds in its objectives.
Like a standard essay, this review needs an introduction, a body and a conclusion. The introduction should begin by outlining Weber’s overall purpose – why did he develop his theory? What was he trying to do? The Introduction also needs to state the purpose and structure of the paper.
The body should be devoted to explaining the ideas and themes of the reading, noting relevant connections and so forth. Once this is done, the evaluation part can begin. You should comment on the usefulness/clarity/relevance of the work and also, importantly, you need to show that you have read it critically. What were its shortcomings (if any)? How could it be improved? If you think that there are no shortcomings, make sure that you state that this is the case, so the reader knows that you have evaluated this work fully. You could also take the opportunity to counter possible criticisms or queries. What are the potential weaknesses and how has Weber dealt with them?
The paper should finish with a brief conclusion, which summarises the argument.
Please note that there is an important distinction between your argument (which is the evaluation) and the argument of the author(s). This distinction is often a source of confusion but it need not be so.
?Page 1 of 3
REQUIREMENTS
Submission: Reviews must be uploaded through SafeAssign. Drafts as well as a final submission points have been set up at L@G, see Assessment (Reviews). Please ensure the system acknowledges your submission. Some versions of safari are not compatible with SafeAssign. If you are having problems try using an alternative browser such as Firefox or Chrome.
Use a standard file name consisting of: your name, course code, review, e.g. Hollander 2013GIR Review.
Extensions: Requests for an extension of time for submission of an assessment item must be lodged before the due time for the assessment item. Requests for extensions must be made by emailing the course tutor.
Where an extension has not been granted, an assessment item submitted after the due date will be penalised. The official standard penalty is the reduction of the mark allocated to the assessment item by 10% of the maximum mark applicable for the assessment item, for each day or part day that the item is late. Weekends count as one day in determining the penalty. Assessment items submitted more than five days after the due date are awarded zero marks. See Assessment Submission and Return Procedures s2.11.
Referencing: use an acceptable referencing system (the Harvard system is strongly recommended). If a reference is taken from a particular page, or pages (even if not a direct quote) then the page number(s) must be included. The in-text format should include the author, date of publication, and page number. When words are taken directly from other sources (books, articles and web sites) and reproduced in an assignment quotation marks must be used (longer quotes can be indented). If an assignment is incorrectly or insufficiently referenced according to standard styles, it will be penalised with a reduced mark. Please do not overdo the use of quotations: there is nothing worse than a paper that looks like a patchwork of quotations.
Reference List: Entries in the reference list should be in a standard format, complete and in alphabetical order by authors’ family name. Web addresses should include date accessed/downloaded.
Presentation:
· Use 11/2 – 2 line spacing. The font size should be read comfortably, Arial – 11 point,
Times Roman – 12 point.
· Number all pages.
Data security & retention:
· Save your work frequently and always back up to an alternative.
· Retain submission receipts.
· Keep a copy of the original work and the marked item until final grades are published.
· Students may also be asked to submit their notes and drafts of written work before a
?Page 2 of 3
final mark for the item can be awarded.