week 4 dq post

This article seemed to be at least mostly well rounded.

• Does the statement begin with signaling words? not even remotely. The abstract is a poor reflection of the article itself. This is a clear case of a =x study. The researchers are trying to rebuild the equation of how kids end up in ER’s from gang violence. Mathematically the question starts out “how did we end up here”. The problem is this study like most of the rest of studies with a similar MO for academics “how did we end up here”, is answered by asking and proposing all the wrong equations and not understanding what is being observed. Example every single person for the last 4500 years has looked at the pyramids and focused on the buildings, when the causeways are so so much more important and impressive. The shortest one is more than a mile, the longest were up to 3 to 5 miles. Together they make a 300 square mile sculpture. However, you can only find about 5 books in the last 4500 years written about or even giving serious sections in a given pyramid book about the causeways. It is impossible to count the number of books about the buildings. This study makes the same mistakes. In science it is almost a guarantee to miss the most important variables to focus on the ones which are the least weight bearing, but are the most important to other cultures. What is important to culture x as one of their highest crimes, is a ceremony the culture thrives from. not only is the action to illegal, it is celebrated. In post puritan America murder is top of the list of bad things to do, in Rome serial killing and murder were things which happened on not only a regular basis but the Memento Mori (part 1a is entirely about killing/murder) killing human sacrifice is how the culture functions. Those facts were left out of this report. Those facts are not even mildly hinted at. However those facts are in the order of operations regarding the vary core of the study is supposed to be about.

• Does the statement identify the research approach (quantitative,

qualitative, or mixed)? it uses a combination, but the combination is used wrong. The end results are a study which has little to no real impact as to any conclusions.

• Does the statement clearly state the intent of the study? No, there are at least 5 separate “intent” sentences between the abstract, the intro paragraph, and a couple of the study variables.

• Does the statement mention the participants? Yes, does not even mention the sequence of events which causes the participants to become variables. No variable exist in a vacuum, all variables exist in a continuum of actions.

• Does the statement mention the research site?

• Is the statement framed in a way that is consistent with the identified

problem? not even remotely

If the study is qualitative, does the purpose statement do as follows?

• Focus on a single phenomenon no, it tries but does not achieve the goal. The study is like trying to trace a single tooth in a transmission of a semi-truck 18 gears. That one tooth will be used in several ways. This study does not account for the complexity of the gearing system.

• Use an action verb to convey how learning will take place

• Use neutral, nondirectional language. No, several places are large hints at the black and Hispanic cultures in a prejudicial way. One specifically prejudicial sentence almost pushed the conservation into “why did this see the light of day” sentence. Gang kids do x but white kids do not; this sentence leaves out beyond key variables regarding same behavior pattern used differently but same outcomes none the less. A recognized gang of non-white kids, the same levels of violence and inappropriate behavior exist but in different forms. The tools might be different, but the behaviors are the same. Just because nonwhite kid the justice system from cops, to the courts, to the community react different does not mean for a second the base behaviors are not identical. In the Roman Empire for example extremely similar actions to the Nazi holocaust occurred, but since there was not American Army to come in and stop the Romans from killing huge numbers of Jews. The Romans wrote the history, so the could write anything they liked. If the Reich had won, the story of the holocaust would be violently different. Socially acceptable and socially unacceptable does not change any behavior pattern.

• Provide a general definition of the central phenomenon; yes it incorrectly wants to have the scholastic presumed answer is correct. When it is impossible to find solid evidence from this study.

If the study is quantitative, does the purpose statement do as follows?

• Identify the variables under study yes, it identifies the variables.

• Provide a general definition of each key variable; no only partially and only part of them are the focus of the study.

• Use words that connect the variables; yes.

• Identify a theory; why do so many kids end up in the ER.

If the study is mixed methods, does the purpose statement do as follows?

• Discuss the reason(s) for mixing both quantitative and qualitative data; yes in generalized detail but fails to ask fundamental questions which cascade effect invalidates the entire study.

• Include the characteristics of a good qualitative purpose statement (as

listed above) it does but only to reach a set up to find =x answer. The study purposely ignores factors which are actually more important than why kids end up in ER’s.

• Include the characteristics of a good quantitative purpose statement (as

listed above) no. The question is a good statement, that answer is no. A sufficient research question yes.

• Indicate the specific method of collecting both quantitative and qualitative

data. yes it is specific about collection methods, but as noted above, clearly uses the tools wrong.

Reference

Forster, M., Grigsby, T. J., Unger, J. B., & Sussman, S. (2015). Associations between gun violence exposure, gang associations, and youth aggression: Implications for prevention and intervention programs. Journal of Criminology, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/963750