West Virginia University Saving Amina Article Evaluation Paper Hello The HW is two parts as following: (each part has two assignments: one is short and on

West Virginia University Saving Amina Article Evaluation Paper Hello

The HW is two parts as following: (each part has two assignments: one is short and one longer)

**First part: Writing to Enter A Conversation

(1) Writing Exercise 1:

Fill out the attached document. This will start to get you thinking about what you will write about in this course. You must decide now, as all of the assignments in the class will pursue the same topic. Before you start this exercise, make sure that you have decided on what you plan to study this semester.

Attachment name(102 writing assignment 1)

(2)Final For Now Annotated Bibliography:

Submit your final for now draft of the annotated bibliography here.

Materials:

Annotated Bibliography Assignment Sheet:

Attachment name(102 Annotated Bibliography Assignment Sheet)

**Second part: Writing to Evaluate

(1) Writing Exercise 2

Use the sample evaluation to complete the peer review questions.

Materials:

Sample Evaluation:

Attachment name(Sample Evaluation 2)

Peer review Questions:

After reading the sample evaluation, use these questions to complete writing assignment 2.

Attachment name(102 Evaluation peer review)

(2) Source Evaluation Final For Now

Turn in the draft of your source evaluation here.

Materials:

Evaluation Questions:

Answer these questions in your own writing. DO NOT just answer the questions in order. Instead, use these questions as a starting point.

Attachment name(102 Evaluation Questions)

Evaluation Slides:

Attachment name(102 evaluation 1)

Thank you Annotated Bibliography Assignment Sheet
Annotated bibliographies can help you organize your research, consider how your sources work
together or conflict with each other, and evaluate the usefulness and credibility of your sources.
Annotated bibliographies are a common academic genre you’ll probably be expected to use
throughout your academic career. An annotated bibliography entry has two parts: A
bibliographic citation of a source (like you would have in a works cited) and an annotation that
summarizes and/or evaluates the source.
Purpose: In this unit, you will practice scholarly research, learn more about your research topic
and the current scholarship surrounding it, and gather and evaluate sources. An effective
annotated bibliography will help you organize, summarize, and evaluate sources for easy access
later.
Audience: This assignment should be directed at your scholarly peers, and you may assume that
they have only a casual familiarity with your topic or issue.
Conventions: Your annotated bibliography should include the sources you find most relevant to
your research question. Ideally, these will be sources you cite in your final research essay.
An annotated bibliography entry has two main parts:
1. An MLA citation. Your citations should be organized in alphabetical order by
author and followed immediately by an annotation.
2. An annotation for each source cited. Annotations should:
a. Describe: What type of source is it (book, journal article, website, etc.)?
Who wrote and published it? Is it credible? How do you know? Is it
biased? How? How do you know? Who is the intended audience?
b. Summarize: What is the author’s main argument? What is their purpose?
What are their methods? What framework are they approaching the topic
from (theoretical, disciplinary, etc.)?
c. Evaluate: How does the source relate to your research question? Why is
the source interesting or useful? What did it contribute to your
understanding of the topic? How does it align with other sources you’ve
cited? (Don’t include sources that aren’t interesting or don’t contribute to
your understanding in some way.)
Details:
• At this point, your annotated bibliography needs to include a solid start to investigating
research in your area. What do you think a good number of sources are to show detailed
research into a specific area?
• All of the sources in your annotated bibliography should be scholarly. Do not use a
website as a source!
• Sources should relate to your research question
•
•
•
•
Your essay and citations should be formatted correctly according to MLA or another
style of your choice
Sources in alphabetical order according to author
Annotations should be concise, thoughtful, and descriptive
You should utilize correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling throughout
Develop a list of key terms for the topic you have chosen.
Choose one general database (like EbscoHost), and one non scholarly search engine (like
Google).
1. Search your key terms in each database and compare your results. How does the number,
quality, and relevance of the sources you found in each database compare? Which
database gave you the best results? Which search term gave you the best results?
Choose one article from any of the databases to examine further. Skim over it and answer as
many of the questions below as you can.
Authority
•
What do you know (or can you find out) about the place the article was published?
•
What are the author’s credentials? Do these identify the author as an authority in the
field? What is the author’s institutional affiliation? What biases might they have?
Accuracy
•
•
•
Is the information reliable and free from errors?
Is a bibliography included to verify the information? Are the sources in the bibliography
reliable? How do you know?
If primary research is included, are the methods and limitations clearly explained?
Currency
•
Was the source written within the last ten years? Are most of the sources cited from the
last ten years?
•
Is this truly the latest information on the topic?
Works Cited:
Coates, Sarah. “What Makes a Source Credible.” Finding Credible Sources, 2011,
sites.google.com/site/evaluatingsourcecredibility/for-students/what-makes-a-sourcecredible.
Peer Review Questions
Here are some questions to consider for the sample:
1. Does the author summarize the article effectively?
2. What is the author’s thesis?
3. Does the author provide a compelling argument to answer their thesis? Is the argument
successful, or does the thesis need to be written so that is it more broad or narrow?
4. With what criteria did the author analyze the source? Make a list of what the author chose
to analyze (Credibility, rhetorical strategies, bias, etc.).
5. Is each paragraph talking about only 1 of these criteria? How is the paper organized? Do
you have any recommendations for changes that could be made in relation to
organization?
6. For each of the criteria you listed above, answer: Was the argument compelling? Does
anything need to be added? Note any strong points the author makes for these criteria you
listed above. Note any points that are weaker, and could be expanded on.
7. What is missing from the evaluation that you still need to know more about? Is there
anything we could add?
8. Note two strong points this paper has in general, and 1 thing that the author could work
on.
Evaluation Questions
Here are some questions to consider in writing your own paper. You should address all of these
questions, but you are not limited to them. You should spend at least 1-2 paragraphs addressing
#6.
1. How do you know the source is scholarly and credible?
2. What makes the you think you can trust what the author is saying? What are the author’s
background, education, area of expertise?
3. Where was the article published? What does that tell you?
4. What is the audience for this article? What are the context and purpose of the text?
5. What is the main idea of the article? Is the thesis clear?
6. How does the author use logos, pathos, and ethos to communicate their point? Were you
convinced? Why or why not?
7. Was the article well written? Why or why not?
Sample Evaluation 2
In the article “Management-Level Officers’ Experience with the Ferguson Effect” Justin Nix and
Scott Wolfe analyzed the Ferguson Effect through the scientific method. Through peer-reviewed
sources, a lack of bias, and an experienced publisher; this article proves its reliability. For anyone who is
unsure of this topic, the Ferguson effect originated in 2014 when Michael Brown was fatally shot by a
white police officer in Ferguson Missouri. This was the final straw as this was another incident of a white
police officer shooting an unarmed black male. This quickly led to riots, protests, and the lack of
cooperation towards police officers across the country. Ever since then, police have been under intense
scrutiny resulting in many appearances on social media committing improper force to detain someone.
Following that, there has been a lot of controversy with a lack of police enforcement policies and rise in
crime in certain parts of this country. Through statistical evidence, no one can say that is untrue. Instead
of siding with that idea, the team of Nix and Wolfe try to find an answer to why this is happening.
Indicated through their research, this article did have a group of people they wanted to target.
Although generalized so that anyone curious can read along, this article was pointed in the direction of
two groups; Police officers and the public effected by this issue. By doing this, they covered, “The gap
between what citizens expect (i.e. procedural fairness) and what the police feel is key (i.e. performance)
is important because such inaccuracies may cause the police to favor aggressive, order-maintenance
crime control strategies over process-based strategies as a method for establishing community trust”
(Nix, Management 18). In doing so, they were planned to make sense of the misguided claim of
legitimacy that could affect community evaluations of police hindering future police enforcement. With
this idea, Nix and Wolfe had to point out that whether or not crime has increased post Ferguson, the
results of public scrutiny have caused law enforcement to physiologically be affected leading to a change
in behavior.
Being a scientific research study, this article had a strong sense of logos to not only add through
their research techniques to ensure logical results, but to also put numbers behind the issue at hand
through statistics. From the results of their study, this article used a strong sense of logic to help reason
their article by providing a backed up explanation of why this is occurring. I plan to use some of their
points such as proving this only relates to certain areas in the country along with the effects that law
enforcement are given from citizens. By using these points, I will be able to help flip the story of the
Ferguson Effect to better show the poor position that law enforcement is stuck in.
The team of Nix and Wolfe, being both from highly appraised schools that study Criminal Justice,
show strong signs that this is not their first time dealing with such an issue. In fact, Nix studies
specifically on officer-related shootings, legitimacy, and procedural justice. Just to really enforce their
credibility, Scott Wolfe does the same thing but directs his attention at law enforcement and has written
several other articles relating to the Ferguson Effect such as “Can you build a better cop” and “The
Ferguson Effect is real but fixable”. With these two experts working together, an article on the Ferguson
Effect already sounds convincing.
To completely establish the credibility of Justin Nix, I have to reinstate the fact that Nix is on
more than half of my sources as a credible author. From articles such as the “war on cops and a bird’s
eye view he is no rookie to the Ferguson Effect. Fresh out of school with a Criminology degree right
before the Ferguson incident, Justin Nix has had the last 5 years to conduct research, prove ideas such
as white vs black police effects to be true, and even have significant exposure on the wall street journal
along with the Washington post. From his credentials, Nix extremely credible as he is the lead publicist
on this growing issue.
Although the thesis could be stronger, it truly reflects their interest in the topic without
choosing a side. By stating, “A growing body of evidence suggests that regardless of whether crime has
meaningfully increased post-Ferguson, officers have indeed been psychologically affected by public
scrutiny in the wake of the incident (and related incidents over the past two years)” (Nix, Management
17). Through saying this, they also plan to prove how law enforcement has been physiologically affected
along with the results of such an issue. In doing so, the team will expose the cause and affect between
public cooperation and police legitimacy.
Due to the effects of the scientific method, there shows little bias in it as science has no time to
reason with bias, it is all based on statistics corelating to results. Although their results and argument are
not bias, there is the chance for bias due to white authors relating to a “black” subject. Along with this,
more than 90% of the officers in the study were white males resulting to in a possible bias during
research. After reading the professionalism of their article and their pasts in this field, the chances of
those biases are slim to none.
Another indication that can prove this articles reliability is the fact that Emerald publishing does
double peer reviews compared to most publishing companies that only do this once. To ensure this,
they also have important partnerships such as the Academy of Management, the International
Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), the American Library Association (ALA). As if that wasn’t
enough, they also include dates on when this was published, author affiliation, research methods used,
followed by a lengthy bibliography.
Using the scientific method, this study followed the correct procedure to prevent an inaccurate
independent variable. Following the three hypotheses of, “Respondents who perceive greater audience
legitimacy will be less sensitive to the Ferguson effect. Respondents who possess greater self-legitimacy
will be less sensitive to the Ferguson effect. Respondents who have greater attachment to their peers
will be less sensitive to the Ferguson effect (Nix, Management 13), the team asked the question if the
Ferguson Effect has caused law enforcement to be less proactive in stopping crime and if policing had
become less enjoyable. Along with this, the study strived to find if perceived audience legitimacy, selflegitimacy, and/or peer attachment had an effect on officers’ sensitivity to the effect. In conclusion to
their results, “In total, 39 participants reported (i.e. responded “agree” or “strongly agree”) that the
Ferguson-related controversy had negatively impacted the way they do their job, 35 indicated that it is
now more difficult to be motivated at work, and 68 believed policing has become less enjoyable” (Nix,
Management 26) From these findings, it is clear that the publics legitimacy toward law enforcement is
making a significant impact on their job.
This article fits many of the important criterion needed to prove its case. By being within a fiveyear window of the issue, it fit the currency object showing its relativity to this case. Although it could
have been published closer to when this issue arose in 2015, you have to give time for proper research
along with allowing time for it to be published.
The accuracy of this case stands tall as it has been used as a source in articles that came after its
release. Also, just from reading other sources relating to this topic, it also uses accurate statistics on
information that was out before the publication of this article. The only thing that cannot be proven to
be accurate is the statistics gathered from their case study. Even though the whole study was explained,
there’s no way to prove the information they got was neither correct nor reliable as there weren’t more
trials of the study done in different parts of the country.
One can prove the objectivity of their study strictly from the overview of the research
completed. There are no curve balls here. Even if you cannot prove their results, one can at least see the
objective that was being followed along with understanding why the results came out the way they did.
From the explained variables that were changed, to the control group, and even trying to prove their
hypothesis wrong; the authors did follow objectivity with great value.
Work Cited
Nix, Justin; Wolfe, Scott. “Management-level officers experiences with the Ferguson
Effect”. Proquest, Vol. 41 Iss. 2, (2018): 262-275, Emerald Publishing, 2018

Purchase answer to see full
attachment