Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Mixed Methods
- All Subjects: Capital Punishment
- All Subjects: Legal System
- Creators: Ban, Heng
- Status: Published
Description
By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and their role as jury members. Survey respondents were told that a jury had previously found the defendant guilty and they would now deliberate the appropriate punishment. Before being exposed to the manipulation, respondents answered questions pertaining to their prior belief in the death penalty, as well as their level of support of procedural justice and science. These questions provided a baseline to compare to their sentencing decision. Participants were then asked what sentence they would impose \u2014 life in prison or death \u2014 and how the fMRI evidence presented by an expert witness for the defense affected their decision. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to identify how the level of scientific detail affected their decision. Our intended predictor variable (level of scientific detail) did not affect juror decision-making. In fact, the qualitative results revealed a variety of interpretations of the scientific evidence used both in favor of death and in favor of life. When looking at what did predict juror decision-making, gender, prior belief in the death penalty, and political ideology all were significant predictors. As in previous literature, the fMRI evidence in our study had mixed results with regards to implementation of the death penalty. This held true in both of our manipulations, showing that despite the level of detail in evidence intended for mitigation, jurors with preconceived notions may still disregard the evidence, and some jurors may even view it is aggravating and thus increase the likelihood of a death sentence for a defendant with such brain abnormalities.
ContributorsBerry, Megan Cheyenne (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Pardini, Dustin (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
During the last 25 years, the academic research environment has become increasingly competitive, with those seeking grants contending for over $83.7 billion, available from primarily six federal agencies. Notably, this increased competition occurred at the same time states have cut support for public universities. To deal with decreases in state support, university leaders and administrators have adopted “new managerialist” approaches that capitalized on three elements obliging early-career engineering faculty members to ‘win’ more federal funding. These three components include (a) leveraging the probationary period during promotion and tenure to stimulate grant production, (b) seeking revenue beyond tuition and operations to support the institution, and (c) augmenting faculty resources by including professional grant writers/support personnel who collaborate with early-career faculty members to mitigate challenges of increased competition for grants by providing domain and implicit knowledge to aid the engineers in grant development. The promotion and tenure process has become particularly challenging for early-career engineers because of the highly competitive federal research landscape.This mixed-methods action research (MMAR) study was conducted to examine the effects of an intervention designed to provide on-demand, online grant writing professional development using a set of five modules. The modules focused on providing information about five constructs related to grant development or grant writing, including requirements, processes, skills, attitudes, and self-efficacy. For three of the five modules, participants demonstrated modest or moderate increases in quantitative scores for the constructs based on survey data. During semi-structured interviews, early-career engineering faculty members revealed candid thoughts about the modules, grant writing, and the “need” to obtain grants as part of their professional lives. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data, including Knowledge, Online Learning, Grant Writing Process, and Winning the Next Grant. The discussion focused on connections between the quantitative and qualitative data, explaining the findings based on the theoretical frameworks, limitations, implications for practice and research, and included a summary.
ContributorsKessel, Monica L. (Author) / Buss, Ray R (Thesis advisor) / Mertler, Craig A (Committee member) / Ban, Heng (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021