I’m working on a writing case study and need an explanation to help me study.

Max Words: 1200

You identified a recent local or state law in Step 1 that was intended to address COVID-19 or racial justice in policing. In Step 2 you explored the complexities of the Law on the Books once you go beyond “Law in the Box” and considered the ambiguities, possible legal conflicts or gate keepers or constraints that might keep people from benefitting from the law, and the potential costs, intended or otherwise, it might inflict. Now it is time to consider how you would conduct a “gap study” of this law once it goes into action (whether it has been implemented so far or not).

Assume the university will fund a research project on COVID or racial justice in policing with funds donated by the CIGAM Foundation. Building on your analysis of the law’s objectives in Step 2 this step requires you to identify 3 possible “gaps” that could undermine the objectives of the law as it goes into action and propose one or more empirical method that you would use to confirm whether or not these gaps exist in practice.

• Your study should specify a state or local governmental unit that will be the focus of your study and a period of time you would conduct the study in (if relevant, it could be a survey or experiment that would be one moment in time).
• Identify 3 potential gaps (or explain why only 1 or 2 are possible given your law)
• Each “gap” should be based on a theory about law in action from at least one source assigned for this class. Draw on at least two theories/sources.
• Identify any evidence in media sources (or if relevant based on your own observations) covering your law or similar laws in other places, that suggests such a gap has or may emerge. (Again you may move to stories on laws like yours as needed).
• Using the library website find two scholarly sources (academic journals and books) that study a similar law in action (if need be move to a more abstract categorization, for example, laws about public health or laws about policing). Did the study find gaps similar to the ones you are hypothesizing? If not, why might that be?
• Based on these sources, identify a method or methods that you would use to show your gap hypotheses and why it/they should yield results that would be probative of your gap theories.

NOTE THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO

• Specify how you would actually collect data using your method. You will not be asked to design an experiment, survey, or study design. Just specify the method you would use (interviews, survey, experiment, ethnography, etc.) and why it would be useful.
• Calculate how much it would cost to collect the data
• Do any actual data analysis Step 3 Assignment Rubric
  

  Step 3 Assignment Rubric

  Criteria	Ratings	Pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence of Effect	6 ptsFull DiscussionThere is extensive discussion of the impact the law is having, and it draws from multiple sources in a clear and convincing manner. 4 ptsSome Discussion with EvidenceThere is some discussion on the effects that the law is having and this draws from the sources in a mostly, but not completely, clear and convincing manner. 2 ptsSome Discussion, No EvidenceThere is some discussion of either the effects the law is having but there is no evidence of said effects provided or the sources provided do not correspond with the effects discussed. 0 ptsNo DiscussionNo discussion whatsoever of the impacts the law has been having.	6 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeScholarly Sources	6 ptsFull DiscussionThe paper discusses findings from 2 or more published research studies, accurately capturing the information therein. 4 ptsSome Discussion with EvidenceThe paper discusses similar laws and how they have fared in action, drawing from 2 published research studies but perhaps missing key aspects of the research studies’ findings. 3 ptsSome Discussion, Some EvidenceSimilar laws are discussed and supported by one, but not two published research studies 2 ptsSome Discussion, No EvidenceSimilar laws are discussed but they are not supported by published research, or perhaps only supported by non-research anecdotes or opinion pieces. 0 ptsNo DiscussionNo published research is drawn from and no similar laws are discussed.	6 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHypothesis 1 4 points per hypothesis (3 hypotheses total) if you’ve done the following: 1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). If you cannot think of three hypotheses, please have a convincing case as to why there are only one or two valid hypotheses to discuss here. The points will be redistributed accordingly.	4 pts4 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 3 pts3 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 2 pts2 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 1 pts1 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 0 pts0 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.).	4 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHypothesis 2 4 points per hypothesis (3 hypotheses total) if you’ve done the following: 1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). If you cannot think of three hypotheses, please have a convincing case as to why there are only one or two valid hypotheses to discuss here. The points will be redistributed accordingly.	4 pts4 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 3 pts3 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 2 pts2 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 1 pts1 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 0 pts0 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.).	4 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeHypothesis 3 per hypothesis (3 hypotheses total) if you’ve done the following: 1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). If you cannot think of three hypotheses, please have a convincing case as to why there are only one or two valid hypotheses to discuss here. The points will be redistributed accordingly.	4 pts4 of 4 steps 1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 3 pts3 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 2 pts2 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 1 pts1 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.). 0 pts0 of 4 steps completed1. Drawing on theory from the assigned reading. 2. Accurately linking the reading to the hypothesis. 3. The hypothesis is clear and convincing based on both the readings and the studies discussed in Questions 1 and 2. 4. Explain why the hypothesis matters (e.g., for policy reasons, for understanding sociolegal dynamics, etc.).	4 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMethods those hypotheses in a future “gap study”	6 ptsFull Marks1 pt per hypothesis addressed by evidence or method discussed, if the method relies on a study from question 2 or an assigned reading from question 3 and there is a rational relation between the method used and the hypothesis tested (3 pts total, scaled to # of hypotheses). 1 point for addressing the methods’ or evidence’s strengths and limitations. 2 points for the method(s) or evidence actually standing up to scrutiny (e.g., does it actually measure what you think it is measuring?) 4 ptsAll hypos addressed + strengths & weaknesses1 pt per hypothesis addressed by evidence or method discussed, if the method relies on a study from question 2 or an assigned reading from question 3 and there is a rational relation between the method used and the hypothesis tested (3 pts total, scaled to # of hypotheses). 1 point for addressing the methods’ or evidence’s strengths and limitations 3 ptsAll hypotheses addressed1 pt per hypothesis addressed by evidence or method discussed, if the method relies on a study from question 2 or an assigned reading from question 3 and there is a rational relation between the method used and the hypothesis tested (3 pts total, scaled to # of hypotheses) 2 pts2 hypotheses addressed1 pt per hypothesis addressed by evidence or method discussed, if the method relies on a study from question 2 or an assigned reading from question 3 and there is a rational relation between the method used and the hypothesis tested (3 pts total, scaled to # of hypotheses) 1 pts1 hypothesis addressed1 pt per hypothesis addressed by evidence or method discussed, if the method relies on a study from question 2 or an assigned reading from question 3 and there is a rational relation between the method used and the hypothesis tested (3 pts total, scaled to # of hypotheses) 0 ptsNo Marks	6 pts