Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Security and Emergency ManagementEmanuel DobosSOC333: Research Methods (BMH1801A) Instructor:
Dr. Jennifer RosenJanuary
30, 2018                                                                                    IntroductionThe following
critique evaluates the article in review titled: Homeland security risk and
preparedness in police agencies: The insignificance of actual risk factors, by
Haynes and Giblin which elaborates the readiness of our homeland security. The
author’s of this article, Haynes and Giblin, infer and examine the intricate
plans of action in policing and response towards alleged threats since
September 11, 2001 and the adjustments to such devastating impacts in the
functions of homeland security.The shocking
effects on that catastrophic day inspired the authors to compare similar
incidents versus the readiness of law enforcement and the response engagements
in effect. Subsequently, police departments are leading the front lines on the
war on terrorism in our homeland. This study’s
course of action began with a concerned doctoral student by the name of
Mellissa Hayes and her professor at the Department of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Professor Matthew Giblins was
captivated in defining police response to environmental influences and how the
risk factors were determined amongst the law enforcement agencies to conclude the
statistical outlook from empirical data and contingency theory applied in the
process. Their thesis statements focus on the lack of measured standards that
associate with the risks at hand to inform the law enforcing agencies the
correct response methods for the projected threat. Summary of
the Study The directed analysis
foresees to emulate anticipated risk factors for homeland security and the
response effects to those threats. Moreover, the examiners hope to establish a statistic,
which captures the weight of the hazard and manifests a quantified
predictability for future perils.        Since
the September 11 drastic blows our country received, it became evident that our
law enforcement agencies and first responders needed restructuring. That day
manifested a tragic event, which signaled needed change; the police departments
are expected to be in the frontline fighting terrorism (Falcone, Wells &
Weisheit, 2002). Therefore, we must train our force to take head on terrorist
activities in the future. Based on the researchers views, the collected
statistical data obtained over the years may reveal substantial evidence that might
predict such homeland security incidents in the future. Various trained
methods have been implemented to combat such threats since that day, while appropriated
funding became priority as the federal government has been on the forefront in
supporting the police to achieve preparedness (Falcone, Wells & Weisheit,
2002). Moreover, to build a professional qualified force, grants and machinery
were introduced in aid to provide homeland security adequate assets in supporting
the efforts. Since then, researchers attempted to standardize threat levels and
evaluate the casual factors behind the disparities. According to
the Homeland Security Council, many researchers referred to empirical studies
and contingency frameworks to document their claims as these agendas reflect
constant response to environmental issues. Theses administrative goals based on
empirical studies have consistently found a relationship between risks and
police homeland security activities (Homeland Security Council, 2007).Numerous
studies have attempted to outline the occurrences previously discussed about
threats to our country. Therefore, the authors presume an abundant amount of
supporting data, which display police engagement in various actions to
alleviate the presented risks. These studies also demonstrate that Local Police
departments mediate information with state police agencies, which in turn
provide specialized homeland security training. Homeland security policy is
applied by a vast array of agencies which researchers relate the contingency
theory to factor that most organizations are dynamic (Gerber, 2005). Due to
vigorous elements in their line of work, many agencies relate to contingency to
establish the likelihood of an event and determine an appropriated response in
order to successfully mitigate the risks. 
Donaldson explains
the differences between contingency theory and SARFIT as disequilibrium where
an organization remains fit temporarily, until the surplus resources from the
fit-based higher performance produce expansion therefore causing adaptation in
order to balance the odds and regain the fitness levels. This translates in to
the police departments and the risk involved (Donaldson, 2001). This approach
has been effectively implemented in the training and actions of homeland
security as the statistics do correlate and draw out specifics in certain
threat areas. Even so, the organizational risks are inevitable and may produce
alterations in readiness (Homeland Security Council, 2007).Haynes and
Giblin also present the best ways to develop a calculation method is by
engaging the threat vulnerability consequences (TVC) model, which requires the
combination of threats, vulnerability, and consequences (Donaldson, 2001).
Despite the models benefits, it still experiences complications in its operation
as it cogitates goals, motives and terrorist capabilities. Subsequently, the
objective risk is broadly categorized as a factor of vulnerability (Falcone,
Wells & Weisheit, 2002). Such exposures can categorize societal groups and
label population possessing high threat index thresholds. These rankings can
pinpoint populations in specific physical locations. Such vulnerabilities are
considered the property of the built environment that makes an area more prone
to harm (Falcone, Wells & Weisheit, 2002).Alternative
studies also used empirical approaches in researching exposures and their
effects and relationships on perceived risks, however researchers are eager to
ruminate over the impartial risk factors discussed in Roberts, 2012 study. The study
approach explores gathered data over an extensive timeframe with the main
source being conducted by the national surveys of the government statistical
department. This study meters homeland security preparedness and perceived the
risk of terrorism (Homeland Security Council, 2007). The frame encapsulated by
the research revises the 2004 census of state and local law enforcement
agencies which is a used as a measuring tool to determine organizations
comprising the law enforcement population demographics (Gerber, 2005).Haynes and
Giblin established the depended variable to reveal preparedness. Therefore,
homeland security agencies apply these stages in prevention, response, and
recovery episodes.  In their evaluation, the independent variable
is set to a total of thirty-five separate indicators after which they revise
against the TVC model in developing the independent variables (Donaldson,
2001). The items are inputted into the analysis in bits according to
theoretical expectations. According to Haynes and Giblin, their outcomes imply
a positive relationship in their findings. They specify that homeland security display’s
a positive relation between perceived risks of a terrorist attack and the
preparedness of the motherland security (Falcone, Wells & Weisheit, 2002).                                                 Critiquing the ArticleThe area of research
grasps attention, as we tend to generally seek some form of security and reassurance
however, the hypothesis seems to neglect certain descriptive aspects regardless
how well it’s documented. The research does little to make the reader grasp the
concepts of the argument from the thesis statement (Homeland Security Council,
2007).Moreover, the
twofold thesis statement presented by the authors creates misunderstanding and
could confuse the audience on the main focus addressed in the study. The format
presented muddles a reader’s comprehension and may question whether the risk
measures determine the predictions for police practices or whether it is the
subjective measures of risk about preparedness being considered. The
introduction sets the stage and should make clear and concise short thesis
statements that grab the audience’s attention and pinpoint the exact topic the
research will address.  The authors set
well-mannered tone in the beginning elaborating on the proceedings and
circumstances, which lead to investigate the study. However, they seem to
address other previous similar studies to define the reason behind their choice
to pursue the area of study. The audience may question what factors pushed for
the research and expect to know why it was conducted. Surely, the authors mention
the tragic September 11 events however, this instance alone wouldn’t
necessarily be the driving factor and lacks additional supporting reasons.Additionally,
Haynes and Giblin are in fact conducting research on a repeat area of empirical
study and comparable results. In this instance the authors tend to lack inspiration
as they rest their study on an area of already obtained and interpreted data,
which doesn’t reveal anything new for the audience. This redundant
investigation has been evaluated in several cases before and misfires to enlighten
the audience with new figures.Still, the
research upholds dynamics by using different methods to separate them for the previous
completed research; the literature review is lacking. The authors haven’t used
the dynamics the study requires to validate a considerable review of the preexisting
works. It seems to create this absence of confidence in conducting the research
and providing the analyses. Additionally, the researchers omit to identify a
gap while theorizing their own findings. Also, the study displays the outflow of
objective theory employed by Roberts, 2012 study without demonstrating the
relevance of the theory in the current study (Homeland Security Council, 2007).Involving the
study, Haynes and Giblin seem to establish weak arguments in presenting factual
claims that don’t weigh in on the thesis they desire to pursue. One example,
which displays this, is the elaboration on the multiple variables used in the
SoVI index-based method on empirical studies (Donaldson, 2001). In
continuation, they continue to link vulnerabilities to various myriads and
carry out the stated facts, but may leave the reader wondering where the
variables relate with the vulnerabilities. Moreover, the
case is presented with a high level of technicality, which may not translate
well to the average reader. It was noticed that the content and phrases in the
introduction of the study differ the discussion portion. In another
example, the scholars state that existing evidence lacks dimension in the risk
area as the perceived levels of risk were mostly estimated by the researchers
and the government therefore, its probability is not concrete. They also
suggest that previous studies had strangely surveyed threats. The applied
measures of risk awareness were also based on single individual basis rather
then groups or masses. These aspects mentioned above, cloud the study in the
discussion segment as the authors use the study to support their theory
however, refer insufficiencies back to existing research to conclude the
desired result. The mentioned
inflicting impressions leave a unclear perception to the readers, as the study
approach is misleading. In reference, the researcher chooses to use data
collected by another source (Donaldson, 2001).Another
negative factor deduced, was that the scholars’ actions are hypocritical for criticizing
previous research for failing to meet a standard to gauge risks.A further
noticed observation is the confusion produced by the authors as they discuss
various sections of the paper. The methodology excerpt should present the
methods used to acquire, measure and analyzing data. The introduction should
present the objective and the approaches utilized to conduct the study and the
hypothesis of the survey. It is strange to identify a statement, which intently
links to the argument in the methodology fragment. As soon as the researchers
identify they will reference the national survey data in their study it seems
they propose a thesis thereafter. The research also hints the implementation of
the survey outcomes from the government study figures conducted after September
11, 2011. Haynes and Giblin also outline the sample frame from 2004 as the
study proceeds to identify the dependent and independent variables and how they
apply to the calculations. This unmerited application is not welcomed into
deceiving the reader as the researchers adopt already determined study
statistics. This assumption was made due to the attitude in which the authors
claim the data as their own work. The misinformation the scholars produced
derived from the method of their dispute in which they classify their methods
and model. Haynes and
Giblin want the audience interaction with the study on a personal level
however, they present coexisting study material. The variables pose exaggerated
reasoning as the authors use a plethora of words defining the scope and their
methods. Indeed the researchers are analytical transposing the data from the
survey, which garners a positive aspect to the research but the direct
reference to the sources may not comply with the code of research. By citing
supporting evidence questions their approach in conducting research. ConclusionHaynes and
Giblin’s research article pursues to resolute homeland security readiness in the
critical review conducted above in order to develop defensive security measures
anticipating future terrorist threats such as September, 11. The addressed
article attempted to find a link amongst apparent homeland security risks and the
preparedness adaptation in response to the occurred incidents. While the
studies thesis makes strong arguments and presents factual evidence, the
quality of the survey questions the use of previously cited study material from
other surveys, regardless if used to strengthen the author’s evidence.
Moreover, the survey takes a generalized point of view rather then a critical
analysis and the author fails to address the topics with independent concepts.
No matter how much Haynes and Giblin’s base their study on the proposed void of
risk analysis area, the research never validates or reports the gap.
Nevertheless, the researchers methods in conducting the survey are respectable
with a sense of resolution. Yet, they disappoint when addressing their
independent work with recycled statistics that compensate rather then produce
new enlightening material.        ReferencesDonaldson,
L. (2001). The contingency theory of
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from: Falcone,
D. N., Wells, L. E., & Weisheit, R. A. (2002). The small-town police
department. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25(2), 371–384.Retrieved
from: Gerber, B. J., Cohen, D. B., Cannon, B., Patterson, D., &
Stewart, K. (2005). On the front line: American
cities and the challenge of homeland security preparedness. Urban Affairs
41(2), 182–210Retrieved from: Hollenstein,
K. (2005). Reconsidering the risk assessment
concept: Standardizing the impact description as
a building block for vulnerability assessment. Natural Hazards and
Earth Systems Sciences, 5, 301–307.Retrieved from: Homeland
Security Council. (2007). National strategy for homeland security. Washington,
DC: Department
of Homeland Security.Retrieved from:  


Post Author: admin


I'm Eunice!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out