Compares and contrasts the data collection methods

CJ 550 Module Three Activity Guidelines and Rubric Overview: Understanding how data is collected is an important aspect of ensuring a research project’s or experiment’s overall validity. Research ethics is an integral part of any valid research finding. This research will potentially have a major impact on your decision as a leader within the criminal justice organization where you are employed. Therefore, it is vital to ensure proper findings by ethical data collection to minimize liability in your decisions. Prompt: Read the following real-world case study: The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. Then, read the following information on predictive policing: Evaluation of the Shreveport Predictive Policing Experiment. Think about the research and data collection methods used in both studies. Compare and contrast both methods. Identify ways in which the findings of the research experiments could be vulnerable to liability. Suggest alternative methods to minimize liability in the research findings. If no vulnerabilities can be identified, explain how the methods used in the research experiment preserved ethical and accurate findings. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

 Compares and contrasts the data collection methods of two case studies

 Identifies the vulnerabilities of the research findings and/or explains if methods used preserved ethical and accurate findings

 Suggests alternative methods to limit liabilities Guidelines for Submission: Your paper must be submitted as a 2- to 3-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and at least three sources cited in APA format.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value Data Meets “Proficient” criteria and

provides an exceptionally detailed comparison and contrast for the data collection of the two case studies

Compares and contrasts the data collection methods of two case studies

Compares and contrasts the data collection methods of two case studies but comparison lacks details

Does not compare or contrast the data collection methods of two case studies

30

Vulnerabilities Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides exceptional detail in identifying the vulnerabilities of the research findings and/or explaining if methods used preserved ethical and accurate findings

Identifies the vulnerabilities of the research findings and/or explains if methods used preserved ethical and accurate findings

Identifies the vulnerabilities of the research findings and/or explains if methods used preserved ethical and accurate findings but explanation lacks details

Does not identify the vulnerabilities nor explain if methods used preserved ethical and accurate findings of the research findings

30

Methods Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides exceptional details for suggesting alternative methods to limit liabilities

Suggests alternative methods to limit liabilities

Suggests alternative methods to limit liabilities but suggestions lack details

Does not suggest alternative methods to limit liabilities

30

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format.

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization.

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas.

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas.

10

Total 100%