I have attached the draft with the Chair notes. I was reading over it and I think her point is my study is on a social issue, which she is ok with, she wants to know what research has been done on the issue and what is missing (gap) in the way it’s been researched( this is what you will be working on).
She wants the research side of the social issue. Documented facts & figures and what others have done on this.
I originally went with the idea after draft one of qualified immunity as the gap( THIS NEEDS TO BE REMOVED). Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law.
I know there has not been research to show the relationship to QI and the abuse and unfair treatment. I wanted the premise: if the officer knows they will not be be held personally accountable or responsible they are far more likely to exercise restraint.
In revising the draft she agreed that I have some good ideas here…but there is no consistency in the document as to my unit of analysis and my purpose. She and I spoke and she said that adding the element of qualified immunity is an interesting element, but studying a judicial doctrine requires me to study judicial decisions regarding police cases or something along those lines…not live with and interview community members about their experiences with the police…those are different types of studies with a different purpose and a different unit of analysis.
DO NOT USE Qualified immunity FIND ANOTHER GAP BASED ON SOMETHING NOT RESEARCHED on the topic from a previously written dissertation and then make the adjustments based on her comments and add to the document
I have attached both drafts so you can make sure you address all the comments being asked.
I will check back every couple of hours within the 24 hours.