1.  Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper in
which you examine and evaluate the American criminal court system. Address the
following in your paper:

– Describe a court and its purpose.

– Define the dual court system.

– Describe the role that early legal codes, the common law, and precedent played in the development of courts.

– Identify the role of courts in criminal justice today.

2.  Write a 1,000-word paper in which you evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of plea bargaining. Address the following in your paper:

-Define plea-bargaining.

-Distinguish between charge bargaining and sentence bargaining.

-Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of plea bargaining (cont.).

– Describe how plea bargaining reflects or thwarts the crime control and due process models of
criminal justice.

3.  Research
the Internet and find a celebrated criminal prosecution case to analyze,
such as a criminal case that received media attention. This case must have
proceeded to trial; it cannot have been plea bargained or dismissed before the
Trial phase.

Write a
1,050- to 1,400-word paper in which you address the following questions:

Summarize the criminal procedures that occurred
in this case, from arrest through appeal, if applicable.

What was the crime the
defendant was alleged to have committed? What are the elements of that crime?
Is there sufficient evidence to believe the defendant guilty of this crime
beyond a reasonable doubt? Explain.

Identify the legal defenses
used in this case. Explain what the defense entails and if it is viable.

Based on the evidence, should,
or did, the defense apply to either exonerate the defendant or reduce his
sentence?

Students are expected to engage with the unit material and each other in this task. Specifically, you will:

The
posts will be improved if they are illustrated with a variety of
communication media (e.g. written text, links to further information,
photographs, diagrams, audio, gifs, videos etc.).

You are to write five (5) posts (300 words [+/- 10%] for each post) on the following topics:

1)

You are required to use APA referencing in your assignments. Firstly,

briefly discuss the importance of appropriate research and referencing

(acknowledging sources/information). Then find three sources that you

can use in your first task, the essay: 1) a (credible) website; 2) a

journal article; and 3) a book (hard copy or online). Once you have

found these sources, create an APA reference list using these three

sources. Access the APA Reference Guide on the Moodle site to correctly format the reference list.

2)
Find an advertisement – for example, television, Facebook, newspaper –
and discuss the advertisement in terms of audience, message, noise and
context. You should have at least two information sources (references)
in your post. The inclusion of relevant journal articles is highly
recommended. Include a reference list of your sources at the end of your
post.

3) Find a business report online (either a written or
recorded report). Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this report.
Include the link to your report with your post. You should have at least
two information sources (references) in your post. The inclusion of
relevant journal articles is highly recommended. Include a reference
list of your sources at the end of your post.

4) Cenere, Gill,
Lawson, and Lewis (2015, p. 45) argue that: “The use of jargon or
language can reveal organisational culture.” Discuss three examples of
jargon that relate to your area of study. You should have at least two
information sources (references) in your post. The inclusion of relevant
journal articles is highly recommended. Include a reference list of
your sources at the end of your post.

5) Provide a review of
your learning in this unit (e.g. reflect on what have you learned; can
you see improvements; what would you like to improve upon; were there
any challenges; what did you like or dislike; what would you do
differently next time?).

FORMAT AND STRUCTURE

• Give your blog a title.
• Have
  a title for each blog post. There is no specific format for you to
  follow other. Use whatever media you feel best informs your post (may
  include images, hyperlinks to other sources; one very brief quotation of
  30 words or less; diagrams; maps; historical data, etc.).
• Use single line spacing in the written posts.
• Use
  third person when discussing information from the lessons, textbook or
  other sources. You can use first person when discussing personal
  experiences or your personal reflections.
• Reference in the posts any information taken from the weekly lessons, textbook or other sources.
• Include a reference list at the bottom of each post of sources you have used in that post including photo credits.

case Study 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson (Chapter 2)

Due Week 3 and worth 240 points

Read the case titled: “Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson” found in Chapter 2.

Write a four to six (3-5) page paper in which you:

Analyze the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.

Suggest two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.

Create a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.

Project five (5) years ahead and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process. Justify your answer.

Use at least four (4) quality (peer-reviewed) resources in this assignment.

Your assignment must:

Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.

Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

Assess organizational strategies that contribute to effective project management of human resources.

Use technology and information resources to research issues in managing human resource projects.

Write clearly and concisely about managing human resource projects using proper writing mechanics.

Points: 240	Case Study 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson (Chapter 2)
Criteria	Unacceptable Below 70% F	Fair 70-79% C	Proficient 80-89% B	Exemplary 90-100% A
1. Analyze the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.	Partially critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.	Satisfactorily critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.	Thoroughly critiqued the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.
2. Suggest two (2) recommendation to improve the prioritizing process. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.	Partially suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.	Satisfactorily suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.	Thoroughly suggested two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.
3. Create a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.	Partially created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.	Satisfactorily created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.	Thoroughly created a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.
4. Project five (5) years ahead and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process. Justify your answer. Weight: 25%	Did not submit or incompletely projected five (5) years ahead. Did not submit or incompletely speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.	Partially projected five (5) years ahead. Partially speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.	Satisfactorily projected five (5) years ahead. Satisfactorily speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.	Thoroughly projected five (5) years ahead. Thoroughly speculated whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process.
5. Four (4) References Weight: 5%	No references provided.	Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.	Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.	Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.
6. Clarity and writing mechanics Weight: 10%	More than 6 errors present	5-6 errors present	3-4 errors present	0-2 errors present

PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN ACTION Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson

One of the most difficult, yet most important, lessons we have learned at D. D. Williamson surrounds project prioritization. We took three years and two iterations of our prioritization process to finally settle on an approach that dramatically increased our success rate on critical projects (now called VIPs, or “Vision Impact Projects”).

Knowing that one of the keys to project management success is key management support, our first approach at prioritization was a process where our entire senior management team worked through a set of criteria and resource estimations to select a maximum of two pro- jects per senior management sponsor—16 projects in total. Additionally, we hired a continuous improvement manager to serve as both our project office and a key resource for project facilitation. This was a great move forward (the year before we had been attempting to monitor well over 60 continuous improvement projects of varying importance). Our success rate improved to over 60 percent of projects finishing close to the expected dates, financial investment, and results.

What was the problem? The projects that were not moving forward tended to be the most critical—the heavy-investment “game changing” projects. A review of our results the next year determined we left significant money in opportunity “on the table” with projects that were behind and over budget!

This diagnosis led us to seek an additional process change. While the criteria rating was sound, the num- ber of projects for a company our size was still too many to track robustly at a senior level and have re- sources to push for completion. Hence, we elevated a subset of projects to highest status—our “VIPs.” We simplified the criteria ratings—rating projects on the level of expected impact on corporate objectives, the cross-functional nature of the team, and the perceived likelihood that the project would encounter barriers which required senior level support to overcome.

The results? Much better success rates on the big projects, such as design and implementation of new equipment and expansion plans into new markets. But why?

The Global Operating Team (GOT) now has laser focus on the five VIPs, reviewing the project plans progress and next steps with our continuous improvement manager in every weekly meeting. If a project is going off plan, we see it quickly and can move to real- locate resources, provide negotiation help, or change priorities within and outside the organization to man- age it back on track. Certainly, the unanticipated barriers still occur, but we can put the strength of the entire team toward removing them as soon as they happen.

A couple of fun side benefits—it is now a development opportunity for project managers to take on a VIP. With only four to six projects on the docket, they come with tremendous senior management interaction and focus. Additionally, we have moved our prioritization process into our functional groups, using matrices with criteria and resource estimations to prioritize customer and R&D projects with our sales, marketing, and science and innovation teams, as well as IT projects throughout the company. The prioritization process has become a foundation of our cross-functional success!

Following are excerpts from the spreadsheet D. D. Williamson used to select and prioritize our VIP projects last year. Exhibit 2.15 shows the five criteria used to prioritize the projects. Exhibit 2.16 shows how associate time when assigned to a project is not avail- able for other projects. Projects can also be limited by the amount of funds. Finally, Exhibit 2.17 defines terms used in project selection.

Note: the instructions Below

Requirements:

Your evaluation should 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
331

RESEARCH METHODS

HW1:
EVALUATION OF A PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE (25 points):

Due
no later than 11:55p ET on Sunday of Week 3 – submit using link in Sakai AND to
turnitin.com

PURPOSE: The purpose of exercise is to conduct
a detailed, critical evaluation of
the research design, methods and analysis of a study written up and published
in a peer-reviewed journal.  Students
will be using Wolfer’s (2007) critical questions for evaluating written
research to evaluate an article; these questions are provided below.  Tips on Finding a Peer Reviewed Journal
Article may be found under Lessons>Course Materials>Resources.

Article selection tips:

• select an
  article from a peer-reviewed Sociology Journal

• the
  article should clearly be written about a study the author conducted

  • a
    meta-analysis of multiple studies is not appropriate for this assignment

  • secondary
    data analysis of an existing national data set is OK, but be sure you
    understand what you are reading

    Requirements:

Your evaluation should
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).

This assignment does NOT
have to be written in essay format.  You
may organize it by section/chapter number, question number with question text,
and then your answer.

APA formatting should be
used throughout.  Any time your
paraphrase or directly quote a source (such as your article), in-text citations
should be used.  A full APA-formatted reference
should be included at the beginning or end of assignment.  See Course Materials>Resources for APA
Tips.

1.Title (3 pts)

1. Is the title specific enough to differentiate it from
   other related topics?

2. Do subtitles, if present, provide important information
   regarding 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. Ethical Evaluation
   (2.5 pts)

7. Are the steps the researcher took to honor ethical
   responsibilities to individuals clear? 
   Are they appropriate? Are they enough?

8. If there were any findings (based on your readings of
   tables or other means of data presentation) that refuted the researcher’s
   hypothesis, did he address these findings?

9. If any results were unexpected, did the researcher
   discuss any explanations for the unexpected effects?

10. Did
    the researcher adequately acknowledge the limitations of the research?

11. Overall,
    has the researcher adequately fulfilled his ethical obligations?

    3. Literature Review
    (4 pts)

12. Is
    the material presented in the literature review relevant to your research
    interests?

13. Is
    the special problem area identified in the first paragraph or two of the
    report?

14. Does
    the researcher establish the importance of the research problem?

15. Has
    the researcher been appropriately selective in deciding what studies to include
    in the literature review?

16. Is
    the research cited recent?

17. Is
    the literature review critical?

18. Is
    the researcher clear as to what is research, theory and opinion?

19. Overall,
    do you think this is an adequate literature review?  Why or why not?

    4. Operationalization
    and Measurement (5.5 pts)

20. Is
    the conceptualization suitably specific?

21. Are
    the definitions productive?

22. How
    many different dimensions are being measured at once?

23. Are
    the various dimensions sufficient?

24. Are
    the actual questions (or a sample of them) provided?

25. Is
    the response format clear, or, when not already clear, does the researcher
    provide information on the response format? 
    Is there any information on restrictions in respondents’ responses?

26. If
    the researcher is using a published instrument, does he or she cite sources
    where additional information can be found?

27. Has
    the researcher avoided overstating the preciseness of the measurement?

28. Does
    the researcher provide some measure of reliability?  What type of reliability is established?  Do the measures indicate adequate reliability
    for your purposes?

29. Does
    the research provide some measure of validity? 
    What measures of validity are presented and are they adequate for your
    purposes?

30. Overall,
    is the measurement appropriate and adequate given the research purpose?

    5. Sample Strategy (3
    pts)

31. Does
    the research goal lend itself to generalization? Is the broad sampling method
    appropriate for the research goal?

32. Does
    the researcher provide information regarding the study population?  The sample?

33. Is
    the exact sampling method (e.g. simple random, purposive) specified?  Remember, it is not sufficient for a
    researcher to simply state that a sample was selected ‘randomly.’

34. Is
    the sample size sufficient, given the research goals, the degree of accuracy
    the researcher desires, and the nature of the population studied?  Given the nature of the research, is the
    sample size sufficient?

35. If
    the researcher uses a probability sample, does he or she generalize the
    findings to the appropriate population? 
    If the researcher uses a non-probability sample, does he or she refrain
    from generalizing to a wider population?

36. Overall,
    is the sampling appropriate?

    Your evaluation
    should include ONE of the following sections (6-10) (4 pts):

    6. Experiments

37. Can
    you identify a treatment variable that indicates that an experiment is the
    method of observation?

38. How
    many groups were studied?

    1. If there were two or more groups, did the researcher
       use random assignments

    2. If the researcher did not use random assignment, did the researcher present evidence that
       the groups were similar regarding key variables at the beginning of the study?

39. Is
    the treatment and any pre- or posttests described in sufficient detail that
    facilitates replication?

40. Is
    deception necessary?

    1. If so, is the deception within the parameters of the
       research topic?

    2. Have the participants been debriefed so they know the
       true nature of the study (and can enact their right to privacy by declining to
       participate after the fact?)

41. Based
    on the description of treatment and experimental procedure, do you see any red
    flags regarding ethical issues?

42. Did
    the researcher use assistants?

    1. If so, did the researcher state that they were properly
       trained?

    2. If so, did the researcher specify any special measures
       to make sure that the assistants administered the treatment properly?

43. Is
    the setting natural or artificial (in a laboratory)?

    1. If it’s in a laboratory, does the researcher recognize that
       external validity may be weak?

    2. If it’s in a natural setting, does the researcher
       recognize that there may be some differences in the environments of the various
       groups?

    3. Overall, do you think the experimental design is sound?

       7. Survey

44. Is
    the research topic worded appropriately for survey research?

45. Did
    the researcher specifically state which type of survey method was used?

46. Do
    the survey questions adequately address the topic?

47. Are
    the survey questions constructed correctly?

48. Did
    the researcher provide any information about the response rate? Did the
    researcher provide any information about follow-up mailings or other ways of
    increasing response rate? What are the implications of the response rate?

49. Did
    the researcher explain how he or she guaranteed anonymity or confidentiality?

50. Overall,
    is the survey methodology effective and appropriate?

    8. Field Research

51. Does
    the research describe the selected site? Does the research provide some
    explanation as to how that site was chosen?

52. Did
    the researchers explain how they addressed gatekeepers?

53. Did
    the researcher address how he developed field relations?  If conflict arose, did the researcher make
    any comment about how personal or research problems in the field were
    addressed?

54. Did
    the researcher adequately protect the identity of the respondents? Did the
    researcher address other ethical considerations?

55. Did
    the researcher describe, at least in passing, his method of note taking?  Does the method seem adequate?

56. In
    the analysis, does the researcher present general patterns of behavior and
    support those patterns with data such as quoted comments? Does the researcher
    use quotes selectively?

57. Does
    the researcher make any mention of issues of validity and/or reliability?

58. Overall,
    is the research adequate?

    9. Unobtrusive Measures

59. What
    is the researcher’s research purpose or hypothesis?  Is content analysis an appropriate method of
    observation?

60. What
    are the researcher’s units of analysis? 
    What are the units of observation (if they are different than the units
    of analysis)?

61. Is
    the researcher studying a population or a sample of these units?  If the researcher is studying a sample, is it
    a probability sample?  If so, was it
    correctly drawn?  If the researcher is
    not studying a population or a probability sample, is he or she appropriately
    cautious about the nature of any conclusions?

62. Does
    the researcher identify the characteristics and level of content being
    analyzed?  Does the researcher explain
    how material is coded, especially for issues of latent content?

63. Did
    the researcher do any type of pretest with other coders to test for
    reliability?  Where they any tests for
    validity?

64. Are
    the conclusions consistent with the units of analysis?

65. Are
    the results clearly presented and the conclusions appropriate?

66. Generally,
    is the method of observation done appropriately?

    10. Evaluation
    Research

67. What
    is the purpose of the evaluation presented?

68. Is
    the nature of the program described in detail?

69. Are
    the goals presented and can the goals that the author presents be evaluated?

70. What
    type of observation method is used? Is it appropriate, given the real-life
    restrictions of evaluation research?

71. Is
    a control group used? If so, how has the researcher tried to show that it is
    equivalent to the experimental group?  If
    not, does the researcher adequately explain its omission?

72. How
    are people selected for program participation? Does this affect the
    interpretation of findings, and, if so, does the researcher discuss this?

73. Are
    the results clearly explained?

74. How
    does the article address the other areas of evaluation discussed in earlier
    chapters?

    Your evaluation
    should include ONE of the following sections (3 pts):

    11. Qualitative
    Analysis

75. Is
    the results section a cohesive essay?

76. Does
    the researcher connect the results to any general research questions or goals?

77. Is
    the perspective of the results presentation appropriate? Does it match the
    research technique?

78. Has
    the writer presented enough examples to support the conclusions?  Do the examples make the readers ‘believe’
    the researcher’s points?

79. Do
    you have reason to believe that the presence of the researcher influenced the
    actions or statements of other group members? If this is possible, has the
    researcher addressed it in the research?

80. Especially
    in field research (although this may be an issue to a lesser degree in other
    forms of qualitative data gathering), does the researcher discuss how he or she
    interacted with subjects in the field, what problems arose, and how the
    researcher addressed them?

    12. Quantitative
    Analysis

81. Is
    the results section a cohesive essay with the important findings highlighted?

82. In
    the essay, does the researcher tie the results to the research hypotheses or
    goals stated in the introduction?

83. If
    there are tables or graphs, are they clearly presented?

84. Does
    the researcher present any descriptive statistics?

85. Are
    the statistics appropriate for the level of measurement?

86. Are
    the conclusions the researcher draws appropriate for the statistical
    information?

87. In
    the discussion section, does the researcher briefly summarize the research
    purposes, methodologies, and key findings (in a non-statistical manner)?

88. Does
    the researcher acknowledge any methodological or statistical weaknesses?

89. Are
    the implications of the research or suggestions for future research discussed?

90. Overall,
    is the results section adequate?

91. Overall,
    is the discussion section adequate?