assignment-1-ways (1)

Assignment 1 - In what ways might the analysis
of Root Causes not be objective?
There are many tools which are used to identify root causes, and it is not uncommon
for the application of these tools to be regarded as an objective and
uncontroversial assessment of factors which produce serious incidents. In this
assignment, we want you to think about and critique objectivity in causal reasoning.
In identifying objectivity as a potential problem, we want you to:
1. Demonstrate your understanding and application of common tools for the
analysis of root causes
2. Demonstrate your insight into a case study
3. Critically examine the thinking and rationale which underpins the identification
of causes of serious incidents
4. Consider the likely consequences of the reasoning processes employed and
the risks associated with them
You should address these issues in relation to the attached case study. In addition
to an introduction and conclusion which should frame your argument, your
essay should contain the following sections, which carry weightings of marks:
Part 1 - 40% A representation of the details of the sequence of events in the case
study leading up to the death of the patient, and the various human factors
issues which contributed to this. You should demonstrate the usage of common
tools for causal reasoning.
Part 2 - 30% A comparison of your reasoning processes, and your application of
the tools, with the conclusions of the report. Where are the areas of argument?
What alternative representations or descriptions might be possible?
Part 3 - 30% An examination of the role of conversation, subjectivity, interpretation,
power and politics in the determining of causal relations.
Your assignment should be approximately 1500 words.
1

Marking descriptors
The marking descriptors for the School of Medicine will be used in marking all written work on this
programme. These are:
GRADE % COMMENTS
A 70% & over Pass - Exceptional Work:
Integrates detail into a coherent whole. Uses wholly
applicable and accurate language. Outstanding ability
to critically analyse and evaluate. Evidence of
thorough knowledge of theoretical issues involved and
the ability to develop argument logically and clearly.
Evidence of extensive relevant reading. Shows
originality in thinking and breadth in reading.
B 50%-69% Pass - Satisfactory/Sound work:
C Under 50% Fail – Weak answer:
Demonstrates ability to critically analyse and evaluate,
but the evidence is less strong than exceptional work.
Displays an understanding of appropriate knowledge
and theory. No gross inaccuracies.
Displays lack of evidence of critical analysis and
evaluation with little appreciation of the requirements
of academic argument. Little theoretical knowledge
demonstrated and excludes relevant material. Limited
reading.
The following general criteria will apply.
70%+ The student will have demonstrated a clear understanding of the
essay question, an evaluative, critical and well researched
understanding of the issues involved, produced a closely argued
set of conclusions and probably added some original flair.
60-69% The student will have demonstrated a clear understanding of the
question, an evaluative, critical and well researched understanding
of most of the issues involved and argued strongly towards a set of
conclusions.
50-59% The student will have demonstrated an understanding of the
question, produced a descriptive analysis of most of the issues
involved and attempted to draw some conclusions. Often within
this grade band, there is a tendency simply to reproduce the
arguments of others with little demonstration of analytical skills and
draw heavily on the other authors.
0%-49% This essay will have failed to demonstrate an understanding of the
question or the issues which are raised, Typically it will be poorly
focused and researched.