Field Case File
A write-up of the two on-campus cases from weeks 5–6, marked on documentation rigor, safety-protocol adherence and analytical quality.
Due: 29 March 2027 · Weight: 30%
The brief#
Write up the seminar-room and 13-step stairwell cases as a single Field Case File the course can add to its running record.
A case file is not a longer log. The log proves you were there and followed protocol; the file additionally has to state where each case currently sits in the course’s classification scheme (persistent, recurring, responsive, or dormant) and defend that call against specific entries in the log — not against how the case felt to observe.
What you submit#
One document covering both cases, structured so a marker can find, for each case: the log excerpts that support your classification, an explicit note of anywhere the buddy system or disengagement rule was invoked, and your classification with its justification.
The weighted criteria above split roughly as you’d expect: documentation rigor asks whether a second observer could reconstruct what you saw from what you wrote; safety-protocol adherence asks whether the field rules from week 4 were visibly followed, not just claimed; analytical quality asks whether your classification actually follows from the log, using the vocabulary from week 2.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- submitted by the deadline, covering both the seminar-room case and the 13-step stairwell case
- each case's log is timestamped, corroborated between buddy pairs, and free of any observation gained by intervening in the case
- each case is classified against the course's four-category scheme, with the classification defended against the log rather than merely stated
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Documentation rigor | 40% |
| Safety-protocol adherence | 30% |
| Analytical quality | 30% |