Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: The assignment was a one-page “Short Research Proposal”. I received a 16/30, with an additional mark was removed because it was submitted 5 hours late (15/30). This was deferred course work from the Fall Term. The information I provide below shows that the marking for my assignment was significantly and unduly harsh.
1. Quality of Sources: 4/5
What the grade should be: 5/5.
The proposal substantiates well why recent news articles are provided: as the proposal makes very clear, research on “women’s personal experiences and reasoning” in responding to pro-natalist policies is lacking. As such, while making reference to many well-respected journals, the proposal does make reference to relevant news content from highly-respected international news outlets, such as Guardian, Economist, CNN as this is where many of the pro-natalist policies have been discussed. Furthermore, the timeliness of this issue justifies the inclusion of recent news articles. The instructor themselves could not point out any unnecessary/irrelevant sources.
2. Quality of research question: 3/5
What the grade should be: 4/5
The proposal clearly provides the research question: “How are pro-natalist policies enacted by the Trump administration perceived among his target population, compared to other demographics”.
The instructor indicates that “his target population” and “other demographics” is vague phrasing – however this target group has already been directly defined above the research question: “Hiemstra, 2021, argues that the Trump administration uses targeted policies to encourage the reproduction of Caucasian conservative women”. This target group for this research study is directly stated again below in the discussion of the study design: “the target population of Trump’s policies will be Caucasian women enrolled in Christian public colleges”. As this study directly states that it is studying two groups of “women of child-bearing age”, for this study “other demographics” are subsequently “women of child-bearing age” who are not “Caucasian women enrolled in Christian public colleges”. The study clearly states this non-Caucasian Christian group will be made up of women of child-rearing age “from secular public colleges”.
3. Contributions and Significance: 2/5
The criteria for this mark states: “There is either (1) no claim about potential academic contributions or (2) no claim about real world importance. However, the one that is present is reasonable.”
What the grade should be: 4/5 or 5/5.
The instructor’s comments are: “Missing real-world significance of answering this question”
This claim by the instructor is clearly inaccurate. It either overlooks or ignores that the proposal identifies both a real-world and academic impact. The real-world impact in the proposal is stated as: “The real-world importance of this research cannot be understated, as these policies directly impact individuals’ choices, and even the creation of life”. Likewise, the academic contribution is clearly stated: “However, there is a complete lack of research present within the current literature that explores women’s personal experiences and reasoning. To remedy this gap within the literature…”
This appears to be the clearest example of incorrectness and bias in the marking. Both are clearly stated, yet the instructor simply ignores, rather than evaluates, the claims.
4. Engagement with Academic Literature: 2/5
What the grade should be: 3/5 or 4/5.
The short proposal (max 1 page) in a very short page limit, situates the research topic and research question in the relevant theoretical and empirical research, while clearly stating that there is an existing gap in studying “women’s personal experiences and reasoning”. The proposal also makes clear that this research can help better understand if Republican voting women of birth age choose or choose not to have more children in response to Republican incentives for women having more babies. The instructor in no way provides relevant research that the proposal has missed or explained how a more thorough literature review can be completed in one-page. At the very least, the proposal is either “situated”(3/5) or “well-situated”(4/5) in “academic literature and draws on theories and/or theoretical frameworks from related research.”
5. Soundness of Research Design: 2/5
What the grade should be: 3/5
Some details of the focus groups were omitted, this was due to space constraints. Nevertheless, there are some mistakes in the instructor comment. The claim is that this proposal attempts to use positivist methods. However, the proposal never describes the study as “positivist”. It does use the word “experimental” – the word that should have been used is “empirical” (to contrast with “theoretical”). Nevertheless, the study clearly chooses an interpretivist approach (comparative focus groups) to study beliefs and meaning: this is an appropriate, well-suited and well-motivated methodology for seeking to understand perceived meanings and beliefs, which is the objective as made clear in the research question. 2/5 (a failing grade) is unnecessarily harsh given that the method chosen is a highly effective one for answering the research questions. As such, 3/5 at a minimum would be a fairer grade.