CRITERIA Foundations for argument: knowledge and analysis (30%) Identification and explanation of interests around regulation of work and the employment relationship. Incomplete or confusing description. Lack of focus on interests around regulation of the employment relationship in particular. Muddled about stakeholders’ goals. Some reasonable assessment of employers’ interests around the IR system. A reasonable description about employer interests around the IR system, with analytical consideration of goals. A persuasive description about employers’ interests relative to other stakeholders beyond their espoused views, with analytical consideration of goals. As for distinction, but with thorough analysis of espoused views using ER theory.

CRITERIA STANDARDS Referencing 10% Reference list accurately and consistently records sources – including electronic sources! Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Sources are correctly cited (frequency, accuracy and consistency of in-text citations). Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory

In employment relations, everything is connected to everything else. It is difficult to isolate particular factors and mark them separately e.g. it’s hard to make a persuasive argument with poor or slapdash referencing. It is hard to address all aspects of an argument if one’s writing and paragraphing is not sophisticated. This marking guide is to provide some guidance and feedback; it is not designed to be broken down to one or two marks here or there on particular categories but is more qualitative in nature. Further conversation and explanation may be useful to you; make an appointment with your tutor.