CYB808: Cyber Privacy, Policy, Ethics & Law

Assessment 2: Individual Research Paper

Introduction

For this assessment, you will write a 1500-word individual research paper based on a selection of a specific topic area provided. The paper will be written in a research paper format suitable for an academic conference. Arguments must be evidence-based, supported by a variety of sources including academic works, news, and expert opinion.

By completing this assessment, you will develop and demonstrate your ability to:

• Identify, discuss and critically reflect on privacy principles in the context of individuals, organisations and society.
• Discuss and critically reflect on the role of ethics in cybersecurity in the context of individuals, organisations and society.
• Analyse and critically reflect on the interdisciplinary implications of national-level policy on cybersecurity in the context of individuals, organisations and society.

Instructions

1. Topic Selection: Select one of the following topics and confirm with your course-coordinator by no later than Week 2:
   • Data Security
   • Data Privacy
   • Next generation security control methods
   • Cybersecurity Frameworks, Frameworks and Policies
   • Digital Ethics
2. Literature Search: After settling on a topic, select a search strategy and review the literature. There are many ways to determine if a source is of reasonable quality. One way is to use the journal ranking list at ABDC for business/management journals and CORE for more technical journals.
3. Literature Review Organisation: Organise your literature review according to the concepts you would like to present to the reader. Literature reviews are not simply an exercise of identifying the key papers for your topic and listing what these key papers find; it is an exercise in which you look beyond the immediate result of the papers, cluster them according to main concepts, and juxtapose the combined learning from papers within a concept cluster.
4. Paper Structure: Write your paper in a cut-down conference-paper format:
   • Title
   • Abstract
   • Literature review
   • Discussion
   • Conclusion
   • References (not included in word count).
5. Referencing: Cite your references in a recognised citation style, such as APA style. The reference list is not included in the word count, but the in-text citations are.

Rubric

Criterion

No pass (0–49%)

Pass (50–59%)

Credit (60–69%)

Distinction (70–79%)

HD (80–100%)

Identification and description of topic (35%)

May identify the topic, but does not provide a coherent description of management practices, governance structures, and/or technological controls relevant to the topic.

Identifies the topic and provides a superficial description of relevant management practices, governance structures, and/or technological controls. May fail to describe one or more small components relevant to the topic.

Identifies the topic and describes relevant management practices, governance structures, and/or technological controls. This report fails to describe one or more small components relevant to the topic.

Identifies the topic and describes relevant management practices, governance structures, and/or technological controls.

Identifies the topic and describes relevant management practices, governance structures, and/or technological controls. This report shows an additional understanding of complexity (within the boundaries of the word limit). For example, it may explain why certain practices or structures are out of scope.

Critical analysis of topic (35%)

Fails to break down the topic into component parts to form an argument.

Breaks down the role and/or utility of the relevant practices, structures, or technological controls into component parts, but the analysis is superficial. Uses analysis to build an argument. This report may fail to analyse one or more small components relevant to the topic.

Breaks down the role and/or utility of the relevant practices, structures, or technological controls into component parts. Uses analysis to build an argument. This report fails to analyse one or more small components relevant to the topic.

Breaks down the role and/or utility of the relevant practices, structures, or technological controls into component parts. Uses analysis to build an argument.

Breaks down the role and/or utility of the relevant practices, structures, or technological controls into component parts. Uses analysis to build an argument. This report shows an additional understanding of complexity or limitation (within the boundaries of the word limit). For example, it may note how the role of a management practice is changing, or show that the utility of a technological control is misjudged.

Coherence of argument (20%)

This report either fails to present an argument, or presents an argument that does not build logically through the sections of the report. The report either does not support the argument with academic sources, or it supports the argument with insufficient research.

Presents a thesis statement. It builds the argument through the abstract, literature review, discussion and conclusion. However, the argument is very high-level. The argument is supported by research, but the research lacks either depth or breadth.

Presents a clear thesis statement. It builds the argument coherently through the abstract, literature review, discussion and conclusion. The argument is supported by research, but the research lacks either depth or breadth.

Presents a clear thesis statement. It builds the argument coherently through the abstract, literature review, discussion and conclusion. The argument is supported by a sufficient depth and breadth of research.

Presents a clear thesis statement. It builds the argument coherently through the abstract, literature review, discussion and conclusion. The argument is supported by a sufficient depth and breadth of research. This report also shows an understanding of complexity or limitations. For example, it may note gaps in the available research.

Writing and referencing (10%)

The report does not present ideas in a coherent way. The writing style significantly impacts the submission's readability. There are numerous grammatical, spelling, punctuation or referencing errors.

The report presents ideas in a somewhat logical flow, but there is some impact on the submission's readability. There are numerous grammatical, spelling, punctuation or referencing errors.

The report presents ideas in a somewhat logical flow, but there is some impact on the submission's readability. There are some grammatical, spelling, punctuation or referencing errors.

The report presents ideas in a logical progression. If the flow is confusing anywhere, there is minimal impact on readability. There may be a few grammatical, spelling, punctuation or referencing errors.

The report reads well, with ideas presented logically and concisely. If any errors remain in grammar, spelling, punctuation or referencing, they are inconsequential.