hey need writer from order 62922 as there expertise is the best and trust them please message me if anything is needed as I'm not too aware of the task and what reading you need so please tell me what you pick and if you need me to get you will send lecture video if needed please read below
Seminal article critique based on an article of student's choice relevant to a topic from the course to be completed by all students.
On successful completion you will be able to:
- Integrate and analyse relevant theoretical and case-based literature to present a sustained, coherent and logical consideration to cybercrime and cyber security
- Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the key procedures and practices relevant to the management of cyber security risks and countermeasures.
- Critique and evaluate key security vulnerabilities of data storage infrastructure.
- Apply advanced cyber hygiene practices to improve both personal and professional security
Untitled QuestionsToConsiderForYourSeminalArticle General: • Is the purpose of the paper explained? • Does the paper explain why the research was carried out? • What was accomplished? • What were the main findings? • What is the significance of the research? • What conclusions were reached? The research design: • Is there a clear rationale for the chosen research approach, methods and/or instruments used? • Is the research method appropriate for the research question? • Was the collection of data appropriate for the research question? • Is there enough information concerning the participants? • What were the ethical considerations for the research and participants (if any)? • Were the methods and/or instruments described in enough detail? • Were any ambiguous terms used? • Is the method deemed reliable and valid? • Are any limitations of the study discussed? Data analysis (aka results and findings section): • Were the steps involved in the data analysis explained and strategies justified? • Was the data analysis rigorous enough to substantiate the claims? • Were all data taken into account? If not, why not? • Are the presented results relevant to the research question? • Do the tables and graphs (if any) make the data analysis clearer? The discussion: • Have the results been interpreted in relation to the research question and aims? • Have the results been discussed with reference to the research question, hypothesis (if applicable) and theoretical or conceptual frameworks? • Have conclusions and/or recommendations been appropriately drawn from data analysis? • Did the researcher(s) highlight the most important results? • Have the results been used to support or refute the results of other studies? • How relevant and useful are the results to practice? Untitled Student Name – Student Number – Journal Article Critique 1 Straus S, Parker A and Bruce J (2011) The Group Matters: A Review of Processes and Outcomes in Intelligence Analysis, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research & Practice 15(2): 128-146 Introduction: The peer reviewed article written by Straus, Parker and Bruce, reviews research literature concerning process losses in team analysis. The authors extend upon their experience as behavioral scientists with the RAND Corporation and lecturers at leading universities, to discuss the purpose of the article, which concerns how features of team intelligence analysis tasks present process loss challenges. The authors are able to build from recognised scholarly works, to achieve an assessment of the previous conditions exposed to intelligence analysis teams (Straus et al, 2011), address the process losses in these situations (Straus et al, 2011: 131-136), convey areas where process improvements can be made (Straus et al, 2011: 136-139) and direction for further research (Straus et al, 2011: 139-141). The author argues that process losses are unwanted attributes of intelligence analysis, which is prevalent in idea generation, judgment and predictive tasks (Straus et al, 2011: 131). The article covers specific and differing examples of process losses. Firstly, by illustrating how they are prevalent, and secondly, through analysis of the detrimental effects to the final intelligence product. The authors are able to extend to existing scholarship through presenting improvements to group processes, which stems from the ability to adopt strategies that can adapt to new environments (Straus et al, 2011: 136). Intelligence analysis is an extensively researched field throughout academia; nonetheless, the authors suggest that task procedures on analytical processes and consequences needs to be expanded (Straus et al, 2011: 139). This assertion is a result of most tradecraft, with exception to a few, has not been examined empirically within the intelligence community (IC) (Straus et al, 2011: 139). Article Critique: To begin with, the article’s structure enables the reader to comprehend the authors’ purpose in a logical manner. This is essential, as content needs to be presented coherently, to be an effective means of communication. The method in which the authors convey the Student Name – Student Number – Journal Article Critique 2 antecedent conditions in intelligence analysis is a clear illustration of coherent and logical discourse. The article is effective in providing a clear definition of intelligence analysis, even though this field is rich in ambiguity (Straus et al, 2011: 129). The authors are able to communicate with the reader and the differing interpretations throughout academic discourse. This is evident through identifying the tension between, judgments being the product of intelligence analysis; and decisions being the product of policy makers (Straus et al, 2011: 129; Laughlin, 1980: 127-155). Furthermore, the article’s framework allows for context to be presented, which in turn, provides a reference point for the crux of the argument to be discussed (Straus et al, 2011: 130). The context is outlined whilst referring to ideas presented in prior scholarship, as context directly affects an analyst’s ability to collect, share and use intelligence whilst working under unique conditions (Johnston, 2005: 5-6). As aforementioned, the authors apply a structured framework which the article follows. The by-product is a logical flow of argument and subsequent discussion, which is guided throughout the article. This is a positive attribute for a reader who has lesser knowledge of the subject matter. When focusing on the differing examples of process losses, the authors are able to convey the intricacies in reference to group analysis tasks. To use an example, the arguments presented when addressing the effect overconfidence has in intelligence analysis, and how group scenarios can exacerbate process losses, is a positive attribute of the article. The authors are able to build upon Sieck and Arkes’ studies on the resistance to reduce the effects of overconfidence, and the subsequent contribution to judgment aid neglect (Sieck and Arkes, 2005: 29-53). Sieck and Arkes (2005) studies concluded that individual analysts overestimate their individual intuitive judgment abilities, which in turn displays the contribution overconfidence has in minimising detrimental effects to overall accuracy (Sieck and Arkes, 2005: 49). Straus et al (2011) are able to extend this discourse by addressing solutions to minimise overconfidence in group intelligence analysis (Straus et al, 2011: 134- 140). The authors argue that considering different outcomes, making individuals assess the level of their uncertainty, and promoting analysts to focus on thinking outside their level of expertise, are practices to address the negative effects of overconfidence (Straus et al, 2011: 137-138). The authors are able to make these recommendations by applying Sieck and Arkes’ (2011) experiments on performance monitoring and calibration feedback (Sieck and Student Name – Student Number – Journal Article Critique 3 Arkes, 2005: 44-45) and adapt it to overconfidence in group analysis. By doing this, the article is able to extend existing discourse by providing improvements to minimise process losses. Continued strengths of the article are illustrated through the authors’ abilities to provide a timeline of literature and its progress in this field. The ability to provide an analysis on the progression of literature creates the foundation to provide possible improvements in group process losses (Straus et al, 2011: 136). The complexities of group structure have been heavily discussed throughout academia, as unique conditions directly impact what group size is most effective. However, more recent research has reinforced the works of Straus et al (2011), in particular Hackman and O’Connor (2004), who illustrate that analytical work, can arguably involve social processes (Hackman and O’Connor, 2004: 2–17). Hackman and O’Connor (2004) similarly express, that there can be disadvantages in larger groups for analytical tasks (Hackman and O’Connor, 2004: 12–13). Most notably, there is a positive correlation between the group size and the exacerbation of process losses (Hackman and O’Connor, 2004: 13 and Straus et al, 2011: 139). This is a thorough example of how arguments presented by Straus et al. are supported in existing scholarship. The reader is able to have confidence in the article’s validity and relevance to the specific subject matter. Nevertheless, the article does demonstrate evident weakness that can limit the overall effectiveness of the literature review. Through analysing studies from the 1950s to present day, a concise and valid argument is presented. However, areas of the authors’ rhetoric can be argued to overlook key arguments. This is evident as the authors illustrate inconsistencies with prior studies, which can leave the reader in a state of skepticism. An example is demonstrated through the authors neglect of significant findings in the works of Paulus et al (2006: 206-219). Straus et al (2011) present that a facilitator can have a significant role in allowing for teams to engage in a more thorough and effective analysis (Straus et al, 2011: 138). Furthermore, the authors convey that facilitators can minimise production blocking through discouragement of unrelated communication (Straus et al, 2011: 138). This argument, albeit legitimate, can be seen to overlook prior studies, as Paulus et al (2006) have found that the presence of a facilitator has minimal effect on team performance (Paulus et al, 2006: 212). Paulus et al (2006) continue to illustrate that the involvement of a facilitator did not improve the group’s effectiveness, beyond the acknowledgement of simply applying added Student Name – Student Number – Journal Article Critique 4 rules (Paulus et al, 2006: 212). Straus et al (2011) fail to present these claims clearly, which subsequently provides an example of the article conveying an argument, without presenting the limitations that have been already researched in existing scholarship. This is a detrimental element of the work of Straus et al (2011) as a level of skepticism is developed throughout the readership. Additionally, in some instances the authors ignored the limitations of certain improvements to group processes (Straus et al, 2011: 136). Although this was not a reoccurring tendency throughout the article, it was noticeable, which impacted the validity of the article. Mesmer-Magnus and Dechurch’s (2009) studies are built upon in the article (Straus et al, 2011: 136), however, the article failed to present limitations concerning the unplanned ambiguity in the importance of procedures that structure discussions promote team performance (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009: 544). Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009) express their concern, as there are differing credible explanations for the success in group performance (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009: 544). An example of this ambiguity is whether effectiveness