USSC2601 Power, Conflict and
Diplomacy Semester 2, 2024
Reaction paper
The purpose of this assessment is for you to closely read the weekly readings and write up
your reaction to them in a concise form. You should explain how the readings clarify a policy
issue and develop an analysis of how well the authors do this. That means you will need to
make your own judgment about the weakest and strongest points in the readings. You
should not research beyond the set readings in writing your paper.
How to approach writing a reaction paper?
First, read the texts and consider each individually to help you understand each author’s
position. Think about the following:
§ What is the main problem or issue that the author is addressing?
§ What is the author’s central claim, argument, or point?
§ What assumptions does the author make?
§ What evidence does the author present?
§ How persuasive is the author’s argument?
However, the answers to these questions should not be the central focus of your reaction
paper.
Rather, consider texts collectively using the questions above and structure your reaction
paper around the answers to the questions below:
§ How do the texts collectively flesh out a policy challenge for the US? How do the texts
relate to one another? Do the authors agree? Disagree? Address different aspects of
an issue? Formulate a problem in different ways?
§ In what way (if any) does the information or argument of one text strengthen or
weaken the argument of others? Does integrating the claims in two or more of the
texts advance your understanding of a larger issue?
§ Overall, what are the issues that have not been covered or considered?
2
Structure

Your paper should have an introduction and a conclusion. Your introduction could: list
the key arguments of each author; discuss the policy context that the authors are
responding to; identify the main puzzle/s and problems or recommendations that authors
address; and/or, flag the main strength or weakness you’ll identify among the articles.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of ways to start your paper, just some examples of
how students approached it in the previous years.

In the body of the paper you may either consider the articles in turn, with a paragraph on
your critical assessment of each culminating in a conclusion that evaluates them together.
Or, you may address the pieces together, with each paragraph addressing certain
themes/puzzles/elements of the policy context/recommendations. Either approach is fine,
although generally speaking the more synthesis, the better the work.

The conclusion should offer your overall assessment/critiques/judgment on the readings,
as well as further questions.

Other tips

§ (Re-)read these guidelines carefully. Marking criteria are at the end of this document.
§ Do not write an autobiographical essay. Reaction papers are not about how you feel
about the texts. Give praise or blame where you think it is due, but avoid commendation
or condemnation for its own sake. Instead, consider which authors or parts of the texts
are strongest or weakest in clarifying the policy issues considered.
§ Do not just summarize the texts. You are supposed to be reacting to them, not simply
repeating what they say. If there is no analysis involved, then you have not responded,
only regurgitated.
§ If there are things in the text that you don’t understand, do not try to gloss over them. Try
to find out what the text means. Ask questions of your tutor (make sure you start
preparing well in advance in order to be able to do this). If you still cannot make sense
of an argument in a text, then it may be the case that the argument does not in fact
make sense. If that’s the case, point it out in your reaction paper.

Requirements

§ The reaction paper must not be longer than 500 words. Writing concise summaries is
an important skill for foreign policy staffers.
§ Address the readings only. Do not bring in additional readings or lecture content.
§ Reaction papers are due at 23:59 on the day of your tutorial (Thursday) in the week
you have been assigned (you will be informed of this in tutorials).
§ You should submit your reaction paper via dedicated dropbox on Canvas.
§ Late assignments will be penalised 5% per calendar day (as per the Faculty policy).
§ A duplicate copy of the paper must be kept by the student.
USSC2601 Power, Conflict and Diplomacy
Reaction paper - marking guidelines
Assessment criteria Pass Credit Distinction High distinction
1. Identification
and evaluation
of the main
arguments
Struggles with
identifying main
arguments
Limited or patchy
understanding of
the texts
Sound understanding of the main
points, mainly on the level of the
major themes
Potential issues with missing the
nuances
Substantial analysis of the main
arguments
Clearly identifies the nuances in
argumentation
Clearly evaluates the arguments
Sophisticated analysis of the main
arguments – situates them within the
broader context and/or relevant
literature
Understands the nuances in the
argument and offers pointed evaluation
of the materials
2. Synthesis of
arguments
Limited evidence of
synthesis, mostly
tends towards
description
Adequate synthesis of texts
Might have some issues in
identifying the main themes

Substantial synthesis of the readings
Clearly identifies the overarching
themes, juxtaposes the texts in a logical
manner and offers a sound narrative of
how the texts fit together
Sophisticated synthesis of the readings
Offers a spark of originality in bringing
the readings together and creates a
compelling narrative for how the texts
work together
3. Effective
argumentation
and originality
of analysis
Limited evidence of
original thinking –
missing the new
questions for
research or pointers
for future analysis
Arguments mostly
unsupported by the
readings
Lack of clarity
Sound evidence of original thinking
– poses satisfactory questions, offers
some pointers for future research or
analysis
Arguments are mostly supported by
empirical evidence
Some issues with clarity of
arguments
Evidence of effective and focussed
arguments, which flow from the texts
and are grounded in broader literature
and empirical evidence
Substantial evidence of original thinking
– clearly identifies the less obvious
questions that stem from the texts and
offers thoughtful pointers for future
research or analysis
Evidence of sophisticated and highly
argumentation that demonstrates
excellent understanding of the subject
matter
The approach is original and clearly
demonstrates the ability to go beyond the
generic questions
Discusses the implications of the
contributions and positions taken
4. Organisation,
structure and use
of appropriate
academic writing
style
Significant and
persistent issues
with organisation,
structure and/or
style
Soundly organised and structured
Minimal issues in paragraph
length/flow/organisation
Generally clear and precise
expression with few errors
Well-organised
Clear and precise expression that
conveys meaning in an effective way
Hardly any errors in writing
Excellently organised
Sophisticated expression that conveys
meaning with flair and insight
Accurate and consistent presentation
4