Note Requirements Below Evaluation should only include –&nbsp

Note: Requirements Below Evaluation should only include –  ALL sections 1-5 –  1 section from 6-10 (based on design in your article), and-  1 section from 11-12 (based on analysis in your article).SOCIOLOGY 331RESEARCH METHODSHW1: EVALUATION OF A PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE (25 points):Due no later than 11:55p ET on Sunday of Week 3 – submit usinglink in Sakai AND to turnitin.comPURPOSE: The purpose of exercise is to conduct a detailed,critical evaluation of the research design, methods and analysis of a studywritten up and published in a peer-reviewed journal.  Students will beusing Wolfer’s (2007) critical questions for evaluating written research toevaluate an article; these questions are provided below.  Tips on Findinga Peer Reviewed Journal Article may be found under Lessons>CourseMaterials>Resources.Article selectiontips:select an articlefrom a peer-reviewed Sociology Journalthe article shouldclearly be written about a study the author conducteda meta-analysis of multiple studies is not appropriate for thisassignmentsecondary data analysis of an existing national data set is OK,but be sure you understand what you are readingRequirements:Your evaluation should include –  ALLsections 1-5, –  1section from 6-10 (based on design in your article), and –  1section from 11-12 (based on analysis in your article).This assignment does NOT have to be written in essayformat.  You may organize it by section/chapter number, question numberwith question text, and then your answer.APA formatting should be used throughout.  Any time yourparaphrase or directly quote a source (such as your article), in-text citationsshould be used.  A full APA-formatted reference should be included at thebeginning or end of assignment.  See Course Materials>Resources for APATips.1.Title (3 pts)1. Is the title specific enough to differentiate it from otherrelated topics?2. Do subtitles, if present, provide important informationregarding the research?3. Are the main variables expressed in the title?4. Are the terms in the title easily understood by most people?5. Does the title avoid any reference to the study’s results?6. Overall, is this a good title?  Why or why not?2. EthicalEvaluation (2.5 pts)7. Are the steps the researcher took to honor ethical responsibilitiesto individuals clear?  Are they appropriate? Are they enough?8. If there were any findings (based on your readings of tables orother means of data presentation) that refuted the researcher’s hypothesis, didhe address these findings?9. If any results were unexpected, did the researcher discuss anyexplanations for the unexpected effects?10.Did the researcheradequately acknowledge the limitations of the research?11.Overall, has theresearcher adequately fulfilled his ethical obligations?3. Literature Review(4 pts)12.Is the materialpresented in the literature review relevant to your research interests?13.Is the specialproblem area identified in the first paragraph or two of the report?14.Does the researcherestablish the importance of the research problem?15.Has the researcherbeen appropriately selective in deciding what studies to include in theliterature review?16.Is the researchcited recent?17.Is the literaturereview critical?18.Is the researcherclear as to what is research, theory and opinion?19.Overall, do you thinkthis is an adequate literature review?  Why or why not?4.Operationalization and Measurement (5.5 pts)20.Is theconceptualization suitably specific?21.Are the definitionsproductive?22.How many differentdimensions are being measured at once?23.Are the variousdimensions sufficient?24.Are the actualquestions (or a sample of them) provided?25.Is the responseformat clear, or, when not already clear, does the researcher provideinformation on the response format?  Is there any information on restrictionsin respondents’ responses?26.If the researcheris using a published instrument, does he or she cite sources where additionalinformation can be found?27.Has the researcheravoided overstating the preciseness of the measurement?28.Does the researcherprovide some measure of reliability?  What type of reliability isestablished?  Do the measures indicate adequate reliability for yourpurposes?29.Does the researchprovide some measure of validity?  What measures of validity are presentedand are they adequate for your purposes?30.Overall, is themeasurement appropriate and adequate given the research purpose?5. Sample Strategy(3 pts)31.Does the researchgoal lend itself to generalization? Is the broad sampling method appropriatefor the research goal?32.Does the researcherprovide information regarding the study population?  The sample?33.Is the exactsampling method (e.g. simple random, purposive) specified?  Remember, itis not sufficient for a researcher to simply state that a sample was selected‘randomly.’34.Is the sample sizesufficient, given the research goals, the degree of accuracy the researcherdesires, and the nature of the population studied?  Given the nature ofthe research, is the sample size sufficient?35.If the researcheruses a probability sample, does he or she generalize the findings to theappropriate population?  If the researcher uses a non-probability sample,does he or she refrain from generalizing to a wider population?36.Overall, is thesampling appropriate?Your evaluationshould include ONE of the following sections (6-10) (4 pts):6. Experiments37.Can you identify atreatment variable that indicates that an experiment is the method ofobservation?38.How many groupswere studied?1. If there were two or more groups, did the researcher use randomassignments2. If the researcher did not use random assignment, did theresearcher present evidence that the groups were similar regarding keyvariables at the beginning of the study?39.Is the treatmentand any pre- or posttests described in sufficient detail that facilitatesreplication?40.Is deceptionnecessary?1. If so, is the deception within the parameters of the researchtopic?2. Have the participants been debriefed so they know the true natureof the study (and can enact their right to privacy by declining to participateafter the fact?)41.Based on thedescription of treatment and experimental procedure, do you see any red flagsregarding ethical issues?42.Did the researcheruse assistants?1. If so, did the researcher state that they were properly trained?2. If so, did the researcher specify any special measures to makesure that the assistants administered the treatment properly?43.Is the settingnatural or artificial (in a laboratory)?1. If it’s in a laboratory, does the researcher recognize thatexternal validity may be weak?2. If it’s in a natural setting, does the researcher recognize thatthere may be some differences in the environments of the various groups?3. Overall, do you think the experimental design is sound?7. Survey44.Is the researchtopic worded appropriately for survey research?45.Did the researcherspecifically state which type of survey method was used?46.Do the surveyquestions adequately address the topic?47.Are the surveyquestions constructed correctly?48.Did the researcherprovide any information about the response rate? Did the researcher provide anyinformation about follow-up mailings or other ways of increasing response rate?What are the implications of the response rate?49.Did the researcherexplain how he or she guaranteed anonymity or confidentiality?50.Overall, is thesurvey methodology effective and appropriate?8. Field Research51.Does the researchdescribe the selected site? Does the research provide some explanation as tohow that site was chosen?52.Did the researchersexplain how they addressed gatekeepers?53.Did the researcheraddress how he developed field relations?  If conflict arose, did theresearcher make any comment about how personal or research problems in thefield were addressed?54.Did the researcheradequately protect the identity of the respondents? Did the researcher addressother ethical considerations?55.Did the researcherdescribe, at least in passing, his method of note taking?  Does the methodseem adequate?56.In the analysis,does the researcher present general patterns of behavior and support thosepatterns with data such as quoted comments? Does the researcher use quotesselectively?57.Does the researchermake any mention of issues of validity and/or reliability?58.Overall, is theresearch adequate?9. UnobtrusiveMeasures59.What is theresearcher’s research purpose or hypothesis?  Is content analysis anappropriate method of observation?60.What are theresearcher’s units of analysis?  What are the units of observation (ifthey are different than the units of analysis)?61.Is the researcherstudying a population or a sample of these units?  If the researcher isstudying a sample, is it a probability sample?  If so, was it correctlydrawn?  If the researcher is not studying a population or a probabilitysample, is he or she appropriately cautious about the nature of anyconclusions?62.Does the researcheridentify the characteristics and level of content being analyzed?  Doesthe researcher explain how material is coded, especially for issues of latentcontent?63.Did the researcherdo any type of pretest with other coders to test for reliability?  Wherethey any tests for validity?64.Are the conclusionsconsistent with the units of analysis?65.Are the resultsclearly presented and the conclusions appropriate?66.Generally, is themethod of observation done appropriately?10. EvaluationResearch67.What is the purposeof the evaluation presented?68.Is the nature ofthe program described in detail?69.Are the goalspresented and can the goals that the author presents be evaluated?70.What type ofobservation method is used? Is it appropriate, given the real-life restrictionsof evaluation research?71.Is a control groupused? If so, how has the researcher tried to show that it is equivalent to theexperimental group?  If not, does the researcher adequately explain itsomission?72.How are peopleselected for program participation? Does this affect the interpretation offindings, and, if so, does the researcher discuss this?73.Are the resultsclearly explained?74.How does thearticle address the other areas of evaluation discussed in earlier chapters?Your evaluationshould include ONE of the following sections (3 pts):11. QualitativeAnalysis75.Is the resultssection a cohesive essay?76.Does the researcherconnect the results to any general research questions or goals?77.Is the perspectiveof the results presentation appropriate? Does it match the research technique?78.Has the writerpresented enough examples to support the conclusions?  Do the examplesmake the readers ‘believe’ the researcher’s points?79.Do you have reasonto believe that the presence of the researcher influenced the actions orstatements of other group members? If this is possible, has the researcheraddressed it in the research?80.Especially in fieldresearch (although this may be an issue to a lesser degree in other forms ofqualitative data gathering), does the researcher discuss how he or sheinteracted with subjects in the field, what problems arose, and how theresearcher addressed them?12. QuantitativeAnalysis81.Is the resultssection a cohesive essay with the important findings highlighted?82.In the essay, doesthe researcher tie the results to the research hypotheses or goals stated inthe introduction?83.If there are tablesor graphs, are they clearly presented?84.Does the researcherpresent any descriptive statistics?85.Are the statisticsappropriate for the level of measurement?86.Are the conclusionsthe researcher draws appropriate for the statistical information?87.In the discussionsection, does the researcher briefly summarize the research purposes,methodologies, and key findings (in a non-statistical manner)?88.Does the researcheracknowledge any methodological or statistical weaknesses?89.Are theimplications of the research or suggestions for future research discussed?90.Overall, is theresults section adequate?91.Overall, is thediscussion section adequate?

You can hire someone to answer this question! Yes, has paper writers dedicated to completing research and summaries, critical thinking tasks, essays, coursework, and other homework tasks. It's fast and safe.