Assessment 2: Critique & Comparison of Two Discussion Papers
Due: 16 August @ 5:00pm (NSW) (uploaded via Turnitin on MySCU site) Length: 1500 words Weight: 30%
Rationale:
This assessment exposes you to the concept of a discussion paper – what it looks like and what its role is in the consultation phase of the policy cycle. A discussion paper is an important consultation tool used in tourism planning and policy development and in workplaces. Familiarity with discussion papers is a key employment skill. A good discussion paper addresses all elements of the policy cycle (see Textbook Fig. 6.1). While the tool itself is used as part of the consultation stage, it addresses the early parts of the policy cycle by identifying the issue, providing context and analysis, and identifying potential policy solutions & instruments. It also addresses the latter parts of the cycle by outlining some alternatives and providing suggestions regarding implementation and evaluation. Thus Assessment 2 gets you to actively think about all parts of the policy cycle while preparing you for Assessment 3, where you will write a discussion paper from scratch.
Task:
You are to assume the position of an independent tourism planning expert and are required to source, critique and compare two publically available tourism discussion papers on topics of your choice. These may be found online via a search of the internet or specific government sites. The policy planning cycle provides the framework for your critical evaluation of each individual paper and the comparison between them. Your assessment piece will conclude with a reflection section on lessons you learnt through doing this critique and how it might assist you in writing your own Discussion Paper (Assessment 3).
In order to complete the task you are required to:
• Identify and introduce two relevant tourism related discussion papers and highlight the key issues they address (6 marks).
• Critique the structure of the discussion papers against the framework of the policy planning cycle (6 marks).
• Critique the content of the discussion papers with regards to sufficiency for relevant stakeholders (6 marks).
• Succinctly compare & contrast the two discussion papers with regards to structure, quality and effectiveness (i.e. your perception of the paper’s effectiveness in communicating with the target audience) (6 marks).
• Reflect on what you have learnt from this critique and comparison; how this assessment has/has not improved your awareness, professional skills and knowledge relating to tourism planning environments; and how it might benefit you in writing your own Discussion Paper (Assessment 3) (i.e. you need to engage with the Task for Assessment 3 for this) (6 marks).
Important Tips:
1. Make sure you are using two Discussion Papers, NOT journal articles, submissions to discussion papers or working papers. If still unclear, check with your tutor.
2. Review the Marking Rubric and use it as a guide for writing your critique.
3. The two discussion papers do NOT need to be about the same or similar topic or theme. Your comparison is based on their structure (measured against the policy cycle as explained in the Textbook) and on your adopted stakeholder perspective about the sufficiency of information provided - i.e. do you as a stakeholder have enough information to provide good input into the issue and do they cover your perspectives sufficiently? Thus the topic per se does not matter.

Marking rubric:
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Introducing relevance & issues
• Two relevant papers identified and key issues they address are highlighted.
6 marks Outstanding introduction.
Papers are clearly identified, succinctly & effectively described & key issues clearly defined. Very good introduction.
Papers are clearly identified & described well & key issues are clearly defined. Competent introduction.
Papers are identified & described quite well & key issues are defined. Adequate introduction.
Papers are identified & somewhat described.
Key issues are hinted at but could have been developed further. Inadequate introduction.
Papers are not identified & described clearly. The issues are not outlined well or in enough depth.
Structure critique – policy cycle
• The structure of each paper is examined with regards to the policy cycle – what elements are/aren’t adequately addressed?
6 marks Outstanding critique.
Structure of paper is effectively examined against all stages of the policy planning cycle & strengths & gaps are well identified. Very good critique.
Structure of paper is examined against all stages of the policy planning cycle & strengths & gaps are identified. Competent critique.
Structure of paper is examined against most stages of the policy planning cycle & some strengths & gaps are identified. Adequate critique.
Structure of paper is examined against some stages of the policy planning cycle. Some strengths & gaps are identified though with little rationale. Inadequate critique.
Structure of paper is not adequately related to the policy planning cycle. Strengths & gaps are barely addressed and without rationale.
Content critique – stakeholders
• The content of each paper is examined with regards to its key issue/topic – is the information sufficient/lacking for stakeholders to provide informed input? How so?
6 marks Outstanding critique.
Critically examines each paper with depth & identifies strengths and/or weaknesses of each very clearly & succinctly with reference to key stakeholders. Very good critique.
Critically examines each paper with depth & identifies strengths and/or weaknesses of each clearly & with reference to key stakeholders. Competent critique.
Critically examines each paper & identifies some strengths and/or weaknesses of each.
Adequate critique.
Examines each paper & notes some strengths and/or weaknesses of each but with little rationale. Inadequate critique.
Little if any critical
engagement with the content of the papers and minimal if any identification of strengths and/or weaknesses.
Compare the two discussion papers:
• Two papers are compared and contrasted with regards to strengths and weaknesses in structure, quality and perceived effectiveness
6 marks Outstanding comparison.
Comprehensively compares & contrasts strengths & weaknesses of each paper very clearly and succinctly.
Addresses their structure and provides strong reference to the policy cycle.
Compares their quality and perceived effectiveness in communicating with the target audience with strong evidence. Very good comparison.
Comprehensively compares & contrasts differences, strengths & weaknesses with clarity and brevity.
Addresses their structure and provides very good reference to the policy cycle.
Compares their quality and perceived effectiveness in communicating with the target audience with evidence. Competent comparison.
Compares & contrasts some differences, strengths & weaknesses but could be more comprehensive & succinct.
Addresses their structure and provides good reference to the policy cycle.
Compares elements of quality and touches on effectiveness in communicating with the target audience. Adequate comparison.
Some comparison & contrasting of strengths & weaknesses but could be more comprehensive, clear and succinct.
Addresses their structure and provides some reference to the policy cycle.
Compares some elements of quality and touches on effectiveness in communicating.
Inadequate comparison.
Fails to compare strengths and weaknesses in either a succinct or clear way.
Barely addresses structure and provides little if any reference to the policy cycle.
Barely addresses quality communication with stakeholders.
Reflect on learning:
• How assessment has/has not improved your awareness, professional skills and knowledge relating to tourism planning environments; what are areas of strength or need for further upskilling.
• How assessment might benefit you in writing your own discussion paper
6 marks Outstanding reflection.
There is strong evidence of deep thinking and consideration
Very good reflection.
There is evidence of very good reflective processes, thinking and consideration
Competent reflection.
There is good evidence of a considered reflection and some good insights Adequate reflection.
There is some evidence of thought and consideration but could have been developed further beyond a noting of facts. Inadequate reflection.
Little evidence of depth of thought and consideration. There is a recording of some facts but does not show thinking and reflective practice.