The rubric
This rubric assesses whether students can organise a coherent inquiry linking a planning problem, research questions, concepts, methods, evidence, judgement and a regional strategy. It rewards methodological fit, transparent reasoning and critical reflection. Complexity is not a virtue by itself: a simple method used carefully is stronger than an impressive method that does not answer the question.
Use it to check your own work before you hand it in, and to review another group’s draft in session 8.
Each component gets one reasoned grade in half points (7.0 or 7.5, never 7.6); the final grade is the weighted sum, rounded to a half point. You pass with a final grade of at least 6.0. With a final grade between 5.0 and 5.5 you may be offered a repair assignment: see the Course page.
What we value
The problem leads to answerable questions; the questions guide the conceptual framework and methods; evidence supports the analysis; and the analysis informs the strategy.
Methods are judged by what they allow the team to know, not by their technical prestige or quantity.
Empirical findings, explanations, values and recommendations are distinguished and then connected explicitly.
Concepts help students see, compare, question or design something that would otherwise remain unclear.
Strategies identify actors, powers, responsibilities, trade-offs and consequences.
Structure, prose, citations, figures and diagrams make the reasoning easier to examine rather than merely more attractive.
How we grade
Each component receives one grade from 0 to 10, in half points (for example 7.0 or 7.5, never 7.6), given as a reasoned overall judgement against that component’s descriptors. The criteria tables show what assessors examine; they are not scored or weighted separately. The final result is the weighted sum of the four component grades. Report and conceptual framework grades are shared by the group; reflection and exercise grades are individual. To pass the course, the final weighted grade must be at least 6.0. With a final grade between 5.0 and 5.5, a student may be offered a written repair assignment. The bands describe the quality of a component; they do not by themselves decide passing or repair. Programme rules govern how the weighted sum is rounded to a half point.
Rules we follow
- Judge the whole body of evidence. A descriptor is a profile, not a checklist in which every phrase must be satisfied mechanically.
- Do not double-count the same weakness. The conceptual framework component assesses the framework itself; the report component assesses whether the project uses it to guide inquiry and strategy, including the removability test.
- Presentation cannot compensate for weak reasoning. A beautiful report with unclear questions, opaque methods or unsupported claims is not excellent methodology.
- Ambition does not excuse lack of evidence. Grade what the report demonstrates, while recognising appropriate limits and well-justified uncertainty.
- Different questions require different methods. Qualitative, quantitative, spatial, visual, participatory and design-based approaches should be judged by fit, transparency and quality of use.
- Assessors should identify the decisive evidence for the grade and one priority for improvement. Comments should explain the judgement rather than repeat the descriptor.
Report
The report is assessed as a connected argument, not as a collection of chapters produced by different team members. It should make the project traceable from the initial problem to the proposed regional strategy.
Problem definition; answerable research questions; relevant spatial and temporal scales; case boundaries; key terms; relationship between research and design.
Fit between questions and methods; source and case selection; sampling where relevant; data collection and analysis; ethics; positionality; validity or trustworthiness; limitations.
Use of evidence; use of the conceptual framework (removability test); distinction between description, explanation and judgement; consideration of alternatives; treatment of uncertainty and contradiction; strength of conclusions.
How findings inform spatial, institutional and governance choices; actors, powers and responsibilities; feasibility; timing; trade-offs; distributional and democratic consequences.
Coherent structure; informative abstract and conclusion; precise prose; correct and verifiable citations; captions and sources; analytical use of maps, diagrams and other visuals.
- What exactly did the team want to understand or change, and why does this matter at the regional scale?
- Why were these concepts, cases, sources and methods appropriate to the questions?
- What evidence was produced or assembled, how was it analysed, and what can it not establish?
- Which claims are empirical, which are explanatory, which are normative, and how are they connected?
- How does the strategy follow from the analysis, and who gains, loses, decides, pays and remains responsible?
Imagine deleting the conceptual framework. If the research questions, analysis and strategy remain essentially unchanged, the framework is decorative. If its removal would dismantle important analytical and design choices, it is doing genuine work. The test is applied in the report assessment.
Six bands
The inquiry chain is exceptionally clear and intellectually controlled. Research questions are precise and consequential. Methods fit the questions and are documented well enough to assess the quality of the evidence. The report distinguishes observation, interpretation, explanation and normative judgement, tests plausible alternatives, and treats limits honestly. The regional strategy follows convincingly from the analysis and specifies spatial, institutional and governance consequences. The conceptual framework visibly shapes the questions, analysis and strategy, and passes the removability test. Prose, citations and visuals are exact; figures perform analytical work. The report shows independent synthesis rather than simply reproducing course language.
The report presents a strong and coherent inquiry with well-aligned questions, methods, evidence and strategy. Methodological choices are explained and limitations are taken seriously. Analysis is critical and generally distinguishes evidence from judgement, although a few inferential steps or alternatives remain underdeveloped. The strategy is specific and well grounded, with clear attention to actors, scales and trade-offs. Structure, sources and visuals are consistently strong, with only minor gaps.
The report is coherent and methodologically credible. Questions and methods broadly align, but some choices are asserted rather than justified, or parts of the analysis remain descriptive. Evidence supports the main conclusions, although uncertainty, rival explanations or limitations receive uneven attention. The strategy is connected to the findings but some institutional, spatial or distributive implications are not fully worked through. Writing and visuals are clear, with manageable inconsistencies in sourcing or integration.
A recognisable inquiry is present, but the chain between problem, questions, methods, analysis and strategy is uneven. Methods are named but only partly explained; evidence selection or analysis lacks transparency. The report often describes conditions without explaining them, and empirical findings, values and recommendations sometimes blur together. The strategy is plausible but insufficiently derived from the analysis or too general about actors and implementation. The conceptual framework is cited but changes little in the analysis or the strategy. The report is readable, though editing, citations or visuals require attention.
The report holds together only at a basic level. Questions are broad or unstable, methodological fit is weakly justified, and important evidence or analytical steps are missing. Claims exceed what the material can support, limitations are largely absent, or the strategy appears as an addition rather than the outcome of inquiry. The conceptual framework could be removed from most of the project without loss. Structure and sourcing problems impede verification. Considerable revision is needed even where the central project remains recognisable.
The argument does not hold. Research questions, methods and evidence are absent, incoherent or seriously misaligned. Sources or claims cannot be verified, analysis is largely unsupported, or the strategy has no defensible relationship to the research. Major sections may be missing or mutually contradictory. Writing, figures or citations prevent the work from being examined as an academic report.
Conceptual framework
A conceptual framework is the organised set of ideas through which the team defines the problem, asks questions, interprets evidence and evaluates possible strategies. It is not a decorative cloud of authors. The framework should make a difference to what the project sees and does. This component assesses the framework itself: its concepts, synthesis, architecture and what it generates. Whether the report then uses it is assessed under the report.
Key concepts are defined, distinguished and bounded; assumptions are visible.
Relevant scholarly traditions are selected critically and brought into a coherent relationship; citations strengthen the argument rather than accumulate names.
The diagram and text explain relationships among concepts, actors, processes, scales and expected mechanisms.
Concepts generate research questions, analytical categories, indicators, comparison criteria or design principles that the project can use. Their use in the analysis and strategy is assessed under the report.
Tensions, exclusions and limits are acknowledged; the framework does not present one perspective as neutral or complete.
How to build one: Conceptual framework and Theoretical framework. Report parts 07 and 08.
Six bands
Concepts are explained with unusual clarity and synthesised into an original, disciplined architecture. The framework generates precise questions, analytical categories and design principles. Diagram and text are mutually explanatory. Assumptions, tensions and limits are handled critically.
The framework is clear, well-sourced and critically discussed. Several bodies of thought are integrated coherently and translated into questions, categories and principles. Diagram and text are strong, with only minor loose ends.
The framework is conceptually sound and relevant. Literature is synthesised rather than merely listed, but some relationships or operational steps remain implicit. It generates useful questions and categories, though a few concepts function mainly as labels. Diagram and text are useful but not fully integrated.
Relevant concepts and sources are present, but definitions are uneven or mystifying and theoretical relationships remain loose. The framework illustrates the topic more than it structures inquiry. Operationalisation is partial, and the diagram may summarise rather than generate analysis or design choices.
The framework generates few usable questions, categories or principles. Concepts are misdefined, weakly sourced or combined without a defensible logic. The diagram and prose do not explain one another, and links to research questions and analytical categories are sparse.
No coherent conceptual framework is demonstrated. Core concepts are absent, irrelevant or seriously misapplied; references are missing or unreliable; and the framework produces nothing the project could use.
Individual reflection
The reflection is an argument about learning, responsibility and professional formation. It should analyse a change in the student’s thinking through concrete project decisions. A chronology of tasks or a motivational statement is not sufficient. Length: up to 800 words, written individually in the first person.
A substantive change, tension or unresolved question is anchored in specific moments and examined rather than merely narrated.
The student considers their own authority, assumptions, silences and relations with affected communities; community is not treated as homogeneous.
Methodological or design choices are linked to evidence, trade-offs, conflicts and questions of who gains, loses or remains unheard.
The student articulates what the experience means for the kind of urbanist they are becoming without resorting to empty optimism.
Six bands
A precise and honest reflection traces a substantive shift in thinking through one or more consequential moments. It examines positionality, power, ethics and conflict without self-dramatisation. Claims are tied to concrete methodological or design decisions and their consequences. The student articulates a distinctive yet provisional professional position.
A clear shift in thinking is analysed through specific project moments. Assumptions about community, expertise and authority are questioned; trade-offs and consequences are named. The reflection connects personal conduct to substantive choices and develops a credible emerging position, with only minor gaps.
The reflection moves beyond description and identifies meaningful learning, although analysis is uneven. Power, ethics and positionality are addressed but not always pursued through their consequences. Connections to project decisions are present, and the emerging professional position is specific enough to be credible.
The reflection is mainly descriptive but contains some genuine analysis. Change is asserted more than demonstrated, community or power is treated generally, and the student’s role tends to become a list of tasks. Links to methodological or design choices are limited, and the professional position remains conventional.
The text summarises activities or group dynamics with little evidence of changed thinking. Ethical language replaces analysis, concrete decisions are scarce, and responsibility or trade-offs are avoided. The conclusion relies on generic statements about future practice.
No serious individual reflection is demonstrated. The section is absent, grossly incomplete, written as a shared group text, or contains no concrete examples, self-examination or defensible professional position.
In-class exercises
The exercises allow students to practise the course methods and concepts while the project is still developing. They scaffold the report and make the development of the inquiry visible. Completion and quality are both assessed; submission does not by itself demonstrate critical engagement.
There are eight exercises, one per session, submitted on Brightspace by the deadlines given there. The eighth is the peer review in session 8.
Required exercises are submitted by the stated deadlines, subject to approved exceptions and programme rules.
The student applies the method or concept to the Q3 project rather than repeating session content.
The work identifies implications, limits or questions and shows development across the term; earlier exercises are revised or used where appropriate.
The exercise is identifiable, organised and readable, with name and student number where required.
Six bands
All required work is submitted and demonstrates sustained, critical application to the project. Exercises are complete, precise and legible; they identify limits and visibly inform later research or design decisions.
Work is complete apart from a minor omission or approved exception. Exercises apply course methods thoughtfully and are consistently clear. Development across the term is visible, with only small gaps in critical depth or reuse.
Most required work is complete and methodologically sound. Application to the project is clear, though some exercises remain descriptive or isolated from later decisions. Organisation and legibility are good.
A sufficient body of work is submitted, but completion or quality is uneven. Methods and concepts are recognised but applied superficially. Several exercises show limited development, critical engagement or connection to the final report.
Substantial work is missing, late without an approved exception, or significantly incomplete. Remaining exercises show only basic engagement and do not provide a reliable record of methodological development.
The exercise record is grossly incomplete or demonstrates little meaningful engagement with the course methods and concepts.
Use it before we do
- Read your draft as an assessor would. For each component, choose the band whose description fits best as a whole, not phrase by phrase.
- Write down the decisive evidence for that band, with page numbers.
- Check that your report lets a reader answer the five questions, and run the removability test.
- Name the one change that would most strengthen the work, and make it first. One band up on the report counts twice as much as one band up on the framework.
- In session 8, do the same for another group’s draft.