Introduction of measured standards that associate with

Introduction

This 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 event and how it impacted the functions of
homeland security.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

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 the police response to
environmental influences and how the risk factors were determined amongst the
law enforcement agencies and how 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 study is expects to emulate
anticipated risk factors for homeland security and the response effects to
those threats. Moreover, the examiners hope to establish a statistic that
captures the weight of the risk 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 as 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, collected statistical data obtained over the
years may reveal in fact substantial evidence that may 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 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 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 the 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 2001 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. The researchers then revise the TVC model in developing
the independent variables (Donaldson, 2001). The items are entered 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 article

 

The area of research is indeed appealing; as
we tend to generally seek some form of security 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 will grab the audience’s attention and pinpoint the exact topic
the research will address. 

In the
beginning the authors set well-mannered tone 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 motivation 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; but the literature review is lacking. The authors haven’t
used the dynamicity 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 their
thesis by overgeneralizing the information in the beginning of the research by
making factual claims that don’t weigh in on the thesis they choose 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 read 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 usage of words 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 uses the study to support his theory however,
refer insufficiencies back to existing research to conclude the desired result.

The mentioned
inflicting impressions leave a hazy perception to the readers, as the study
approach is misleading. In reference, the researcher chooses to use data
collected by another source (The national survey) (Donaldson, 2001).

Another
negative factor deduced, is that the scholars’ actions are hypocritical for criticizing
previous research for failing to meet a standard form of risk measurement parameters.

An additional
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 is made due to the attitude in which the authors
claim the data as their own work. The misinformation the scholars produced is
derived from 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.

Conclusion

Haynes 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 twofold thesis makes
strong arguments and presents factual evidence, the quality of the survey
questions the usage of previously cited study data 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 in the revised
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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Donaldson,
L. (2001). The contingency theory of
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:

 Sage.

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.

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
Review,
41(2), 182–210

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.

Homeland
Security Council. (2007). National strategy for homeland security. Washington,
DC:

Department
of Homeland Security.

Go Top
x

Hi!
I'm Rita!

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

Check it out