PS 2BB3

PS 2BB3:

Introduction to the Study of War

Course Outline — Term 2, Winter 2010/11

Monday 8:30-9:20am DSB/AB102

Wednesday 8:30-9:20am DSB/AB102

Instructor Dr. Colin Salter

Office: TSH 302

Phone: (905) 525 9140 | Extension 23722
Email: saltec@mcmaster.ca
Website: http://colin.salter.id.au
Consultation Time: Mondays 2:30-3:30

Other times by appointment

Tutorial time:

My TA:

Office:

Phone:

Email:

Consultation Time:

PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 1 of 12

Subject Description
War is all around us. It is in our history, in our present and likely in our future for some time to come.
Given our awareness of the suffering and violence of war, why do we continue to wage war as a response
to conflict?

To reflect on these questions and many others, PS 2BB3 explores the study of war from various
perspectives— grounded in a peace studies approach. Cultural, ideological and structural bases for intra
and international conflict and war are engaged with to seek to understand the causes of war and how we
often attempt to justify it.

Assessment Summary

Assessment Format Length Due Date Weighting

Participation in class 25%

1 Participation n/a weekly
discussion & activities (see notes)

2 Short Presentation max. 15 minutes — 20%

3 Commentary writing task 1250 words Week 7 20%

4 Essay Proposal writing task 200 words Week 9 (see notes)

5 Essay writing task 2250 words April 11 35%

Courseware and textbook

A courseware pack is available from Titles (the bookstore). The textbook for this course is

David P. Barash & Charles P. Webel (2009) Peace and Conflict Studies, 2nd Edition, Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.

PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 2 of 12

Learning Outcomes
PS 2BB3 will expose you to different
perspectives and debates about war, what war
means, why we as a society engage in wars, and
some the the implications.
A diverse array of themes are explored,
including bellum iustum, jus ad bellum and jus in
bellum; the gendered nature and implications of
war; Canada and war; resistance to war and
whether the way war is waged today is ‘new’ as
some theorists suggest.
The set readings will challenge you, some may
confuse you, and you will likely disagree with
many. You will often notice inconsistencies and
disagreements between set readings from week
to week and over the course of this term.
Engaging these with a critical eye will assist you
in ex ploring these contradictions and
challenges.
By the end of this term, the experiences gained
should enable you to demonstrate a number of
learning outcomes. You will have developed a
broad understanding of some of the key
argument mobilised for and against war, the
implications of war, and a peace studies
approach to the study of war.
These learning outcomes include:
- Demonstrate academic competence
(research, writing, etc.) using a peace
studies perspective
- Define, understand and apply relevant
course concepts, terminology and
frameworks
- Demonstrate holistic, multi-level and
critical thinking (e.g. key issues and
challenges posed by the waging of war,
and how to respond)
PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 3 of 12
- Discuss the role of indiv idual,
collective and state ideologies in
shaping war rhetoric.
- Engage with both self directed and
collaborative learning activities
Discussing key themes and issues in tutorials
and preparation of written work are central to
the development of valuable skills that will assist
you in becoming more effective communicators.
PS 2BB3 Pedagogy
This course is run a bit differently to other
subjects you may be taking. Please read the
subject outline carefully rather than assuming
things are like other classes.
- The penalty for less than 80%
attendance is unusual. Please check it.
- Be prepared for group activities.
In PS 2BB3, the aim is to encourage you to learn
through direct participation in discussions and
group activities. By coming to class prepared to
discuss set readings, lecture material and current
events, you will contribute to and participate in
a rich—and at times challenging—learning
environment. This will both assist you and your
fellow students.
Timeline
This course is divided into 4 parts: an overview
of some of the reasons mobilized in support of
war; reflecting on the basis and implications of
war; a brief look at Canadian involvement in was
at home and abroad; and some of the
contemporary challenges.
As there are tutorials before and after the lecture
times each week, the material covered in
tutorials will be for the preceding week’s lecture:
i.e. the readings listed in week 1 are discussed in
the week 2 tutorials, and so on.
Part 1: Why War?
Week 1. Introduction (January 3)
This week we start with an overview of the
course structure and material. The readings
explore a number of themes and lay foundations
for material to come.
Readings
David P. Barash & Charles P. Webel (2009)
Peace and Conflict Studies, 2nd Edition, Sage
Publications. pp. 13-42 (Chapter 2: ‘The
Meanings of Wars’).
Johan Galtung (2005) Pax Pacifica: Terrorism, the
Pacific Hemisphere, Globalisation and Peace Studies,
London: Pluto Press. pp. 31-43 (Chapter 3.
Pearl Harbor Day: Theories of War and Peace)
and pp. 45-62 (Chapter 4. The USA, World
Hegemony and Cold War II).
Howard Zinn (2002) Failure to Quit: Reflections on
an Optimistic Historian, Cambridge: South End
Press. pp. 99-115 ( Just and Unjust Wars).
Arundhati Roy (2003) War Talk, Cambridge:
South End Press. pp. 1-7.
Week 2. Reasons for war I (January 10)
There are many reasons provided in support of
arguments for war. We look at a number of these
this week.
David P. Barash & Charles P. Webel (2009)
Peace and Conflict Studies, 2nd Edition, Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 43-66
(Chapter 3: Terrorism versus Counterterrorism:
a war without end?), pp. 97-118 (Chapter 5:
‘The individual level’) and pp. 149-168 (Chapter
7: ‘The state level’).
PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 4 of 12
David S. Nye & David A. Welch (2009)
Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: an
Introduction to Theory and History, Eight Edition,
Longman. pp. 33-70 (Chapter 2. Explaining
Conflict and Cooperat ion: Tool s and
Techniques of the Trade).
Further reading
Bruce Russet & Thomas W. Graham (1989)
‘Public Opinion and National Security Policy:
Relationships and Impacts’, in Manus I.
Midlarsky (ed.) Handbook of War Studies, Boston:
Unwin Hyman. pp. 239-257.
Week 3. Reasons for war II (January 17)
We continue on from last weeks focus, further
exploring some of the arguments in support of
war. We take a more critical turn.
David P. Barash & Charles P. Webel (2009)
Peace and Conflict Studies, 2nd Edition,
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
pp. 191-217 (Chapter 9: ‘The ideological, social
and economic levels’).
James Goodman (2009) ‘Global capitalism and
the Production of Insecurity’, in Damian
Grenfell and Paul James (eds.), Rethinking
Insecurity, War and Violence: Beyond Savage
globalization? pp. 44-56.
Noam Chomsky (2003) Hegemony or Survival:
America’s quest for global dominance, New York:
Holt Paperbacks. pp. 11-49 (Chapter 2: Imperial
Grand Strategy).
Naomi Klein (2008) The Shock Doctrine: the Rise
of Disaster Capitalism, Toronto: Random House.
pp. 391-409 (Chapter 16. Erasing Iraq: in search
of a “model” for the Middle East).
Part 2: Questioning War
Week 4. Is, or can, war be just? (January 24)
There is a long history to theories of just war. In
exploring the concept of a just war, we reflect on
a number of key themes and challenges.
Paul Christopher (1999) “Saint Augustine and
the Tradition of Just War,” in The Ethics of War
and Peace: An Introduction to Legal and Moral Issues,
Second Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. pp. 29-46.
Richard Falk (2001) ‘Defining a Just War’, The
Nation, October 11. Reproduced in David P.
Barash (2010) Approaches to Peace: a reader in
Peace Studies, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press. pp. 132-136.
Brian Orend (2006) The Morality of War,
Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. pp. 9-30
(Chapter 1. ‘A Sweeping History of Just War
Theory’).
Further reading
Brian Orend (2006) The Morality of War,
Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. pp.
223-243 (Chapter 8. ‘Evaluating the Realist
Alternative’) and pp. 244-266 (Chapter 8.
‘Evaluating the Pacifist Alternative’).
PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 5 of 12
Week 5. War as gendered (January 31)
War has, often ignored or non-considered,
gendered implications. This week we explore
some of the gendered (direct) violence
perpetrated against women, and less direct
violence impacts on all people, including those
on the ‘front line’ of war.
Anna Agathangelou & L. H. M. Ling (2004)
‘Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of
Violence and Desire from September 11’,
International Studies Quarterly, 48.3: 517‐38.
Siniša Malešević (2010) The Sociology of War and
Violence, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. pp.  275-307 (Chapter 9. Gendering of
War).
Ruth Seifert (1996) ‘The second front: The
logic of sexual violence in wars’, Women’s Studies
International Forum, Vol. 19. No. 1/2. pp. 35-43.
unknown (2004) Sudan, Darfur: Rape as a weapon
of war, Amnest y International, A FR
54/076/2004. Available for download at http://
w w w . a m n e s t y. o r g / e n / l i b r a r y / i n f o /
AFR54/076/2004
Further reading
Sebastian Junger (2010) War, Toronto: Harper
Collins.
Bernd Horn (2008) Show No Fear: Daring Actions
in Canadian andMilitary History, Toronto:
Dundurn Press.
Week 6. The war problem? (February 7)
Does war really give us meaning? If so, what
does this say about our societies? How can we
address this war problem?
Gene Sharp (1980) ‘Seeking a Solution to the
Problem of War’, in Social Power and Political
Freedom, Boston, MA: Porter Sargent Publishers.
pp. 263-284.
Douglas P. Fry (2006) ‘The Cross-Cultural
Peacefulness-Aggressiveness Continuum’, in The
Human Potential for Peace: An Anthropological
Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence,
New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 57-70.
Margaret Mead (1940) ‘War is Only an
Invention—not a Biological Necessity’, Asia,
Vol. 9. pp 402-5. Reproduced in David P. Barash
(2010) Approaches to Peace: a reader in Peace
Studies, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press. pp. 20-23
Further Reading
Chris Hedges (2002) War Is a Force That Gives Us
Meaning, New York: Public Affairs.
Week 7. CO’s, deserters, dodgers, pacifists
and veterans (February 14)
Resistance to war has a long and varied history.
This week, we explore some of the reasons why
individuals and communities have come
together in opposition to war.
Howard Zinn (2002) You Can’t Be Neutral on a
Moving Train: a Personal History of Our Times,
Massachusetts: Beacon Press. pp. 87-102
(Chapter 7. A veteran against War).
James Dickerson (1999) North to Canada: Men
and Women Against the Vietnam War, Westport:
Praeger. pp. 1-22 (Chapter 1. 1968/Dian
Francis: Women Against the War).
Erica Kuhlman (2008) Reconstructing Patriarchy
after the Great War: Women, Gender, and Postwar
Reconciliation between Nations, NewYork: Palgrave
Macmillan. pp. 105-138 (Chapter 4. Women
Activists in the Postwar World: Gender,
Reconciliation and Humanitarian Aid).
PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 6 of 12
** Commentary due in tutorials this week (week
starting February 14).
** Mid-term recess commences February 21.
Part 3: Canada and war
Week 8. The civil war of 1812 (February 28)
We shift to look at the war of 1812, when
Canada faced an invading army from the south.
We reflect on different interpretations of what
happened, specifically that portrayed in
Canadian and USA histories.
Mary Beacock Fryer (1986) Battlefields of
Canada, Toronto: Dundurn Press. pp. 142-177
(Part E. The War of 1812).
P. Whitney Lackenbauer & Craig Leslie Mantle
(2007) Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian
Military: historical perspectives, Winnipeg:
Canadian Defence Academy Press. pp. 29-56
(Chapter 2. His Majesty’s Aboriginal Allies: The
Contribution of the Indigenous Peoples of
North America to the Defence of Canada during
the War of 1812).
Scott Raymond Taylor, Ed. (1999) Canada at
war and peace: a millennium of military heritage, Vol.
1 (The Formative Years: 1006 to 1923), Ottawa,
On: Esprit de Corps Books. pp. 48-63 (War of
1812).
Further reading
Alan Taylor (2010) The Civil War of 1812:
American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, &
Indian Allies, Knopf Doubleday Publishing.
Week 9. War at home and abroad (March 7)
This week we consider Canada’s involvement in
the invasion of Afghanistan and the use of
military forces on Canadian soil against
Canada’s First Nations.
Afghanistan
Tariq Ali (2009) ‘Afghanistan: Mirage of the
Good War’, in Lucia Kowaluk & Steven Staples
(eds.) Afghanistan and Canada, Montreal: Black
Rose Books. pp. 52-70.
Andy Tamas (2009) Warriors and Nation Builders:
Development and the Military in Afghanistan,
Winnipeg: Canadian Defense Academy Press.
pp. 173-196 (Chapter 8: What is the Mission? A
Change of Mindset)
Kanehsatake
Donna Goodleaf (1995) Entering the War Zone: A
Mohawk Perspective on Resisting Invasions,
Penticton, BC: Theytus Books. pp. 53-78
(Chapter 3. The Kanehsatake (Oka) Crisis).
Timothy C. Winegard (2008) Oka: A convergence
of Cultures and the Canadian Forces, Winnipeg:
Canadian Defence Academy Press. pp. 121-122
(Part III. The Clash of Cultures) and pp.
123-148 (Chapter 15. Operation SALON).
Further reading
Donna Goodleaf (1995) Entering the War Zone: A
Mohawk Perspective on Resisting Invasions,
Penticton, BC: Theytus Books. pp. 81-114
(Chapter 4. Government’s Responses to Oka
Crisis).
S. B. Linden (2007). The Report of the
Ipperwash Inquiry, Toronto: Ontario Provincial
Government. (Vol. 2, Chapter 2: Primer on
Aboriginal Occupations).
Baxendale MacLaine (1990) This Land Is Our
Land — The Mohawk Revolt At Oka, Montreal:
Optimum Publishing.
** Essay proposal due in tutorials this week
(week starting March 7).
Part 3: War today
Week 10. New War Theory and the War on
terror (March 14)
Is war today distinct from past wars? Do we
need a ‘new’ theory to understand and explain
why we continue to go to war? What are the
implications and challenges of war discourse
today?
Siniša Malešević (2010) The Sociology of War and
Violence, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. pp. 311-331 (Chapter 11. New wars?).
Marc Imbeault (2008) ‘Noble Ends: Torture
and the Ethics of Counter-Terrorism’, in Daniel
Lagacé-Roy & Bernd Horn (eds.) The War on
Terror — Ethical Considerations, proceedings form
the 7th annual conference of ethical leadership,
Volume 1. Kingston, Ontario: Canadian
Defence Academy Press. pp. 97-106.
John G. Stoessinger (2011) Why Nations Go to
War, Eleventh Edition, Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning. pp. 323-395 (Chapter 9.
New Wars for a New Century: America and the
World of Islam)
Slavoj Žižek (2002) ‘Are we in a war? Do we
have an enemy?’, London Review of Books, Vol. 24,
No. 10.

Andy Tamas (2009) Warriors and Nation Builders:

Development and the Military in Afghanistan,
Winnipeg: Canadian Defence Academy Press.
pp. 173-196 (Chapter 8. What is the Mission? A
Change of Mindset).

PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 7 of 12

Week 11. Commercializing war (March 21)
With the invasion of Iraq we have seen a
dramatic increase in the use of mercenaries, or
‘private military contractors’. Paralleling this, we
have seen a dramatic rise in the corporate profit
potential of war. What are the implications of
this?
Zygmunt Bauman (2001) ‘ Wars of the
Globalization Era’, European Journal of Social
Theory, Vol. 4, No. 11. pp. 11-28
D o u g B r o o k s & Ji m S h e v l i n ( 2 0 0 5 )
‘Reconsidering Battlefield Contractors’,
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 6,
No. 2. pp. 103-112.
Rolf Uesseler (2008) Servants of War, Berkeley,
Ca: Soft Skull Press. pp. 1-18 (Chapter 1. The
Business of War).
u n k n o w n ( 2 0 0 3 ) ‘ M i l i t a r y -In d u s t r i a l
Complexities’ The Economist, Vol. 366, No. 8317.
pp. 55-56.
Further Reading
Jeremey Scahill (2008) Blackwater: the rise of the
world’s most powerful mercenary army, New York:
Nation Books.
Mateo Taussig-Rubbo (2009), ‘Outsourcing
Sacrifice: The Labor of Private Military
Contractors’, Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities,
Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 101-164
Craig S. Jordan (2009) ‘Who Will Guard the
Guards? The Accountability of Private Military
Contractors in Areas of Armed Conflict’, New
England Journal on Civil and Criminal Confinement,
Vol. 35. pp. 309-336.
Week 12: Contemporar y challenges
(March 28)
What are some of the challenges for seeking to
build peace today?
PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 8 of 12
Peggy Mason (2009) ‘Back to the “Peace” in
Peacebuilding: an old/new role for Canada’, in
Lucia Kowaluk & Steven Staples (eds.)
Afghanistan and Canada, Montreal: Black Rose
Books. pp. 304-319.
Robyn Eckersley (2009) ‘Environmental
security, climate change, and globalizing
terrorism’, in Damian Grenfell and Paul James
(eds.), Rethinking Insecurity, War and Violence:
Beyond Savage globalization? pp. 85-97.
Phillip Darby (2009) ‘Recasting Western
knowledges about (postcolonial) security’, in
Damian Grenfell and Paul James (eds.),
Rethinking Insecurity, War and Violence: Beyond
Savage globalization? pp. 98-109.
Week 13: Where to from here? (April 4)
We look back at key themes and issues explored
over the term.
David S. Nye & David A. Welch (2009)
Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: an
Introduction to Theory and History, Eight Edition,
Longman. pp. 33-70 (Chapter 9. What Can We
Expect in the Future?).
Further reading
Julia Pauli & Michael Schnegg (2007) ‘Mapping
a conflict in cyberspace: Chiapas on the WWW’,
in Aparno Rao, Michael Bollig & Monika Böck
(eds.) The Practice of War: production, reproduction
and communication of armed violence, New York:
Berghan. pp. 305-321.
Tim Blackmore (2005) War X: Human Extensions
in Battlespace, Toronto: University of Toronto
Press. pp. 1-10 (Introduction: Why X?).
** Essay due 4pm Monday April 11.
Requirements and assessment tasks

Assessment and submission

- You are not required to pass every
component of assessment to pass the
subject.
- Penalty for late submission of work: 10
marks per day out of 100.
- The subject coordinator reserves the
right to hold an additional oral
ex amination for any piece of
assessment.

Attendance
Attendance at class is a key requirement of this
course. Non-attendance will significantly impact
on what you can learn from this course. By not
participating, you also detract from the ability of
others to learn with you.
If you miss more than 2 tutorials, marks will be
subtracted from your final mark, as follows:
- 0, through 2 absences: no penalty
- 3 absences: 8% subtracted
- 4 absences: 10% subtracted
- 5 absences: 12% subtracted
- 6+ absences: 15%+ subtracted
For example, if your mark is 75% but you missed
4 classes, your final mark will be 75% - 10% =
65%. If you are present for only part of a class,
that counts as fractional attendance. For
example, 3.5 absences leads to a 9% penalty.
If you will not be able to attend a class, please
contact myself or your TA in advance.
Short (Tutorial Presentation)
Due date: various
Weighting: 20%
Length: 12-15 minutes
As part of a group of 2-3, you will be responsible
for leading a 12-15  minute presentation and
subsequent discussion of a week’s reading
material. Groups will be assigned in Week 4,
with a maximum of eight groups. The task of the
presentation is not to summarize the reading
materials, rather to engage and critically reflect
on them with regard to one, or more, specific
case studies.
You will be graded on your understandings of
the material, relevance of the case study to the
weeks reading material, and your ability to
facilitate discussion.
You will be required to submit a one-page
bibliography. If you do not submit a
bibliography, you will lose 5 of a possible 20
marks for this assignment.

PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 9 of 12

Commentary
Due date: At the start of your tutorial in Week 7
(week starting February 14).
Weighting: 20%
Length: 1250 words
Identify and comment on one or two key issues
directly related to the readings set for one of the
weeks (week 2 through 12). Independent
research is central to this assignment, and you
must refer to five peer-reviewed sources and at
least one of the set readings for the week in
question.
Focus on a case study to explore the issue(s)
you identify . This must be different to your
short.
Essay proposal
Due date: At the start of your tutorial in Week 9
(week starting March 7).
Weighting: see below
Length: 200 words +
This task has two parts.
1. Write a 200 word outline for your
essay.
2. Write an annotated bibliography
detailing four sources.
Your essay will identify and comment on key
issues directly related to the focus of one week’s
lecture and/or set readings (week 1 through
12). Your essay must address a different topic to
that addressed in your short or commentary.
Submission of this assessment task is
mandatory. Failure to do so will lead to a grade
of zero for the essay. The grade for the essay
proposal is included in the grade for the essay.
You will resubmit this plan with your essay/
dialogue. If you wish to change your case study
and focus before writing your essay, you must
PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 10 of 12
consult with your TA. Changes are not
permitted after March 28.
Essay
Due date: April 11.
Weighting: 35%
Length: 2250 words
Your essay will identify and comment on key
issues directly related to the focus of one week’s
lecture and/or set readings (week 1 through
12). Your essay must address a different topic to
that addressed in your short or commentary.
Your essay must expand on the proposal you
submitted in Week 7. If you wish to change your
case study and focus of your essay, you must
consult with your TA. Changes to your case
study or focus are not permitted after March 28.
Independent research is central to this
assignment, and you must refer to at least eight
peer-reviewed sources and at least one of the set
readings for the week in question.
Image sources
Pablo Picasso (1937) Guernica. Oil on canvas.
Unknown soldier in Iraq. Date unknown. sourced
f rom http://thesituat ioni st.wordpress.com/
2007/06/09/some-interior-situational-sources-war-–-
part-v/
Carlos Latuff (2007) US hires mercenaries for Iraq.
Sourced from http://Latuff2.deviantart.com/art/US-
hires-mercenaries-for-Iraq-67099137
Crimethinc (undated) War on Terror/Drugs. http://
www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/
General grading criteria
The following criteria will be utilized in the
assessment of all written work and will guide the
assessment of all other assignments.
Excellent (A+, A, A-) (100% - 80%)
Thoughtfully develops interesting and original
ideas; secondary material and course readings
are used intelligently and not as a substitute for
the learner’s own thinking; clear indication of
conceptual understanding; originality, creativity
and enthusiasm; solid organization; convincing/
well supported statements; virtually free of
errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation;
uses the conventions of scholarly
documentation correctly.
Very Good to Good (B+, B, B-) (79% – 70%)
Competent/accurate treatment of its topic; well
written with a clear purpose; may demonstrate
weaker conceptual understanding; may lean
uncritically on secondary sources; organization
is clear and sentences are comprehensible; few
errors in grammar and spelling; follows
conventions of scholarly documentation.
Your notes:
PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 11 of 12
Good to Fair (C+, C, C-) (69% - 60%)
Lack of clarity; trivial/underdeveloped
purpose/thesis and/or arguments; considerable
summary and paraphrase, with only occasional
analytical commentary; may be characterized by
conceptual and research inaccuracies; may rely
exclusively on secondary sources; organization
is disjointed; some sentences may be convoluted
and incomprehensible; mistakes in grammar,
spelling and punctuation; carelessness with
scholarly documentation.
Problematic (D+, D, D-) (59% - 50%)
Serious inaccuracies or inconsistencies; minimal
grasp of topic; sources are often misused or
misinterpreted; expresses opinion, but does not
support effectively; lacks coherence/clarity; has
errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Failures (F) (49% - 0%)
Total misunderstanding; disorganization;
considerable grammatical errors; unscholarly
presentation. (This grade is also given for
plagiarism/other academic integrity issues)
Course Policies
Submitted work
Assignments must be submitted by due dates. Late
submissions will be penalized by 5% of their .value per
day (including weekends) unless an extension has been
granted by the instructor (only the course instructor may
grant extensions). Extension requests will only be
granted if appropriate documentation is provided (e.g. a
doctor’s note). Late assignments will receive a grade, but
no additional comments.
The instructor cannot accept/grade work after the end of
term. Under rare circumstances learners who were not
able to complete their work during the regular term may
apply for an extension by submitting an application to
the Undergraduate Reviewing Committee before the end
of term (see http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/
forms/DeferredTermWork.pdf).
The instructor and TA are not responsible for any
misplaced assignments—always keep an extra copy of
your work. Assignments not submitted in class may be
dropped off in the box outside of TSH 313 (the
Interdisciplinar y Studies Office). Do not slip
assignments under the instructor’s or TA’s doors—these
will not be accepted. Electronic/email copies of
assignments will not be accepted.
Group Work Participation:
It is an issue of academic integrity, closely allied to
plagiarism and cheating, to be a “free-loader” in one’s
group work and activities. “Free-loading” is providing
less than an equal contribution to the work and decision-
making of the group, i.e. benefiting in marks from work
done by other members of the group in an unjust way.
To contribute, each learner needs to be present and
contribute during all group activities—during and
outside of class time. Thus, attendance will be peer
monitored and absences may result in a reduction in the
grade awarded an individual for group work (amount to
be determined on a case-by-case basis). Multiple
absences may be taken as negating membership in one’s
group. Failure to effectively contribute to the group work
may also result in a reduction of the participation grade
awarded.
In order to ensure the groups work effectively, group
members must maintain open communication with the
instructor and teaching assistant regarding their group’s
dynamics. Please inform the instructor of any conflicts or
cases of uneven workload distribution as soon as
possible.
PS 2BB3: Introduction to the Study of War, Term 2 (winter) 2010/11 — page 12 of 12
Statement on Academic Integrity:
You are expected to exhibit honesty and use ethical
behaviour in all aspects of the learning process.
Academic credentials you earn are rooted in principles of
honesty and academic integrity.
Academic dishonesty is to knowingly act or fail to act in
a way that results or could result in unearned academic
credit or advantage. This behaviour can result in serious
consequences, e.g. the grade of zero on an assignment,
loss of credit with a notation on the transcript (notation
reads: "Grade of F assigned for academic dishonesty"),
and/or suspension or expulsion from the university.
It is your responsibility to understand what constitutes
academic dishonesty. For information on the various
types of academic dishonesty please refer to the
Academic Integrity Policy, located at http://
www.mcmaster.ca/academicintegrity
The following illustrates only three forms of academic
dishonesty:
- Plagiarism, e.g. the submission of work that is not
one's own or for which other credit has been
obtained.
- Improper collaboration in group work.
- Copying or using unauthorized aids in tests and
examination.
All assignments will be evaluated to ensure academic
integrity. Academic dishonesty will be treated as a very
serious matter in this course and all cases of academic
dishonesty will be reported to the Office of Academic
Integrity.
Email Communication Policy
The course instructor will only open emails sent from
McMaster email addresses. Emails sent from any other
email provider (e.g. Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo) will not be
opened and will be deleted immediately. This policy
protects confidentiality and confirms your identity.
Assisted Learning
The Centre for Student Development is always available
to help students with different learning needs (MUSC
B-107; Ext 24711; http://csd.mcmaster.ca). If you
require special arrangements, you should talk to the
course instructor as soon as possible.