Assignment Prompt & Instructions
Please see attachments any use of AI will result in automatic 0
**files (1)**
– ## Professorfeedback.docx
**## Professorfeedback.docx**
Professor feedback
Shaquanna,
I cannot remember if we spoke over the phone regarding your topic, but I have several concerns about this proposal. While your proposal addresses a critically important and underexamined issue of sexual victimization among formerly incarcerated individuals and the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), your project raises substantial concerns regarding specificity, feasibility, data access, and especially IRB implications that must be carefully addressed before it can be considered dissertation-ready.
First, while the topic is compelling, the proposal lacks sufficient specificity. The research aim is broadly framed as exploring “lived experiences” of sexual victimization and perceptions of PREA, but it does not clearly delineate the scope of the study. For example, it is unclear whether the focus is on a specific type of correctional facility (e.g., prisons vs. jails), a particular geographic region, or a defined timeframe of incarceration. Additionally, key constructs such as “implementation of PREA” and “perceptions of effectiveness” are not operationally clarified. In phenomenological research, it is especially important to clearly define the phenomenon of interest and the boundaries of the experience being studied. Without this, the project risks becoming overly diffuse and difficult to manage analytically.
Second, feasibility presents a significant challenge. The target population, formerly incarcerated individuals who have experienced sexual victimization, is both highly specific and difficult to access. Recruiting participants who are willing to disclose such deeply personal and traumatic experiences may prove challenging and time-intensive. Furthermore, phenomenological studies typically require smaller, carefully selected samples, but even achieving enough participants (e.g., 8–15 individuals) may be difficult given the sensitivity of the topic. The proposal would benefit from identifying a realistic recruitment strategy, such as partnerships with reentry programs, advocacy organizations, or community-based nonprofits that serve formerly incarcerated populations.
Third, data access is closely tied to feasibility and remains underdeveloped in the proposal. There is no clear indication of how participants will be identified or recruited, nor how the researcher will establish trust with this vulnerable population. Additionally, because the study relies on retrospective self-reports, there may be issues related to recall bias or uneven experiences across different facilities and time periods. While these are not disqualifying, they should be acknowledged and addressed in the design. Clarifying whether the study will include any triangulation (e.g., policy documents, PREA reports) would also strengthen the project.
IRB implications are substantial and represent one of the most critical aspects of this proposal. This study involves a highly vulnerable population discussing sensitive topics related to sexual victimization and trauma. As such, it will almost certainly require full IRB review. Key ethical concerns include the potential for re-traumatization during interviews, the need for trauma-informed interviewing practices, and the provision of appropriate support resources (e.g., counseling referrals) for participants. Informed consent procedures must be especially robust, ensuring that participants fully understand the nature of the study and their right to withdraw at any time. Confidentiality is also paramount; given the small and potentially identifiable sample, the researcher must implement strong safeguards to protect participant identity. Additionally, if participants discuss specific institutions or incidents, there may be legal or reporting considerations that need to be clarified.
Finally, while the proposal identifies a gap in the literature, it would benefit from a clearer articulation of its theoretical or conceptual framework. Phenomenology provides a methodological approach, but the study would be strengthened by engaging with theories related to institutional trust, trauma, or power dynamics within correctional settings. This would help move the analysis beyond description toward deeper interpretation.
**## Professorfeedback.docx**
Professor feedback
Shaquanna,
I cannot remember if we spoke over the phone regarding your topic, but I have several concerns about this proposal. While your proposal addresses a critically important and underexamined issue of sexual victimization among formerly incarcerated individuals and the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), your project raises substantial concerns regarding specificity, feasibility, data access, and especially IRB implications that must be carefully addressed before it can be considered dissertation-ready.
First, while the topic is compelling, the proposal lacks sufficient specificity. The research aim is broadly framed as exploring “lived experiences” of sexual victimization and perceptions of PREA, but it does not clearly delineate the scope of the study. For example, it is unclear whether the focus is on a specific type of correctional facility (e.g., prisons vs. jails), a particular geographic region, or a defined timeframe of incarceration. Additionally, key constructs such as “implementation of PREA” and “perceptions of effectiveness” are not operationally clarified. In phenomenological research, it is especially important to clearly define the phenomenon of interest and the boundaries of the experience being studied. Without this, the project risks becoming overly diffuse and difficult to manage analytically.
Second, feasibility presents a significant challenge. The target population, formerly incarcerated individuals who have experienced sexual victimization, is both highly specific and difficult to access. Recruiting participants who are willing to disclose such deeply personal and traumatic experiences may prove challenging and time-intensive. Furthermore, phenomenological studies typically require smaller, carefully selected samples, but even achieving enough participants (e.g., 8–15 individuals) may be difficult given the sensitivity of the topic. The proposal would benefit from identifying a realistic recruitment strategy, such as partnerships with reentry programs, advocacy organizations, or community-based nonprofits that serve formerly incarcerated populations.
Third, data access is closely tied to feasibility and remains underdeveloped in the proposal. There is no clear indication of how participants will be identified or recruited, nor how the researcher will establish trust with this vulnerable population. Additionally, because the study relies on retrospective self-reports, there may be issues related to recall bias or uneven experiences across different facilities and time periods. While these are not disqualifying, they should be acknowledged and addressed in the design. Clarifying whether the study will include any triangulation (e.g., policy documents, PREA reports) would also strengthen the project.
IRB implications are substantial and represent one of the most critical aspects of this proposal. This study involves a highly vulnerable population discussing sensitive topics related to sexual victimization and trauma. As such, it will almost certainly require full IRB review. Key ethical concerns include the potential for re-traumatization during interviews, the need for trauma-informed interviewing practices, and the provision of appropriate support resources (e.g., counseling referrals) for participants. Informed consent procedures must be especially robust, ensuring that participants fully understand the nature of the study and their right to withdraw at any time. Confidentiality is also paramount; given the small and potentially identifiable sample, the researcher must implement strong safeguards to protect participant identity. Additionally, if participants discuss specific institutions or incidents, there may be legal or reporting considerations that need to be clarified.
Finally, while the proposal identifies a gap in the literature, it would benefit from a clearer articulation of its theoretical or conceptual framework. Phenomenology provides a methodological approach, but the study would be strengthened by engaging with theories related to institutional trust, trauma, or power dynamics within correctional settings. This would help move the analysis beyond description toward deeper interpretation.