WAQP Week 10 Assignment 1

TurissaKeysProspectusFeedbackLLB8-5-26.docx

Home >Psychology homework help >WAQP Week 10 Assignment 1

Turissa Keys, Prospectus Feedback, Draft 8/2/26; LLB 8/5/26

· In the right columns of each table, please add your initials as you review and address or consider each recommendation. Save this document, adding your initials and the date. Share this attachment in Taskstream when you submit your next draft in the coming term. You will be using the Prospectus Preliminary Development queue.

· Research Problem section shares statistical percentages. This requires a citation (in-text and a full citation beneath the section).

· Hermeneutic (interpretive) phenomenological design is mentioned on your alignment table. The method is specific and needs to be consistently noted as your research method throughout. Clarify if using basic qualitative or phenomenological and which type.

· Frame Research Question using “RQ:”

Prospectus Review: Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Forensic Mental Health Service Access

Title: Racial/Ethnic Minority Adults’ Experiences with Barriers to Mental Health Care Access and Utilization

Overall Impression

This is a well-developed draft. The social problem, gap, and problem statement are clearly connected; the theoretical framework is genuinely integrated rather than bolted on; and the nature-of-study section shows methodological congruence. The main work remaining is at the level of precision and completeness: sharpening the purpose statement into its formal components, tightening the research question to name a design and a sample, and adding a few missing ethical/procedural details (IRB, recruitment mechanics, informed consent for a justice-involved population, confidentiality safeguards given the sensitivity of criminal-justice status).

1. Social Problem and Literature Gap

Does the gap and research problem clearly fulfill the criteria for the prospectus?

Criterion	Met?	Comment	TK
Grounded in documented evidence	Yes	National utilization statistics (50% vs. 39% vs. 36%) give the problem empirical weight.
Situates gap relative to existing literature	Yes	Correctly distinguishes prior work (structural or cultural or technological barriers studied separately) from what is missing (an integrated, intersectional account).
Gap is a genuine gap, not a restatement of the problem	Mostly	The gap paragraph and problem statement currently overlap almost word-for-word ("structural, cultural, and technological barriers," "intersection of these barriers"). A prospectus rubric typically wants the gap to justify the problem, not duplicate it.
Problem statement avoids causal language	Yes	Appropriately phenomenological — "absence of an integrated perspective on the processes of experiencing, perceiving, and navigating" avoids causal claims.
Problem statement is one sentence	Partially	As written it runs long with multiple embedded clauses; it reads as one sentence grammatically but should be tightened for the prospectus format, which typically expects a crisp, single-clause statement.

Recommendation: Rewrite the problem statement to remove redundancy with the gap paragraph, and trim it to a single clear clause, e.g.: "It is not known how justice-involved racial and ethnic minority adults experience and navigate the intersection of structural, cultural, and technological barriers to forensic mental health services." This is the classic Walden/dissertation-prospectus formula ("It is not known how/why...") and satisfies brevity and non-causality criteria simultaneously.

2. Purpose Statement

Does the purpose expressed here fulfill the criteria of the prospectus? Why should the reader care? What further information should be included?

Element	Present in purpose paragraph?	Needed addition	TK
Research design named explicitly (not just "qualitative")	No	State "a basic qualitative design" here, not only in the Nature of the Study section.
Central phenomenon named precisely	Partial	"Barriers" is named but the three sub-types (structural, cultural, technological) should be listed here for consistency with the rest of the prospectus.
Population and geographic/setting boundaries	Partial	Mentions "justice system" but should specify forensic settings (competency evaluation, diversion, correctional treatment, re-entry) and geographic scope (U.S., or a specific region/state) to match the research question.
Explain key terms (e.g., "forensic mental health services," "justice-involved")	No	A one-line operational definition would preempt reviewer questions about scope.
Statement of why the study matters (significance-in-brief)	No	Purpose statements conventionally end with a brief "why this matters" clause; currently significance is deferred entirely to its own section.

Why should the reader care? The manuscript answers this convincingly in the Significance section (recidivism, competency restoration, re-entry, policy) — but a reader evaluating only the Purpose section would not yet know why the study matters, because that framing is withheld until later. A one-sentence forward pointer ("...findings may inform culturally responsive forensic mental health practice and policy") would strengthen the purpose section's self-sufficiency.

Questions the purpose statement should answer (checklist):

1. What is the research method and specific design?

2. What is the central phenomenon under investigation?

3. Who is the population, and what are its defining/eligibility characteristics?

4. Where (setting, geographic scope) will the study occur?

5. What is the researcher trying to understand, describe, or explore about the phenomenon?

6. Why does understanding this phenomenon matter (brief significance link)?

7. How does the purpose connect back to the stated problem?

3. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

Does this statement explain the logical connection between the theories and the problem above?

Yes, largely. The pairing of Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989) with Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use (Andersen, 1995) is logically coherent: intersectionality supplies the lens for understanding overlapping marginalized identities, while Andersen's model supplies an organizing structure (predisposing, enabling, need factors) for analyzing the mechanics of service use. This dual-framework approach is well-suited to a study that is explicitly trying to move beyond single-dimension analyses.

Strength	Note	TK
Framework matches the stated gap	The gap criticizes literature for treating barriers "separately"; using two complementary theories to integrate structural/cultural/technological dimensions directly answers that critique.
Framework matches the RQ	The research question explicitly invokes both theories, so alignment is traceable across sections.
Citations are dated	Both foundational citations (1989, 1995) are appropriate as originating sources, but a prospectus typically also expects a handful of recent (past 5 years) applications of each theory to justice-involved or forensic populations, to show the framework is still active in the literature, not just historically cited.
Operationalization is thin	It is not yet explained how Andersen's three factor categories (predisposing, enabling, need) will map onto the interview guide or the coding scheme. Recommend adding one or two sentences describing this mapping.

Recommendation: Add 2–3 recent empirical citations applying Andersen's model or intersectionality to justice-involved or forensic mental health populations, and briefly state how the coding framework in analysis will operationalize predisposing/enabling/need constructs alongside intersectional themes.

4. Research Question(s)

Do the research questions meet the criteria for the method, theoretical framework, and problem?

Criterion	Assessment	TK
Open-ended, exploratory phrasing ("How do...describe...")	Met — appropriate for basic qualitative design.
Aligned with problem statement	Met — mirrors the structural/cultural/technological/intersectional language of the problem.
Aligned with theoretical framework	Met, though implicitly — the RQ itself does not name the theories; alignment is asserted in the surrounding narrative rather than built into the question. Consider lightly reflecting the framework in the RQ wording (e.g., referencing "interconnected/intersecting barriers").
Single, focused question vs. compound question	Caution — the RQ lists four distinct forensic settings (competency evaluations, diversion, correctional treatment, re-entry) within one sentence. This is acceptable as scope-setting but risks reading as multiple questions bundled together. Consider either narrowing to one setting for feasibility, or explicitly framing the list as illustrative examples ("e.g.") rather than a required scope across all four.
Answerable via proposed data collection	Met — semi-structured interviews can address a "how do they describe" question.

Recommendation: Consider adding one or two sub-questions (e.g., "How do participants describe the ways these barriers intersect with their racial/ethnic identity?") to give the single broad RQ more analytic traction and to make the intersectionality lens explicit at the RQ level, not just in the narrative.

5. Nature of the Study

Does the passage express the nature of the study, appropriately explaining the research method/approach planned for addressing the research questions?

Yes. The justification for a basic qualitative design (rather than phenomenology, grounded theory, or ethnography) is stated and briefly reasoned — the design fits because the goal is exploring interpretation of experience without committing to a specific philosophical tradition. This is appropriate and commonly used for applied, practice-oriented qualitative dissertations.

Strength	Recommendation	TK
Correct citation-supported rationale for design choice (Tisdell et al., 2025)	Add one sentence distinguishing basic qualitative design from phenomenology specifically, since the RQ language ("describe their experiences") could easily be mistaken for a phenomenological.
Data collection method (semi-structured interviews) is named and justified	Good — justification (follow-up questions, depth) is appropriate.
Analysis method (Braun & Clarke) is named	Good, though the citation year is inconsistent: the "Nature of the Study" narrative cites Braun & Clarke (2022) while the "Type of Data" section cites Braun & Clarke (2006) for the same six-phase method. This should be resolved — the 2006 article is the original six-phase framework; 2022 reflects their reflexive thematic analysis update. Pick one consistently and cite it correctly throughout, since the two versions have somewhat different epistemological assumptions (coding reliability vs. reflexive, researcher-as-instrument approaches).

6. Data Type, Collection Instruments, Sources, and Analysis

Is the data collection mechanism and instrument described and appropriate, meeting ethical criteria? Are the data sources and analysis plan sufficient, ethical, and appropriate?

Element	Assessment	Gap / Recommendation	TK
Sample size (12–15)	Appropriate for basic qualitative design reaching saturation	Add a brief saturation rationale/citation.
Sampling strategy (purposive)	Appropriate	Specify inclusion/exclusion criteria more precisely (e.g., time since justice involvement, type of forensic contact, competency to consent).
Instrument (researcher-developed interview guide)	Named but not detailed	State whether the guide will undergo expert/pilot review, and reference the theoretical framework's role in question development (e.g., items mapped to predisposing/enabling/need constructs).
Recruitment procedure	Not described	This is a significant gap for an IRB-reviewed study involving a vulnerable, justice-involved population. Add: recruitment channels (e.g., community organizations, re-entry programs, defense attorneys, clinics), and explicitly address any risk of coercion given power differentials with justice-system-affiliated recruiters.
Informed consent / vulnerable population protections	Not described	Justice-involved individuals are frequently treated as a vulnerable population requiring heightened consent procedures (voluntariness given system involvement, capacity to consent, confidentiality given potential legal implications of disclosures). This should be added explicitly, not left implicit.
Confidentiality / data security	Not described	Given the topic (criminal justice + mental health, both sensitive/protected categories), the prospectus should specify de-identification procedures, secure storage, and limits of confidentiality (e.g., mandatory reporting if applicable).
Analysis procedure	Braun & Clarke six-phase method named and steps listed	Good — but the six numbered stages ("familiarization...preparation") are copied nearly verbatim from Braun & Clarke's own phase list; the final phase should read "producing the report," not "preparation," which appears to be a mislabeling.
Link between coding and framework	Stated generally ("themes interpreted through the conceptual framework")	IN THE PROPOSAL: Needs more specificity — how will predisposing/enabling/need and intersectional codes be operationalized in the codebook? A short example would strengthen feasibility for reviewers.

Ethics summary: The plan is broadly appropriate for basic qualitative interview research but is currently underspecified on IRB/consent/vulnerable-population procedures, which reviewers will flag given the population's justice-system involvement. This is the single most important addition needed before the prospectus would be considered ethically complete.

7. Limitations, Challenges, and Barriers

Are the limitations accurately represented?

Strength	Note	TK
Names transferability limits of purposive sampling	Appropriately framed as transferability rather than generalizability, consistent with qualitative epistemology.
Names recall/comfort limitations and mitigation (rapport-building, confidentiality)	Reasonable and specific.
Names recruitment difficulty and mitigation (community partnerships, voluntariness)	Reasonable.
Names researcher bias and mitigation (reflexive journaling, audit trail)	Good — standard qualitative trustworthiness strategies (Lincoln & Guba criteria) are implied but not explicitly named.

Recommendation: Explicitly cite trustworthiness criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability — Lincoln & Guba, 1985) rather than only describing the strategies, since prospectus rubrics typically look for this framework to be named directly. Also consider adding a limitation specific to social desirability bias, given that participants are describing sensitive interactions with mental health and criminal justice systems to a researcher they may perceive as an authority figure.

8. Significance

Have appropriate statements regarding potential significance been expressed?

Yes — significance is well-articulated at three levels: practice (culturally sensitive assessment/intervention), policy (protocols across correctional treatment, competency restoration, evaluations, re-entry), and social change (equitable service utilization). This section is one of the stronger parts of the draft.

Strength	Minor recommendation	TK
Multi-level significance (practice/policy/social change)	Consider adding a sentence connecting significance back explicitly to the theoretical contribution — i.e., what this study adds to Andersen's model or intersectionality theory itself (theoretical significance), not only applied significance.
Social change framing present	Good — matches common dissertation program requirements (e.g., positive social change language).

Summary of Priority Revisions

1. Ethics/IRB detail (highest priority): Add recruitment procedure, informed consent process, and confidentiality/vulnerable-population safeguards for justice-involved participants.

2. Purpose statement completeness: Name the design explicitly, define key terms, state geographic/setting scope, add a brief significance pointer.

3. Citation consistency: Resolve Braun & Clarke (2006) vs. (2022) inconsistency; correct the mislabeled final analysis phase.

4. Reduce redundancy between the gap paragraph and the problem statement; tighten the problem statement to one clean clause.

5. Strengthen theory–method linkage: show explicitly how Andersen's predisposing/enabling/need categories and intersectional themes will structure the codebook.

6. Explicitly name trustworthiness criteria (Lincoln & Guba) in the limitations section.

None of these are structural flaws — the prospectus is conceptually sound and internally consistent at the level of argument. The revisions above are about precision, completeness, and anticipating committee/IRB questions, which is exactly the level of polish a prospectus needs before advancing to full proposal.