week 4 replies

100 words each reply

Reply to Rodney

A research proposal is a document that describes a planned study and explains why it should be conducted (Ormrod, 2023). According to the textbook, a proposal has several important characteristics. It should clearly state the research problem or question and explain why the study matters. It should describe the plan for collecting and analyzing data. It should also identify the theoretical framework, key concepts, assumptions, and limitations. A good proposal is organized, specific, and honest about what the researcher can realistically accomplish (Ormrod, 2023).

The most important characteristics of a proposal are clarity, focus, and feasibility (Ormrod, 2023). A proposal must be clear so readers understand exactly what the researcher plans to do. It must be focused so the study does not try to cover too much. It must be feasible so the project can be completed with the available time and resources. A proposal should avoid vague statements, unrealistic goals, and biased language that assumes results before the study begins (Ormrod, 2023). A good proposal also shows that the researcher has the necessary skills and background to complete the project. According to the National University of Singapore (2024), a proposal should also include a clear timeline and budget to show the project is realistic.

In my proposal on mob justice and public trust in the justice system, I will address these characteristics by clearly stating my research problem and subproblems. I will explain my plan for collecting data through surveys and interviews. I will identify my theoretical framework, which is institutional anomie theory. I will also discuss the assumptions, delimitations, and limitations of my study. I will keep my proposal focused on one city to make it manageable. I will also avoid language that assumes what the results will show. These steps will help make my proposal clear, focused, and realistic.

References

National University of Singapore. (2024, July 9).  How to write a research proposal.https://cde.nus.edu.sg/graduate/graduate-programmes-by-research-how-to-write-a-research-proposal/

Ormrod, J. E. (2023). Practical Research: Design and Process (13th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780138088781

Reply to Tammy

The core characteristics of a research proposal are not about writing a long academic paper, but rather about creating a clear, functional blueprint for a doable project. According to Leedy and Ormrod (2019), a proposal is fundamentally a straightforward planning document that serves to convince others that the project is worth doing, has a sound plan of attack, and is entirely realistic to complete. In applied criminal justice research, scholars emphasize that a strong proposal must establish a tight, logical alignment between the research questions, the administrative data available, and the statistical methods used to analyze them (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018). The most important characteristics of any proposal are absolute clarity of the research problem, logical alignment between your questions and your methodology, and a realistic, transparent boundary on the scope of the study. Conversely, a great proposal must actively avoid vague, open ended goals, subjective opinions, and the common trap of designing an overbroad study that tries to solve massive societal issues in a single pass. As program evaluation experts note, trying to measure too many broad outcomes at once often dilutes the study's validity and makes the data collection process unmanageable (Wholey et al., 2010). By establishing clear, upfront boundaries and ensuring every measured variable maps directly back to the core research question, a researcher can keep their study focused on answering one specific, high quality question rather than getting lost in too many unmanageable variables.

In my own capstone proposal evaluating mandatory Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training, I am addressing these key characteristics by keeping my research strictly focused on a single municipal department over a set four year window. Instead of trying to reform mental health policing or solve systemic public health issues as a whole, my study evaluates specific, measurable street level outcomes like physical use of force incidents and citizen complaints. I am ensuring methodological alignment by bypassing highly biased self report surveys and using objective, administrative department records, while controlling for critical variables like suspect resistance and officer experience to keep the research design tight. This aligns with standard practices in police program evaluations, which advocate for using de-identified, official administrative archives to eliminate social desirability bias and capture real world behavioral changes (Langton & Maume, 2011). To further protect the integrity of the project, the proposal outlines a proactive, structured timeline of twenty three to thirty one weeks alongside a highly realistic, self funded budget of under two hundred dollars. By demonstrating this level of operational control and preparing for potential hurdles like data extraction delays or administrative gatekeeping, the proposal serves as a practical, highly bounded roadmap that proves this capstone is not only intellectually rigorous but entirely feasible to execute.

References

Langton, L., & Maume, M. O. (2011). Racial disparities in official assessments of police use of force. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 276–302.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2019). Practical research: Planning and design (12th ed.). Pearson.

Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2018). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E. (2010). Handbook of practical program evaluation (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Reply to Daniela

A research proposal may be rejected for a variety of reasons even if the topic in question is interesting and could be of value. As Ormrod (2023) points out, weaknesses can appear in several areas, such as the research problem or question, the research design and methodology, the qualifications of the investigator, the available resources, and the quality of the writing. It is important to understand these weaknesses since the proposal must demonstrate not only that the research topic is worthwhile but also that the researcher has a realistic and suitable plan for carrying out the investigation.

Weaknesses Related to the Research Problem or Question

A major weakness is that the research problem is not clear or well-focused. Since readers are unable to see precisely what the researcher plans to investigate, they are unable to assess the study properly. For instance, a proposal could say, “This study will examine how technology affects education.” This topic is far too broad since it does not specify a particular kind of technology, a particular group of people, an educational outcome, or the context.

Another weakness is that the problem might  not be empirically testable. For instance, a researcher could propose finding out if one teaching method is 'the best' without first specifying any measurable criteria for assessing effectiveness. For a research question to be valid, it must be linked to observable or measurable evidence.

A further weakness arises when the problem does not have a suitable  theoretical or conceptual framework. For instance, a study looking at student motivation could gather data without linking the research to an established theory of motivation. It would then be difficult to explain why certain variables are being looked at or how the findings relate to current knowledge.

A further drawback is that the research problem might be of little significance  or unlikely to lead to any new information. For instance, repeating a study which has already been thoroughly researched without explaining how the new research will contribute to knowledge might seem to be unnecessary. In a similar way, a hypothesis that is not supported by evidence can undermine a proposal. For example, asserting that students who use computers will automatically get higher grades without any evidence to back that expectation would amount to questionable reasoning.

The issue could in fact be more complicated than the researcher suspects. For instance, it would be possible for a researcher to suggest that a study into the reasons why college students drop out should rely on a single survey question. Dropout situations can be linked to financial circumstances, academic performance, family obligations, factors relating to the institution, and a number of other variables. There is also the question of limited relevance. A project focusing on a problem that affects only a very small number of people may have limited applicability. Yet this is not necessarily a disadvantage for action research or for other types of studies which are designed specifically to deal with local problems. Lastly, a proposal might be turned down if it does not match the aims of the organization that is funding the research.

Weaknesses Related to Research Design and Methodology

The method had to give a clear account of how the research would be carried out; a general statement like "the participants will be surveyed, and the results will be analyzed" does not give enough details to allow the study to be assessed. The proposal may also be rejected on ethical grounds. For instance, it would be impossible for a researcher to subject participants to unnecessary risks or to gather sensitive information without having the appropriate safeguards and obtaining informed consent.

Researchers should also make sure that the data they have proposed are both obtainable and suitable. For instance, it would be unrealistic for a single graduate student to attempt to study the views of every teacher in the United States. The measurement tools used should be appropriate, reliable, and valid in relation to the research question. Poor controls, the use of inappropriate equipment, a simple method of data analysis, and not dealing with the limitations of the study can all serve to undermine the proposal. For example, analyzing a complex relationship among several variables by means of percentage alone may not lead to credible conclusions.

Weaknesses Related to the Investigator

The investigator should be properly prepared and know about the relevant literature. For instance, suggesting a complicated statistical study without showing that they have the necessary training might lead to questions as to whether the researcher can carry out and interpret the analysis correctly. It is also important for researchers to be aware of possible biases and to show that they have enough time to carry out the project. It would be unrealistic to have a proposal that demands 20 hours per week from a researcher who has only five hours available.

Weaknesses Related to Resources

The resources needed should correspond to the project proposed. If the institutional situation is unsatisfactory or if the requirements for equipment and support staff are unrealistic, this can weaken an otherwise promising study. For instance, if an advanced laboratory experiment is proposed but there is no access to the necessary laboratory equipment, the project will be difficult or impossible to carry out.

Weaknesses Related to Writing Quality

Ultimately, bad writing can cause a well-constructed proposal to be seen as lacking credibility. It is important for the proposal to stay focused, to accurately reference scholarly literature, to adhere to the required style manual, and to have only a small number of grammatical or spelling errors. For instance, a proposal that keeps on departing from the research question or includes many APA formatting and grammatical errors might make the research plan hard to understand. The University of Southern California Libraries (2024) also stresses the need to clearly present the research problem, the relevant literature, the methodology, and the entire research plan in a research proposal.

Reflection on My Own Proposal

When I look at my own proposal, the weaknesses I am most likely to face relate to keep ing a narrow research focus, giving enough methodological detail, and dealing with the limitations. There is a tendency to include an excessive amount of information since a research topic may cover several related areas. But adding too many variables or questions might make the project hard to complete and could result in the proposal losing its focus. To overcome this, I will clearly state the research problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions and the population before outlining the methodology.

I also must make sure that the methods I have proposed directly tackle my research questions by explaining how the data will be collected, specifying the instruments or measures that will be used, and describing the way in which the data will be analyzed. Moreover, I should admit any realistic limitations rather than imply that the study will answer all the questions connected with the topic. Lastly, I will thoroughly check the proposal regarding APA 7th edition formatting, grammar, organization, and the inclusion of suitable scholarly citations.

In summary, Ormrod's (2023) account shows that a good research proposal needs much more than just a fascinating topic; the problem has to be both important and capable of being researched, the methodology has to be suitable and ethical, the researcher must have sufficient preparation and resources, and the writing itself must clearly present the whole research plan. By identifying these possible weaknesses prior to submitting the proposal, one can enhance the proposal's clarity, feasibility, and scholarly quality.

References

Ormrod, J. E. (2023). Practical research: Design and process (13th ed.). Pearson Education. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780138088781

University of Southern California Libraries. (2024). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 4. The research proposal. https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/researchproposal

Reply to Tammy

According to Leedy and Ormrod (2019), research proposals that face rejection generally suffer from shortcomings categorized into five distinct areas: the research problem, the methodology, the investigator, available resources, and the quality of writing. The first major weakness relates to the research problem itself, which occurs when the project is too nebulous, unfocused, or lacks an appropriate theoretical framing, such as a study that broadly states its goal is to "examine police stress" without defining specific, measurable variables. The second weakness lies in the research design and methodology, characterized by vague procedures, a lack of appropriate control variables, or proposed instruments with poor reliability, which is common when a researcher plans to measure de-escalation success purely through subjective, post-training surveys of officers that are highly susceptible to bias and fail to capture actual, street-level behavior. The third weakness is related to the investigator, where the researcher lacks sufficient training, experience, or familiarity with the relevant scholarly literature to execute the project, such as proposing a complex time-series regression analysis without ever having taken an advanced statistics course. The fourth weakness involves inadequate or unsuitable resources, where the proposed use of equipment, support staff, or the institutional setting is completely unrealistic, which is exemplified by a student proposing a nationwide study of police body-worn camera footage when they have a budget of zero dollars and no administrative clearance to access those secure internal databases. The fifth and final weakness is the quality of the writing, which is marked by rambling, a lack of logical organization, and a failure to adhere to the required style manual or grammatical standards, typically resulting in a proposal that lacks distinct section headings and reads like a continuous, unorganized narrative stream of consciousness.

When critically evaluating my own capstone proposal on mandatory Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training and police use of force, I must constantly guard against these common traps, particularly those related to methodology and resources. Historically, police program evaluations have struggled with the second weakness of poor research design because many studies fail to use appropriate controls for external confounding factors (Langton & Maume, 2011). In my own work, there is a realistic risk that concurrent environmental factors—such as seasonal crime spikes, staffing shortages, or changes in department-wide pursuit policies—could influence use of force trends independently of the CIT training. To ensure my study does not suffer from this methodological flaw, my design incorporates specific control variables, including monthly violent crime counts and overall patrol staffing levels, while utilizing an interrupted time-series model that compares mental health crisis calls against non-mental-health dispatch calls to isolate the specific causal impact of the training. Additionally, I must remain highly vigilant regarding the fourth weakness of resource limitations and data accessibility since my study relies on sensitive internal archives, such as official Use of Force Reports and Internal Affairs files. Securing access is a critical hurdle that could easily stall the project if the agency's leadership hesitates due to legal liability or political sensitivity. This challenge of programmatic measurement is compounded by the fact that many law enforcement databases suffer from high rates of missing or unstandardized behavioral metrics, making thorough preprocessing and variable clean-up essential for valid statistical modeling (Taheri, 2016). To proactively resolve this resource challenge and keep the project entirely feasible within my twenty-three to thirty-one week academic timeline, I have initiated early executive briefings supported by formal sponsorship letters from Columbia College. These steps ensure that we can execute a binding Data Use Agreement to strip all individual identifiers, protect citizen and officer privacy, and successfully deliver a high-quality, ethically sound project that avoids the common pitfalls of unsuccessful academic research. 

References

Langton, L., & Maume, M. O. (2011). Racial disparities in official assessments of police use of force. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 276–302.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2019). Practical research: Planning and design (12th ed.). Pearson.

Taheri, S. A. (2016). Do Crisis Intervention Teams reduce arrests and improve officer safety? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(1), 76–96.