1897	Assessment Initial Draft	Final Draft comments
Abstract	If we consider the "Introduction" to be the abstract, then it is a reasonable start, but will benefit from greater focus.  The first three sentences are too general to have much value.  Indeed, only the final sentence is directly about this project.  So, try to rewrite, or write from scratch, an abstract that really focuses on the research project (although it may mention wider issues to provide context).  In particular, include the research question (ideally phrased in one sentence with a question mark at the end) in the abstract.	No abstract
Research Question	The  research question is clear and focused, but it should make its first appearance before the literature review (so we know what we are looking for in the review).	The research questions are clear.
Literature Review	The literature review has good breadth and is written clearly.  However, it is a bit too serially presented.  It would be better with a starting paragraph that introduces what the review will cover, that is the main questions and arguments.  Doing this could provide some ideas about the organization of the material and having it there will help readers.	The literature review is reasonably good.  Since this project aims to use the data collected by Stoebe, et al., it should include a more complete review of their work (and clarification how this project will differ). One qualification: a good literature review should consider alternative explanations.  One obvious condition we would expect to influence gun ownership, consistent with many aspects of people's behavior, is being associated with other people who own guns.  Whether we are trying to explain people taking recreational drugs or voting for a particular political party, a key influence is the behavior of one's associates and reference group.  Among the publications not currently covered, take a look at: Deborah Azrael, Lisa Hepburn, David Hemenway, and Matthew Miller. "The Stock and Flow of U.S. Firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey." The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(5), 38–57 (2017) and  Pew Research Center.  “America’s Complex Relationship With Guns.”  June 2017.
Data & Analysis	The data set discussed in the proposal sounds plausible.  However, at this time there appear to be too many unknowns about this data to have confidence that it will serve the project effectively.  These unknowns should be resolved quickly, before investing much more time in the expectation that this data will support the research. To begin, yes, there must be a codebook in order to use the data.  Guessing, however apparently accurate, is not really an acceptable strategy.  It is necessary to know the exact wording of every question and all coding. The article cited as source of the data does not appear to provide information on the sampling?  This information should appear in the proposal. Special note: The entire section on data was mostly lifted directly from the Strobe article, without identifying it as a series of quotations (and, no, the citations at the ends of paragraphs do not meet this requirement).  As such, this constitutes plagiarism.  As this is a preliminary draft, we will let this go, but we do not want to see any signs of this in the future.	As described, the content of the data seems to fit the project.  However, the nature of the sample remains obscure, which is not good.  The discussion of variables planned for the project, and their relationship to major concepts, largely seems fine.  The proposal, however, neglects to define the dependent variable.  The primary dependent variable would seem to be ownership of a handgun (as long guns are understood as most commonly owned for hunting), but this distinction is only mentioned in passing rather than made part of the research design.
Causal Interpretations	It is not clear what theoretical (or psychological) logic leads to the principal hypothesis, although the proposal shows how it reflects past findings.  Logically, it seems backwards in part.  On the face of it, it would make more sense for those with greater fear of becoming victims, but who do not themselves own guns, to support gun control, not oppose it.  Similarly, if you think you will become a victim, shouldn't you prefer that "criminals" do not have guns with which to threaten and shoot you?  It the opposite is expected to be true, we could use some explanation why that would be.  Note one implication of this thought.  The proper control for gun ownership may not be whether the respondent owns a gun, but whether someone in their household owns a gun.  I don't know what has been used in past research.  It is even possible that a desirable control might be whether anyone with whom the respondent is closely connected by kinship or friendship owns a gun for protection.  For it could be that the perception of guns mainly as a potential threat rather than as protection depends on gun ownership being absent from an individual's social world.	The protection  motivation theory is clearly described and is one plausible influence on gun ownership that is worth exploring.  However, the causal analysis should consider alternative explanations and consider what this implies about a proper research design.  The causal analysis here is announced as being different from much of what has been written (although, obviously, the article that is the source of the data is similarly stressing psychological components).  This means that the primary existing alternative causal arguments should appear.  This is not only to show knowledge of the alternatives, but because consideration of those alternatives can lead to different interpretations of the ideas being presented.  For example, one knowns argument would be that exposure to and identification with a social network of gun owners, and perceiving one's primary reference group as gun owners could be a primary determinant of gun ownership.  Taking this into account, the expectations of exposure to gun violence acts might change.  It would be reasonable to expect it would serve as a catalyst to owning a gun for people involved in a gun culture but also induce greater opposition to gun ownership for those involved in a culture where gun owning is rare and suspect.  If one saw the causal alternatives this way, it might lead to a different research design.  In the context of alternative explanations, we get a sharper focus on the potential comparisons that can further our theories. As an aside, given the content of H1, a reviewer is likely to wonder why fear of future victimization is not included, like belief in the safety effectiveness of gun ownership, as a mediating variable for H2. Also, consider this potential issue with the logic of the research question.  The proposal stresses victim experiences as a motivating cause of defensive gun ownership.  During the past 25 years, the rates of violent crimes and property crimes have fallen dramatically in the U.S.  If being a crime victim is an important cause of defensive gun ownership, we would expect that handgun ownership should show a similar decline.  Do any data suggest that this has been the pattern?  This isn't my area, but I think the data may show that rifle ownership has declined as hunting has declined, but handgun ownership has risen.  If this is so, how does the argument handle it?
Research Contribution	The references to the potential social value of the research are okay, but the defense of the research's value should stress how the proposed research will contribute to the existing literature on related issues.	Direct discussion of the research value is omitted, although some of this appears indirectly.  Clarifying the value could be considered particularly important in this case, as on the surface it appears that, when all is said and done, this project differs from the original Stroebe et al. only in adding the variable for being the victim of a crime or knowing a victim of a violent crime (note the distinction between being and knowing is not treated consistently in the proposal) as a predictor of perceived lifetime risk of assault.  To be compelling, the proposal should show either that this addition is valuable relative both to the Stroebe et al. findings and to other work that has included victimization in predicting gun ownership.  Or, it should show that this project will do more than this.
Citations & Bibliography	The reference structure seems fine (excepting the inappropriate copied materials in the data section).	The reference structure is good (although the bibliography could use some formatting work).
Quality of Writing & Organization	The writing is ok, but there are numerous grammatical errors and awkward sentence constructions that detract from the overall writing quality.  Proofread carefully for the final draft.	The writing is good.
Priorities for Revising / Responsiveness to Feedback	The first things you want to get done are to get the information needed to decide the worth of the data set and to rewrite the data section.  Secondly, you should work on the causal analysis, which appears to be underdeveloped.  If you can get these worked out, the proposal looks like it should lead to a good project.	The proposal has been significantly revised, with the focus shifting from support for gun control to possession of a gun.  As such, some of the earlier feedback is irrelevant and some addressed.  One issue that is still ignored is the simple orientation to the effect of exposure to crime, implying that it simply increases the likelihood of gun ownership (previously, opposition to gun control).  A more plausible argument would seem to be that exposure to crime would motivate handgun purchases in a cultural (and sometimes legal) context that supports handgun ownership.
Miscellaneous Notes
Proposal		If the data works out, this looks to be a workable project that could produce some good results.  The proposal is still a bit uneven, although generally okay.
Class Overall		A fair effort to improve throughout the course.