Humanitarian Intervention  



Faculty of Engineering Environment and Computing

3036GED Module Title: Humanitarian Intervention


Assignment Brief 2017/18


Module Title: Humanitarian Intervention Individual Essay Cohort (Jan) Module Code: 3036EXQ


Coursework Title:  Humanitarian Intervention CW




Estimated Time (hrs):


Word Limit*: 2000




Coursework type:  Essay 50 % of Module Mark


Submission arrangement online via CUMoodle

File types and method of recording: PDF or Word

Mark and Feedback date: 2 working weeks from submission deadline

Mark and Feedback  method: Feedback to be released online


Intended Module Learning Outcomes

3.         Critically analyse causation of migration and Complex Emergencies, and effects of disasters on vulnerable groups

4.         Examine the challenges and opportunities for managing humanitarian supply chains and logistical considerations.

5.         Critically examine professional approaches and ethical considerations in humanitarian and development contexts.


Task and Mark distribution:


You are required to submit a 2000 word assignment on the question below:


You are required to answer the question below in ESSAY format:


The contemporary humanitarian sector has made significant progress in developing theories and best practice for improving effectiveness in disaster response and recovery.  Cash Transfer Programming is an approach currently favoured by many international donors. Write an essay that critically analyses and evaluates this approach.


Your essay should consider the following:


·         Practicalities of delivery, particularly Supply Chain Management

·         Appropriateness of this approach in humanitarian contexts

·         Ethical considerations associated within Cash Transfer Programming

·         Identification of best practices, in your opinion, based on robust research

Marks will be awarded as below:


1.      Ability to identify the key developments relating to Cash transfer Programming and its delivery, over the past two decades (20%).

2.      Rigour in providing, analysing and evaluating the key theories, concepts, and frameworks which have shaped understanding and context appropriate approaches within this area (30%).

3.      Ability to demonstrate understanding of the role of ethics in relation to Cash Transfer Programming as appropriate (20%).

4.      Ability to demonstrate wider academic reading above and beyond sources used in class (30%).
















1.       You are expected to use the CUHarvard referencing format. For support and advice on how this students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).

2.       Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.

3.       Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined here.

4.       The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to save it on the University system.

5.       If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period. This will be communicated via email and as a CUMoodle announcement.

6.       Assignments that are more than 10% over the word limit will result in a deduction of 10% of the mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction of 6% to 54%. The word limit includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography, reference list and tables.


Mark allocation guidelines to students

0-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ 80+
Work mainly incomplete and /or weaknesses in most areas Most elements completed; weaknesses outweigh strengths Most elements are strong, minor weaknesses Strengths in all elements Most work exceeds the standard expected All work substantially exceeds the standard expected
























Marking: (Below is the general University Marking Grid – To be understood alongside the criteria provided above)






Innovative response, answers the question fully, addressing the learning objectives of the assessment task.  Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation.


A clear, consistent in-depth critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from a range of sources.  Engagement with theoretical and conceptual analysis.


Wide range of appropriately supporting evidence provided, going beyond the recommended texts.  Correctly referenced. An outstanding, well-structured and appropriately referenced answer, demonstrating a high degree of understanding and critical analytic skills.
Upper Second






A very good attempt to address the objectives of the assessment task with an emphasis on those elements requiring critical review. A generally clear line of critical and evaluative argument is presented.  Relationships between statements and sections are easy to follow, and there is a sound, coherent structure. A very good range of relevant sources is used in a largely consistent way as supporting evidence.  There is use of some sources beyond recommended texts.  Correctly referenced in the main. The answer demonstrates a very good understanding of theories, concepts and issues, with evidence of reading beyond the recommended minimum.  Well organised and clearly written.
Lower Second





Competently addresses objectives, but may contain errors or omissions and critical discussion of issues may be superficial or limited in places.



Some critical discussion, but the argument is not always convincing, and the work is descriptive in places, with over-reliance on the work of others.


A range of relevant sources is used, but the critical evaluation aspect is not fully presented.  There is limited use of sources beyond the standard recommended materials.  Referencing is not always correctly presented.


The answer demonstrates a good understanding of some relevant    theories, concepts and issues, but there are some errors and irrelevant material included.  The structure lacks clarity.






Addresses most objectives of the assessment task, with some notable omissions.  The structure is unclear in parts, and there is limited analysis. The work is descriptive with minimal critical discussion and limited theoretical engagement. A limited range of relevant sources used without appropriate presentation as supporting or conflicting evidence coupled with very limited critical analysis. Referencing has some errors. Some understanding is demonstrated but is incomplete, and there is evidence of limited research on the topic. Poor structure and presentation, with few and/or poorly presented references.



Some deviation from the objectives of the assessment task.  May not consistently address the assignment brief.  At the lower end fails to answer the question set or address the learning outcomes.  There is minimal evidence of analysis or evaluation. Descriptive with no evidence of theoretical engagement, critical discussion or theoretical engagement.  At the lower end displays a minimal level of understanding. Very limited use and application of relevant sources as supporting evidence.  At the lower end demonstrates a lack of real understanding.  Poor presentation of references. Whilst some relevant material is present, the level of understanding is poor with limited evidence of wider reading. Poor structure and poor presentation, including referencing. At the lower end there is evidence of a lack of comprehension, resulting in an assignment that is well below the required standard.


Late submission


0 0 0 0




Please follow and like us: