Investigating Media, Reflective Practices
Course area
UTS: Communication
Delivery
Spring 2015; City
Credit points 8cp
Requisite(s)
58226 Media, Mediation, Power
These requisites may not apply to students in certain courses. See access
conditions.
Result type
Grade, no marks
Subject coordinator
Belinda Middleweek, PhD
Phone: 9514 1918
Mobile: 0404 836 264
Room: CB03.05.19
Email: Belinda.Middleweek@uts.edu.au
Consultation: By appointment
Teaching staff
Belinda Middleweek, PhD
Phone: 9514 1918
Mobile: 0404 836 264
Room: CB03.05.19
Email: Belinda.Middleweek@uts.edu.au
Consultation: By appointment
Liz Giuffre, PhD
Email: Liz.Giuffre@uts.edu.au
Consultation: By appointment
Room: CB03.04.450
Cale Bain, BA, MA
Email: Cale.Bain@uts.edu.au
Mobile: 0406 609 334
Consultation: By appointment
Jahnnabi Das,PhD
Email: Jahnnabi.Das@uts.edu.au
Consultation: By appointment
Pigeonhole CB03.05.21
Subject description
This subject explores key research traditions and methodologies through practical projects investigating diverse media
and the people who use them. Students explore approaches including semiotic methods for analysing the meaning
and significance of programs and formats (such as ‘reality television’); objective and subjective approaches to
audiences/consumers; how to study the ways people actively use various media in their daily lives
(‘ethnomethodology’); ‘political economy’ analyses of media industries; and self-reflective and critical approaches to
understanding what it means to work as a media professional in contemporary Australian media industries. In this
subject, students further develop their ability to report and present research findings using research communication
techniques rather than conventional essays. It provides practical experience in formulating and investigating research
questions, preparing students for successful Honours-level research, and building pathways to careers in the media
03/08/2015 (Spring 2015)
© University of Technology, Sydney
Page 1 of 12
and in media research.
Subject objectives
a. Explain the significance of mediated communications in historical context
b. Analyse the political and social importance of new (media) technologies
c. Analyse media practice and/or products through a supervised media studies research project
d. Explain key theoretical concepts in media studies
e. Discuss their own relationships with and experiences of media culture
f. Link media practices with research and theory
Teaching and learning strategies
In this subject students will build on their knowledge of media theory and debates from the first Media Studies Sub
Major subject (58226), explore additional media theories and learn about the theory and practice of reflection in their
lives as media professionals. Media theories and reflective practice theory will be presented in lectures and discussed
in tutorials. Students will interview each other about their professional practice to build their skills of reflection.
Students will reflect on their own and/or other media professionals’ practice and key theories from the subject (Task 1)
in an online blog (ePortfolio) developed within UTS Online Blackboard environment and by contributing to in-class
discussion and online annotation of required readings using tailored software [A.nnotate]. Students will develop their
oral and audiovisual presentation skills through class participation (including the class element of Task 1) and
presentations (Task 2 – a report on the progress of their research project). In consultation with the tutor, students will
develop a research question, design their research project, conduct a brief literature review and conduct their research
project. Students will present a progress report (including their question, theoretical approach, choice of empirical
data, and brief annotated bibliography, and progress to date) in an oral and/or audiovisual presentation to their tutorial
group (Task 2). Students will present their final research project in the form of a research article OR an audiovisual
presentation WITH an accompanying annotated bibliography (Task 3). Proposals for audiovisual projects will be
accepted only from students who already have the skills required for successful production in their chosen format and
who have access to their own equipment.
Content
The subject explores key research traditions and methodologies in media studies and reflective practice. Key theories
from 58226 Media, Mediation, Power (framing, agenda setting, semiotics, media effects, content analysis) and 58201
Communication and Cultural Industries and Practices (i.e. political economy) will be briefly reviewed to refresh
students’ memories. Building on these, lectures will introduce objective/subjective approaches to audiences,
ethnomethodology, Bourdieu, media socialisation and cultural change, source-media relations, postmodernism and
media (Baudrillard, Derrida, Lyotard), gatekeeping and gatewatching, and a more in-depth look at semiotic analysis
and reality television. Reflective practice theories will include key concepts from Schon and Boud and be considered in
relation to ethics and professionalism.
Program
Week/Session
Dates
Description
1
27 July
Topic 1: Introduction: Key Concepts and Research Design
Required reading
Robson, C. 2007, ‘Developing your ideas’, in C. Robson, How to do a
research project: a guide for undergraduate students, Blackwell, Malden, MA
pp. 47-69. See UTS Online Course Materials folder
Further reading
Notes:
In weeks 3 and 4 there will be TWO lectures. Please check lecture and tute
locations in your timetable. In Weeks 12 and 13 there will be no lectures and
your tute will start at 9am or 1pm.
03/08/2015 (Spring 2015)
© University of Technology, Sydney
Page 2 of 12
2
3 Aug
Topic 2: Infotainment and ‘serious’ research: Doing and delivering
engaging research – Guest Lecturer Dr Liz Giuffre
Required reading
Flew, T. 2008, ‘Ten key contemporary new media theorists’, in T. Flew, New
media: an introduction, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp. 58-79.
eReading
Attfield, S. and Giuffre, L. 2015, ‘Laughing while Learning: Using Comedic
Reporting and Commentary in the Classroom’ in R. Caine et.al., Bridging
Gaps: Higher Education, Media and Society, WaterHill Publishing, Toronto,
pp.tbc
3
10 Aug
TWO LECTURES TODAY: This lecture is at 8am
Topic 3: Ethics and Professionalism
Required reading
?Gregory, A. 2006, ‘The truth and the whole truth?’, in J. Hobsbawm (ed.),
Where the truth lies: trust and morality in PR and journalism, Atlantic Books,
London, pp. 92-103. eReading
PLUS please read the
Code of ethics for your profession – see folder in Course Materials section at
UTS Online
Further reading
Hurst, J. and White, S. A. 1994, ‘Principles and present practice’ in Ethics and
the Australian news media. J. Hurst and S. A. White. Macmillan Education
Australia, Sth Melbourne, pp. 1-24. eReading
Ward, Stephen J. A. 2004, ‘Pragmatic objectivity’ (extract from Ch 7) in S.J.A.
Ward, The invention of journalism ethics: the path to objectivity and beyond,
McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montréal and Kingston. eReading
3
10 Aug
TWO LECTURES TODAY: This lecture is at 9am
Topic 4: Professional fields – Bourdieu and the Media – Guest lecturer
Cale Bain, MA
Required reading
Darras, E. 2005, ‘Media consecration of the political order’ in R. Benson and
E. Neveu (Eds) Bourdieu and the journalistic field, Polity Press, Cambridge,
pp. 156-173. See UTS Online
Swartz, D. L. 1997, ‘Introducing Pierre Bourdieu’, in D. L. Swartz, Culture and
Power: the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press,Chicago,
pp. 1-14. See UTS Online.
Bourdieu, P. 2006 (rev. ed),. ‘On Television’, in M.G. Durham and D. M.
Kellner (Eds), Media and cultural studies: keyworks, Blackwell Publishers,
Malden, MA, pp. 328-336. eReading
Further reading
Swartz, D. L. 1997, ‘Habitus: a cultural theory of action’, in D.L. Swartz,
Culture and Power: the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, pp. 95-116.
03/08/2015 (Spring 2015)
© University of Technology, Sydney
Page 3 of 12
4
17 Aug
TWO LECTURES TODAY: This lecture is at 8am
Topic 5: Reflective Practice
Required reading
Schön, D. A. 1991, ‘Reflection in action’, in D. A. Schön, The reflective
practitioner: how professionals think in action, Aldershot, England, pp. 49-69.
See UTS Online
Further reading
Yancey, K. B. 2009, Section 1, ‘Introduction: Reflection in electronic portfolio
practice’ & Ch 1,’ Reflection and electronic portfolios: inventing the self and
reinventing the university’, in D. Cambridge, B. Cambridge and K. B. Yancey
(Eds), Electronic Portfolios 2.0: emergent research on implementation and
impact. Sterling Imprint, Stylus Publishing, VA, pp. 1-16. eReading
King, P. M. and Kitchener, K.S. 1994, ‘The seven stages of reflective
judgment’, in P.M. King and K.S. Kitchener, Developing reflective judgment:
understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in
adolescents and adults. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 45-74. See
UTS Online.
4
17 Aug
TWO LECTURES TODAY: This lecture is at 9am
Topic 6: Ethnography – Guest lecturer Dr Nicholas Hopwood
Required Reading
Riemer, F. J. (2012). Ethnographic research. Qualitative research: an
introduction to methods and designs. S. D. Lapan, M. T. Quartaroli and F. J.
Riemer: 163-188. eReading
https://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/search.html?q=58324
Further reading
Elliott, R. and N. Jankel-Elliott (2003). “Using ethnography in strategic
consumer research.” Qualitative Market Research 6(4 ): 215-223. eReading
UTS Library under subject number: 24790
Hine, C. Kendall, L, and Boyd, D. 2009, ‘Question One: how can qualitative
internet researchers define the boundaries of their projects’, in A.N. Markham
and N. K Baym (Eds), Internet inquiry: conversations about method, Sage,
Los Angeles, pp. 1-32. eReading
5
24 Aug
Topic 7: Ethics and documentary making – Guest Lecturer – Karl McPhee
of McPhee Productions
Required reading
Bruzzi, S. 2000, ‘New observational documentary: from ‘docusoaps’ to reality
television’, New Documentary: a critical introduction. Routledge, London, pp.
120-151. eReading
Bell, P. 2001, ‘Content analysis of visual images’, in T. van Leeuwen and C.
Jewitt (Eds), Handbook of visual analysis, Sage, London, pp. 10-34.
eReading
Further reading/viewing
Watch some reality TV, eg. Masterchef, The Voice, The Hot Plate
Notes:
Tute exercise: please bring first blog post to class
03/08/2015 (Spring 2015)
© University of Technology, Sydney
Page 4 of 12
6
31 Aug
Topic 8: Studying audiences: objective and subjective approaches
Required reading
Macnamara, J. 2008,Emergent media and what they mean for society, politics
and organisations, UTS Talks. Public Lecture, 11 June 2008 Retrieved 18 July
2011, from http://www.uts.edu.au/ new/ speaks/ 2008/ June/
resources/1106-talk.pdf. See UTS Online
Further reading
Greiffenhag, C. and Sharrock, W. 2008, ‘Where do the limits of experience
lie? Abandoning the dualism of objectivity and subjectivity’, History of the
Human Sciences vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 70-93. See UTS Online
Fuchs, C. 2010, ‘Alternative media as critical media’, European Journal of
Social Theory vol. 13 no. 2, pp. 173-192. See UTS Online
Gunter, Barrie. 1999, Media research methods: measuring audiences,
reactions and impact, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif; London.
Notes:
N.B. Your blog posts are due this week (A1)
7
7 Sept
Topic 9: Digital piracy, ethics and law – Guest Lecturer Professor Michael
Fraser
Reading
Yu, S. (2012). “College students’ justification for digital piracy: A mixed
methods study.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6(4): 364-378. See
A.nnotate link.
Further reading
Collett, M. (2011). “Internet providers unveil piracy crackdown plan.” ABC
Online 2011(28 Nov). http://ab.co/1l50InR?
Fraser, M.H., Barnes, S.R. 2010, ‘Consumers First: Smart Regulation for
Digital Australia’, Australian Communications Consumer Action Network
(ACCAN), Sydney, Australia, pp. 1-66.
TBA
8
14 Sep
Topic 10: Robots, media and robo-ethics – Guest Lecturer Dr Catriona
Bonfiglioli
Required reading
Zhao, S. (2006). ‘Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication’.
New Media & Society, 8(3), 401-419. doi:10.1177/1461444806061951. See
UTS Online
Shinozawa, K., Reeves, B., Wise, K., Lim, S., Maldonado, H. & Naya, F.
2003, ‘Robots as new media: a cross-cultural examination of social and
cognitive responses to robotic and on-screen agents’. See UTS Online
van Dalen, A. 2012, ‘The algorithms behind the headlines: how
machine-written news redefines the core skills of human journalists’,
Journalism Practice, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2012.667268. See UTS Online
Roboethics
http://www.economist.com/node/21556234
Further reading
Bonfiglioli, C. 2012, ‘iRobot, youRobot, weallRobot’, Chemistry in Australia,
Feb. p36. SeeUTS Online
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I. and Dautenhahn, K. 2003, ‘A survey of socially
interactive robots’, Robotics and autonomous systems, vol. 42, no. 3-4, pp.
03/08/2015 (Spring 2015)
© University of Technology, Sydney
Page 5 of 12
143-66. See UTS Online
Murphy, R. R. and Woods, D. D. 2009, ‘Beyond Asimov: the three laws of
responsible robotics’, Intelligent Systems, IEEE, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 14-20. See
UTS Online
9
21-25 Sep
STUDY BREAK
No class – this week is for study
*
28 Sept-2 Oct
UTS VICE-CHANCELLOR’S WEEK
NON-TEACHING WEEK
No class
This week does not have a number
10
5 Oct
LABOUR DAY PUBLIC HOLIDAY
No class
11
12 Oct
Topic 11: Source-Media Relations – Guest Lecturer Dr Jahnnabi Das
Required reading
Berkowitz, D. A. 2008. ‘Reporters and their sources’, in K. Wahl-Jorgensen
and T. Hanitzsch, (Eds), The handbook of journalism studies, Routledge, New
York, pp. 102-115. eReading
Schlesinger, P. 1990, ‘Rethinking the sociology of journalism: source
strategies and the limits of media-centrism’, in M. Ferguson (ed), Public
communication: the new imperatives, Sage, London; Newbury Park, pp.
61-83. eReading
Ericson, R. V., Baranek, P. M. and J.B.L. Chan, 1989, ‘Negotiating the news’
in R. Ericson, P Baranek and J. Chan Negotiating control: a study of news
sources, University of Toronto Press, Toronto; Buffalo, pp. 1-33. See UTS
Online
Further reading
Benson, R. 1998 ‘Field theory in comparative context: a new paradigm for
media studies’, Theory and Society, vol. 28, pp. 463-498. eReading
Pearson, M., Brand, J. E., Archbold, D and H. Rane, 2001, Sources of News
and Current Affairs, Australian Broadcasting Authority, Sydney. See UTS
Online
12
19 Oct
Student presentations (A2)
No lectures this week
13
26 Oct
Student presentations (A2)
?No lectures this week
14
2 Nov
03/08/2015 (Spring 2015)
Study week
Assignments due 11pm Monday 2 November
© University of Technology, Sydney
Page 6 of 12
Assessment
Assessment task 1: A Reflective Blog discussing Media and Reflective Theories
Objective(s): a, b, d and e
Weight:
30%
Task:
Online reflection and reporting blog (ePortfolio). Students are to reflect on media professional
practice drawing on relevant media studies theories, reflective practice theories and research
methods, making use of references provided in the Subject Outline topic and reading lists.
Students demonstrate their grasp of these ideas by making a minimum of four postings,
comprising a minimum of 2,000 words. The four blog postings (1,2,3, 4) will draw on material from
lectures and tutorials to describe and evaluate (1) one key media theory AND (2) one approach to
reflective practice AND (3) one research method suitable for investigating media production,
representation, reception or professional practice. In the fourth blog post students present a draft
research design for a possible topic for A3.
Length:
2,000 words
Due:
Week 6
Due: 11pm Friday 4 September
Criteria:
Depth of analysis
Clarity of written expression
Accuracy of referencing
Relevance of written sources
Relevance of issues discussed
Relevance of opinions expressed
Level of engagement with required reading material
Further
This assignment is designed to encourage reflective practice, inspire students to start choosing
information: which theories and methods from the subject reading list and lecture topics they plan to use in their
research project for this subject, and to draft a research design for A3.
Each blog should include a title, body text, word count and reference list. At the end of week SIX
please upload your blog postings on UTS Online.
Assessment task 2: Progress Report on Research Project
Objective(s): c, d and e
Weight:
20%
Task:
Class presentation of Progress report – Peer review – 10%
Students are required to deliver an oral presentation of their progress report equivalent to 1,000
words and will be marked by their peers. The peer review component of this assessment is designed
to enable you to explore new ways of thinking about the material and refine and reflect on your own
understanding. Presentations should include: a research question, a brief explanation of the key
concepts being employed in the research project, a description of the empirical data being
investigated, a bibliography and a report of progress to date. Students working towards
audiovisual projects will need to list the elements of their production and provide a draft sitemap or
architecture. Students will report on their progress in class presentations during weeks 12, and 13 at
a time to be confirmed with their tutor.
Written task – contribution to collaborative reading task – A.nnotate – 10%
03/08/2015 (Spring 2015)
© University of Technology, Sydney
Page 7 of 12
Starting in Week One or Two, students will take part in a collaborative reading and comment activity
using the online software A.nnotate. A.nnotate allows students to add comments to one shared PDF
of each key reading from each lecture topic and view each other’s comments. Students can add
comments remotely and/or during tutorial time. Students are expected to make a minimum of one
comment per reading offered in A.nnotate.
Length:
Oral presentation equivalent to 1,000 words (6-8 minutes)
Due:
Not applicable
Class presentations are in Week 12 and 13; online and class contributions to collaborative reading
activity runs from Week One to Week 12.
Criteria:
Clarity and strength of argument
Clarity of written expression
Clarity of oral expression
Relevance of written sources
Accuracy of referencing
Relevance of issues discussed
Suitability of research method
Further
Weight distributed as follows: 10% from tutor for contribution to collaborative reading using A.nnotate
information: and in-class contributions to discussion; 10% from peer assessment of oral presentation in class.
The collaborative reading element of this task is designed to encourage students to read actively and
comment collaboratively on texts linked to the lecture topics. Students will be invited to an A.nnotate
weblink where they will find a PDF of the main reading for the week. Students should add comments
by highlighting text in the PDF and typing in the pop-up box and SAVING by clicking on the save
button.
The oral element is designed to develop students’ ability to communicate about media theory,
methods, and reflective practice and to evaluate other people’s presentations. It is also important in
that it encourages students to develop their research question and refine the research design, so
as to assist with completing Task 3 in a timely fashion. This facilitates timely feedback on the
research design.
Oral presentations will take place in class in Weeks 12 or 13 (times to be arranged in tutorial during
Week 2 or 3).
Assessment task 3: Research Project
Objective(s): c, d and e
Weight:
50%
Task:
The final task (Task 3) is to produce a media studies and/or reflective practice research project
which engages with theories presented during the lectures. Ideally, students will develop and
produce an 8-12 minute audio-visual response to their question but written research papers of
between 2,500-word and 3,000-words (maximum) are also welcome.
Students will investigate media practice and/or production and/or media reception in the light of one
or more theoretical perspectives presented in the lectures with the main focus being on media
practice. Students prepare for this assignment by attending lectures, discussing key theoretical
concepts in their blogs, contributing to the collaborative reading task using A.nnotate and
participating in class discussions.
Students’ research questions are approved by their tutor and the students conduct the research,
present an oral progress report (Task 2) and present the research in an audiovisual presentation
accompanied by a written statement that is theoretically informed and reflects on their level of
contribution to the group. Students electing to submit an AV presentation should produce a brief
03/08/2015 (Spring 2015)
© University of Technology, Sydney
Page 8 of 12
audiovisual documentary OR radio documentary (8-12 minutes in length).
Important: Proposals for audiovisual projects will be accepted only from students who have the
skills required for successful production in their chosen format and access to their own equipment.
Students submitting an AV project may do so in a group of no more than three students (e.g.
scriptwriter, editor and camera person) and will need to produce an individual written statement that
is theoretically informed and reflects on their level of contribution to the group.
Please note: The final project is expected to be theoretically informed (engaging with a minimum
of one concept/approach from the Investigating Media, Reflective Practice reading list provided in
this subject outline) and to employ appropriate research methods to analyse media practice,
products, impacts and/or reflect on professional practice in the media.
Length:
2,500-3,000 or equivalent in audiovisual output (e.g. 8-12 min video)
Prep and checklist for Assignment task 1 – reflective blog
FIRST THINGS FIRST: check the task and make sure you’re directly doing what it asks for (at each stage)
The details of the task are in the course outline (available on UTS online under “Subject Documents”). The ‘meat’ of it is here:
“Online reflection and reporting blog (ePortfolio). Students are to reflect on media professional practice drawing on relevant media studies theories, reflective practice theories and research methods, making use of references provided in the Subject Outline topic and reading lists. Students demonstrate their grasp of these ideas by making a minimum of four postings, comprising a minimum of 2,000 words. The four blog postings (1,2,3, 4) will draw on material from lectures and tutorials to describe and evaluate (1) one key media theory AND (2) one approach to reflective practice AND (3) one research method suitable for investigating media production, representation, reception or professional practice. In the fourth blog post students present a draft research design for a possible topic for A3.”
Now break that down – make sure I know what that means.
• I need FOUR separate pieces of writing (four reflection/reporting blogs), that total 2,000 words (so likely 500 words x 4).
• They need to draw on material from lectures and tutorials, and cover separate things (so each blog has to do a particular job)
• They need to be written in a reflection/reporting blog style, but they need to have references to support them
• The word ‘REVELANT’ is repeated – do I understand what that means? How am I going to demonstrate that?
• They need to be properly referenced – so do I know how to do that? Should I be relying on printed materials in particular?
Some FAQs (with answers confirmed by Belinda!)
Should the separate method, theory and practice blogs try and ‘relate’ to each other in some way (I imagine not directly, but ideally they might want to start looking for bigger pictures – perhaps that will come up in their fourth piece?). I see the ‘further information’ suggests this, but just to clarify?
In the best responses students will see each blog post as a building block for their final IMRP project, so they will be strategic about selecting a method and theory to use to this end. For most students the connections will be (hopefully) made in the fourth blog post when they start to draw the architecture for their final projects. But yes, start looking at the big picture and make the most of the feedback you will receive on each blog post in preparation for assignments A2 and A3.
Can I quote directly from the lectures/tutes?
It’s much better practice to quote from written, published sources so that the marker or other reader can follow your research trail (you always want a reader thinking ‘what a great idea- how can I find out more for myself?). The citation style we use at UTS is called ‘Harvard UTS style’ or the author-date method. The library has some helpful resources if you’re unsure how to reference (please see the IMRP announcements page on UTS Online or go to the UTS Library website and click on the ‘referencing’ tab for more information). You’ll notice that all the lecturers and tutors give references for the main ideas they cover – the best responses will go back to those references, too.
However, if you MUST reference a lecture, do so formally, using this type of format:
Foster, T 2014, Balance sheets, lecture notes distributed in Financial Accounting 101 at The University of Western Australia, on 2 November 2014.
Do I need to include further reading and research?
Absolutely, evidence of wider reading and research is part of the assessment criteria – ‘relevance of written sources’
How do I decide what are ‘relevant media theories’ ? How do they demonstrate (or argue) that? For what purposes? And how do they demonstrate that with the report and reflection? I see ‘relevance’ is something that appears in three of the 7 criteria, so I just want to really get that clear
Relevance is about demonstrating how the student’s theory/method/project idea matches the subject thematics, namely reflective practice, ethics, professionalism, producers. While we allow students to cherry-pick some material from MMP and AUPC because of the interrelated content across the three-subject sub-major, we ideally want them to demonstrate relevance to this subject in particular which is all about producers. In their blog posts they will need to explain what the chosen theory/method enables them to achieve and thereby answer the ‘so what?’ question that the ‘relevance’ criterion requires, eg. ‘Field theory is relevant to an analysis of the gaming community because it enables us to determine social positioning and the acquisition of forms of capital based on…’.
Does each blog get a separate mark, or is the 30% overall?
We’ll mark each blog post out of 7.5 marks so then students can be rewarded for good effort consistently and get feedback accordingly. This is also important because each piece of the puzzle will be needed for your final project. It’s good for students to know early where their strengths and weaknesses are so they can really be at their best by the end.
Do you have any advice about how to go about the reporting and reflection blog?
Have a look at the exemplars, but a good way to approach it would be to do it in parts – make sure you have a section that ‘reports’ on what’s in the relevant literature and course content, then have a section where you reflect on that (and perhaps apply it to a new context).
Where do I submit it when I’m done?
Submit ONE file that contains all of the blogs to the folder on UTS Online. Go to “Discussion Board” then follow the link to your tute.
Our Service Charter
-
Excellent Quality / 100% Plagiarism-Free
We employ a number of measures to ensure top quality essays. The papers go through a system of quality control prior to delivery. We run plagiarism checks on each paper to ensure that they will be 100% plagiarism-free. So, only clean copies hit customers’ emails. We also never resell the papers completed by our writers. So, once it is checked using a plagiarism checker, the paper will be unique. Speaking of the academic writing standards, we will stick to the assignment brief given by the customer and assign the perfect writer. By saying “the perfect writer” we mean the one having an academic degree in the customer’s study field and positive feedback from other customers. -
Free Revisions
We keep the quality bar of all papers high. But in case you need some extra brilliance to the paper, here’s what to do. First of all, you can choose a top writer. It means that we will assign an expert with a degree in your subject. And secondly, you can rely on our editing services. Our editors will revise your papers, checking whether or not they comply with high standards of academic writing. In addition, editing entails adjusting content if it’s off the topic, adding more sources, refining the language style, and making sure the referencing style is followed. -
Confidentiality / 100% No Disclosure
We make sure that clients’ personal data remains confidential and is not exploited for any purposes beyond those related to our services. We only ask you to provide us with the information that is required to produce the paper according to your writing needs. Please note that the payment info is protected as well. Feel free to refer to the support team for more information about our payment methods. The fact that you used our service is kept secret due to the advanced security standards. So, you can be sure that no one will find out that you got a paper from our writing service. -
Money Back Guarantee
If the writer doesn’t address all the questions on your assignment brief or the delivered paper appears to be off the topic, you can ask for a refund. Or, if it is applicable, you can opt in for free revision within 14-30 days, depending on your paper’s length. The revision or refund request should be sent within 14 days after delivery. The customer gets 100% money-back in case they haven't downloaded the paper. All approved refunds will be returned to the customer’s credit card or Bonus Balance in a form of store credit. Take a note that we will send an extra compensation if the customers goes with a store credit. -
24/7 Customer Support
We have a support team working 24/7 ready to give your issue concerning the order their immediate attention. If you have any questions about the ordering process, communication with the writer, payment options, feel free to join live chat. Be sure to get a fast response. They can also give you the exact price quote, taking into account the timing, desired academic level of the paper, and the number of pages.