IntroductionThis critique evaluatesthe article in review titled: Homeland security risk and preparedness in policeagencies: The insignificance of actual risk factors, by Haynes and Giblin whichelaborates the readiness of our homeland security.
The author’s of thisarticle, Haynes and Giblin, infer and examine the intricate plans of action inpolicing and response towards alleged threats since September 11, 2001 and theadjustments to such devastating event and how it impacted the functions ofhomeland security.The shockingeffects on that catastrophic day inspired the authors to compare similarincidents versus the readiness of law enforcement and the response engagementsin effect. Subsequently, police departments are leading the front lines on thewar on terrorism in our homeland. This study’s course of action began with a concerneddoctoral student by the name of Mellissa Hayes and her professor at the Departmentof Criminology and Criminal Justice, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.Professor Matthew Giblins was captivated in defining the police response toenvironmental influences and how the risk factors were determined amongst thelaw enforcement agencies and how the statistical outlook from empirical dataand contingency theory applied in the process. Their thesis statements focus onthe lack of measured standards that associate with the risks at hand to informthe law enforcing agencies the correct response methods for the projectedthreat. Summary of the study The directed study is expects to emulateanticipated risk factors for homeland security and the response effects tothose threats.
Moreover, the examiners hope to establish a statistic thatcaptures the weight of the risk and manifests a quantified predictability forfuture perils. Since the September 11 drastic blows ourcountry received it became evident that our law enforcement agencies and firstresponders needed restructuring. That day manifested a tragic event whichsignaled needed change as the police departments are expected to be in thefrontline 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 theyears may reveal in fact substantial evidence that may predict such homelandsecurity incidents in the future.
Various trained methods have been implementedto combat such threats since that day, while appropriated funding becamepriority as the federal government has been on the forefront in supporting thepolice to achieve preparedness (Falcone, Wells & Weisheit, 2002). Moreover,to build a professional qualified force grants and machinery were introduced inaid to provide homeland security adequate assets supporting the efforts. Sincethen, researchers attempted to standardize threat levels and evaluate thecasual factors behind the disparities.
According to the Homeland Security Council, manyresearchers referred to empirical studies and contingency frameworks todocument their claims as these agendas reflect constant response toenvironmental issues. Theses administrative goals based on empirical studieshave consistently found a relationship between risks and police homelandsecurity activities (Homeland Security Council, 2007).Numerous studieshave attempted to outline the occurrences previously discussed about threats toour country. Therefore, the authors presume an abundant amount of supportingdata, which display police engagement in various actions to alleviate thepresented risks. These studies demonstrate that Local Police departmentsmediate information with state police agencies, which in turn providespecialized homeland security training. Homeland security policy is applied bya vast array of agencies which researchers relate the contingency theory tofactor that most organizations are dynamic (Gerber, 2005). Due to vigorouselements in the line of work, many agencies relate to contingency to establishthe likelihood of an event and determine an appropriated response in order tosuccessfully mitigate the risks.
Donaldson 2001 explainsthe differences between contingency theory and SARFIT as disequilibrium wherean organization remains fit temporarily, until the surplus resources from thefit-based higher performance produce expansion therefore causing adaptation inorder to balance the odds and regain the fitness levels. This translates in tothe police departments and the risk involved (Donaldson, 2001). This approachhas been effectively implemented in the training and actions of homelandsecurity as the statistics do correlate and draw out specifics in certainthreat areas. Even so, the organizational risks are inevitable and may producealterations in readiness (Homeland Security Council, 2007).
Haynes andGiblin also present the best ways to develop a calculation method is byengaging the threat vulnerability consequences (TVC) model, which requires thecombination of threats, vulnerability, and consequences (Donaldson, 2001).Despite the models benefits, it still experiences complications in itsoperation 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 societalgroups and label population possessing high threat index thresholds. Theserankings can pinpoint populations in specific physical locations. Such vulnerabilitiesare considered the property of the built environment that makes an area moreprone to harm (Falcone, Wells & Weisheit, 2002).Alternativestudies also used empirical approaches in researching exposures and theireffects and relationships on perceived risks, however researchers are eager toruminate over the impartial risk factors discussed in Roberts, 2012 study.
The studyapproach explores gathered data over an extensive timeframe with the mainsource being conducted by the national surveys of the government statisticaldepartment. This study meters homeland security preparedness and perceived therisk of terrorism (Homeland Security Council, 2007). The frame encapsulated bythe research revises the 2004 census of state and local law enforcementagencies which is a used as a measuring tool to determine organizations comprisingthe law enforcement population demographics (Gerber, 2005).Haynes and Giblin established the dependedvariable to reveal preparedness. Therefore, homeland security agencies applythese stages in prevention, response, and recovery episodes.
Intheir evaluation, the independent variable is set to a total of thirty-fiveseparate indicators. The researchers then revise the TVC model in developingthe independent variables (Donaldson, 2001). The items are entered into theanalysis in bits according to theoretical expectations. According to Haynes andGiblin, their outcomes imply a positive relationship in their findings. Theyspecify that homeland security display’s a positive relation between perceivedrisks 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; aswe tend to generally seek some form of security reassurance however, thehypothesis seems to neglect certain descriptive aspects regardless how well it’sdocumented.
The research does little to make the reader grasp the concepts ofthe argument from the thesis statement (Homeland Security Council, 2007).Moreover, thetwofold thesis statement presented by the authors creates misunderstanding andcould confuse the audience on the main focus addressed in the study. The formatpresented muddles a reader’s comprehension and may question whether the riskmeasures determine the predictions for police practices or whether it is thesubjective measures of risk about preparedness being considered. Theintroduction sets the stage and should make clear and concise short thesisstatements that will grab the audience’s attention and pinpoint the exact topicthe research will address. In thebeginning the authors set well-mannered tone elaborating on the proceedings andcircumstances, which lead to investigate the study. However, they seem toaddress other previous similar studies to define the reason behind their choiceto pursue the area of study.
The audience may question what factors pushed forthe research and expect to know why it was conducted. Surely, the authorsmention the tragic September 11, events however, this instance alone wouldn’tnecessarily be the driving factor and lacks additional supporting reasons.Additionally, Haynesand Giblin are in fact conducting research on a repeat area of empirical studyand comparable results. In this instance the authors tend to lack motivation asthey rest their study on an area of already obtained and interpreted data,which doesn’t reveal anything new for the audience. This redundantinvestigation has been evaluated in several cases before and misfires to enlightenthe audience with new figures.Still, theresearch upholds dynamics by using different methods to separate them for theprevious completed research; but the literature review is lacking. The authors haven’tused the dynamicity the study requires to validate a considerable review of thepreexisting works. It seems to create this absence of confidence in conductingthe research and providing the analyses.
Additionally, the researchers omit toidentify a gap while theorizing their own findings. Also, the study displaysthe outflow of objective theory employed by Roberts, 2012 study withoutdemonstrating the relevance of the theory in the current study (HomelandSecurity Council, 2007).Involving thestudy, Haynes and Giblin seem to establish weak arguments in presenting theirthesis by overgeneralizing the information in the beginning of the research bymaking 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 variablesused in the SoVI index-based method on empirical studies (Donaldson, 2001). Incontinuation, they continue to link vulnerabilities to various myriads andcarry out the stated facts, but may leave the read wondering where thevariables relate with the vulnerabilities. Moreover, thecase is presented with a high level of technicality, which may not translatewell to the average reader. It was noticed that the content usage of words andphrases in the introduction of the study differ the discussion portion.
In anotherexample, the scholars state that existing evidence lacks dimension in the riskarea as the perceived levels of risk were mostly estimated by the researchersand the government therefore its probability is not concrete. They also suggestthat previous studies had strangely surveyed threats. The appliedmeasures of risk awareness were also based on single individual basis ratherthen groups or masses. These aspects mentioned above cloud the study in thediscussion segment as the authors uses the study to support his theory however,refer insufficiencies back to existing research to conclude the desired result.The mentionedinflicting impressions leave a hazy perception to the readers, as the studyapproach is misleading. In reference, the researcher chooses to use datacollected by another source (The national survey) (Donaldson, 2001).Anothernegative factor deduced, is that the scholars’ actions are hypocritical for criticizingprevious research for failing to meet a standard form of risk measurement parameters.
An additionalnoticed observation is the confusion produced by the authors as they discussvarious sections of the paper. The methodology excerpt should present themethods used to acquire, measure and analyzing data. The introduction shouldpresent the objective and the approaches utilized to conduct the study and thehypothesis of the survey.
It is strange to identify a statement, which intentlylinks to the argument in the methodology fragment. As soon as the researchersidentify they will reference the national survey data in their study it seemsthey propose a thesis thereafter. The research also hints the implementation ofthe survey outcomes from the government study figures conducted after September11, 2011. Haynes and Giblin also outline the sample frame from 2004 as thestudy proceeds to identify the dependent and independent variables and how theyapply to the calculations.
This unmerited application is not welcomed intodeceiving the reader as the researchers adopt already determined studystatistics. This assumption is made due to the attitude in which the authorsclaim the data as their own work. The misinformation the scholars produced is derivedfrom method of their dispute in which they classify their methods and model.