Answer each in 75 words or more

1. While the processes involved in personal decisions are often complicated, problems that include a number of individuals (or groups of people), such as civic, legal, or governmental public policy, increases the complexity of an already intricate process of coming to resolution.

Landeros-Thomas (2004) explored some contemporary problems faced by the Native American Indian communities in Ohio, specifically the protection and conservation of ancient sites sacred to Native peoples that are perpetually endangered by urban expansion. A prime example of this dilemma is the Newark Earthworks, a UNESCO World Heritage site, which is a significant portion of the most extensive geometric earthworks in the world.

An intrusion into the Circle and Octagon Mounds, part of the larger Newark Earthworks systems, came in the form of a private country club that threatened the integrity of the sacred site with plans to expand buildings that would destroy part of the earthworks; even though it is public land, managed by the Ohio Historical Society, the private club has leased it for the past hundred years.

The Native community has pushed for enhanced protection and increased public access to the site, but other patrons in the neighborhood (city council members, country club members, the chamber of commerce, university faculty and students, and other local residents) initially voiced either adamant opposition or ignorance of the situation. Obviously, the motives, rationales, and key elements of decision making processes of the various parties were very diverse.

Nevertheless, a crucial milestone arose when an urban development project resulted in a company proposing to displace a Civil War era cemetery in order to erect a shopping mall. The possibility of a historic graveyard being dug up gained the interest of the public at large, which ultimately enabled an alteration in public attitude and resulted in policy changes concerning the sacred site (Landeros-Thomas, 2001). The introduction to an analogous circumstance offered a link through which the larger community could recognize the humanistic features of the situation that facilitated enlightened resolution (Gillepsie, 2009).

This example provides an opportunity to utilize the interpretivist methodology when considering the various viewpoints and potential biases of the groups involved (Gordon, 2016). What do you think the perspectives of some of the groups were initially? How do you think the proposal to move the cemetery may have changed some of those perspectives?

2. It is important to realize that we each have our own cultural lens through which we perceive and experience the world around us. When we consider social research, it is a good practice to examine how a given theory may work in different environments or within different group contexts.

The theory of Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966) provides an example of just such cultural differences. Rotter (1966) built his original theory and measure of Locus of Control, in which he described individuals with high levels of internal locus of control as believing that their own actions and ability are responsible for their life circumstance, and they are in control of various life events. Conversely, those with an external locus of control see themselves as affected by external forces, and those forces being the responsible for life outcomes.

There are inherent cultural differences in the conceptualizations of locus of control and exactly what internal and external loci mean for individuals coming from cultures that may have a more communal or interdependent focus than the individualistic Anglo-American mainstream, which could lead to difficulties in generalizing research across cultural groups (Landeros-Thomas, 1997).

For example, Ross, Mirowsky, & Cockerham (1983) conducted research focused on the effects of fatalism on psychological pressures and suffering, presuming that an external locus of control was an appropriate measure of fatalism, which was theorized to be commensurate with a mainstream definition and attribution theory (Weiner, 1985).

Utilizing only a quantitative measure of locus of control, an analysis could arrive at an incorrect conclusion and generalization that a group exhibits fatalistic attitudes. However, upon closer qualitative examination, this "fatalism" was an accurate perception of external forces and subsequent behavior was an appropriate response to the external stressors (Landeros-Thomas, 1997).

What do you think?

3. Should researcher be opening minded to obtain better result to a research in your opinion?

4. The interpretivist methodology is about comprehending or understanding the world through someone else (Gordon, 2016). This is an interesting concept of research since it places or tries to place the researcher in someone else's shoes, to help them understand interactions, behaviors, and dynamics of people.

Observation is about observing in a small period of time, digesting the behaviors and interactions, while ethnography is about fully involving and engaging into a culture and studying them from their perspective (Gordon, 2016). What is interesting about the interpretivist methodology is that it is about, wants one to admit the bias of the researcher, and report and acknowledge it when one can.

By acknowledging the bias during an observation, it leads the researcher to see only what he or she MAY want to see. However, as Gordon (2016) pointed out, the researcher may observe a new or different behavior or interaction and turn the focus onto that instead.

This makes a great fit, because it allows the researcher to admit that they do have a bias and acknowledge it in their report. Even though there is a bias, the researcher still observes or engrosses themselves into a culture and will still study their participants, but allows for movement from one interaction/behavior to another if possible or needed. I also believe it allows the participant to trust the researcher if the researcher is upfront about their bias.

What are your thoughts or comment on this?