Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Critiquing the article

The area of research Haynes and Giblin
venture is very exciting. However, the research thesis statement does not
address the issue sufficiently. While it is agreeable that the study area is
tight, the researcher does little to make the reader grasp the concepts of the
argument from the thesis statement (Homeland Security Council, 2007). Instead
of the researchers maintaining a straightforward and considerable short thesis
statement, they use a twofold theses statement. It is misconstruing and
downright confusing to understand the real issues being studied in the paper. A reader will wonder whether it is real
risks that determine the predict police organizational practices or whether it
is the subjective measures of risk about preparedness being studied. The introduction is the captivation for presenting
the ideas that the researcher wants to investigate.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

They begin in an excellent tone describing
the events and situations that lead to carrying out these studies.
Unfortunately, they jump into introducing other existing research before
introducing the phenomena leading to their choice of study. Readers would
expect to know why and what factors necessitate the study. The researchers only
mention the terror attack of September 11, 2001. They do not substantiate or
add other reasons to support the necessity of their research. What is even more
unfortunate is that the researcher engages in researching a topic that has been empirically studied several times and
comparable results identified. At this point, the research lacks motivation.
There is nothing new the researcher aims at informing the broader audience. The
article is categorized as redundant for
having repeated a study that has already been
carried out several times.

The research is dynamic in some way.
Researchers are using different methods to try and differentiate their study. However, the literature review part
feels empty. The researchers have not used the dynamicity their research
requires to demonstrate a substantial review of existing literature. It makes
the reader feel that the researcher was
not confident in carrying out analysis of the existing literature. The review
is supposed to identify gap left open by the current research for new studies
to explore. The researchers choose to ignore this fact. Instead, they
demonstrate the theories used in most research blatantly without showing a gap.
Additionally, the researcher picks the objective
theory employed by Roberts et al., 2012 study without demonstrating the
relevance of the theory in the current study (Homeland Security Council, 2007).
The researchers present a weak thesis argument by generalizing information in
the main parts of the research. They make statements that are true but carry
less weight in developing the thesis argument they chose. For instance, they
discuss in a statement the multiple variables used in the SoVI index-based
method on empirical studies (Donaldson, 2001). They
continue to state that these myriads are linked
to various vulnerabilities. They do well to carry out a demonstration of the
stated fact. Nevertheless, the reader still has wonder where the multiple
variables and vulnerability link.

The research also presents a case of
technicalities. While it is a qualified style to use in writing the research,
most average readers will be left without
understanding the content of the study. The usage of words and phrases indicate
in the beginning parts of the paper (introduction) are different from the
discussion part. For instance, the researchers stipulate that the existing
research is limited especially in the measurement of risk. Most researchers and
the government as well use probabilistic methodologies in estimating the level
of perceived risk. They continue to state that existing research has
disproportionately examined threats. They measure the subjective risk
perception of single entities rather than multiple entities. The problem with
the above factors is that the researcher goes ahead in the discussion section
and uses most of the existing research to back up his views. However much they
had seen a deficiency in the studies, they go ahead to use the studies and
their measurements to come up with the current study. If readers carefully read
the current paper, they will deduce that the research has high levels of
ambiguity. The methodology seems deluding. The researcher chooses to use data
collected by another source (The national survey) (Donaldson, 2001).

The reason why this is a bother is
that initially, he had criticized other researchers for failing to meet the
measurement perimeters. The researchers also seem mixed up in discussing
different sections of the paper. For instance, the methodology section is
supposed to discuss the methods that the researcher will use in obtaining data,
measuring the data and analyzing the data. The introduction part is intended to
tell the reader what the researchers want to do, how they suppose they will do
it, the reasons for their study and thesis statement of the survey. It is odd
top fine a statement that closely relates to the argument in the methodology
section. Right after the researchers have stated,
they will use national survey data they wrongfully place a thesis-like
statement. The report indicates that their survey is by linking risks to
preparedness.

The researchers suggest the adoption
of the survey results from the government statistics held in 2011. They also
define the sample frame developed in 2004. The researcher goes on to define the
dependent and independent variables and how they will be calculated. It is delusional for the researchers to misguide the
readers. The researchers have adapted an already existing method with complete
data. The word delusional is used because
the researchers use a tone to suggest that they collected the data. Misguidance
comes in the way the researchers present their argument in methods and sample
stratification.

They want the reader to interact on a
one-to-one basis with the researcher, yet
the researcher has adopted an already existing data. Definition and
justification of dependent and independent variables are exaggerated. The
researcher uses too many words defining the two other than identifying their
scope and measure methods. The researcher is very critical in adopting data
from the survey which is justified in the field or researching. However, the
researchers directly refer to the sources he found relevant to the study.
Quoting extracts that support the thinking of the researchers discredits the
kind of approach used in the survey methodology. In a way, the researcher is
not critical in stating the method as
qualitative, quantitative or mixed.

                                                         Conclusion

This critical review has evaluated the research
article done by Haynes and Giblin seeks to address homeland security
preparedness to counter perceived risks especially in terrorism acts. The article focused on investigating the connection
between perceived risks of homeland security incidences and how preparedness has received attention in
policing. The article is supported by
strong twofold thesis statements and arguments. However, much of the work does
not meet the level of quality expected. The researcher is adaptive to a general
discussion point of view rather than a critical point
of view. The researcher is also inclined to using other peoples’ work
rather than establishing independent thinking in the article. However much the
author states that the research is based
on a gap in the particular field, there is no explanation or demonstration of
the gap. The researcher uses methods that
are very appropriate for the study. Nonetheless, they fail to outweigh an independent
examination of facts and tend to incline on an
existing school of thoughts.

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out