2432	Assessment Initial Draft	Final Draft comments
Abstract	The overall content of the abstract is fine.  The casual language and some awkward phrasing both create some ambiguities and detract from it having a professional air.	The abstract is okay; it could be clearer and adopt a more professional syntax.  For example, suggesting "restlessness" causes crime is vague, unlikely to be accepted by reputable criminologists, and does not really reflect the argument in the proposal.
Research Question	The general aim of the research is fairly clear, although the specific research questions are not.	The goal of replicating the Chamlin & Cochran article is clear enough, but the motivation for doing so should also be considered.  A replication is a sound goal if, and generally only if, the author shows that the original research is important enough to merit replication and provides a careful review of the existing publications with research results bearing on the  research being considered for replication.  This proposal neglects both these.
Literature Review	The literature review gets across some of the basic ideas relevant to the project.  Unfortunately, the review suffers from a narrow range of materials considered and a casual presentation that tends to muddy rather than highlight the critical ideas. This draft cites three other scholarly articles, and includes no research from the past 20 years. The proposal needs to review what scholars now working in this area would consider the relevant work and address how the proposed study fits into this literature.	The literature review is okay as far as it goes.  What it includes is a bit arbitrary.  Ideally, it should do two things that it does not.  First, it should systematically review the work that is in some way responsive to the article the research intends to replicate.  Second, it should show an organized understanding of the relevant theory, research, and literature, as, for example, in Pratt, Travis C., and Francis T. Cullen. "Assessing Macro-Level Predictors and Theories of Crime: A Meta-Analysis." Crime and Justice 32 (2005): 373-450 (except up to date, of course).   The proposal dedicates a paragraph to this review but does not show a recognition of what the review tries to do. The literature review (including much of the "research strategy" that is an extension of the literature review) does a sustained effort to explain institutional anomie theory.  This shows good effort, but it would benefit considerably by becoming more critical, displaying a bit deeper understanding of the arguments, and showing more knowledge of the subsequent work.  For a basic starting point, try Schoepfer, A. 2015. "Institutional Anomie Theory." The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. 1–4. DOI: 10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx026
Data & Analysis	The proposed data seem reasonable within the defined boundaries of the research project.  Those boundaries, however, may prove problematic.  Aggregate characteristics such as crime rates vary considerably by more local characteristics than states, such as by population density from rural to large city, and group categories, such as by age.  One can try to control for the range of relevant characteristics, but since we have only 50 states, we can only handle a limited number of such characteristics simultaneously. Of course, the approach also must face the issues of possible ecological fallacies. This does not mean that the strategy of using aggregated data is doomed to failure.  But it does suggest that it may require considerable methodological and theoretical subtlety and hard work to overcome such issues.	The Gini index, a measure of inequality, is a dubious indicator of economic deprivation.  Very poor areas can have a low Gini index.  Chamlin & Cochran seem to recognize this - so should you. The data are roughly appropriate for the project as it is defined.  It is surprising to find no discussion of the issues involved in using such data aggregated at the state level, however.  That previous research used state level data does not mean that it is unproblematic.  The proposal would show a more appropriate critical perspective if it raised questions about whether the relevant "institutional" contexts can be expected to operate at the level of states (as opposed to the nation as a whole or more local environments).   Note that attendance at undergraduate state universities appears a weak indicator for the commitment to education to which you refer.  It might be more to the point to look at the proportion of adults in some age range such as 25-40 for what percent have a college degree or some college.  Either way, notice that this is an indicator of what proportion of the population gets educated, which commonly means how affluent they are.  So, if the research wants to go further in the direction of the implied concept, it could consider the percent getting a college education, controlling for affluence.  However, to push this even further, it seems likely that high schools are really the crucial educational context, not college.  Unless one has a theory that people who go to college and those who do not are the same on leaving high school, and it is the college experience or its lack that decides criminality.  The point here is that crude indicators can be highly problematic, even if they appear in past work in this tradition.  Part of the goal of a good replication is to look critically at all aspects of the work.
Causal Interpretations	Beside an overly casual writing style that leaves too much ambiguity, the causal interpretations provided seem underdeveloped.  For example, as the research aims to compare characteristics aggregated at the state level, it needs to consider the difference between relationships owing to composition (different states have different distributions of the relevant population characteristics) compared to those owing to cultural differences or social network differences as mediating "variables."	The proposal seems oddly blind about one likely result of the data analysis.  We know that both violent and property crime rates dropped dramatically in the U.S. in the period 1990-2010.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the institutional characteristics these people talk about displayed a comparable increase during this period (and likely little increase if any).  Thus, whatever might be the relationship between the "independent" and "dependent" variables by states cross sectionally, the variation in crime rates over time is surely going to be largely independent of the variation in the "institutional anomie" indicators.  This has a high likelihood for producing good results sufficient for publication, which is really good for the project.  However, the fact that the proposal shows no recognition of this and instead refers to the work being replicated with apparent reverence is disconcerting. Be wary of references to a flawed system or the like.  The absence of crime is not by itself evidence that the system lacks flaws.  It could, for example, simply reflect successful repression (e.g. a slave population may not engage in much crime).  The analytical questions are not about good and bad.
Research Contribution	No real effort to defend the value of the research.	The research value is still not well defended.  To be honest, it is not apparent from the proposal that the author recognizes what makes the research potentially valuable to scholarship. Note that the research is not using "cross national data" as misstated in the "Purpose" section.
Citations & Bibliography	The bibliography is formally okay (if substantively too thin).  Citations are largely absent in the text, which will not do.  Please consult an appropriate guide to the reference style system being used.	The reference structure is fine, with the exception of some inconsistency in the bibliographical formatting.
Quality of Writing & Organization	The prose is easy to read, but its informality is not ideal for presenting tightly organized arguments. Breaking up the proposal into sections would help the reader navigate more easily.  The proposal should echo the tone of scholarly articles by becoming more formal, focused, and academic.  The proposal should also avoid broad abstract or philosophical claims (such as “what is success?”), particularly without citing others.	The writing is generally good throughout, with some flaws in maintaining a consistent scholarly "voice."
Priorities for Revising / Responsiveness to Feedback	The proposal could use some serious efforts in all facets.	The final proposal shows a strong effort to respond to and overcome issues in the initial draft.
Miscellaneous Notes
Proposal		This proposal appears to aim at defending a dubious theoretical framework, but the research design has a good chance of producing results that discredit that approach.
Class Overall		The amount of improvement through the course stands out.