Case Study Rubric – AMGT90018 The Economics of Culture
Note: See the Veal & Burton (2014) and Farquhar (2012) references that are available via the assignment tab on the LMS for instructions on how to write a case study.

Criteria Excellent (H1) High standard (H2A / H2B) Sound work (H3) Satisfactory work (Pass) Unsatisfactory (Fail)








Research
method

How the study is
designed &
completed; genre or
task type; logic, flow,
intra-text links;
quality of writing.

• Clearly indicates that a
case study approach will
be used and articulates
why such an approach is
appropriate.

• Able to identify the pros
and cons of using such a
research method.

• Offers substantial creative
insight into why this
particular method was
useful over other options.

• The design of the study is
effective.

• Identifies relevant
constraints.

• Considers possible
criticisms and addresses
them with knowledge and
insight.


• Clearly indicates that a
case study approach will
be used and articulates
why such an approach is
appropriate.

• Able to identify the pros
and cons of using such a
research method.

• The design of the study is
effective.

• Identifies relevant
constraints.

• Considers possible
criticisms and addresses
them
• Clearly indicates that a
case study approach will
be used and articulates
why such an approach is
appropriate.

• The study is designed
appropriately.

• Identifies relevant
constraints.

• Any flaws are relatively
minor or excusable due to
practical constraints.
• Identifies use of case
study method but does not
provide a satisfactory
rationale for the use of
this particular method.

• The study is designed
appropriately but the
design contains some
obvious or remediable
flaws (flaws could be
related to proposed data
or lack of understanding
of the methodology).
• Fails to identify that a case
study approach was required
and/or does not present a
justification for why this
approach is useful within the
field of cultural economics.

• Scope too ambitious or too
limited.

• The plan for the study will not
answer the question.
Chosen or
designed
question

What is written: content
of response (ideas,
theory), critical
engagement,
interpretation &
analysis

• Student uses prior
knowledge to identify a
question to be studied

• Question is broken down
into a series of steps that
led to the question being
addressed in the case
study

• Complexities and nuances
in the question are
identified

• Additional insights
relating to the question
are provided

• Demonstrates a thorough
understanding of context

• Student uses prior
knowledge to identify a
question to be studied

• Question is broken down
into a series of steps that
led to the question being
addressed in the case
study

• Demonstrates
understanding of context,
but parts could have been
more focused or specific

• Presents understanding of
perspectives, theories &
applications presented by the
case; minor gaps may be
evident &/or links could have
been more explicit
• Student uses prior
knowledge to identify a
question to be studied

• Question is broken down
into a series of steps that
led to the question being
addressed in the case
study

• Demonstrates some
understanding of context,
but needed to be more
focused

• Presents some understanding
of perspectives, theories &
applications presented by the
case, though gaps are evident
or links needed to be more
explicit
• Student uses prior
knowledge to identify a
question to be studied

• Question is not broken
down into a clear series of
steps that led to the
question being addressed
in the case study

• Demonstrates limited
understanding of the
context

• Presents a degree of
understanding of perspectives,
theories & applications
presented by the case, though
significant gaps are evident &
links needed to be more explicit

• Student doesn’t clearly
identify a question to be
studied

• Question is not broken down
into a clear series of steps that
led to the question being
addressed in the case study

• Demonstrates minimal
understanding or
consideration of context

• Attempts at presenting
understanding of perspectives,
theories & applications presented
by the case not successful; or links
between areas not clear

• Critical engagement, interpretation
& analysis of ideas, & concepts not
Case Study Rubric – AMGT90018 The Economics of Culture
Note: See the Veal & Burton (2014) and Farquhar (2012) references that are available via the assignment tab on the LMS for instructions on how to write a case study.

Criteria Excellent (H1) High standard (H2A / H2B) Sound work (H3) Satisfactory work (Pass) Unsatisfactory (Fail)







• Presents in depth
understanding of &
engagement with perspectives,
theories & applications
relevant to chosen question

• Offers a highly systematic
critical engagement,
interpretation & analysis of
ideas, & concepts


• Offers critical engagement,
interpretation & analysis of
ideas, & concepts, though may
have offered more with parts
being more descriptive than
analytical

• Content is appropriate &
relevant, may diverge from task
occasionally

• Offers some critical
engagement, interpretation &
analysis of ideas & concepts,
though this could have been
more evident; parts may be
overly descriptive

• Content is generally
appropriate & relevant, but
may diverge from task
• Attempts critical engagement,
interpretation & analysis of
ideas & concepts but this is
limited; tends to rely on
description

• Content could have been more
appropriate, relevant or on
task, or is lacking in parts
in evidence, not successful, or relies
on description

• Content is inappropriate, irrelevant
& diverges from task
Argument

Quality of argument
presented. This includes
recognition of and
mitigation strategies for
limitations.

What is written: content
of response (ideas,
theory), critical
engagement,
interpretation &
analysis

• The case study has a
clearly stated
argument

• Flows logically from
& links directly to
cultural economics
literature. This
literature is very
successfully used to
substantiate the
argument

• The case study is
positioned in a
sophisticated
relationship to
existing peer-
reviewed research in
addition to material
available in the
textbooks

• The case study has a
clearly stated
argument

• Flows logically from and
links to cultural economics
literature though could
have been more closely
linked or connection
could have been more
explicit

• In most instances
argument is substantiated
with cultural economics
literature including peer-
reviewed research in
addition to material
available in the textbooks

• The case study has a
clearly stated
argument

• Links to key literature
available on the subject
are evident but the
argument needed to be
more tightly
substantiated with
evidence/citations ;
explicit connections may
be missing or logic may
be lacking in places

• In some instances
argument is substantiated
with cultural economics
literature including peer-
reviewed research,
though when used the
material is primarily
drawn from the
textbooks



• The case study lacks
a clearly stated
argument

• Links to key literature
available on the subject
are limited and the
argument often isn’t
substantiated with
evidence/citations;
explicit connections are
often missing and logic
is often lacking

• In a small number of
instances argument is
substantiated with
cultural economics
literature including peer-
reviewed research,
though when used the
material is primarily
drawn from the
textbooks

• The case study lacks a
clearly stated argument

• Little or no logical flow
from or link to key
literature available on
the subject

• No critical evaluation of
the literature in the case
study and the argument
lacks substantiation

• There is little or no
engagement with cultural
economics literature
Case Study Rubric – AMGT90018 The Economics of Culture
Note: See the Veal & Burton (2014) and Farquhar (2012) references that are available via the assignment tab on the LMS for instructions on how to write a case study.

Criteria Excellent (H1) High standard (H2A / H2B) Sound work (H3) Satisfactory work (Pass) Unsatisfactory (Fail)








Structure,
Organisation &
Writing

How task is presented
& completed; genre or
task type; logic, flow,
intra-text links; quality
of writing.

Is the case
study
organized
effectively?
• Completes all
required aspects of
task

• Presents ideas in
consistently
coherent (logical)
& cohesive
(linked) manner

• Organises &
sequences response
appropriate to genre
(e.g. clear
paragraphing; use of
headings or sections
where appropriate;
any extra-text
elements, e.g.
figures, are relevant,
formatted
appropriately &
referred to)

• Presents ideas
concisely &
succinctly

• Message is clear;
language errors rare,
minor & non-
distracting*
• Completes required
aspects of task, though
some parts could have
been more detailed or
balanced

• Presents ideas in
mostly coherent &
cohesive manner
with minor
inconsistencies or
gaps evident

• Organised appropriate
to genre; minor errors
or gaps may be
evident, or could have
been completed more
thoroughly

• Ideas concise &
succinct for the most
part

• Message is mostly
clear; language
errors minimal,
infrequent & almost
always non-
distracting
• Completes required
aspects of task, though
some parts needed to be
more developed (e.g.
underlength or lack
detail) or balanced

• Presents ideas in
coherent & cohesive
manner, occasional
inconsistencies
evident in logic &
links between sections

• Organised mostly
appropriate to genre,
though some
inconsistencies, errors
or gaps may be
evident (e.g. short
conclusion)

• Ideas generally
concise & succinct,
though there is a
sense that parts are
verbose

• Overall, message is
clear, though language
errors evident & at
times distracting
• Completes most required
aspects of task, though some
inconsistencies, errors or gaps
are evident (e.g. missing
elements)

• Ideas mostly presented in
coherent & cohesive manner; at
times logic or sectional links
lacking in clarity

• Organised approximate to
genre, though inconsistencies,
errors or gaps are evident (e.g.
missing or incorrect elements)
& affect overall quality of
response

• Ideas needed to be more
concise or succinct; sections
may be overly long in parts

• Overall, the message is clear,
however, language errors are
distracting
• Task not completed or displays
major gaps in required elements

• Ideas not presented with
coherence or cohesion; logic not
evident or hard to follow; links
between sections not clear

• Organised somewhat according to
genre; though errors or gaps are
evident (e.g. missing sections, lack
of expected elements) & effect
quality of writing or engagement
with message

• Conciseness or succinctness of
ideas not evident; contains
irrelevant material

• Overall, message is not evident or
clear, errors distract significantly
Case Study Rubric – AMGT90018 The Economics of Culture
Note: See the Veal & Burton (2014) and Farquhar (2012) references that are available via the assignment tab on the LMS for instructions on how to write a case study.

Criteria Excellent (H1) High standard (H2A / H2B) Sound work (H3) Satisfactory work (Pass) Unsatisfactory (Fail)







Research &
Referencing

Referencing
conventions in use of
external sources &
citation; depth &
breadth of research;
use of sources


Does the case study
use cultural
economics research?
• Systematic research evident,
uses expected/required
literature with high currency

• Relevant evidence collected
from range of sources

• Systematically integrates &
engages with source
information, synthesised with
own thoughts

• Applies referencing
conventions accurately
(APA style guide);
errors, if any, minor &
infrequent

• Evidence of research, uses
expected/ required literature
with currency

• Evidence collected from range
of mostly relevant sources,
though may over-rely on some

• Integrates & engages with most
sources; synthesis with own
ideas evident though may rely at
times on external ideas

• Applies referencing
conventions (APA style
guide) mostly
appropriately & accurately
• Evidence of research, though
may not include some
expected/required references,
may lack currency

• Sources needed to be more
diverse, relevant or may be
overly reliant on some sources

• Offers integration & reference
to sources though could have
been more evident; attempts to
synthesise with own ideas
though may rely on external
ideas

• Applies referencing
conventions (APA style guide)
mostly appropriately &
accurately; inaccuracies at times
distracting
• Evidence of research; uses
some expected / required
literature though gaps evident
in source currency

• Limited evidence from a narrow
range of sources, mostly
appropriate to the task, though
texts lacking relevancy may
have been used

• Attempts integration &
reference to sources though
needed to be more evident;
attempts to synthesise with
own ideas though tends to rely
more on external ideas

• Applies referencing
conventions (APA style
guide); inaccuracies
frequent & distracting
• Very limited evidence of research;
major gaps evident or
expected/required works not used
or have low currency

• Relies on narrow range of sources;
some irrelevant

• May not attempt integration &
synthesis or attempts not
successful

• May attempt to apply referencing
conventions (APA style guide)
but not successfully

• Required number of references
may not be evidenced

Intended learning outcomes
This assessment task is designed to help you to work towards the following subject intended learning outcomes:
• investigate the interdependence of the arts and cultural sector with the wider economy;
• discuss the economic characteristics of different sections of the arts and cultural industry;
• appraise the sources of support for the arts industry, including government assistance, market mechanisms, community partnership and patronage; and
• value and compare various economic and taxation issues informing support and patronage of the arts.