Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STUDY GUIDE Study Abroad 2017
2
Euro Master 2012-2013
Thinking must never submit itself,
neither to a dogma,
nor to a party,
nor to a passion,
nor to an interest,
nor to a preconceived idea,
nor to anything whatsoever,
except to the facts themselves,
because for it to submit to anything else would be the end of its existence.
Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician and natural philosopher
3
Dear Student,
In order to facilitate your studies at the IES we have put together this Study Guide. It contains practical information on the major components of the programme, its objectives, teaching methods, assessment methods and grading. It is complemented by the student portal on the IES website, where you will always find the most up to date information and teaching materials. Of course, you can also always contact us and ask your question directly at the IES office or via email.
We wish you a pleasant stay at the IES!
The Study Abroad Programme Team
4
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS
Institute for European Studies (IES) 5 Vesalius College (VeCo) 5 Introduction to the Programme 6 Introductory Week 7 EU Redux 8 Vesalius College Course (elective) 14 Final Paper and Defence 14 Internship 23 Grading Scale 25 Who is Who at the IES 26 Who is Who at VeCo 27 Campus Map 28 Notes 29
5
Institute for European Studies The home of the Programme is the Institute for European Studies (IES), a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in European Studies and a policy think tank that focuses on the European Union in an international setting. The staff at the IES comprises people of over 25 nationalities, almost half of whom are doctoral researchers in international and EU affairs.
The Institute advances academic education and research in various disciplines, and provides services to policy-makers, scholars, stakeholders and the general public. While promoting European Studies in general, the IES specifically explores EU institutions, policies and law within the context of globalization and global governance, including a focus on the EU in international affairs and institutions. The disciplines applied at the IES include law, social/political sciences, economics and communication sciences, and the Institute’s activities focus on the various ways in which institutions, law and politics intersect with each other in the EU, its member states and at the international level. The IES also engages in academic education and organises a Master in European Integration and Development, the LLM in International and European Law (PILC), a Summer School on European Policy-Making, EU Modules as well as a Postgraduate Programme.
The location of the IES at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in Brussels enables the Programme to benefit from the immediate vicinity of EU institutions and numerous international organisations, law firms and companies.
Vesalius College Part of your academic experience will take place at Vesalius College (VeCo). Vesalius College was founded in 1987 by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Boston University to offer undergraduate education in English. As an American-style college, Vesalius takes a humanistic approach to intellectual inquiry, encouraging students not only to attain skills and knowledge important to their chosen careers, but also to think critically and develop themselves personally and as citizens of an increasingly multicultural and globalised world.
The College’s teaching methods are characterised by small, interactive classes, flexibility in course selection and continuous assessment. As a small college with a student body of approximately 300 and a low student-to-professor ratio, the faculty is accessible and able to take a personal interest in the success of students to help them achieve their potential. The faculty is dedicated to instilling a spirit of critical inquiry and ethical responsibility and to using teaching methods that emphasise academic independence, integrity, and an analytical approach to problem-solving.
6
Introduction to the Programme
There are four major components to your Study Abroad Programme:
• The EU Redux, which offers an in-depth look at the EU’s institutions, decision-
making and key policy areas (15 week 3h course)
Grading method: 2h written intermediate and final exams; online participation; seminar presentation.
• An elective course taught by VeCo – taken from humanities/communications/business/international affairs (15 weeks 3h course)
Grading method: varies depending on the course selected.
• A final paper of 6500 words due at the end of the semester
Grading method: research proposal and paper; oral defence in front a jury.
• An internship of approximately 100/150 hours. Grading method: supervisor and intern reports to be submitted after completion of the internship.
The following pages of the study guide will dive into more detail for each of these components, as well as give you the necessary information to be successful in completing them.
7
Euro Master 2012-2013
Institute for European Studies
Introductory Week The aim of the introductory week is to enable you to start the academic year smoothly and effectively. The importance of settling in and knowing your surroundings cannot be stressed enough, which is why this is a mandatory part of the programme. During this week, we try to create the necessary student cohesion for a successful academic year while providing you with the required academic tools to start the programme in the best conditions.
Even though the precise schedule of the introductory week will be made available until closer to the start of the semester, it comprises of the following:
• Introduction and welcome to the IES and its staff • Introduction to the programme • Introduction to the EU, European information sources • Introduction to VeCo • Registration for courses at VeCo • Visit to VUB facilities (library, gym, cafeteria…) • Living in Brussels • A guided tour of Brussels • A guided tour of Bruges
Hendrix 2016
8
Euro Master 2012-2013
STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMME
1. EU Redux: European Union Institutions, Politics and Power
The module involves three forms of assessment:
• Seminar Presentation 20% • Online Participation 20% • Intermediate Exam 20% • Final Exam 40%
The lecture series called “EU Redux” is designed to provide a comprehensive overview of the major facets of the European Union: its foundations, its institutions, its decision-making methods, and its core public policies. The changing nature of the EU is examined, challenging students to see it simultaneously as a series of inter-locking institutions, a regional actor, an emerging power, a gatekeeper and a vanguard actor. The course is taught in 3-hour segments, with a lecture, followed by a seminar. It thus constitutes 45 hours. As part of the “EU Redux” course, students will participate in the IES online module entitled “European Public Policy Analysis”. This offers students with the opportunity to further understand and analyse the public policies in question.
Part I sets up the historic origins and organizational structures of the EU, looking at the relation between the 3 chief institutions and their respective modes of decision-making. Part II focuses on key ‘public’ policies in which the EU has made a variety of developments, and created new structures and relationships with its Member States, citizens and its regions.
Objectives
• To provide students with a comprehensive introduction to the fundamentals of
the EU institutions, mechanisms and policies. • To provide students with a clear understanding of the link between institutions,
competences, methods of decision-making and modes of governance.
• To provide students with an in-depth profile of key policy areas, as well as encouraging them to think critically about the forms of presence, capability and opportunity entailed in EU ‘actorness’.
• To provide students with a high quality and engaging learning environment by blending ex cathedra teaching with seminar presentations, role-play and simulation exercises in order to gain the fullest possible understanding of both the conceptual and practical nature of EU policy-making.
9
Method
The course will be conducted through:
• Compulsory weekly readings, which will be provided in the form of PDF scans of the key texts, uploaded to the student portal and/or online module. It is crucial that students read all compulsory readings for each week, in order to make sense of the lecture, understand each session, present the main arguments during the seminar, and participate fully during class and on the online module;
• Ex cathedra teaching by the course lecturers; the PowerPoint slides of the lectures will be made available to all students;
• Seminars, consisting of student presentations on given topics, discussions as well as a variety of other seminar-based interaction and activities;
• Online module, where study abroad students will interact with students of the IES Postgraduate Certificate in EU Policy Making while completing problem-based assignments related to each week’s lecture.
Course Material
The course material will consist of
(1) Compulsory weekly readings made available electronically on the student portal and/or online module;
(2) Lecture notes taken by all students during class; (3) Slides provided by the lecturers and available on the student portal and/or online
module; and (4) Additional readings provided for specific themes and weeks.
Seminar Presentation (20%)
Each student will be asked to prepare an oral presentation on a topic in a form agreed with the lecturer. Students should contact the lecturer at least two weeks in advance in order to discuss the assignment. The students’ presentations are worth 20% of the final grade. Seminars will allow you to explore the material to which you have been introduced in the lecture. To do this successfully, you will need to prepare for each lecture and seminar by reading the requisite articles/chapters/documents in advance and being prepared to engage in the debate of the day. The seminar style will vary from week to week, including document examination, broader discussion, specific presentations, group work and debates. These varying approaches are designed to stimulate your engagement with the issues at hand, while achieving both the specific and general learning outcomes enumerated above. Online Participation (20%)
Students will be provided access to the online module on European Public Policy, where they will complete (small) assignments related to each week’s topic. These will range
10
from discussion boards to role play exercises. Participating in these online activities will help students build a deeper understanding of the public policies in question. Assessment will vary per assignment (time spent, interaction, individual/peer assessments, etc.); 50% of each grade will relate to the completion of the task and 50% to the quality of the response. Intermediate and Final Exams (60%)
The mid-term and final will be in-class exams and last for two hours. The exams will be divided into three parts. Part A will comprise of 3 short questions (30%). Part B will comprise of 2 medium questions (40%). Part C will comprise of 1 essay (30%). The intermediate exam is worth 20% of the final grade, while the final exam is worth 40% of the final grade. The intermediate exam will be held during week 4 or 5 and cover all course material related to the EU institutions and decision-making procedures. The final exam will be held at the end of the course (week 15). The final exam pertains to all course material covered in weeks 5 through 14. The course material consists of main readings, presentations, lecture notes and select additional resources.
General Grading Criteria The following criteria will be applied in assessing exam responses:
Ø Capacity to grasp and convey factual, conceptual and theoretical knowledge;
Ø Capacity to synthesizes and apply concepts and theory to concrete cases; and
Ø Capacity to develop a systematic argument based on theory and practice.
Specific Grading Criteria
Seminar Presentation (20%)
Superior Proficient Poor Unsatisfactory
Factual Information Used many facts to support all arguments
Used some facts to support all arguments
Used few facts to support arguments
Did not present facts to support arguments
Comprehension Demonstrated thorough understanding of information
Demonstrated accurate understanding of information
Demonstrated minimal understanding of information
Demonstrated misunderstanding of the information
11
Persuasiveness All arguments were logical and convincing
Most arguments were logical and convincing
Some arguments were logical and convincing
Few arguments were logical and convincing
Delivery Communicated clearly & confidently; maintained eye contact; excellent voice inflection and delivery rate
Communicated clearly; frequent eye contact; good voice and delivery rate
Seldom communicated clearly; poor eye contact; poor voice and delivery rate
Failed to communicate clearly; no eye contact; monotone delivery
Rebuttal Addressed all audience’s questions
Addressed most of audience’s questions
Addressed some of audience’s questions
Did not address audience’s questions
100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Seminar Presentation Grade: / 20
Short and Medium Exam Questions 100-81 69-80 58-68 50-57 0-49
Accuracy The author pertinently and succinctly addresses the question
Overall, the answer accurately addresses the question. Some minor omissions or imprecisions
The answer meets the basic requirements for this assignment. Some imprecisions
Major flaws, imprecisions
The answer sheet is left in blank or the answer fails dramatically to address the question.
Completeness The answer correctly addresses all aspects and angles of the question and provides an answer with an excellent level of detail
Some minor omissions or imprecisions
The answer sufficiently addresses the question
The answer is incomplete and fails to address the question
The answer is left in blank or fails dramatically to address the question.
Evidence of Excellent Good reference Average Little reference The answer
12
Reading
reference to and application of major course material
to and application of major course material
reference to and application of major course material
to and application of major course material
lacks any reference to any course material
Critical Thinking (if applicable)
The answer demonstrates an excellent level of critical thinking and an original application of independent thought
The answer highlights a good level of critical thinking and independence of thought
The answer shows some evidence of critical thinking and independent thought
The answer does engage only to a very limited extent critically with facts and literature and shows little evidence of independent thinking
The answer lacks any critical reflection and independent thought
Short Exam Question Grade: / 10
Medium Exam Question Grade: / 20 Essay Exam Questions 100-81 69-80 58-68 50-57 0-49
Accuracy The author pertinently and succinctly addresses the question
Overall, the answer accurately addresses the question. Some minor omissions or imprecisions
The answer meets the basic requirements for this assignment. Some imprecisions
Major flaws, imprecisions
The answer sheet is left in blank or the answer fails dramatically to address the question.
Completeness
The answer correctly addresses all aspects and angles of the question and provides an answer with an excellent level of detail
Some minor omissions or imprecisions
The answer sufficiently addresses the question
The answer is incomplete and fails to address the question
The answer is left in blank or fails dramatically to address the question.
Evidence of Excellent Good Average Little reference The answer
13
Reading
reference to and application of major course material
reference to and application of major course material
reference to and application of major course material
to and application of major course material
lacks any reference to any course material
Critical Thinking
The answer demonstrates an excellent level of critical thinking and an original application of independent thought
The answer highlights a good level of critical thinking and independence of thought
The answer shows some evidence of critical thinking and independent thought
The answer does engage only to a very limited extent critically with facts and literature and shows little evidence of independent thinking
The answer lacks any critical reflection and independent thought
Structure of the Answer
The essay is well structured, with a clear introduction, detailed main body with a logical flow of arguments and strong conclusion
The answer has a good structure with an introduction, main body good flow and conclusion
The answer is generally structured, but does not include a clear introduction, logical flow in the main body or conclusion
The answer is largely unstructured, but shows some evidence of an intro, main body and conclusion
The answer lacks sufficient structure
Expression The examinee uses and applies accurate concepts and excellent language
The examinee uses and applies mostly accurate concepts and good language
Some application of accurate concepts, but flawed language
Concepts are not used accurately, some level of confusion arises out of poor language
Poor conceptual use and poor language that inhibit the understanding of the core message
Exam Essay Grade: / 40
14
2. Vesalius College Elective Course Part of your academic experience will take place at Vesalius College (VeCo). You must enrol in ONE course offered by Vesalius College, by filling in the pre-registration form. You will receive more information about the formal registration process and the content of the courses during introductory week. The course objectives, teaching methods and forms of assessment vary depending on the course selected.
3. Final Paper and Defence The module is organized in five stages, of which the last two are assessed:
• Research Topic • Research Proposal • Theory and Methodology • Research Paper 75% • Final Presentation 25%
Students should write a research paper analysing an EU-related topic of their choice. During the introductory week, an overview of topics in which the IES has in-house expertise will be given. You will also get the chance to meet the possible supervisors for each of the topics. As the research paper includes primary research, it is of utmost importance that you allocate time throughout the semester to work on the paper. Research Topic As a first step, consult the list of supervisors and their fields of expertise. These will help in selecting your topic. In a second stage, exploration of academic (and popular) literature helps in defining the research puzzle/problem and formulating the research question. From there, you can narrow down the literature relevant to include in the literature review, select the appropriate method and relevant primary sources to analyse, and develop the structure of the paper. You are requested to consult your potential supervisor and the course coordinator (Trisha Meyer) and to get approval on your selected research topic by week 2 (25 January). Throughout the semester, regular contact with your supervisor is mandatory. Research Proposal You need to submit a research proposal for your research paper at the beginning of class on Wednesday in week 4 (8 February). Please send an electronic copy via email to your supervisor and the course coordinator ([email protected]). The research proposal is the first big step towards the final paper. It should include:
15
A clear research question
The questions should be as clear and simple as reasonably possible. The research question may be a mere empirical or factual question, it may be theoretically inspired, above all it should be clear and straightforward. Often research questions change throughout the research in the light of new additional empirical/theoretical information. Irrespective of eventual changes your initial research question should be as clear as possible.
A paper outline The paper outline should provide an indication of how the student is going investigate the research question. The student has to explain how she/he is going to research the topic at hand. This entails an identification of the selected case study (an event, a policy measure, a policy domain, etc.), sources, theoretical approach/concepts and methodological approach in the analysis.
A tentative layout The tentative structure and headings likely to appear in the final paper.
Preliminary bibliography
A bibliography directly related to the research question or research topic, listing a minimum of 7 different peer reviewed academic sources.
Length 1500 words
The research proposal should be around 1500 words, excluding the cover page and the bibliography, and listing a minimum of 7 different peer reviewed academic sources. NOTE: this assignment is not graded. However, failure to submit the research proposal will result in a penalty of 10% of the total grade. Theory and Methodology You need to submit a first draft of the theory and methodology sections of your final paper at the beginning of class on Wednesday in week 8 (8 March). Please send an electronic copy via email to your supervisor and the course coordinator ([email protected]). The theory and methodology are key building blocks of your research paper. The aim of this paper is to provide you with early feedback and guidance in order to write a solid research paper. It should include:
Theoretical Framework / Literature Review
This part of your research paper reviews the literature and proposes a theoretical explanation (why?) for the selected topic. It summarises the core assumptions of the selected theoretical approach. It offers a coherent explanation of the selected topic through the lens of this
16
theoretical approach. This part should also provide justification for choosing this theoretical framework by explaining how it supports the research question. Studies that focused on similar research questions can be also used as justification for the selection.
Methodology This part of your research paper presents the methodology applied in the research; the rationale for case selection; the data analysed. This section should address the following questions: Why a particular methodology was selected? What units of analysis does it include and how does it link back to the theoretical framework? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen methods?
Preliminary bibliography
A bibliography directly related to the research question or research topic, listing a minimum of 10 different peer reviewed academic sources.
Length At least 3000 words
The theory and methodology paper should be at least 3000 words, excluding the cover page and the bibliography, and using a minimum of 10 peer reviewed academic sources. NOTE: this assignment is not graded. However, failure to submit the theory and methodology paper will result in a penalty of 10% of the total grade. Research Paper Your research paper is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday in week 13 (26 April). Please submit an electronic copy via email to your supervisor and the course coordinator ([email protected]) and on Turnitin as well. When submitting to Turnitin, postings should be entitled with your surname and the issue covered (for example “Meyer_Copyright Enforcement”). Extensions will not be granted except for attested emergency situations. Having a computer problem, attending to a wedding or doing an internship are not considered emergency situations. Students are responsible to start well in advance and have backups of their work. This policy will be strictly enforced. NOTE: failure to submit the research paper on time will result in a penalty of 10% of the total grade for the first 24 hours and an additional 10% of the total grade for the following 24 hours. Papers submitted more than 48 hours late will not be accepted and graded as ‘0’. Your research paper must be structured in 5 sections, distinguishable by clear headings and subtitles (see the table below for more details). Make sure that each section is coherent and that the argument draws on and follows the selected subtitle. The paper should be structured as follows:
17
Introduction
Introduction should introduce the topic, explain its importance, introduce the research questions and discuss its significance. It should clearly identify the puzzle of the research (what does the paper seek to explain?) and provide core factual background information on the selected topic (what? when? who?...). A well-framed research question should help to frame the literature review. This section should also give an overview of the entire paper.
Theoretical Framework / Literature Review
The second part reviews the literature and proposes a theoretical explanation (why?) for the selected topic. It summarises the core assumptions of the selected theoretical approach. It offers a coherent explanation of the selected topic through the lens of this theoretical approach. This part should also provide justification for choosing this theoretical framework by explaining how it supports the research question. Studies that focused on similar research questions can be also used as justification for the selection.
Methodology The third part presents the methodology applied in the research; the rationale for case selection; the data analysed. This section should address the following questions: Why a particular methodology was selected? What units of analysis does it include and how does it link back to the theoretical framework? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen methods?
Analysis including (1) secondary sources/literature review; (2) primary sources
The fourth part analyses the selected case study through your selected theoretical and methodological lens. This part reveals a personal and critical understanding of the sources & methodologies analysed in the literature review. Points to the gap in the literature and/or the significance of the proposed study based on the research question. Integrates primary research findings with the secondary literature in a coherent way. The analysis supports the research question.
Concluding remarks
A summary of your argument sustained by a critical analysis of both selected theories/concepts and events. This section links back to the introduction, addresses the research question and the main points discussed in the analysis section. This section also paves the way for further research, pointing to the gaps that this study highlights and explains what can be done to fill them.
Bibliography The bibliography should include separate sections for primary and secondary sources. This section should include clear documentation of sources using Harvard style. At least 10-15 peer reviewed academic references.
Length 6500 words
The research paper should be around 6500 words, excluding the cover page and the bibliography, and using a minimum of 10 different peer reviewed academic sources.
18
Final Presentation The oral defence of your paper will take place at the IES, in the presence of all Hendrix students, your supervisor, and some additional IES Staff. Prepare a presentation, focusing on your research question and aim, the structure of the paper and your main findings. You may prepare a maximum of 8 slides, including title and wrap up slides. The requested presentation length is 10 minutes. Each presentation will be followed by a 10-minute Q&A session. Questions can be asked by your supervisors and by the experts present. The final grade for the paper will be communicated after all the presentations have taken place. System of Bibliographic Referencing There are many systems for the citation of references. For this paper, we expect you to use the Harvard style of referencing which is a name and date system. In the Harvard system, the author’s surname, year of publication and, for direct quotes, page number are cited in the text of your work. Full details of the books/articles are included in a bibliography at the end of the assignment. Student can find a detailed Harvard Guide at the following website: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/referencing.htm. Please, also consult the following short guide for “Acknowledging, Paraphrasing, and Quoting Sources”, available at: https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Acknowledging_Sources.pdf Harvard Style of Referencing: Examples In-text citation: Both unities of discourses and objects are formed “by means of a group controlled decisions” (Foucault, 2011:32). Habermas acknowledges the crucial function of language as a “medium of domination and social force” (1974:17, in Forchtner, 2011:9). In your reference list: How to quote books: Held, D. (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press. How to quote chapters in edited books: Wæver, O. (1995), ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in Ronnie, D. L. (ed.) On Security, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 46-86. How to quote articles: Foucault, M. (1982), ‘The Subject and Power’. Critical Inquiry, 8(4): 777-795. How to quote electronic sources: Thatcher M (1992), Europe’s Political Architecture, Speech in the Hague delivered on the
19
15th May 1992, available at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108296, retrieved on 8 June, 2012. A word on academic literature: Examples of academic literature are articles in scientific journals, chapters in scientific monographs, papers prepared for conferences and final reports prepared for research projects. Journal articles and book chapters are of higher standing, as they have generally been subjected to a review process. Policy briefs and blog posts (although researchers might have written them) do not constitute academic literature. Moreover sometimes the difference between a final research report (found online) and a policy document of an institution (e.g. European Commission) is not evident. Consult your supervisor if you are unsure whether a particular document fits the ‘academic’ label or not (and/or make sure you have consulted enough journal articles/books). A word on policy documents: Any communication, however formal or informal, emanating from an institution that legislates or coordinates policy, can be considered a policy document. Examples of policy documents are international conventions, treaties and agreements, EU treaties, regulations, directives, court rulings, green papers, white papers, communications, internal working documents, press releases, and so much more. If you are analysing policy documents as part of your primary research, be sure to touch base with your supervisor on how to select the most relevant documents to answer your research question(s). General Grading Criteria
The following criteria will be applied in assessing your final paper:
Ø A well-framed research question that is linked to the literature review; Ø Evidence of understanding of the concepts, ideas, theories and methodologies
linked to the research question; Ø Provision of a clearly focused topic, a logical and well-organized analysis; Ø Grammatically correct text; and Ø Clear documentation of your sources, including both primary and secondary
sources.
20
Specific Grading Criteria
Research Paper (75%)
100-81 69-80 58-68 50-57 0-49
Structure of Research
The structure of the research is solid and allows the author to unfold the argument in a pertinent way.
Some minor flaws in the structure occasionally weaken the strength of the analysis.
Some flaws in the structure do not allow the author to unfold the argument at best.
The work attempts to address the question, but it remains loosely structured.
The structure is flawed and does not allow the author to develop a coherent argument.
Mastery of Literature and Theoretical Approach
Outstanding mastering of relevant literature and ability to gather and independently assess relevant sources beyond required levels of reading. The work coherently tests theoretical prepositions.
The work is underpinned by the ability to master relevant theoretical literature and coherent attempt to apply this literature to empirical phenomena.
Good level of understanding of the relevant theoretical literature. Attempts to critically apply these frameworks to the topic at hand.
The work meets the requirements of the assignment in terms of mastery of the literature and learning outcomes.
Basic knowledge of theoretical frameworks. Minimal or incoherent attempt to adopt a theoretical framework in the analysis.
Methodological Approach
Engagement with methodological literature. Ability to relate the theoretical framework to the selected methodology. The methodology is clearly stated and coherently applied to selected case(s).
Overall, good engagement with methodological literature. Some minor pitfall in the relation between theoretical framework, selected methodology and case study.
Fairly satisfactory understanding of methodological literature. Instances of failure in the attempt to establish a relation between theoretical framework, selected methodology and case study.
Some attempt to adopt a methodological framework to the analysis. Information on the rationale of the selection of case(s) and sampled material is limited.
Minimal or no attempt to adopt a methodological framework. Missing information on the rationale of the selection of case(s) and sampled material.
Analysis Advanced Successful The work does Sub-optimal The work
21
knowledge of empirical background and theoretical/ conceptual frameworks.
attempt to pursue an original analysis. Some minor weaknesses in the profundity of the analysis.
not adequately engage with the critical assessment of either relevant theoretical frameworks or the topic at hand.
focus or coherence of the argument.
engages with the question, but does so in an inadequate way. The work demonstrates insufficient understanding of the topic at hand and remains below the required level.
Critical Thinking
Solid, critical and original analytical skills and ability to relate theoretical knowledge to empirical case(s).
Strong critical ability to tackle both relevant literature and the topic at hand. Occasionally inconsequential reasoning.
Successful attempts to critically assess the theoretical frameworks and the topic at hand.
The work does not adequately engage with the critical assessment of either relevant theoretical frameworks or the topic at hand.
The work uncritically tackles relevant literature and the topic at hand.
Expression, Referencing and Bibliographic Systems
Well-communicated work, which demonstrates a pertinent and original ability to communicate complex dynamics. The bibliographic and referencing systems are correct. More than 15 academic references, covering both factual information and theoretical framework.
Minor weaknesses in terms of language, referencing, depth of sources. At least 10 academic references, covering both factual information and theoretical framework.
Good written expression and the referencing and bibliographic systems are overall correct. At least 10 references, covering both factual information and theoretical framework.
Language, reference and bibliographic systems are generally correct although with some weaknesses. Less than 10 academic references.
Language is poor. Inappropriate selection of sources. The referencing and bibliographic system is incorrect or incomplete. Less than 10 academic references.
Research Paper Grade: / 75
22
Final Presentation (25%)
Superior Proficient Poor Unsatisfactory
Factual Information Used many facts to support all arguments
Used some facts to support all arguments
Used few facts to support arguments
Did not present facts to support arguments
Comprehension Demonstrated thorough understanding of information
Demonstrated accurate understanding of information
Demonstrated minimal understanding of information
Demonstrated misunderstanding of the information
Persuasiveness All arguments were logical and convincing
Most arguments were logical and convincing
Some arguments were logical and convincing
Few arguments were logical and convincing
Delivery Communicated clearly & confidently; maintained eye contact; excellent voice inflection and delivery rate
Communicated clearly; frequent eye contact; good voice and delivery rate
Seldom communicated clearly; poor eye contact; poor voice and delivery rate
Failed to communicate clearly; no eye contact; monotone delivery
Rebuttal Addressed all audience’s questions
Addressed most of audience’s questions
Addressed some of audience’s questions
Did not address audience’s questions
100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Final Presentation Grade: / 25
Overview of Key Dates
• Research paper topics: students receive an overview of potential research topics
o Introductory week: supervisors present their research areas and topics.
o January 25: by this date students consult their potential supervisor and Trisha to get approval on their selected research topic.
• Research proposal
o February 8: students submit their research proposal via email to their supervisor and Trisha. The supervisor evaluates the research proposal
23
and organizes a feedback moment with the student.
• Theory and methodology
o March 8: students submit a first draft of their research paper, focusing on theory and methodology, via email to their supervisor and Trisha. The supervisor evaluates the paper and organizes a feedback moment with the student.
• Research paper (75%)
o April 26: students must submit their research paper in electronic version to their supervisor and Trisha. The supervisor and Trisha evaluate the research paper. The supervisor organizes a feedback moment with the student. Trisha communicate the average grade to students.
• Final presentation (20%)
o May 17: students prepare a ten-minute presentation, focusing on research question and aim, structure of the paper and main findings. The supervisor plus one additional person (Lynn/Trisha) evaluate the final presentation. Lynn/Trisha communicate the average grade to students.
Submission of the research proposal, theory & methodology paper and regular contact with your supervisor are mandatory. Failure to submit assignments and to consult your supervisor will be reflected in your grade.
4. Internship Requirements
Students are required to complete an internship in Brussels as part of the course requirements. Students in the past have, more often than not, been placed and involved in sectors working on EU issues. What better place to get first hand experience in this area than Brussels, the capital of Europe?
While you will be required to complete a 100-150 hours of internship work, the hours should be based around, and not interfere with courses.
Some things to keep in mind:
• An internship is not only about the day to day tasks that you are assigned, which can encompass a significant range of duties from fetching coffee and sorting mail, to preparing briefing reports and carrying out research;
• It can be a building block for your future career;
• It gives you a unique opportunity to get hands on experience in an office environment;
24
• It serves as a great opportunity for networking;
• It can beef up your CV/Resume. The internship must be completed between February-May.
More information on the actual placements will be provided in the weeks leading up to the beginning of the semester, or alternatively, during the introductory week.
During the Internship
• Dress code: Maintain a neat appearance and dress appropriately. • Follow through on commitments. • Do not conduct personal business during work hours. • Be on time for work. • Respect deadlines. • Turn in assignments on time • Be proactive, polite and cooperative. • Seek to further your professional development by improving skills and acquiring
new knowledge. Students should not be afraid to ask for additional work, or try to come up with some projects on their own.
• If any problems arise the intern should first speak to their internship host, and the IES can also provide students with guidance.
Personal Report
At the conclusion of the internship, interns have to write a report of a minimum of 1,500 words stating their duties and achievements. The grade received on the basis of the internship will be based upon the daily log of hours (document to be found on the student portal), the internship supervisor’s evaluation, and the above-mentioned report.
The report should demonstrate academic rigour in content and style. It is a personal record of what interns learned and experienced during the internship. The report has to include:
• A description of the organisation/company. Please note that a simple copy and paste from the organisation’s website will not be accepted.
• A description of the projects and tasks carried out by the company/organisation department where the intern worked.
• An evaluation of the work done by the intern and of how beneficial the intern’s work has been for the organisation.
• A list of activities undertaken during the internship including: a) supervisor’s name; b) intern’s responsibilities; c) a detailed description of the intern’s main tasks and projects, specifying the assigned task as well as the area where the intern excelled and encountered challenges.
• An analysis, supported by relevant examples (both positive and negative), of the experience had during the internship; i.e. what was it like to work there?
25
• An evaluation of the internship as a learning experience in terms of: a) pre-professional training; b) responsibilities; c) teamwork; and d) the working environment.
• The report is an academic document, and it has to be written in a clear style and in an academic tone. Students are expected to proofread the report for grammar, punctuation and spelling. Reports that are deficient in any of these areas will be returned for revision, please note that the grade for the internship could be impacted negatively by any delay in the submission of revised reports.
Grading The internship assessment is organized in three parts:
• Hours (+100) 30% • Report (feedback) supervisor 20% • Personal report 50%
5. Grading Scale All modules organized in this study abroad programme use the grading scale adopted
by Vesalius College. Vesalius College grading policy, in line with the Flemish Educational norms, is stated follows:
Letter Grade Scale of 20 Scale of 100
A 17.0-20.0 85-100
A- 16.1-16.9 81-84
B+ 15.3-16.0 77-80
B 14.5-15.2 73-76
B- 13.7-14.4 69-72
C+ 13.1-13.6 66-68
C 12.3-13.0 62-65
C- 11.5-12.2 58-61
D+ 10.7-11.4 54-57
D 10.0-10.6 50-53
F 0-9.9 0-49
26
Who is Who at the IES The following is a list management, administrative staff and professors that can be contacted with queries prior to and during your period of studies at the IES.
Anthony Antoine Executive Director [email protected] Point of Contact for: General inquiries, overall programme
Trisha Meyer Postdoctoral Researcher, European Economic Governance [email protected] Point of Contact for: General inquiries, overall programme, EU REDUX, final paper
Lynn Tytgat Manager, Educational Programmes [email protected] Point of Contact for: General inquiries, practical information, internships
Hilde Vanderheyden IES Secretary [email protected] Point of Contact for: Practical inquiries, introductory week, student cards
27
Who is who at Vesalius College
The following is a list management and administrative staff who can be contacted with queries prior to and during your period of studies at VeCo. Joachim Koops Dean [email protected] Louise Bond Assistant to the Dean, Student Support Assistant - Dean’s Office [email protected] Louise Klinkenbergh Information Officer, Academic Administration [email protected] Caroline Van Ongevalle Study Abroad Assistant [email protected]
28
CAMPUS MAP 5
29
NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
32
Institute for European Studies Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 5 1050 Brussels [email protected]
