Category: Research methods

Summarize and discuss the scientific method. How applicable is it to homeland security research? What kinds of topics does homeland security need to address? Choose one topic within homeland security to research. Choose from: Business security, criminal justice, emergency management, public health, transportation security, counterterrorism, cyber-crime, intelligence studies, and federal or local law enforcement. Describe its importance using facts from topical sources and interesting ideas from peer reviewed sources. List at least three research questions about homeland security that you could answer using the scientific method as described in this week’s readings. Try out both descriptive questions (WHAT or HOW) and explanatory questions (WHY or WHEN). See which you like better. Start with a very broad question. Consider how to make it more answerable. Propose a slightly narrower question. Consider what data could be used to answer it. Finally, list at least one very narrow explanatory question. In your replies to your classmates, discuss the feasibility of answering these questions using the scientific method. Using References three below: Comte, A. (1988). Introduction to positive philosophy (F. Ferre, trans.). Hackett Publishing Company (Original work published 1842). Dawes, G. W. (2023). Ancient and medieval empiricism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Dowding, K., & Miller, C. (2019). On prediction in political science. European Journal of Political Research, 58(3). The Forecasting Collaborative. (2023). Insights into the accuracy of social scientists forecasts of societal change. Natural Human Behavior, 7. Fraser, J. (2017). Theres no such thing as proof. Forbes. Friesen, B. (2017). What is epistemology? [Video]. Sage Research Methods. Gower, B. (1996). Scientific method: A historical and philosophical introduction. Routledge. Handy, R., & Kurtz, P. (1963, December). A current appraisal of the behavioral sciences: Chapter V: Political science. American Behavioral Scientist, 7, 5768. Hollis, M., & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understanding international relations. Clarendon Press. Hollis, S. (2024, March). Contingency, crises, and disasters: Broadening the research agenda. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31(1). Jacquette, D. (2002). Ontology. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Mertens, D. (2017). Introduction to the transformative paradigm [Video]. Sage Research Methods. Newton, J. (2006). The Sage dictionary of social research methods. Sage Publishing. Powner, L. C. (2014). Empirical research and writing: A political science students practical guide. CQ Press. Punch, K. (2016). Developing effective research proposals (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Ryan, G. (2018). Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse Researcher, 25(4). Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189213). Sage Publications. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow., D. (2002). Reading methods texts: How research methods texts construct political science. Political Research Quarterly, 55(2). Shermer, M., Hall, H., Pierrehumbert, R., Offit, P., & Shostak, S. (2016, November 1). These truths are not self-evident but theyve been firmly established over and over by scientific research. Scientific American. Small, M. J., Guvenc, U., & DeKay, M. L. (2014). When can scientific studies promote consensus among conflicting stakeholders? Risk Analysis, 34(11). Sousa-Poza, A., & Siangchokyoo, N. (2012, October). Research methodologies: A look at the underlying philosophical foundations of research [Presentation]. International Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Management, Virginia Beach, VA. Stanley, L. (2012). Rethinking the definition and role of ontology in political science. Politics, 32(2). Troy, J. (2021). The realist science of politics: The art of understanding political practice. European Journal of International Relations, 27(4). Williams, M., Wiggins, R., & Vogt, P. (2022). Starting with the basics: From research problem to variables. In M. Williams,R. Wiggins, & P. Vogt (Eds.). Beginning quantitative research. Sage Publications.

Directions

Submit Project 1 – Part II: Research Product Decision-Making Process. See Project 1 under Course Resources for complete project details and instructions.

For Part II, in a one page narrative explanation, include responses to the following questions:

How did you use the resources to find the information?

Did you need to go to more than one place to find all of the information needed?

How is information about construction products organized?

Was your research process effective? Efficient? Why or why not?

What will change in this process for the next time you conduct construction product research? Why?

What do you think are the difficulties for construction management professionals in choosing appropriate products for their projects?

How does this product research project give you an appreciation of the critical thinking process necessary in the selection of construction materials and methods?

Submit this assignment to the dropbox “Assignment 05: Project 1 Part II: Research Product Decision-Making Process.” This assignment is worth 50 points and will be graded according to the scoring guide below.

SCORING GUIDE (50 POINTS)

Rating Scale10-9Work meets or exceeds criterion at a high level of competence.8Work reflects an understanding of criterion with minor misunderstandings/misconceptions.7Criterion partially met, but one or more important concepts/skills are missing or flawed.6Work reflects an attempt to meet criterion, but significant misunderstandings/misconceptions are apparent.5-0Criterion not met or work is absent.

Criteria1.Detailed how the resources were used to find the information with sources cited.2.Detailed how information about construction products was organized, and if students research process was effective and efficient. Identified whether or not the student would change the process for the next construction product researched.3.Explained the difficulties for construction management professionals in choosing appropriate products for their projects.4.Detailed how this product research project gave student an appreciation of the critical thinking process necessary in the selection of construction materials and methods.5.Paper used APA style and format and met minimum required written pages with appropriate grammar and spelling.

Directions

Submit Project 1 – Part I: Construction Product Research Report. See Project 1 under Course Resources for complete project details and instructions.

For Part I, select a material from one of the following materials and/or systems of construction:

Construction Regulations

Loads and/or Load Resistance

Soils and Foundations

Wood Construction

Steel/Metal Construction

Concrete and Masonry

Research the product and prepare a written report of your findings. Assume the role of a construction manager, and provide a PowerPoint Presentation that includes elements of your paper, stating why the product should be considered for a particular project to the group of construction managers meeting with you (your classmates).

Deliverables

Part I: Construction Product Research Report – not to exceed five pages, includes the following elements:

Introductory explanation of how the product is used

The name and a brief definition of one specific product from the specified list

Description of the products properties

Description of why it might be selected for a construction project over a similar product

Identification of a manufacturer of the material

Information on where the product can be found

Description of how the product is used in a construction project

Variations of the product that might be available or alterations of the product that might be needed for specific purposes

Explanation of how the product is delivered to a construction site

Considerations in handling or storage of the product after it is delivered

Special installation requirements for the product

Can you please proofread each section and combined them together and in order per the rubric

What You Will Learn: In this Touchstone, you will use the critical thinking skills that you learned in this unit by finding a credible source. You will practice those skills by determining why the source you chose should be considered credible evidence and then reflecting on your process. The goal of this Touchstone is to help you get comfortable with locating and evaluating research. Why It Matters: Learning how to find credible sources and evaluate information is one of the most valuable skills you can develop. Whether you’re making a case at work, deciding how to vote, or researching a big personal decision, being able to spot reliable information and understand different perspectives gives you the power to think clearly and make informed choices. What You Will Hand In: A 12-page paper that describes your research process, reflects on your experience as a researcher, and includes a reference page with an APA-formatted citation for the credible source you found. Keys to Success: Use research strategies that demonstrate critical thinking. Choose a source that is credible, trustworthy, and reliable. Answer the reflection questions. Develop and submit your own original work. While AI tools can be helpful for brainstorming or organizing ideas, this assignment is meant to strengthen your own skills in research, reading, and critical thinking. Using AI to write your reflection or find and summarize sources takes away your opportunity to grow in these areas and can also lead to plagiarism flags. To stay within academic guidelines and get the most from this assignment, be sure all of your writing and analysis is your own. Instructions Step 1: Select and Evaluate One Credible Source Review the tutorial Finding a Topic That Is Meaningful for more help on how to find a topic. Locate one credible source that provides reliable, relevant information about your topic. Choose either: A scholarly source such as a peer-reviewed journal article, a book published by a university press, or research from a reputable organization. A credible popular source such as a feature article from a major newspaper, a report from a respected magazine, or a publication by a professional organization. Consider what kind of source fits best for the early stage of your research. You’ll need to use the same topic for Touchstones 1.1 and 1.2, but you can change your topic for your final paper. Step 2: Write a Reflection (150250 words) Your reflection should include 3-4 paragraphs: Topic Selection: How or why did you select this topic to research? Research Process & Decision Making: What search terms did you use? What platform did you use to find the article or source? Why did you select the article you did? What is the journal or other source where the article was published? How did you determine that this source is credible? Critical Thinking: What made this source stand out as credible or useful? How did reading this source challenge or reinforce what you already believed? What is one thing from the source you didnt fully understand at first, and how did you clarify it? Personal Learning & Application: What goals do you want to achieve in your writing and research? What did you learn from this experience about your own research habits? How has this process changed the way you think about finding credible information? What is one skill you used or developed in this assignment that you can apply in other courses or at work? Step 3: Create an APA Citation for Your Reference Create an APA-formatted reference for the article you read. Step 4: Submit Your Source, Reflection, and Citation Review the rubric to confirm that you have met all the requirements of the touchstone. Once you are happy with it, you can submit it as a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) file. Your submission must include your name, the name of the course, the date, and the title of your assignment.

A. Build a foundation for your research by doing the following:

1. Describe your proposal.

Note: You can select a topic from the attached Scenarios and Topics List supporting document or use a topic based on your own professional interests. You may use the attached Proposal Preparation Template to complete and submit Task 2. The similarity report for this task will be higher due to matches to the template. However, only non-template text will be considered when evaluating submission originality.

2. Explain your plan for developing and executing a research strategy by doing the following:

a. Explain 24 criteria that should be considered when finding credible and relevant sources to support this topic.

b. Explain 24 reasons why the information or argument in a source would not be reliable.

c. Identify 24 specific databases, publications, or sites that are likely to yield credible and relevant sources for this topic.

d. Identify 24 search terms or phrases that are likely to yield appropriate sources for this topic.

3. List 46 credible and relevant sources found during the research process, identifying the author, date, title, and source location, as available.

a. Explain why the author, organization, or publication is credible for each of the sources from part A3.

b. Explain the relevance of each of the sources from part A3 to your chosen topic.

4. List two additional sources found during the research process that are not credible, relevant, or useful, identifying the author, date, title, and source location, as available.

a. Explain why each source from part A4 is not credible, relevant, or useful for your topic.

Note: Each source used in A3 and A4 must be easily retrievable with the information provided to verify its existence and credibility.

B. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

C. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

Note to Writer: Choose any subject you are most comfortable with. If no preference, then lean towards IT (Information Technology). I’ve listed 3 pages single spacing but in reality, it’s just putting a few sentences into boxes in the template word docx.

. Explain four levels of measurement, that is nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio variables (All details are in the textbook). Nominal variables/measures are Ordinal variables are Interval variables are Ratio variables are Q2. Create at least one example (or more) for each level of measurement, and be as detailed as you can. Be sure to identify each variable and its attributes (see Chapter 2 for definitions of variables and attributes).

Perfect here is a clean, professional instruction list you can send to your editor for Chapter 3 (Methods) specifically framed as: Edit because text reads like ChatGPT / AI-generated writing Dissertation-appropriate guidance Clear editing expectations (NOT rewriting your methodology) Instructions for Editor Chapter 3 Revisions (Methods) Document: Chapter 3 Methods use this Overall Editing Goal Please edit Chapter 3 to ensure the text reads as natural academic writing authored by a doctoral researcher, not AI-generated prose. The methodology and structure are correct and should not be conceptually changed. Edits should focus on improving human academic voice, flow, and disciplinary tone. 1. Remove AI-Style Writing Patterns (PRIMARY TASK) Several sections read overly uniform and formulaic, which gives the appearance of AI-generated text. Please revise to: Reduce repetitive sentence structure. Vary sentence openings and cadence. Replace overly generalized phrasing with precise academic language. Introduce natural scholarly transitions. Common patterns to fix: Repeated structure: This study employs… This approach allows… These measures assess… Rewrite with more natural variation while preserving meaning. 2. Increase Methodological Voice (Human Author Presence) The chapter should sound like a researcher explaining methodological decisions, not a technical manual. Please add subtle authorial framing where appropriate: Clarify reasoning behind choices. Emphasize justification language: was selected because… was appropriate given… aligns with prior literature… Avoid passive procedural tone when possible. 3. Improve Flow Between Sections Currently, sections feel modular or segmented (a common AI artifact). Add transition sentences between: Research Design Study Area Study Area Data Sources Variables Model Specification Model Specification Diagnostics Each section should clearly answer: Why is the next methodological step necessary? 4. Strengthen Methodological Justification (Defense Readiness) Without changing content, enhance explanations for: Use of ZCTAs instead of municipalities. Mixed-effects modeling choice. Random intercept specification. AR(1) covariance structure. Use of lagged variables. Spatial spillover construction via contiguity. Goal: reviewer immediately understands methodological logic. 5. Reduce Mechanical or Textbook Language Replace overly explanatory textbook phrasing with concise doctoral-level writing. Examples to refine: Definitions that sound instructional. Over-explaining basic statistical concepts. Formula presentation text that reads instructional rather than analytical. Assume reader = dissertation committee familiar with methods. 6. Improve Equation Presentation Ensure the model equation section: Appears once clearly formatted. Removes duplicated equation rendering artifacts. Uses consistent notation formatting. Maintain academic mathematical presentation style. 7. Tighten Redundant Explanations Condense repeated explanations of: Spatial spillovers. Panel structure. ZIP Year design. Control variable purpose. Keep explanation once, clearly and efficiently. 8. Enhance Academic Tone Consistency Ensure tone matches dissertation Methods conventions: Objective Precise Procedural but analytical Confident but not promotional Avoid: conversational phrasing explanatory teaching tone repetitive emphasis wording. 9. Terminology Consistency Check Verify consistent use of terms: ZIP code vs ZCTA (use ZCTA formally after first definition) Act 60 density spatial spillover temporal spillover panel model mixed-effects regression 10. Maintain Structure Do NOT Reorganize Important instruction: Keep section numbering (3.13.10). Do not remove methodological detail. Do not change statistical design or variables. Edits should improve clarity and voice only. 11. Optional Enhancement (If Time Allows) Lightly improve readability by: Breaking very dense paragraphs. Adding subtle signposting phrases: To operationalize this… Accordingly… Building on this framework… Expected Outcome After Editing Chapter 3 should read as: Authored by a doctoral researcher. Methodologically confident. Natural academic prose. Defense-ready methods chapter. Clearly human-written while preserving technical accuracy.

Perfect here is a clean, professional instruction list you can send to your editor for Chapter 3 (Methods) specifically framed as: Edit because text reads like ChatGPT / AI-generated writing Dissertation-appropriate guidance Clear editing expectations (NOT rewriting your methodology) Instructions for Editor Chapter 3 Revisions (Methods) Document: Chapter 3 Methods use this Overall Editing Goal Please edit Chapter 3 to ensure the text reads as natural academic writing authored by a doctoral researcher, not AI-generated prose. The methodology and structure are correct and should not be conceptually changed. Edits should focus on improving human academic voice, flow, and disciplinary tone. 1. Remove AI-Style Writing Patterns (PRIMARY TASK) Several sections read overly uniform and formulaic, which gives the appearance of AI-generated text. Please revise to: Reduce repetitive sentence structure. Vary sentence openings and cadence. Replace overly generalized phrasing with precise academic language. Introduce natural scholarly transitions. Common patterns to fix: Repeated structure: This study employs… This approach allows… These measures assess… Rewrite with more natural variation while preserving meaning. 2. Increase Methodological Voice (Human Author Presence) The chapter should sound like a researcher explaining methodological decisions, not a technical manual. Please add subtle authorial framing where appropriate: Clarify reasoning behind choices. Emphasize justification language: was selected because… was appropriate given… aligns with prior literature… Avoid passive procedural tone when possible. 3. Improve Flow Between Sections Currently, sections feel modular or segmented (a common AI artifact). Add transition sentences between: Research Design Study Area Study Area Data Sources Variables Model Specification Model Specification Diagnostics Each section should clearly answer: Why is the next methodological step necessary? 4. Strengthen Methodological Justification (Defense Readiness) Without changing content, enhance explanations for: Use of ZCTAs instead of municipalities. Mixed-effects modeling choice. Random intercept specification. AR(1) covariance structure. Use of lagged variables. Spatial spillover construction via contiguity. Goal: reviewer immediately understands methodological logic. 5. Reduce Mechanical or Textbook Language Replace overly explanatory textbook phrasing with concise doctoral-level writing. Examples to refine: Definitions that sound instructional. Over-explaining basic statistical concepts. Formula presentation text that reads instructional rather than analytical. Assume reader = dissertation committee familiar with methods. 6. Improve Equation Presentation Ensure the model equation section: Appears once clearly formatted. Removes duplicated equation rendering artifacts. Uses consistent notation formatting. Maintain academic mathematical presentation style. 7. Tighten Redundant Explanations Condense repeated explanations of: Spatial spillovers. Panel structure. ZIP Year design. Control variable purpose. Keep explanation once, clearly and efficiently. 8. Enhance Academic Tone Consistency Ensure tone matches dissertation Methods conventions: Objective Precise Procedural but analytical Confident but not promotional Avoid: conversational phrasing explanatory teaching tone repetitive emphasis wording. 9. Terminology Consistency Check Verify consistent use of terms: ZIP code vs ZCTA (use ZCTA formally after first definition) Act 60 density spatial spillover temporal spillover panel model mixed-effects regression 10. Maintain Structure Do NOT Reorganize Important instruction: Keep section numbering (3.13.10). Do not remove methodological detail. Do not change statistical design or variables. Edits should improve clarity and voice only. 11. Optional Enhancement (If Time Allows) Lightly improve readability by: Breaking very dense paragraphs. Adding subtle signposting phrases: To operationalize this… Accordingly… Building on this framework… Expected Outcome After Editing Chapter 3 should read as: Authored by a doctoral researcher. Methodologically confident. Natural academic prose. Defense-ready methods chapter. Clearly human-written while preserving technical accuracy.

write a research proposal on the topic :The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools on Academic Performance of Senior High School and University Students in Ghana.