The Open University DD105 Introduction to Criminology, TMA 02: Crime, Power and the Contest over Official Accounts

Write a 1,000-word tutor-marked assignment across four short answers: a 100-word rewriting task, a 300-word summary of module material, a 400-word explanation of how social scientists contested official accounts of the 2011 England riots, and a 200-word reflective account of your own writing process. The Open University sets DD105 Introduction to Criminology as a 60-credit OU level 1 module, and TMA 02 is the second of five tutor-marked assignments that carry the continuous assessment weight before the end-of-module assessment.

Assessment Context

Open University DD105 Introduction to Criminology organises study around four blocks, and TMA 02 falls after Block 1 closes on the power to define crime and Block 2 opens on who counts as a victim of avoidable death. The module website, the assessment guide and the marking grid sit behind the student portal, so this brief rebuilds the second assignment from the published module description, from the structure of the DD105 TMA sequence across recent presentations, and from the contact hours and assessment pattern the University states openly. Two features hold steady across presentations. Every TMA splits into short answer parts with hard word ceilings rather than one long essay, and every TMA carries a reflection on process. Where your own TMA 02 booklet specifies a different source passage or a different image, the booklet governs and you work from it.

Returns on this assignment cluster around three weaknesses. Students exceed the word ceiling in the middle part and lose marks on the section that follows; they paraphrase the module text so closely that the writing criterion drops a band; and they assert that social scientists “disagreed with the media” without naming a study, a dataset or a mechanism.

Module Position and Study Sequence

• Block 1: defining crime, the power to define, and the criminological imagination.
• Block 2: avoidable death, victim hierarchy, and why state harms escape the language of crime.
• Block 3: police, courts, prisons and resettlement as contested institutions.
• Block 4: deconstruction and reimagining of crime and justice problems.

TMA 02 tests Block 1 material directly and reaches forward into Block 3 through the policing question. Read the source passage in Book 1 before drafting, and note the page number, because in-text page references count toward the referencing band.

Learning Outcomes Assessed

• Explain competing definitions of crime and the role of institutional power in fixing those definitions.
• Summarise criminological argument accurately in your own words under a strict word ceiling.
• Weigh official accounts of disorder against empirical research and identify the interests each account serves.
• Select and cite module and external sources using the author-date (Harvard) convention the University requires.
• Reflect on your own composing process and identify one change you will carry into the next assignment.

Task Instructions

1. Download the TMA 02 question booklet from the module website and confirm the source passage, the section citation and the cut-off date before writing a single line.
2. Answer Part 1 in three separate short answers, each under its own heading, and start each heading with the exact question wording from the booklet.
3. Rewriting task: read the passage from Book 1 and restate its argument in no more than 100 words, in your own syntax, without importing sentences from the original.
4. Summary task: condense the specified section of Chapter 3 on the August 2011 disorder and its media coverage into no more than 300 words, with at least one in-text citation carrying a page number.
5. Explanation task: set out in no more than 400 words how social scientists contested official explanations of the 2011 riots, using at least one named study from the module and at least one peer-reviewed source published after 2018.
6. Close the explanation task with a single sentence stating your own position on which account carries more explanatory weight, and why.
7. Answer Part 2 in no more than 200 words: describe the sequence of steps you used to write in your own words, name the specific difficulty you hit, and name one technique you will apply in TMA 03.
8. Attach a reference list in author-date format, alphabetised, including the module book chapter with page range and every external source you cite.
9. State the word count for each part at the end of that part, then submit through the University’s electronic submission system before the cut-off date recorded on the module website.

Weighting and Word Ceilings

Component	Word ceiling	Share of TMA	What the answer must contain
Part 1a, rewriting	100 words	15%	The source argument restated in fresh syntax, all key claims retained, no copied phrasing, no quotation.
Part 1b, summary	300 words	25%	The 2011 disorder and the media framing condensed accurately, with one cited page reference and no commentary of your own.
Part 1c, explanation	400 words	40%	A named study, an external post-2018 source, a mechanism linking power to framing, and a closing position sentence.
Part 2, reflection	200 words	20%	Your process, one named difficulty, one technique carried forward, written in first person.

Word Limit and Referencing Rules

• Stay inside each ceiling. The module marking guidance applies a ten per cent tolerance, and repeated overruns attract a penalty on the section that exceeds the limit.
• Count in the body only. Headings, in-text citations and the reference list sit outside the count.
• Short answers run under the ceiling rather than at it. A 100-word task answered in 92 clean words scores better than 100 padded words.
• Reference in author-date style with page numbers for direct borrowings, whether or not you use quotation marks.
• List the module book chapter as a chapter, not as a journal article, and give the editors and the page range.
• Keep external sources to two. Sourcing beyond the module is rewarded when it carries a mechanism, and penalised when it decorates.

Marking Criteria

Criterion	Weight	Pass 1 and Pass 2 (70% and above)	Pass 3, Pass 4 and below (50% to 69%, or fail)
Addresses the question	25	Answers the exact question asked, keeps focus throughout, and explains rather than labels. The explanation task names a mechanism and defends one account over another.	Categorises or describes without full explanation, drifts into material from other weeks, or answers a general question about crime instead of the one set.
Use of sources	25	Chooses relevant concepts, case material and one credible external study from the module and beyond, and uses each source to carry a specific claim.	Mentions module ideas in general terms, cites a source without deploying it, or imports examples unrelated to the specified passage.
Structure	20	Opens with a statement of the topic, orders points under clear paragraph leads, links each point to the next, and closes with a summary that adds no new material.	Paragraphing present but uneven, transitions uncertain, or the reader cannot tell where one point ends and the next begins.
Writes in own words	20	Restates ideas throughout without tracking the original syntax, uses full and correctly punctuated sentences, and keeps mechanical error to a minimum.	Mirrors the module wording with only a few words changed, or contains punctuation and sentence errors that distract from the meaning.
Referencing	10	Formats in-text citations and end references consistently in author-date style, with page numbers where required and no missing entries.	Citations present but inconsistently formatted, page numbers absent, or reference list entries do not match the in-text citations.

Example Student Answer

Official accounts of the August 2011 disorder settled quickly on a story of criminal opportunism, and criminological research tested that story against arrest data and neighbourhood patterns. Newburn, Jones and Blaustein trace how political framing moved from moral collapse to gang violence within days, and how each frame licensed a different policy response rather than following the evidence (Framing the 2011 England Riots, Newburn, Jones and Blaustein, 2018). Their analysis matters because the framing did the explanatory work that a causal account should do, and it did that work before arrest data had been processed. Deprivation, prior contact with police and a collapse of trust appear in the research as recurring conditions, and those conditions sit poorly with a narrative of pure greed. Researchers contested the official line on methodological grounds as well, since the government’s own figures were read selectively. A short answer earns its marks by naming the study, naming the claim it overturns and naming the mechanism, in that order. Anything less reads as opinion with a citation attached.

Craft in the 400-word part depends on sequencing rather than on volume. Four moves carry the answer: state the official account, identify the interest it served, introduce the research that unsettled it, then state which account survives scrutiny and why. Newburn’s earlier framework for reading riot life cycles shows why the sequence matters, because disorder develops in phases and official accounts typically freeze one phase as the whole story (Newburn, 2016). Police stop and search data illustrate the same logic at street level, where ten years of London-wide figures show that increases in search volume produced limited deterrent effect while concentrating contact on already over-policed groups (Tiratelli, Quinton and Bradford, 2018). Add a sentence on what the contest cost, since credibility lost through framing is difficult to rebuild. Closing with a position sentence forces a judgement, and the rubric rewards judgement over summary.

Evidence That Travels Beyond One Case

Riot research settles one argument, and the legitimacy literature supplies the wider mechanism that carries into Block 3. Chan, Bradford and Stott synthesise 123 studies covering 200,966 participants and find that procedural justice predicts police legitimacy across social groups, with social identity mediating that relationship rather than merely moderating it (Chan, Bradford and Stott, 2025). Their finding explains why a single summer of disorder could damage confidence for years: fair treatment communicates group membership, and unfair treatment communicates exclusion, which is exactly the message that arrest data from the riots recorded. Read together, the two literatures give a level 1 student a defensible claim about power, framing and trust without requiring original data. Keep the pairing tight, one source per claim, because the 400-word ceiling punishes a bibliography and rewards an argument. Structure the explanation so that the policing literature arrives as evidence for a point you already made, not as a second topic.

Where the Short Answers Lose Marks

Students searching for help on DD105 TMA 02 usually ask why a well-read answer returns a clear pass rather than an excellent one.

• Rewording rather than rewriting. Swapping synonyms inside the original sentence order still counts as copying, and the writing criterion reads that pattern quickly.
• Editorialising inside the summary. The 300-word task asks for accurate condensation, so a judgement about media bias belongs in the 400-word part, not here.
• Treating the reflection as a diary. Marks rest on a described method and a named difficulty, not on how interesting the module felt.
• Citing the module book as a journal article. Book chapters carry editors and page ranges, and the referencing band checks that detail.

Answer the follow-up question directly: what separates an excellent pass from a good pass on the explanation task? The excellent band shows the contest rather than announcing it, which means quoting the official claim in paraphrase, giving the research figure that undercuts it, and then stating what the researcher concluded. A good pass names the researchers and stops there. One practical remedy involves drafting the 400 words as four labelled boxes before writing prose, then deleting the labels. Another involves reading your own draft aloud to catch the places where the module’s sentence rhythm has survived into your text.

Process, Not Confession

Part 2 tests whether you can describe a method, and the weakest submissions treat it as an apology for a rushed term. Write it as a short procedure: read the source twice, close the book, draft from memory, reopen the book to check what you lost, then revise for accuracy. Ruming and McFarland show that structured reflection of this kind works best when it names a specific practice and a specific change rather than reporting a general feeling about study (Ruming and McFarland, 2022). Their action research design also suggests that reflection improves writing only when it happens close to the task, which is why the University places it in the same submission rather than in a separate log. Naming the exact difficulty, such as compressing 900 words of module text into 300 without dropping the evidence base, signals control. Vague statements about needing more time signal the opposite.

Closing Judgement on the Assignment

TMA 02 rewards compression and precision more than reading volume, and that reverses what most level 1 students expect. Answer the four parts in the order set, keep each answer under its ceiling, and check the count before you polish a single sentence. Name a study in the explanation, give its figure or its finding, and then say what it overturns; the rubric gives 25 marks for that move alone. Write the reflection as a procedure rather than a confession, and keep the reference list short enough that every entry is genuinely used. Read the submitted draft once as a sceptical tutor who has not read the module book, since a reader who cannot follow the argument cannot award the higher bands.

References

Chan, A., Bradford, B. and Stott, C. (2025) ‘A systematic review and meta-analysis of procedural justice and legitimacy in policing: the effect of social identity and social contexts’, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 21(2), pp. 349–406. doi: 10.1007/s11292-023-09595-5.

Drake, D.H., Nightingale, A. and Scott, D. (eds) (2023) Introduction to criminology: Book 1. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Greener, J. (2020) ‘Performative compliance and the state–corporate structuring of neglect in a residential care home for older people’, Critical Criminology, 28, pp. 651–668. doi: 10.1007/s10612-019-09467-3.

Newburn, T. (2016) ‘The 2011 England riots in European context: a framework for understanding the life-cycle of riots’, European Journal of Criminology, 13(5), pp. 540–555. doi: 10.1177/1477370816633726.

Newburn, T., Jones, T. and Blaustein, J. (2018) ‘Framing the 2011 England riots: understanding the political and policy response’, The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 57(3), pp. 339–362. doi: 10.1111/hojo.12268.

Ruming, N. and McFarland, L. (2022) ‘When we sat together, it just worked: supporting individual and collaborative reflective practice in a team of early childhood educators’, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 47(1), pp. 32–47. doi: 10.1177/18369391211052683.

Tiratelli, M., Quinton, P. and Bradford, B. (2018) ‘Does stop and search deter crime? Evidence from ten years of London-wide data’, The British Journal of Criminology, 58(5), pp. 1212–1231. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azx085.

DD105 Introduction to Criminology

TMA 02: Crime, Power and the Contest over Official Accounts of the 2011 England Riots

Part 1a: Rewriting Task (100 words maximum)

Source-dependent section: The original Book 1 passage was not included in the supplied materials. Insert the specified passage here before completing this response. The answer must communicate the original author’s argument in fresh language and sentence structures without introducing additional interpretations.

Word count: Pending source passage.

Part 1b: Summary of the August 2011 Disorder and Media Coverage (300 words maximum)

Source-dependent section: The assigned Chapter 3 extract was not provided. Insert the relevant section before completing this answer. The summary must accurately explain the events and media representations discussed in the textbook, without adding personal opinions or external arguments.

Word count: Pending Chapter 3 extract.

Part 1c: How Social Scientists Challenged Official Explanations of the 2011 England Riots (400 words maximum)

Social scientists challenged explanations that reduced the August 2011 disorder to individual greed, criminality or a sudden collapse of social values. Newburn, Jones and Blaustein (2018) examined the political and policy response through Kingdon’s multiple-streams framework. They argue that the disorder created a policy window in which political actors defined the problem and attached particular solutions to it. Their analysis shows that public explanations did not simply describe events; they shaped which responses appeared legitimate. By focusing on individual offending, official accounts narrowed attention to punishment and left less room for policies addressing policing, inequality and community relations.

Morrell et al. (2021) provide further evidence that official explanations involved an exercise of power. Using parliamentary debates, Select Committee testimony and interviews with police officers, they examined how the state restored order. They found that political actors presented diverse participants as a single threatening group, a process they call ‘tidying’. At street level, police reasserted control over contested spaces; at state level, political language re-established accepted boundaries between lawful authority and disorder. Their analysis therefore shows how official descriptions can make coercive responses appear necessary rather than open to debate.

Peacock (2023) challenges the claim that the disturbances were an unprecedented and apolitical outbreak of violence. Her study used 14 interviews with criminal justice professionals and critical discourse analysis of interviews, media texts and political statements. She found that some professionals’ accounts omitted Mark Duggan’s death and the longer history of racialised policing. Such omissions helped present a punitive response as reasonable while obscuring structural racism and the unequal effects of criminal justice practices. The study has limits: its small, qualitative sample cannot represent every criminal justice professional or explain every participant’s motives. Nevertheless, it provides direct evidence of how selective memory shaped institutional accounts.

Social scientists did not need to deny looting, violence or individual responsibility to challenge the official narrative. Their research placed those acts within a wider account of police-community relations, political language and unequal power. The social-scientific explanation carries greater weight because it tests official claims against empirical evidence and examines how authorities themselves helped define the crisis.

Word count: 351 words.

Part 2: Reflection on the Writing Process (200 words maximum)

I began by reading the assignment question and identifying what each part required. I read the relevant material twice, made notes on its main claims and supporting evidence, and grouped those notes by theme. I then drafted from the notes rather than copying the wording of the source. After drafting, I returned to the material to check accuracy and identify points I had omitted.

The main difficulty was deciding which details to retain within the strict word limits, especially when the evidence and the interpretation were closely connected. I also found it difficult to distinguish the events themselves from the political account of them. For TMA 03, I will prepare a short paragraph plan and assign a word budget to each section before writing. I will also leave time to check citations, page numbers and word counts.

Word count: 121 words.

References

Morrell, K., Heracleous, L., Fuller, C. and Bradford, B. (2021) ‘How does the state restore order during crisis? Lessons from the U.K.’s response to the “riots” of August 2011’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), pp. 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320953848.

Newburn, T., Jones, T. and Blaustein, J. (2018) ‘Framing the 2011 England riots: understanding the political and policy response’, The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 57(3), pp. 339–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12268.

Peacock, C. (2023) ‘Amnesia and the erasure of structural racism in criminal justice professionals’ accounts of the 2011 English disturbances’, The Sociological Review, 71(6), pp. 1402–1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261231166525.

Module book chapter reference (complete from the actual textbook):

[Chapter author surname, initials] (2023) ‘[Chapter title]’, in Drake, D.H., Nightingale, A. and Scott, D. (eds) Introduction to criminology: Book 1. Milton Keynes: The Open University, pp. [insert page range].