MOD003325 Academic and Professional Skills ARU London

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Assessment	Coursework Report (Final)
Assessment code:	011
Academic Year:	2019/20
Trimester:	1
Module Title:	Academic and Professional Skills
Module Code:	MOD003325
Level:	4
Module Leader:	Louise Hadley
Weighting:	70 (%)
Word Limit:	2000 words This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the Academic Regulations: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Assessed Learning Outcomes	1,2,3 & 5
Submission Deadline :	This assignment must be received by no later than 14:00 on Click here to enter a date.

WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:

• This assignment must be completed individually.
• You must use the Harvard referencing system.
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used.  Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words.  When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
• Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
• You must number all pages.

SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:

In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – up to five working days after the published submission deadline – will be accepted and marked.  However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.

Work cannot be submitted if the period of 5 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failed the assessment.

Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the iCentre Adviser. Please contact iCentre@lca.anglia.ac.uk.  A request must normally be received and agreed by the iCentre Adviser in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline.  See rules 6.56-6.65: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf

Mitigation: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact iCentre@lca.anglia.ac.uk

See rules 6.103 – 6.132: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION

Task: Write a report of 2000 words answering the 2-part question in the box below. You should base your answer on one of the following case studies:

• If you are studying a degree related to Health and Social Care, you should base your report on the The Sackler Family and OxyContin case study.

• If you are studying a degree related to Hospitality, Tourism and Events, you should base your report on the Museum and Galleries supported by the Sackler Family case study.

• If you are studying a degree related to Business or Law, you should base your report on the The Sackler Family Business case study.  

Question: Can an organisation be described as successful if it is not ethical? Use your case study to illustrate your answer. What can the organisation in your case study do to protect itself against unethical behaviour?

(100 marks)

The Sackler Family and OxyContin

The current opioid epidemic in the U.S. sees approximately 49,000 people a year die of overdoses caused by opioids, including prescription painkillers, heroin and fentanyl. One of the main contributors to this is the prescription painkiller OxyContin. The billionaire Sackler family own Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical company who make the highly addictive painkiller OxyContin. They are currently facing hundreds of lawsuits by American states and individuals who are claiming that Purdue Pharma put ‘profits over people’ when they downplayed the addictive nature of OxyContin.

The first charge of unethical behaviour is that the company claimed that large doses of the opioid could be administered without being addictive, as the drug was coated in a slow release outer shell. This meant that only 2 tablets needed to be taken in a 24-hour period. However, many people experienced severe withdrawal symptoms before a single 12-hour period was up. Additionally, it was found that the tablets could easily be ground down so that the slow release coating was erased. These factors resulted in addiction and deaths. Purdue Pharma claimed that the way the drug was taken was the responsibility of the individual rather than how they had manufactured it.

Another charge of unethical behaviour lies in the aggressive marketing of the drug, with the company spending more on promotion than any other comparable drug. They invited doctors and medical professionals across the US to all expenses paid conferences in resorts. Purdue Pharma also targeted doctors who were frequent prescribers of pain medication for chronic pain sufferers. This meant that OxyContin became one of the most commonly prescribed opioids in the U.S.

In 2010 when the patent for OxyContin expired meaning it could be sold as a generic medication at a cheaper price, Purdue Pharma finally admitted that there was a problem with the medication and it should not be sold. They made a change to the drug resulting in a new patent. This new patent meant that the pricing structure was protected and profits were not compromised. The Sackler family has been accused of exploiting people’s weaknesses for financial gain. 

Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/03/purdue-opioids-lawsuit-oxycontin-california-maine-hawaii

Adapted from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/

Museums and Galleries supported by the Sackler Family

The Sackler family is an extremely wealthy American-British family who owns Purdue Pharma, a pharmaceutical company which is famous for manufacturing the highly addictive painkiller, OxyContin. This drug has been identified as one of the main causes of the opioid crisis in the United States, which has seen an alarming increase in addiction and death. The Sackler family are also famous for their philanthropy and generous donations to museums, galleries and universities across the world. In February 2018, an article in The Guardian equated the Sackler family to a drug cartel as both make money from the suffering of those addicted to the drugs they sell; one legally, the other illegally. The article further argues that donations given by the Sackler family to museums, galleries and universities across the world should be declined in the same way as donations from drug cartels.

Respected institutions such as the Louvre, the Guggenheim, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Gallery have all received generous donations from the Sackler family. Some have even named libraries, wings and galleries after them. However, since the revelation of the opioid scandal and the news that many U.S. states are suing the family, many of these institutions have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from the Sackler family. The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Guggenheim in New York, the Tate art group in the UK, the National Portrait Gallery and the Serpentine Gallery in London have all refused to accept further gifts or donations from the Sackler family.

The moral issue here is that those institutions who accept the Sackler family money, make the Sackler family seem respectable by associating their respected names with the family, and are therefore complicit in ‘reputation laundering’ as well as besmirching their own reputation.

Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/15/met-museum-rejects-sackler-family-donations-oxycontin-makers-gifts

Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/16/sackler-family-blood-money-disgrace-museums

The Sackler Family Business

The Sackler family own the pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, which is responsible for manufacturing the highly addictive opioid OxyContin. At various stages of the company’s history, family members have sat on the board.

As of May 2019, 45 U.S. states and 1,500 cities were suing Purdue Pharma for misconduct in marketing and sales of a highly profitable drug. The company has been accused of making false claims about OxyContin, branding it as ‘Hope in a bottle’. They have also been accused of misleading both the public and medical professionals about the drug’s effectiveness whilst downplaying the addictive nature of the drug.

The company’s marketing strategy has been criticised for being aggressive and manipulative. In the mid-1990s when OxyContin was launched, medical professionals were treated to all expenses paid conferences in resorts. There is a significant amount of data to support the fact that this tactic has an impact on prescribing decisions. State data was also used to target specific areas where there was a high level of pain killers being prescribed to chronic pain suffers. The number of sales representatives hired by the firm increased significantly, and the budget used to promote the drug was significantly higher than any other comparable drug. As a result, OxyContin became one of the most highly prescribed drugs on the U.S. market, and the fact that it was highly addictive meant that it continued to be prescribed. The Iowa Attorney General, Tom Miller, said that Purdue Pharma was ‘recklessly indifferent to the impact of their actions, despite ever-mounting evidence that their deceptions were resulting in an epidemic of addiction and death’.

Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/16/purdue-pharma-states-sue-opioids-crisis-role

POINTS TO CONSIDER

If you are studying a degree related to Health and Social Care, you may wish to focus your analysis section on 3-4 of the following points:

• Success from the perspective of the Purdue Pharma and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include how profits have been affected by the unethical behaviour.)
• Success from the perspective of the public and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include public protests sparked by the unethical behaviour.)
• Success from the perspective of the medical staff and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include how the doctors prescribing the medication feel, or how the medical staff dealing with the overdoses feel about Purdue Pharma.)
• Success from the perspective of the patients and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include how the patients facing addiction feel about the unethical behaviour of Purdue Pharma.)

If you are studying a degree related to Hospitality, Tourism and Events, you may wish to focus your analysis section on 3-4 of the following points:

• Success of the organisations receiving the donations in terms of reputation and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include how good the reputation of the organisation is after being associated with the Sackler Family)
• Success of the organisations receiving the donations from the public’s perspective and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include how the public feel about visiting the specific exhibitions now that they know how the exhibition has been funded.)
• Success from the perspective of services offered to the public by museums and galleries including pricing and how they are affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include the range of exhibitions that the Sackler family number has enabled the museums to hold.)
• Success from the perspective of effective regulations around the organisations receiving donations and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This could include whether regulations were successful or rigorous enough in ensuring the donations came from an ethical source.)

If you are studying a degree related to Business or Law, you may wish to focus your analysis section on 3-4 of the following points:

• Success in terms of revenue and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This could include whether revenue increased or decreased as a result of the unethical behaviour).
• Success from the perspective of shareholders and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This could include whether the shareholders were happy at the actions of the company.)
• Success from the perspective of the board and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This could include whether the actions of the board brought success to the business.)
• Success from the perspective of public confidence and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This could include whether the public see the company as being successful or unethical.)

Your report should follow the structure and suggested word counts below:

Cover Page

• Title of the report
• Title of the module
• Student Number (1xxxxxx)
• Date of submission
• Word count

Executive Summary (not included in the word count)

• Summary of each section of the report

Contents Page

• Main section headings with page numbers

Introduction (suggested: 250-300 words)

• Definition/s of success and what success means to the organisation
• Role of ethics in success
• Brief summary of the case study
• A sentence summarising the main aims of the report

Analysis (suggested: 1250 words, 3-4 points)

• Short introductory paragraph including a statement with the aim of the report and a map sentence.
• Identification and selection of 3-4 distinct aspects from ‘Points to consider’ or from student’s own research. These aspects should be the topics of the main body paragraphs.
• Each body paragraph should include a topic sentence which links it to the question.
• In order to analyse each aspect, research from relevant sources should be used to support the evaluation of the extent to which the reputation of the organisation has been damaged.

Conclusion (suggested: 150 words)

• Summary of the Analysis section

Recommendations (suggested: 300 words)

• Introductory statement
• Three recommendations that are based upon the points considered in the Analysis section.
• Each recommendation must suggest how the organisation in the case study can protect itself against unethical behaviour

Reference List (not included in word count)

• This should follow the conventions of Harvard referencing.

Appendices (not included in word count)

• Any figures, tables, or diagrams etc. can be included here.
• NB. There is no expectation for students to complete an appendices section.

Allocation of Marks (4 x 25%)

•  Use of sources (including: range, quality, paraphrasing/ summarising and referencing)
•  Structure (including: report structure, paragraph structure and cohesion)
•  Task fulfilment (including: relevancy, clarity and level of analysis)
•  Language (including: range, accuracy and style)

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

• Knowledge and understanding of relevant research relating to ethical issues related to the case studies as well as analysing and understanding the implications of these issues.

• Ability to independently manage learning resources, demonstrate command of Harvard referencing, structure a report according to academic conventions and express ideas accurately while maintaining academic style.

ANSWER OUTLINE

Cover Page

• Title of the report
• Title of the module
• Student Number (1xxxxxx)
• Date of submission
• Word count

Executive Summary (not included in the word count)

• Summary of each section of the report

Contents Page

• Main section headings with page numbers

Introduction (suggested: 250-300 words)

• Definition/s of success and what success means to the organisation
• Role of ethics in success
• Brief summary of the case study
• A sentence summarising the main aims of the report

Analysis (suggested: 1250 words, 3-4 points)

• Short introductory paragraph including a statement with the aim of the report and a map sentence.
• Identification and selection of 3-4 distinct aspects from ‘Points to consider’ or from student’s own research. These aspects should be the topics of the main body paragraphs.
• Each body paragraph should include a topic sentence which links it to the question.
• In order to analyse each aspect, research from relevant sources should be used to support the evaluation of the extent to which the reputation of the organisation has been damaged.

Conclusion (suggested: 150 words)

• Summary of the Analysis section

Recommendations (suggested: 300 words)

• Introductory statement
• Three recommendations that are based upon the points considered in the Analysis section.
• Each recommendation must suggest how the organisation in the case study can protect itself against unethical behaviour

Reference List (not included in word count)

This should follow the conventions of Harvard referencing.

Appendices (not included in word count)

• Any figures, tables, or diagrams etc. can be included here.
• NB. There is no expectation for students to complete an appendices section.

APS Written Report Marking Criteria

	Use of Sources 25% Range,  quality, paraphrasing/summarising & referencing	Structure 25% Report structure, paragraph structure & cohesion	Task Fulfilment  25% Relevancy, clarity & level of analysis	Language  25% Range, accuracy & style
90-100% Exceptional	Exceptional use and range of highly relevant sourcesParaphrasing, summarising and use of quotes demonstrate an exceptional ability to manipulate languageFlawless use of Harvard referencing	All sections are exceptionally well organised within the expected structureAll paragraphs are exceptionally well organised Cohesive devices are not only natural, but varied- adding an exceptional degree of sophistication	The report is extremely succinct and relevant without digression.The report is exceptionally clear, compelling and fluidEvaluation and analysis are exceptional	Exceptional range of vocabulary and grammatical structuresExceptional use of grammar and vocabulary Exceptional academic style
80-89% Outstanding	Outstanding use and range of highly relevant sourcesParaphrasing, summarising and use of quotes demonstrate an outstanding ability to manipulate languageFlawless use of Harvard referencing	All sections show outstanding organisation within the expected structureAll paragraphs show outstanding organisationCohesive devices are natural and attract no attention	The report is succinct and relevant without digressionOutstanding clarity and fluidity Evaluation and analysis are outstanding	Outstanding range of vocabulary and grammatical structuresOutstanding use of grammar and vocabulary Outstanding academic style
70 – 79% Excellent	Excellent use and range of highly relevant sourcesExcellent paraphrasing, summarising and use of quotesNear flawless use of Harvard referencing	All sections show excellent organisation within the expected structureAll paragraphs show excellent organisationExcellent range of cohesive devices which are used well	Relevant with minimal digressionExcellent clarity and fluidity Evaluation and analysis are excellent	Excellent range of vocabulary and grammatical structuresExcellent use of grammar and vocabulary Excellent academic style
60 – 69% Good	Good use and range of relevant sourcesGood paraphrasing, summarising and use of quotesGood use of Harvard referencing	All sections are well organised in a logical structureMost paragraphs are well organisedGood range of cohesive devices which are generally used well	Relevant with only minor digressionClear and fluid Evaluation and analysis are good	Good range of vocabulary and grammatical structuresGood use of grammar and vocabulary Good academic style
50 – 59% Satisfactory	Satisfactory use and range of relevant sourcesSatisfactory paraphrasing, summarising and use of quotes Satisfactory use of Harvard referencing	Most sections are organised in a satisfactory mannerMost paragraphs are organised in a satisfactory mannerSatisfactory range of cohesive devices which are generally used well	Mainly relevant with occasional digressionMainly clear Evaluation and analysis are satisfactory	Satisfactory range of vocabulary and grammatical structuresSatisfactory use of grammar and vocabulary Satisfactory academic style
40 – 49% Basic	Somewhat limited use, range and quality of sourcesParaphrasing, summarising and use of quotes are unclear in placesBasic demonstration of Harvard referencing (some evidence of awareness of Harvard referencing though it may have several errors)	Some report sections show basic organisationSome paragraphs are organised in a basic mannerSomewhat limited range of cohesive devices which are sometimes used well	Some difficulty maintaining relevance Some aspects are unclear Evaluation and analysis are basic	Somewhat limited range of vocabulary and grammatical structuresBasic use of grammar and vocabulary Some attempts at academic style
1 – 39% Limited	Limited use, range and quality of sourcesLimited attempts at paraphrasing, summarising and quoting Limited use of Harvard referencing	Limited organisation throughout the reportLimited organisation of paragraphsLimited range of cohesive devices which are not used correctly	Limited relevance Many aspects are unclear Evaluation and analysis are limited	Limited range of vocabulary and grammatical structuresUse of grammar and vocabulary causes strain for the reader Limited attempts at  academic style

ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS

LEVEL 4 (was level 1)

Level 4 introduces students to HE. Students are expected to demonstrate relevant skills and competencies; to be articulate in expressing ideas orally; and to be coherent and structured in terms of written or other media. Forms of expression at this level may be descriptive or imitative, but students are expected to demonstrate an increasing understanding of the theoretical background of their study and the analytic competence to explore it, as well as its relationship, where appropriate, to particular skills. Students are expected to develop an awareness of  strengths and weaknesses in their skill sets
Mark Bands	Outcome	Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
Knowledge & Understanding	Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills
Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band	90-100%	Achieves module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level	Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary originality.	Exceptional management of learning resources, complemented by assured self-direction/exploration. Exceptional structure/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional practical/professional skills.
80-89%	Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality	Outstanding management of learning resources, complemented by assured self-direction/exploration. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Outstanding practical/professional skills
70-79%	Excellent information base, exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with considerable originality.	Excellent management of learning resources, complemented by self-direction/exploration. Structured/ accurate expression. Very good academic/intellectual and team/practical/professional skills
60-69%	Good information base; explores and analyses the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with some originality	Good management of learning resources with some self-direction. Structured and mainly accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/ professional skills
50-59%	Satisfactory information base that begins to explore and analyse the discipline and its ethical issues but is still mainly imitative	Satisfactory use of learning resources and input to team work. Some lack of structure/accuracy in expression. Acceptable academic/intellectual skills and satisfactory practical/professional skills
40-49%	A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level	Basic information base; omissions in understanding of major/ethical issues. Largely imitative	Basic use of learning resources with no self-direction. Some input to team work. Some difficulty with structure and accuracy in expression. Some difficulties with academic/intellectual skills and developing practical/ professional skills
30-39%	A marginal fail in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Possible compensation. Sat-isfies qualifying mark	Limited information base; limited understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension	Limited use of learning resources. No self-direction, little input to team work and difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Weak academic/intellectual skills. Practical/professional skills are not yet secure
20-29%	Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO.  Qualifying mark not satisfied.  No compensation available	Little evidence of an information base.  Little evidence of understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension.	Little evidence of use of learning resources. No self-direction, with little evidence of contribution to team work. Very weak academic/intellectual skills and significant difficulties with structure/expression. Little evidence of practical/professional skills
10-19%	Inadequate information base.  Inadequate understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension.	Inadequate use of learning resources. No attempt at self-direction with inadequate contribution to team work. Very weak academic/intellectual skills and major difficulty with structure/expression. Inadequate practical/professional skills
1-9%	No evidence of any information base. No understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension.	No evidence of use of learning resources of understanding of self-direction with no evidence of contribution to team work. No evidence academic/intellectual skills and incoherent structure/ expression. No evidence of practical/ professional skills
0%	Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes

Order Now