Fluent Essays

Problem Statement / Research Questions Instructions The next section of the paper involves an expansion of the first paragraph on why the student’s chosen dissertation issue is a problem related to criminal justice. This section will be titled “Problem Statement,” will be at least 4 paragraphs, and include at least 4 additional peer-reviewed references. At the conclusion of the problem statement, a new section, titled “Research Question(s)” will be added. In this brief section, the student will post his or her 1–3 central research question(s), which the student will seek to answer in his or her dissertation.   Due: by Sunday 10:59 a.m (Eastern Time) September 5,2021. NO LATE WORK All instructions and additional information is attached below in all attachments. Criteria Ratings Points Instructions 20 to >17.0 pts Advanced Student followed all instructions in the course instructions and met all requirements. Paper is cumulative from each section. 17 to >13.0 pts Proficient Student followed most instructions in the course instructions and met most requirements. Paper is NOT cumulative from each section. 13 to >0.0 pts Developing Student followed some instructions in the course instructions and met some requirements. Paper is NOT cumulative from each section. 0 pts Not Present 20 pts Reference Quality 12 to >10.0 pts Advanced All articles are peer-reviewed, dated within five (5) years of the due date of assignment. 10 to >7.0 pts Proficient Most articles are peer-reviewed, dated within five (5) years of the due date of assignment. 7 to >0.0 pts Developing Some or none of the articles are peer-reviewed, dated within five (5) years of the due date of assignment. 0 pts Not Present 12 pts Dissertation Quality 20 to >17.0 pts Advanced Student fully incorporated the transition sentences, the 3 required sections (Problem Statement, Research Question proper transition sentences), and proper citations into the conceptual draft. 17 to >13.0 pts Proficient Student partially incorporated the transition sentences, the 3 required sections (Problem Statement, Research Question proper transition sentences), and proper citations into the conceptual draft. 13 to >0.0 pts Developing Student did not incorporate (or did not articulate well) the transition sentences, the 3 required sections (Problem Statement, Research Question proper transition sentences), and proper citations into the conceptual draft. 0 pts Not Present 20 pts Grammar and Spelling 13 to >11.0 pts Advanced Correct spelling and grammar used throughout dissertation. Dissertation contains no errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. 11 to >8.0 pts Proficient Dissertation contains some errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. 8 to >0.0 pts Developing Dissertation contains several errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. 0 pts Not Present 13 pts Research Paper: Problem Statement/Research Questions Grading Rubric | CJUS740_B03_202140 Criteria Ratings Points APA Format Compliance 10 to >8.0 pts Advanced Minimal errors (1-2) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format. APA formatting elements such as: Title page, abstract, running head, headings/subheadings, font type and size, line spacing, and margins. **APA compliance includes the proper application of in-text citations and a reference list. Paper is 4 paragraphs 8 to >6.0 pts Proficient Few errors (3-4) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format. APA formatting elements such as: Title page, abstract, running head, headings/subheadings, font type and size, line spacing, and margins. **APA compliance includes the proper application of in-text citations and a reference list. Paper is 3 paragraphs 6 to >0.0 pts Developing Numerous errors (5+) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format. APA formatting elements such as: Title page, abstract, running head, headings/subheadings, font type and size, line spacing, and margins. **APA compliance includes the proper application of in-text citations and a reference list. Paper is less than 2 paragraphs. 0 pts Not Present 10 pts Total Points: 75 Research Paper: Problem Statement/Research Questions Grading Rubric | CJUS740_B03_202140 Problem Statement / Research Questions Instructions The next section of the paper involves an expansion of the first paragraph on why the student’s chosen dissertation issue is a problem related to criminal justice. This section will be titled “Problem Statement,” will be at least 4 paragraphs, and include at least 4 additional peer-reviewed references. At the conclusion of the problem statement, a new section, titled “Research Question(s)” will be added. In this brief section, the student will post his or her 1–3 central research question(s), which the student will seek to answer in his or her dissertation. Make sure you include abstract and bible context DUE: By Sunday 10:59 a.m September 5, 2021. NO LATE WORK Title: Restorative Justice in Prisons Research questions: 1. How effective is restorative justice in prisons? 2. Can restorative justice end school to prison pipeline? 3. Are there any policies in place for restorative justice in prisons and what are the implications? Chapter 2: Foundations of Criminal Justice Research 1 Learning Objectives • Summarize three fundamental features of social science: theory, data collection, and data analysis. • Describe why social scientists are interested in explaining aggregates, not individuals. • Understand that social scientists are primarily interested in discovering relationships that connect variables. • Understand the difference between idiosyncratic and nomothetic explanations. • Distinguish between inductive and deductive forms of reasoning. • Distinguish between quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 2 Learning Objectives, cont. • Recognize that intersubjective agreement, not objectivity, is a fundamental norm of science. • Describe the traditional image of social science theory. • Understand how scientific inquiry alternates between induction and deduction. • Describe how observations contribute to theory development in grounded theory. • Discuss how criminological theories draw on other social sciences, and sometimes on the natural sciences. • Describe how theory and public policy can be closely linked. © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 3 The Creation of Social Science Theory • Social scientific inquiry generates knowledge through logic and observation • Theory and observation go together in science, but sometimes theory precedes observation, and other times observation precedes theory • Three key aspects of the overall scientific enterprise: theory, data collection, and data analysis © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 4 Social Science Theory • Social Scientific Theory: Discovering what is, not what should be – Cannot settle debates on value • Problematic Evaluators – Ex: What Constitutes a good Parole Officer? © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 5 Regularities and Exceptions • Social science aims to find patterns of regularity in social life • Norms and rules and observations in society create regularity – Ex: A person is not eligible for a driver’s license until a certain age • Social regularities represent probabilistic patterns – A general pattern does not have to be reflected in 100% of the observable cases to be a pattern © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 6 Aggregates, Not Individuals • Social scientists study social patterns, not individual ones • Aggregates are more often the subject of social science research • Distinguishes the activities of criminal justice researchers from the daily routines of most criminal justice practitioners – Ex: Processing and classifying new inmates © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7 Variables and Attributes • Theory is written in a variable language; people are the carriers of those variables • Social science involves the study of these two concepts: – Attributes - Characteristics or qualities that describe some object, such as a person (Ex: “married”) – Variables - Logical groupings of attributes (Ex: occupations) © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 8 Discussion Question 1 What if someone asked you which should be the focus of social scientists: attributes or variables? How would you respond? © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 9 Variables and Relationships • Theories describe the relationships that might be logically expected among variables • Causation: A person’s attributes on one variable are expected to cause or encourage a particular attribute on another variable • Independent Variable – “cause,” “influencer” • Dependent Variable – “effect,” “depends” – Ex: Type of defense attorney -> prison or probation © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 10 Differing Avenues for Inquiry • Ideographic Explanation - When we attempt to explain a single situation exhaustively – Fully understands the causes of what happened in this particular instance; comprehensively explains one case • Nomothetic Explanation – Seeks to explain a class of situations or events rather than a single one – Explains efficiently; settles for partial explanation © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 11 Deductive Reasoning • Moves from the general to the specific • From a logically or theoretically expected pattern to observations that test the presence of the pattern • “Why something happens” -> “Whether it actually does” © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 12 Inductive Reasoning • Inductive – moves from the specific to the general • From a set of observations to the discovery of a pattern among them © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 13 Qualitative and Quantitative Data • All observations are qualitative at the outset • Qualitative: Nonnumerical – Greater richness of meaning • Quantitative: Numerical – Carries a focusing of attention and specification of meaning • Both are useful and legitimate – choose based on topic or combine aspects of both © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 14 Terms Used in Theory Construction • Theory – Systematic explanation for the observed facts & laws that relate to a particular aspect of life; propositions explaining why events occur in the manner that they do • Objectivity – “Independent of mind”; not utilized – Rather, we use intersubjective agreement – If several of us agree that something exists, we treat it as objective © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 15 Terms Used in Theory Construction, cont. • Hypothesis – Specific expectations about empirical reality, derived from propositions • Paradigm – Fundamental model or scheme that organizes our view of something; a lens through which we view a certain piece of reality in our world © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 16 The Traditional Model of Science • Three main elements: – Conceptualization – Scientist use theory to develop research questions that can be examined through observations – Operationalization – Specification of the steps, procedures, operations to identify and measure variables – Observation – Look at the world systematically, develop theoretical expectations, and measure • Shaw and McKay – Crime in Chicago – Concentric Zones © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 17 Two Logical Systems • Deductive (general to specific) • Inductive (specific to general) – “grounded theory” • Role of race in police decision-making • Theory -> Operationalize our hypotheses (method) -> Observation -> Empirical Generalizations • Field research & survey research – used to develop theories from observations © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 18 Discussion Question 2 What if you were a criminal justice researcher? Which do you think would be your strength, inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning? Why? © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 19 Theory, Research, and Public Policy • Crime is a social problem; research driven by theory is linked to public policy • Theory structures research, which, in turn, is consulted to develop policy • Research guides the ways in which the government and public respond to crime • Policies often take the form of if-then statements, and are subject to empirical tests © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 20 Discussion Question 3 What if the federal government gave a large grant to criminal justice professionals for applied research? Which criminal justice policy do you think should be the research focus? © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 21 Criminological Evolution • Maintains that behavior is affected by environmental forces • Explores the link between urban design, human behavior, and crime • Crime is more common in urban transition zones where the physical environment (crowded housing) is unpleasant and the social environment (poverty) is undesirable • Based on ideas of Defensible Space and CPTED © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 22 Ecological Theories • Led to the development of situational crime prevention – as a policy measure • Directed at highly specific forms of crime • Involves the management, design, and manipulation of immediate environment to increase effort and risk of crime, reduce the perceived reward, and remove excuses and justifications • Prevention of auto theft/vandalism in parking lots? © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 23 Chapter 3: Ethics in Criminal Justice Research 1 Learning Objectives • Recognize how criminal justice research is shaped by ethical considerations. • Understand that what is ethically “right” and “wrong” in research is ultimately a matter of what people agree is right and wrong. • Understand why researchers may not recognize whether their own work adequately addresses ethical issues. • Summarize how ethical questions usually involve weighing the possible benefits of research against the potential harm to research subjects. • Understand the norm of voluntary participation and how it can conflict with generalizability. © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 2 Learning Objectives, cont. • Describe examples of the special ethical questions sometimes raised by criminal justice research. • Discuss how informed consent addresses many ethical questions. • Distinguish anonymity and confidentiality as ways to protect the privacy of research subjects. • Summarize ethical principles presented in the Belmont Report. • Describe why prisoners and juveniles require special ethical considerations. • Understand the role of institutional review boards (IRBs) in protecting human subjects. © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 3 Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Research • Ethical concerns – Typically associated with morality; both deal with matters of right & wrong • Ethical - May be defined as behavior conforming to the standards of conduct of a given group • Ethics are a matter of agreement among professionals • We need to know of this general, shared conception among CJ researchers © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 4 No Harm to Participants • Dilemma – Balancing potential benefits against possibility of harm • Collecting info from active criminals presents the possibility of violence against them • Psychological harm via remembrance of unpleasant/traumatic experience • Possible harm may be justified by potential benefit of study (still arbitrary) • Perrone – Drug use in N.Y. dance clubs © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 5 Voluntary Participation • CJ research often intrudes into people’s lives • Asks them to reveal what is generally unknown • Participation must be voluntary • This threatens generalizability © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 6 Anonymity and Confidentiality • Anonymity – When a researcher cannot identify a given piece of information with a given person • Confidentiality – A researcher can link information with a subject, but promises not to do so publicly • Techniques: Replace names/addresses with IDs, specify when survey is C rather than A, specify that info will not be disclosed to third parties © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7 Deceiving Subjects • Generally considered unethical • Sometimes useful and even necessary to identify yourself as a researcher • “Don’t go undercover” • Widom (1999) – child abuse and illegal drug use • Inciardi (1993) – studying crack houses © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 8 Discussion Question 1 Do you think being deceived during the course of a criminal justice study would change the way you view the role of science in public policy? © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 9 Analysis and Reporting • Researchers have ethical obligations to the scientific community • Must make shortcomings and/or negative findings known • Must tell the truth about pitfalls and problems you’ve experienced • It is as important to know that two things are not related as to know that they are © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 10 Legal Liability • Researchers may expose themselves to criminal liability by: – Failing to report observed criminal activity to the police – Engaging in participant observation studies where crimes are committed • Subpoenas violate confidentiality • Legal immunity (42 U.S. Code §22.28a) © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 11 Discussion Question 2 What if someone asked you to identify the most pressing ethical issue in your life? How would you reply? © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 12 Special Problems • Becoming aware of staff misbehavior in agencies • Research can cause crime or influence its location or target – Crime may be displaced • Withholding desirable treatments from control group • Mandatory Reporting: the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 13 Promoting Compliance with Ethical Principles • The National Research Act (1974): signed into law after a few highly publicized examples of unethical practices in medical and social science research • The Belmont Report (1979): a brief, but comprehensive set of ethical principles for protecting human subjects – Respect for Persons – Beneficence – Justice © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 14 Code of Professional Ethics • The American Psychological Association (2002) code of ethics is quite detailed, reflecting the different professional roles of psychologists in research, clinical treatment, and educational contexts – Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Ethical Standards – American Society of Criminology Code of Ethics – U.S. Department of Health & Human Services – American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 15 Institutional Review Boards • Gov. agencies and non-gov. organizations must establish Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) – Members make judgments about overall risks and their acceptability – Members decide whether research procedures include safeguards to protect safety, confidentiality, and general welfare of subjects © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 16 Discussion Question 3 What would modern social science look like without the IRB? © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 17 Informed Consent and Special Populations • Informed consent – Requires that subjects both have the capacity to understand and do understand the research, risks, side effects, benefits to subjects, and procedures used – New Jersey State Troopers and Racial Profiling • Special populations – Specific regulations exist for certain populations, such as juveniles and prisoners © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 18 Researcher Rights • Many social research study designs are regarded as exempt from IRB review under federal guidelines • Exempt means that research proposals do not have to be subject to full IRB review © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 19 Trouble in the Tearoom • Laud Humphreys (1975) – Studied homosexual acts between strangers who meet in public restrooms in parks (“tearooms”) • Served as “watchqueen” • Noted plate numbers of participants, tracked down names and addresses through police, conducted a survey to obtain personal info at their homes © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 20 The Stanford Prison Experiment • Dispositional hypothesis – Prisons are brutal and dehumanizing because of people in them • Situational hypothesis – Prison environment creates brutal and dehumanizing conditions independent of the people in them • Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo – Sought to test situational hypothesis by simulating a prison in 1971 © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 21 The Stanford Prison Experiment, cont. • “Prison” constructed in basement of psychology building • 24 healthy/psychologically normal subjects selected, offered $15 a day for their participation • Asked to sign a contract that they would be confined, put under constant surveillance, and have their civil rights suspended – but would not be subject to physical abuse © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 22 The Stanford Prison Experiment, part III • Terminated after 6 days (planned for 2 weeks) • Subjects displayed “unexpectedly intense reactions” • Five had to be released b/c they showed signs of acute depression or anxiety • Guards became aggressive, prisoners became passive © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 23 Researchers Sensitive to Ethical Issues? • Obtained consent via signed contracts • Those who developed signs of acute distress were released early • Study was terminated prematurely • Group therapy debriefing sessions were conducted, along with follow-ups, to ensure negative experiences were temporary © 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 24 References King James Bible. (1970). The Holy Bible. Camden, New Jersey. Thomas Nelson, Inc. Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2018). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.