Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Dear Associate Dean,

I am writing to formally petition for a review of my final examination grade in POLS 284: Intro to Political Research completed in Fall term. This request follows an recent informal grade appeal with the course instructor which resulted in a one point increase to my final exam grade. While I appreciate that reconsideration I respectfully submit that several written responses were under evaluated relative to the stated grading criteria and that further review is warranted. This petition is submitted within the required 21 day period and in accordance with Appeal Regulation 3.3.1.6.

My primary concern is with the evaluation of the written response questions B1, B3 and C4. Although I raised concerns about several multiple choice questions during the informal appeal my petition focuses on these written responses because they require judgment based on substance and alignment with course concepts rather than answer key matching.

Most significantly I request reconsideration of Question B1 which received a score of 0 out of 10. This question asked which research method would be most appropriate for understanding how undecided voters revise their interpretations when challenged by other undecided voters and why that method should be chosen over two alternatives. In my response I proposed an exploratory qualitative approach focused on observing interaction and discussion among participants in order to capture changes in interpretation. While I did not explicitly use the label focus groups my answer described the core logic of that method as presented in the course including interaction among participants real time reaction clarification and follow up. I also compared this approach to two alternatives explaining why descriptive approaches would not capture interaction and why theory testing or statistical approaches would rely on assumptions ill suited to an exploratory question.

I recognize that my terminology and structure could have been clearer. However a score of zero implies a complete absence of relevant content which does not accurately reflect the substance of my response. I addressed the research question selected a defensible method compared it to two alternatives and provided reasoning grounded in course material. Even if the response carried flaws, subjectively assigning no credit does not proportionately reflect the work submitted. If this were the case a student who left the answer completely blank would have been graded the same. I respectfully submit that when a student provides a substantive answer that engages with the question and course concepts a score of zero is not an appropriate evaluation.

For Question B3 which received a score of 5 out of 10 my response addressed arguments made by qualitative researchers regarding single case studies process tracing and within case causal inference. I discussed how case selection and careful tracing of causal mechanisms can support causal explanation and limited generalization. I also articulated my own position defending qualitative approaches for questions not well suited to probabilistic methods. While my response could have more clearly separated the qualitative researcher’s argument from my own perspective it did address both parts of the question using core concepts from the course. Given that the feedback noted I grasped the general argument of qualitative research I believe the score may underrepresent the extent to which my answer met the rubric criteria.

For Question C4 which received a score of 4 out of 10 I identified Germany as a deviant case based on evidence that its institutional and economic structures regulating donations remained stable despite reform pressures and theoretical expectations. I also noted how this pattern distinguished Germany from other European democracies. While my assessment of the evidence’s convincingness could have been more explicitly structured I did evaluate whether Germany fit predictions derived from institutional and economic theories and from comparable cases. I therefore believe the response satisfies more components of the rubric than the assigned score reflects

The final examination required rapid synthesis of nuanced methodological distinctions under significant time constraints. While this does not excuse imprecision it does help explain why some responses may have lacked optimal clarity despite demonstrating substantive understanding. I took reasonable steps to prepare for the exam and to seek reconsideration through the prescribed informal appeal process.

I respectfully request that the Office of the Associate Dean facilitate an independent review of my final examination with particular attention to whether my written responses were evaluated proportionately to the grading criteria and the substance of the answers provided. I am prepared to submit clean and marked copies of the exam relevant course materials and any additional documentation required.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


Ava DeSouza
20351942
21abd7@queensu.ca