WAQP Week 7 Assignment 2

Component

Strengths

Revision Recommendations

Title

Clear, specific, names population (racial/ethnic minority adults), phenomenon (barriers to mental health access/utilization) — appropriately qualitative in tone (no variables, no directional language).

Consider adding "forensic" or "justice-involved" to the title itself, since that's the actual population/setting (the current title reads as a general health-disparities title; the forensic angle only appears once you reach the social problem paragraph).

Social Problem

Strong use of national statistics (50% vs. 39% vs. 36% service utilization) to ground the problem empirically before narrowing to the forensic population — this is exactly the right structure (broad social problem → specific under-researched population).

Cite the source of the statistic directly in-text (currently presented as fact without an inline citation) — reviewers will ask for this immediately.

Gap

Precisely articulated: prior work studied structural, cultural, and technological barriers separately and mostly via quantitative methods; this study targets their intersection using qualitative methods — this is a textbook well-formed qualitative gap statement.

Briefly name 1–2 of the "separate barrier" studies referenced (currently gap is described generically without in-text citations) — right now this section has no citations at all, which is a synthesis gap compared to your other drafts.

Research Problem

Correctly avoids causal language ("does not make any assumptions about causality") and stays phenomenological/interpretive — this is the correct register for a qualitative problem statement, and the self-aware framing sentence is a nice touch.

Otherwise strong as is; minor tightening only.

Purpose Statement

Names the qualitative design (implied), central phenomenon (experiences/perceptions of barriers), and population precisely — meets the core purpose-statement template.

Resolve the phenomenology-vs-basic-qualitative-design ambiguity here specifically, since this is the section where it first appears. Also state the setting here explicitly (which forensic contexts — competency evaluation, diversion, corrections, reentry) rather than only in the RQ.

Framework / Logical Connections

Excellent: intersectionality (Crenshaw) as the primary lens, Andersen's Behavioral Model as a complementary organizing structure (predisposing/enabling/need factors) — the paragraph explicitly explains how the two work together rather than just listing them side by side. This is the strongest section of the draft.

In your Proposal: describe why a health-services-utilization model (Andersen) is compatible with a qualitative, non-measurement design

Research Question

Single RQ appropriately broad, exploratory, and interpretive ("experiences and processes of sense-making") — correctly avoids variables/directionality; explicitly ties back to both theories and the stated gap.

Label as “RQ.” Consider whether a second, narrower sub-question would help operationalize interviews (e.g., "How do participants describe the role of technology specifically in their decisions to seek or avoid care?") — currently the single RQ is broad enough that interview-guide alignment isn't fully visible yet.

Nature of the Study

Correctly specifies basic qualitative design + semi-structured interviews — appropriate match to the exploratory RQ and to Braun & Clarke's thematic analysis named later.

Fix the phenomenology reference tension (see top note). Also, this section is currently very short (one sentence) — expand to justify why basic qualitative design (vs. phenomenology, grounded theory, or case study) is the best fit, which committees typically require explicitly.

Data Collection & Instruments

Semi-structured interview guide, researcher-developed — appropriate and standard for this design.

Note how the interview guide's questions will map onto the two frameworks (intersectionality themes, Andersen's predisposing/enabling/need factors) — currently the instrument is named but not connected back to the framework, which weakens the "logical connection" chain at the instrument level.

Data Sources & Analysis

Purposive sampling (12–15 participants) is an appropriate and well-justified qualitative sample size; eligibility criteria (self-report screening, non-compliance history, documented access difficulty) are concrete and appropriate; Braun & Clarke's six-step thematic analysis is correctly named and outlined step-by-step.

State the specific forensic recruitment sites/pathways (e.g., diversion program partnerships, reentry service organizations) — currently sampling strategy is named but the recruitment channel is not, which affects feasibility assessment. In the proposal, you will need to explain how saturation will be judged/monitored, since 12–15 is a target range, not a fixed number.

Limitations, Challenges, Barriers

Directly names the most realistic recruitment barrier for this population (distrust of research/medical institutions, dual stigma of mental illness + justice involvement) — this is a well-informed, population-specific limitation rather than a generic one.

Add a data-quality limitation specific to qualitative work: interviewer effects / social desirability are usual qualitative concerns. In the proposal, plan to describe the power-asymmetric researcher-participant relationship, and how member-checking or reflexive journaling will mitigate it (currently ethics measures are named but not explicitly tied back to credibility/trustworthiness criteria like Lincoln & Guba's).

Ethics

Strong: trauma-informed interviewing, informed consent, encrypted audio, anonymized transcripts, explicit attention to power dynamics and coercion risk — this is appropriately thorough for a vulnerable, justice-involved population.

Add a distress protocol (e.g., referral resources provided at the end of each interview) given the sensitive/traumatic nature of the topic — this is standard and currently absent. Also state data retention period and IRB reference explicitly (present in your other drafts, missing here).

Significance

Appropriately three-tiered (forensic practice, policy, social change) and specifically ties back to the intersecting-barriers framing rather than restating the general disparity problem.

Tighten redundancy — the middle two paragraphs restate "predisposing, enabling, technological barriers" almost verbatim three times. Differentiate what forensic psychologists specifically gain versus what policymakers gain.