CRIJ 6302 1H1: Advanced Research Methods CJ

My primary goal in this course is to guide and evaluate your pursuit of the following objectives: 

CLO 1: Critically evaluate experimental, quasi-experimental, qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, and comparative research designs by identifying their strengths, limitations, and appropriateness for various criminal justice research questions.

CLO 2: Apply methodological frameworks to develop and refine a research proposal, including a clearly articulated research question, literature review, and methodological plan.

CLO 3: Demonstrate advanced research literacy by synthesizing and critically evaluating scholarly research, including how methodological choices influence findings, validity, and policy implications.

CLO 4: Integrate ethical considerations into the design and implementation of criminal justice research, with particular attention to human subjects, vulnerable populations, and responsible data use.

CLO 5: Facilitate scholarly discussion and peer feedback by leading article critiques, posing thoughtful research questions, and providing constructive feedback that strengthens methodological rigor.

Developing a working philosophy of research, understanding the purposes, strengths, and limitations of different research methods, and critically evaluating empirical scholarship are essential to the work and professional development of a criminologist. In this course, you will be expected to move beyond simply understanding research methods to thinking critically about how methodological choices shape the questions we ask, the evidence we produce, and the conclusions we draw. In pursuit of these objectives, you are expected to:

• Prepare critically: Complete assigned readings and develop two thoughtful, discussion-oriented questions each week that demonstrate engagement with the methodological, theoretical, and substantive issues raised in the readings.

• Engage as a scholar: Participate consistently and substantively in class discussions by contributing informed observations, methodological critiques, questions, and connections to your own emerging research interests.

• Facilitate scholarly discussion: Serve as a facilitator for one class meeting during the semester. Facilitators will help guide discussion of the assigned materials, identify key methodological issues, and encourage critical engagement among classmates.

• Evaluate research: Apply methodological concepts from the course to critically assess peer-reviewed research, including the alignment among research questions, theoretical frameworks, research designs, data, methods of analysis, and conclusions.

• Develop methodological judgment: Begin developing a reasoned approach to selecting and evaluating research methods, recognizing that methodological decisions involve both practical and scholarly tradeoffs.

Supplemental Suggested Readings Related to Course Topics

The following resources are provided as supplemental readings to support and extend students’ understanding of qualitative and mixed-methods research approaches. Students are encouraged to consult these materials as relevant to course topics, assignments, and their own research interests.

Contacting the Instructor: I can be most easily reached via e-mail rather than Blackboard. You will also submit your discussion questions via email weekly . 

Due to FERPA and to protect your confidentiality, you should only contact me through your university email address. If I receive an email from a different email address, I will respond asking you to resend your email through the university email address instead which might cause delays in my communication. 

I strongly encourage students to take advantage of my office hours either virtually or in-person (both options available). If you plan to attend my office hours, I recommend you make an appointment, so that I can better prepare for the meeting; however, you are more than welcome to virtually attend at any time. Please do not wait until the end of the semester to contact me about any issues. I can only help you if you communicate in a timely fashion, if you are unable to make it to my office hours, please contact me so we can set up an alternative time that is beneficial to us both; I can be flexible for meetings with advanced notice. 

Messages should be written using a professional tone and should conclude with your name and course, so that I can easily identify who the message is coming from. I will answer most of your messages within 24 hours, if not sooner (may have longer response times on weekends). If I have not responded to your message after 48 hours, please feel free to message me again. 

Maintaining a Supportive Learning Environment: A productive doctoral seminar depends on an environment in which all participants feel respected, intellectually challenged, and able to engage openly with complex ideas. Students are expected to contribute to a professional learning community by listening thoughtfully, engaging respectfully with differing perspectives, and critiquing ideas rather than individuals. Vigorous debate is encouraged; personal attacks, dismissive behavior, or harassment are not.

Because learning in this course occurs largely through discussion, every student is expected to participate actively and thoughtfully in seminar conversations. If at any time you experience behavior that interferes with your ability to learn or participate, or if you have concerns about the classroom environment, please contact me by email, during office hours, or by appointment so that we can address the issue promptly and appropriately.

Writing Expectations: This course requires you to engage as an emerging scholar. You will participate in weekly discussions, facilitate a class session, critically evaluate scholarly research, and synthesize literature to identify gaps in scholarship with the depth, independence, and rigor expected at the doctoral level. Your writing should demonstrate not only that you understand the literature, but that you can interrogate it, position yourself within it, and begin to contribute to it.

I expect your writing to reflect the following:

• Professional polish: Correct spelling, grammar, syntax, organization, and APA 7th edition citation are the baseline—not the goal. Professional presentation allows your scholarly argument to take center stage.

• Scholarly engagement: Demonstrate the ability to synthesize literature, evaluate theoretical and methodological strengths and limitations, and situate your arguments within broader scholarly conversations.

• Critical analysis: Move beyond summarizing what authors have said. Identify assumptions, tensions, contradictions, limitations, and unanswered questions in the literature, and explain why they matter.

• Originality: Develop your own analytical perspective. Where appropriate, identify gaps in scholarship, propose alternative explanations or approaches, and generate questions that could advance research.

• Contribution: Your work should move toward the standards of publishable scholarship. The goal is not simply to demonstrate that you have consumed the literature, but to begin demonstrating how you might produce knowledge within the field of criminology and criminal justice.

• Clear, precise, and evidence-based writing: Your ability to communicate complex ideas clearly, precisely, and persuasively will be considered in the evaluation of every written assignment.

Technology Use: Technology can support learning and enhance the educational experience when used appropriately. We may use various applications and digital tools to support course activities and learning outcomes. Students are expected to use technology in accordance with university policies and course expectations. If you need access to a laptop, or a laptop that better meets your academic needs, please contact TAMIU OIT to inquire about available laptop loan programs.

Academic Integrity

Students are expected to produce original work that reflects their own scholarly thinking, writing, and analysis. Academic dishonesty, plagiarism, submitting work completed for another course (self-plagiarism), or submitting pre-existing papers or assignments as original work will be addressed in accordance with TAMIU's Academic Honesty policies. Students are also expected to appropriately acknowledge and cite the ideas, words, data, and other intellectual contributions of others; APA 7th edition is the required citation style for this course. Students who are uncertain about appropriate citation practices should consult the Purdue OWL or contact me.

AI use must also comply with the course's AI Use in Coursework policy and the PhD Student Handbook. Students remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions presented in their work. Failure to disclose required AI use may constitute academic dishonesty.

Academic integrity violations may result in penalties consistent with university and program policies, including a failing grade on an assignment or, where warranted, a failing grade in the course or additional disciplinary action. When in doubt about whether a particular use of material, technology, or AI is appropriate, ask before submitting the work.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) 

In this course, you are being trained as an independent scholar capable of conducting original, rigorous research. While AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bing Chat, Claude, Grammarly, etc.) are widely available, their use in this class is restricted to ensure that you develop the academic, methodological, and writing skills necessary for doctoral-level work. 

At the PhD level, your ability to design studies, critique methodologies, and produce original, publishable-quality writing is essential. AI tools cannot substitute for these skills. Requiring both pre- and post-AI drafts ensures transparency and emphasizes that AI can supplement but not replace your intellectual work. Misuse of AI will be treated as a violation of academic integrity and will be subject to university policy. 

In accordance with the PhD Student Handbook, AI tools and large language models (LLMs) may be used to support scholarly work, but their use presents important ethical, methodological, legal, and environmental considerations; therefore, complete transparency is required. Students who use AI in assignments, research, or grant writing must explicitly disclose the tool(s) and prompt(s) used, the purpose of use, and the stage of the research or writing process in which AI was used. Basic spelling and grammar tools that do not generate substantive content do not require disclosure; however, failure to disclose substantive AI use will be treated as academic dishonesty, and students remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations, analyses, conclusions, and intellectual property of their work. 

1. Permitted Uses of AI

Students may use AI tools for limited, supportive purposes that do not replace their own scholarly thinking, writing, or analysis. Permitted uses include:

• Correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

• Improving clarity, sentence structure, and organization.

• Generating or refining topic sentences, transition sentences, or outlines as scaffolding rather than final submitted content.

• Identifying potential structural improvements in a student-written draft.

• Limited brainstorming of research questions or ideas to explore, provided that AI-generated text is not submitted as the student’s own work.

Documentation and Transparency: Any substantive use of AI must be disclosed in accordance with the PhD Student Handbook policy on AI. Students must identify the tool(s) and prompt(s) used, explain the purpose of the AI use, and indicate the stage of the writing or research process in which it was used. Students should retain their original work and, when requested, provide the original draft alongside the AI-assisted revision to demonstrate how AI contributed to the final product. If no AI tools were used, students should state: “No AI tools were used in the preparation of this assignment.”

2. Prohibited Uses of AI

Students may not:

• Submit AI-generated text, analysis, or other substantive content as their own work.

• Use AI to draft, rewrite, or paraphrase substantial portions of an assignment or research proposal.

• Use AI to generate substantive portions of introductions, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, methods, results, discussion, or conclusions.

• Use AI to complete assignments or conduct scholarly work in place of the student’s own analysis, reasoning, and writing.

• Use AI in any manner that violates the university or PhD program’s academic integrity, authorship, or research policies.

Students remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations, interpretations, analyses, and conclusions presented in their work. Failure to disclose required AI use may be treated as academic dishonesty in accordance with the PhD Student Handbook.

Missed & Late Assignments: It is important to keep up with the materials and assignments. Therefore, late assignments will only be accepted if accompanied by a university-approved absence. In the event you miss a deadline with a university-approved absence or emergency, please contact me with documentation within 48 hours of missing the exam or assignment, so we can identify how to make up the missed work. However, you should be working on materials well before our weekly meetings and, therefore, procrastination will be considered in the event that material is missing or late. If you know in advance that you will be gone when an assignment is due, please plan ahead and submit it early. The instructor reserves the right to modify assignments as needed for make-up work. The only exceptions to this rule are those listed in the College of Arts & Sciences Policies located at the end of this syllabus. 

COURSE STRUCTURE AND ASSIGNMENTS

Class participation and contribution: 10% (100 points) 

• Attendance is expected at each class meeting. Repeatedly arriving late, leaving early, turning off your camera, or missing class without a university approved absence (including for work-related non-TAMIU events) will result in a reduction to your final grade. 

• You are expected to read and study all assigned material prior to the class meeting and to participate actively in discussion. It is acceptable to be wrong, misinterpret, or ask clarifying questions, but it is unacceptable to be unprepared. 

• You are also expected to listen carefully to each speaker, ask informed questions, and offer constructive critiques regularly.

Discussion questions and scholarly preparation: 10% (100 points) 

• In weeks 3-10 and 11 you will be expected to submit two discussion questions based on the assigned readings. Questions are due via email by Friday at 5 PM  to that week’s facilitator, with Dr. Hood copied.

• Questions should move beyond clarification and demonstrate critical engagement with the readings (e.g., methodological critiques, connections to larger debates, or implications for practice). 

Facilitation: : 15% (150 points) 

At the doctoral level, you are expected to lead the intellectual direction of a seminar session with professionalism and preparation. Each facilitator must prepare and submit a detailed facilitation outline in advance of class (no later than 8 AM Saturday). This outline should: 

• Be organized by themes/topics for the week rather than summarizing each reading. 

• Highlight key points from the readings that connect directly to those themes.

• Incorporate guiding questions (your own and all student-submitted) arranged strategically to generate discussion across readings.

• Manage the discussion in real time, ensuring that each theme is addressed, all voices are heard, and conversation is sustained across the full class period.

Failing to provide facilitation notes by the deadline will result in a zero for your facilitation grade. No exceptions. 

Purpose of Facilitation

The goal is not to re-summarize readings or lecture, but to guide a doctoral-level conversation. Facilitators are expected to: 

• Draw out connections, tensions, and contrasts across the readings.

• Push the group to critically evaluate research design, assumptions, and contributions.

• Foster dialogue that moves beyond what was done to why it was done, how methods shaped findings, and what comes next for research and practice.

Discussion Questions (Weeks 3-11): 10% (100 points) 

You will submit 2 thoughtful discussion questions each week based on that week's assigned readings.

When: Weeks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (9 weeks total)

Submission: Email to that week's facilitator (cc: Dr. Hood) by Friday 5 PM. Late submissions will not be accepted for a grade. 

What makes a strong discussion question:

• Moves beyond clarification ("What did they find?") or summarization

• Demonstrates critical engagement with readings

• Connects to methodological debates, practical implications, or tensions between studies

• Invites substantive response from peers

Examples of BAD discussion questions that would not earn above a C or D:

• "Both articles found [result], but used different methods. What does each method reveal that the other cannot?"

• "The study was conducted in [context], but practitioners in [different context] face different constraints. How might findings transfer?"

• "How do the assumptions underlying this design limit the conclusions we can draw?"

Examples of Good Discussion Questions:

Example 1 (Methodology + Practice Gap):
"The Sherman & Berk study on arrest and domestic violence used an RCT to argue arrest deters crime, and this finding shaped national policy. But the study was conducted in Minneapolis in 1984 with mostly white couples. When other sites replicated it, results differed by race and relationship status. What does this tell us about the limits of 'gold standard' experimental design when applied to policy that affects diverse populations? How might a qualitative study of what arrest actually means to different communities have changed the conversation?"

Example 2 (Mechanism vs. Measurement):
"These five articles all claim to measure 'police legitimacy,' but they use different survey items, different populations, and different outcome variables. Some find legitimacy predicts compliance; others find it doesn't. Before we conclude anything about the relationship, shouldn't we ask: Are we measuring the same construct? And if not, what does that say about whether we actually understand what legitimacy is versus just what we can quantify?"

Example 3 (Whose Story Is Missing):
"The observational studies of street-level policing in this neighborhood were conducted by researchers, not by the people who live there. They document 'disorder' and police stops, but they don't capture what residents experience or how that experience changes behavior. What can quantitative observation tell us that it can't? What would we learn differently if we centered residents as knowledge-makers, not just data points?"

Reading List and Literature Review Matrix (25 articles): 20% (200 points) 

As part of this class and in preparation for the rest of your PhD, as well as your final paper and article critiques, you will identify and organize 25 peer-reviewed articles on your criminal justice topic.

Timeline:

• Week 2 (Sept 6): Download Zotero; email 1 starter article to Dr. Hood

• Week 3 (Sept 13): Submit first 10 articles (cumulative total)

• Week 5 (Sept 27): Submit first 15 articles as draft (organized table)

• Week 9 (Oct 25): Submit complete 25 articles (final, with all table columns completed)

At minimum - What to include in your table:

• Citation (APA format)

• Location (country/state/city)

• Theoretical framework

• Research Method (RCT, interviews, survey, secondary data, meta-analysis, observational, etc.)

• Sample

• Analytic method(s)

• Limitations

• Key Finding(s) 

• Theoretical Implications 

• Practical (aka policy) implications

• Additional notes

• Relevance to Your Topic (1-2 sentences)

Methodological diversity: Aim for a mix of approaches—for example: approximately 8-10 quantitative studies, 5-7 qualitative studies, and 2-3 mixed methods or meta-analyses/systematic reviews. This ensures you're engaging with how different methods illuminate different aspects of your topic.

Final paper (Literature Review + articulate a Gap + at least RQ): 30% (300 points) 

Your final paper is the capstone of this course. You'll submit a draft in Week 12 for feedback that you will receive before ASC, and then a revised final version by December 5. The 400 points break down as follows: 15% of your grade (60 points) reflects the quality of your draft submission and how thoroughly you incorporate instructor feedback into your revision. The remaining portion of your grade (340 points) is based on your final submission, which should be 16-20 pages total (double-spaced) in APA 7 format (excluding references, tables, abstract, title page, and appendices as needed). 

Your final paper has four required sections. Part 1: Literature Review (5–6 pages, 100 points) synthesizes all 25 articles thematically—organized by topics and findings, not by research design. You should show how different methods (quantitative, qualitative, mixed) together build understanding of your topic, identify patterns where studies align or conflict, and demonstrate critical reading. Part 2: The Gap (1–1.5 pages, 85 points) identifies something specific that's missing or unclear in the literature—whether it's a population that hasn't been studied, a context that's been overlooked, a mechanism we don't understand, a methodological approach that's absent, or a theoretical question that remains untested. Be concrete; don't just say "more research is needed." Part 3: Your Research Question (0.5 pages, 75 points) articulates one clear, answerable research question (or 1–2 hypotheses) that emerges logically from the gap you identified. Your question should be specific enough to research and broad enough to matter. Part 4: Preliminary Methods Note (1–1.5 pages, 80 points) explores how you might study this question—what methodological approach makes sense and why, which of your reviewed articles used similar approaches, and what practical considerations matter. Include a complete reading list as an appendix (all 25 articles in APA 7 format). Your writing should be clear, well-organized, and polished; this is a publishable-quality scholarship.

Article Critiques: 15% (150 points) 

You will complete three article critique assignments throughout the semester where you deeply analyze articles from your reading list using methodological thinking. Each critique should be 2–3 pages total and will evaluate 5 articles. You're not summarizing what researchers found; you're evaluating how they found it and what that means. For each article, you should identify the research question they investigated, clearly describe their method, explain what this design does well and why it was appropriate for their question, honestly assess what it cannot tell us, and connect it back to your own topic. Across the three critiques (Week 4, Week 7, Week 10), we're looking for consistency in your engagement, evidence that your critical thinking is deepening, and by the third critique, clear selection of articles that will anchor your final literature review. Each critique is worth 50 points (10 points per article, broken down as: 2 points for identifying the RQ, 2 for describing the method, 3 for analyzing strengths, 2 for analyzing limitations, and 1 for connection to your topic).