Ferguson C & Beaver K  Research Proposal

Excerpt from Research Proposal :



8. Is there a rationale for why the study is an important one to do?

There is not really a rationale for why the study is an important one to do. On the one hand, the authors explain why it is important to investigate the causes of aggression. However, on the other hand, they fail to explain why they focus on two seemingly distinct studies to support their conclusions.

9. Are the research hypotheses clearly stated?

Yes. The hypotheses are clearly stated.

10. Are the hypotheses testable?

Yes.

14. Are the independent and dependent variables clearly defined?

Yes. However, there are multiple independent and dependent variables because they focus on two underlying studies.

15. Is it clear how the study was conducted?

Yes.

17. Was the sample selected in such a way that you think it is representative of the population?

No; it focused on female athletes and female-to-male transsexuals.

19. How similar are the subjects in the study to those that have been used in other similar studies?

I am unaware of a sufficient number of studies focusing on either of the populations described in the study to be able to answer that question.

20. Are the results related to the hypothesis?

Yes, the authors link all of the results to the causes of aggression.

22. Is the discussion of the results consistent with the results?

Yes, the authors' conclusions are supported by their reported results.

24. Is the list of references current?

Yes.

25. Are the references consistent in their format?

Yes.

29. Is the report clearly written and understandable?

The report was the most clearly written and understandable of all of the resources reviewed.

30. Is the language unbiased (nonsexist and relatively culture free)?

The authors make efforts to use unbiased language, which is very difficult when dealing with a transgendered population.

Ogletree, S.M., & Oberle, C. (2008). The nature, common usage, and implications of free will and determinism. Behavior and Philosophy, 36, 97-111.

1. How closely is the literature reviewed in the study related to previous literature?

I do not know enough about prior literature focusing on free will to be able to answer this question, but the authors appear to be able to support their article with the literature reviewed.

2. Is the review recent? Are there any outstanding references you know about that were left out?

The review is recent and appears to be comprehensive, although my knowledge of philosophical discussions of free will is very limited.

3. Can you understand the statement of the problem?

Yes.

8. Is there a rationale for why the study is an important one to do?

The authors give a rationale for why the study is an important one, but, because I discount the importance of philosophy, I do not know that I find the rationale credible. However, because the study focuses on individual perceptions about free will, I do not know that the rationale is relevant to the results.

9. Are the research hypotheses clearly stated?

Yes. The hypotheses are clearly stated.

10. Are the hypotheses testable?

Yes.

14. Are the independent and dependent variables clearly defined?

Yes.

15. Is it clear how the study was conducted?

Yes.

17. Was the sample selected in such a way that you think it is representative of the population?

Yes; I believe the sample was selected in a way that was far more representative of the population than the other articles being reviewed.

19. How similar are the subjects in the study to those that have been used in other similar studies?

I do not know that any similar studies have really focused on people's perceptions about free will, but the subjects are similar to those studies that the authors referenced.

20. Are the results related to the hypothesis?

Yes.

22. Is the discussion of the results consistent with the results?

Yes, the authors' conclusions are supported by their reported results.

24. Is the list of references current?

Yes, although it contains references to ancient works, as well.

25. Are the references consistent in their format?

Yes.

29. Is the report clearly written and understandable?

The report was clearly written and understandable when discussing the results, though the discussions of the underlying philosophy could seem vague.

30. Is the language unbiased (nonsexist and relatively culture free)?

Yes.

References

Ferguson, C., & Beaver, K. (2009). Natural born killers: The genetic origins of extreme violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14,…

Cite This Research Proposal:

"Ferguson C & Beaver K " (2013, March 15) Retrieved June 23, 2017, from
http://www.paperdue.com/essay/ferguson-c-amp-beaver-k-86728

"Ferguson C & Beaver K " 15 March 2013. Web.23 June. 2017. <
http://www.paperdue.com/essay/ferguson-c-amp-beaver-k-86728>

"Ferguson C & Beaver K ", 15 March 2013, Accessed.23 June. 2017,
http://www.paperdue.com/essay/ferguson-c-amp-beaver-k-86728