The aim of this module is to develop critical understanding of the historical significance and varied manifestations and experiences of 'empire' by different actors in a variety of global settings. You will be introduced to thinking about a variety of themes in the study of empire across space and time and will develop a conceptual and practical understanding of the skills required by scholars of imperial history.

This assignment for the HI995 module requires you to write a 6000-word (excluding footnotes and bibliography) specialised essay on a topic of your choice related to the core themes and topics of this course. This essay can explore any aspect of the module. You are encouraged to formulate your own essay question, which may be based on one of the weekly seminar questions, in consultation with the module convenor or the relevant seminar tutor. The purpose of the essay is for you to engage with major concepts and debates discussed in the module in a broad way. This means that we expect you to read beyond the required reading, and use further secondary sources to expand on our class discussions. Primary research is encouraged but is not required as part of this essay. Rather, what we are looking for are compelling arguments in answer to the question, which demonstrate sophisticated, thoughtful, and original reflections on the ways in which historians have written and continue to write on the history of empire.

How do I identify my topic and question?

The essay for this module should align with your own interests in the historical study of empire. In the opening weeks of the module, you will be encouraged to identify particular topics and themes of interest to you, which will then enable you to focus your interests and reading over the remaining weeks of the module.

You are encouraged to meet with the module convenor or one of the seminar tutors by appointment or in office hours to discuss your ideas, and/or to email with queries. Individual tutors will be able to provide you with support on reading and suggested sources. The essay is normally based on one of the module's weekly themes. If you are interested in writing on a different topic, you should consult with the module convenor well in advance of the deadline, so that they can ensure you are meeting the learning objectives of the module.

What does a good essay look like?

A good essay will:

• Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the chosen topic by showing an ability to engage critically with relevant secondary literature, involving independent assessment of strengths and weaknesses, analysis of methodology and theory, and reflection on position within the field.
• Develop an argument that shows a broader awareness of the chosen theme in relation to the field of the history of empire through independent research and reading. The essay should be analytical in its presentation and should avoid excessive description. Those essays achieving the highest marks will demonstrate originality and creativity through the inclusion of a broad range of primary and secondary sources that go beyond the texts on the weekly reading lists [note the emphasis on primary source engagement in the assessment criteria for merit and distinction below].

• Be well presented. The argument should be logically structured and written in continuous prose. The essay should be proofread carefully, with few grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly and concisely; and follow the 'Academic Referencing and Style Guide' in the Postgraduate taught handbook for referencing and bibliographic information. You may find it useful to divide the discussion into sub-headings for clarity.

Participation and learning throughout the module will enhance the quality of the final assignment. Your essay will benefit from coming prepared to seminars, and showing good engagement through involvement in whole group and small group discussion, as this may take your analysis in directions you hadn't previously anticipated.

How will the feedback be provided?

Feedback will be provided via Tabula 20 working days after submission. You will have the opportunity in Term 3 to meet individually with the module convenor to discuss the feedback you have received.

How will the essay be marked?

The essay will be marked according to the departmental marking scale. Further information about what is expected at each level of the scale is available in the Postgraduate Taught Handbook: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/pgt/coursework/#markingscale 

The History department specific marking criteria cover the following areas:

80+ (Distinction)

Knowledge and Understanding: Exceptional and/or outstanding comprehension of the implications of the question and sophisticated, creative and original, nuanced and critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues not only pertaining to the subject, but to the field as a whole. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and exceptionally sophisticated usage. According to the judgement of the examiners may be of publishable standard in a peer-reviewed journal

Argument: A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and extremely well-supported with elements of originality. Outstanding evidence throughout independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’, suggesting a thorough grasp of the broader field and wider concepts. Evidence of reading exceptionally widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.

Presentation: Exceptionally well presented: no grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting. Very extensive and detailed knowledge with impressive conceptual understanding and analytical skills. Extensive evidence of coherence, creativity, originality, autonomy, imagination and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.

70-79 (Distinction)

Knowledge and Understanding: Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and sophisticated usage.

Argument: A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and well-supported. Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the immediate question’, suggesting a burgeoning grasp of the broader field and wider concepts. Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and perhaps some knowledge at the forefront of the discipline

Presentation: Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors if any; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting.

60-69 (Merit)

Knowledge and Understanding: Generally well written, with a clear sequence of arguments, and satisfactory referencing and bibliography. Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and fairly extensive and accurate knowledge and understanding, showing a sound grasp of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field, well organised and effectively argued, analytical in approach. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: used with reasonable ease and success.

Argument: Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a fairly substantial body of primary material, and to relate this in an illuminating way to the issues under discussion. Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues, though not always displaying an understanding of how they link to the question. A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at independent thinking and is sensibly structured and generally well-supported. Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to be selective in the range of material used, and the capacity to synthesise rather than describe

Presentation: Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly and concisely; fairly consistent and satisfactory referencing and bibliographic formatting

50-59 (Pass)

Knowledge and Understanding: Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some errors and/or gaps and some awareness of underlying theoretical/methodological issues with limited understanding of how they relate to the question. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempted use, but not always successful, not always a full understanding of concepts/theory/method used.

Argument: Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a reasonable range of primary material, and relate it accurately to the issues under discussion. Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical and analytical. Tendency to assert/state opinion, view or ‘feeling’ rather than argue on the basis of reasoned arguments and evidence; arguments not sustained by choice of evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical. Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit; but displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material.

Presentation: Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing, but generally accurate bibliography; bibliography may be too short.

40-49 (Fail/Diploma)

Knowledge and Understanding: Work inadequate for an MA or PG Diploma award. Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempts to use, but only with partial understanding and/or success.

Argument: Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used inappropriately or incorrectly. Relevant, but not extensive deployment of primary material in relation to the issues under discussion. Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description. Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources

Presentation: Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; a limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.

39- (Fail)

Knowledge and Understanding: Work inadequate for an MA or PG Diploma award. Unsatisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of the subject; limited or no understanding of theoretical/methodological issues. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: little and/or inaccurate usage

Argument: Very little comprehension of the implications of the question and lacking a coherent structure. Lacking any attempt at analysis and critical engagement with issues, based on description or opinion. Little use of sources and what is used reflects a very narrow range or is irrelevant and/or misunderstood

Presentation: Unsatisfactory presentation: difficult to follow; a very limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.