Versuk, Karen Jun 10, 2021, 12:29 PM

(1 day ago)
to me

Owolabi, 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your SmartForm again. 

I have attached my marked copy from today to this email as I am not seeing that you have
addressed the comments from prior submissions and communications with Dr. Andrews and
me. I would recommend that you look through today's comments, the April 20 and May 22
comments all attached or shown below. At this juncture, the SmartForm is not ready to be
reviewed by the committee. 

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you!
Dr. V. 

 
Owolabi, 

Pursuant to our call on Thursday, I reviewed the comments made by the school reviewer which
are attached and shown below. They are very concise and clear and as I see it boil down to a
few key points:

1. CHANGE METHOD -- The move from narrative inquiry to generic qualitative inquiry is
a school requirement as this term narrative inquiry was removed as an approved
method. You were not misdirected by the committee, but the approved methods
changed in Q2-2021. I would refer you back to Creswell or Patton for more
information on that. 
2. CONNECT TO PA -- Continue to strongly establish the connection with public
administration using the literature. If indeed, your intent is to evaluate a policy of a
government and the perceptions of the community, you can find literature which
would demonstrate that public administrators should review policies periodically to
see if the desired results, in this case improved community relations, public safety,
perceptions, etc. are being achieved. 
 3. RQ ALIGNMENT -- Please review Dr. Andrews's comments and shared resources
below regarding alignment of the research questions and/or adjusting
inclusion/exclusion criteria. 
4. SITE -- The site issue is entirely up to you, however, you have based this entire study
on Newark, Delaware. If that site is no longer a feasible one, then choose one that is
and does not constitute a total revamp of this study. As you are aware, interviewing a
mayor or police chief is likely not going to be feasible. Consider the best site,
population and sample to elicit the information you seek to answer the RQs for your
study. At the end of the process, site is going to be de-identified and more
information on that can be found on the IRB homepage or in the Doctoral Publications
Guidelines. 

Finally, I would recommend contacting Disability Services regarding ongoing health challenges.
They will be able to provide guidance for you. 

I hope this is helpful. Write on!

Dr. V> 

 
Owolabi, 

Clearly this is coming along well. Please address Dr. Andrews's comments. I am still awaiting Dr.
Strouse. 

Dr. Versuk

From: Andrews, Courtney <Courtney.Andrews@Capella.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:56 PM
To: Versuk, Karen <Karen.Versuk@Capella.edu>; Strouse, Heather <Heather.Strouse@Capella.edu>
Subject: Re: M4-5 Review for Owolabi Kehinde
 
Thank you for the opportunity to review Owolabi’s proposal!  This is an interesting and timely
topic. Note, in section 2.1, the mentee indicates they are using narrative inquiry.  This is not on
the list of approved methods in the DPA program.  They may want to consider if a generic
qualitative approach would be appropriate in the context of this action research study.  See
Acceptable Methods and Topics, AcceptableTopicsandMethodsDPA.pdf (capella.edu). 
 
Owolabi, works diligently in section 2.2 # 1 to attempt to establish the significance this project
will have on the practice of public administration.  In section 2.2 #2, they need to establish the
gap this project will fill in public administration, while also grounding the project in the public
administration literature.  Two relevant articles I located, although dated are,  
 
Glaser, M. A., & Denhardt, J. (2010). Community Policing and Community Building: A Case Study
of Officer Perceptions. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(3), 309–
325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074009340050 
 
Sinclair, T. A. P. (2002). From Community Building to Governing Strangers: Reconceptualizing
Institutional Relationships among Governments, Community Organizations, and
Individuals. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(3), 312–
325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074002032003003 
 
This concern was also raised in the ‘Approved with Changes’ decision at Milestone 2, with the
following feedback “Further #2, needs additional support (literature) to illustrate the gap in the
public administration literature that this will address”. 
 
I have some concerns related to the research questions in section 2.6.  These were completely
reframed from the review in Milestone 2.  As pointed out in the Milestone 2 review, “Finally,
like the methodology, the research question(s) will need to be brought into alignment with the
focus, theory and methodology in working on Milestone 5.  Currently, they focus on ‘impacts’,
which implies a quantitative methodology”.  The current research questions are,  
 
1.         What are the policy goals of the community policing policy?  
 
2.         What is the impact of the community policing policy? 
 
3.         What are the triumphs and challenges encountered in the community police policy
implementation? 
 
First, is # 1 not established in the policy?  In section 2.1, the mentee states the following
purpose, “The purpose of this qualitative study using narrative inquiry is to examine the
community policing policy of Newark city and its implication for the Newark community (Vivian
et al., 2014)”.  Identifying the following gap in knowledge, “However, there is lacking
assessments that consider how the partnership has affected community policing policies”.  In
section 2.3, the mentee states “However, there is a gap in the reviewed literature that
demonstrates the outcomes in terms of benefits, failings, and perceptions of community
policing programs (Peyton et al., 2019; Skogan & Hartnett, 2019)”.   
 
In section 2.1, the goal of the policy is identified as,  
 
One of the 2020 goals for the Newark Partnership is to engage with government
institutions, residents, and community institutions to crate change and promote
 development across the city. The Newark Partnership is unique as it is one of the first
programs that provides community collaboration with the process of community policy
polies. 
 
Given what is shared in sections 2.1-2.4, I would anticipate an overall research question related
to how members of government institutions, residents, and community institutions perceive
the effect of this policy.  It may be first necessary to screen for their awareness of the policy. As
a qualitative study this will want to be framed by one overarching research question and then
sub questions that are related.   For example,  
 
Awareness of policy… 
Perceptions of the implementation of the policy… 
Perceived effect of policy…on… (ex. community partnerships) 
Perceives successes and challenges in relation to the policy… 
 
I recommend reviewing,  
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431-447, DOI: 10.1080/09518390902736512  
 
Note, awareness of the policy may need to be a screening question in recruitment for
interviews.  If participants are not aware of the policy, they will not be able to answer any
questions related to the policy.  Remember, as a qualitative study the focus is on participants
perceptions, this is not actually measuring ‘impact’.  And the questions/information collected
also need to be reflective of the theoretical framework.  Consider too, whether there are
questions specific to different ‘key stakeholder groups’.  And whether or not the thematic
analysis will be done as a whole or by group. 
 
I provided some feedback in section 3 in the document. I can provide additional feedback after
the needed revisions to section 2 are addressed. 

Courtney

...