Research Question: What is the effectiveness of current airport personnel training for active shooter situations in enhancing readiness, and how can existing programs be improved?
This section describes the design of the applied/creative project and situates the project within an issue, question, or problem within the discipline. For this week’s assignment, you will write the Project Implementation section of your project.
This section is where you include your project, which must comport with discipline standards for rigor, original contributions to the practice or knowledge of the field, creative expression within a specific theoretical lens, or application of theory to a specific context. The project often includes the following elements:
- Rigorous discussion of how this method of solving the problem will benefit others.
- Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the chosen tool or technique, and discussion of other possible ways the problem could have been solved.
- Contextualization and application of the chosen tool or process within professional practice.
- Rigorous justification of the tool or process selected to address the problem, with support from the academic and professional literature.
- Analysis of current tools available to solve the problem or improve professional practice, comparing and contrasting to identify benefits and issues.
- Identification of an appropriate problem, issue, or question within the practice or application of the discipline.
Read over the the feedback from the Week 8 Project Design, and incorporate it to help create a better Project Implementation.
Feedback: “This project presents a strong and timely critique of airport personnel training for active shooter incidents, framed by a meaningful integration of High Reliability Organization (HRO) theory and Policy Implementation Theory. The proposal raises important concerns about overreliance on static, compliance-oriented training and contributes meaningfully to the dialogue on adaptive preparedness within critical infrastructure environments. However, the project would benefit significantly from additional detail in several key areas to strengthen its depth, applicability, and credibility.
First, the current description of the proposed training module is promising but underdeveloped. You mention it will incorporate virtual simulation, psychological readiness, and role-specific strategies, but the proposal lacks detail about how these components will be designed, implemented, or assessed. For example, how will psychological readiness be measured or supported? What technologies will be used in the virtual simulations? Will the scenarios be based on real incidents or developed in consultation with subject matter experts? Adding this level of specificity will greatly improve the practicality and replicability of your module.
Second, the methodology section should be expanded. The project notes the use of secondary data and public documents but does not clearly outline how these will be analyzed. Are you conducting a thematic content analysis of after-action reports? Are you comparing federal guidance with local implementation through document review? Explicitly naming your research methods and the rationale behind them will lend more academic rigor to your work and make your findings more persuasive.
Additionally, the critical lens section introduces two strong frameworks, but their application to the actual training design is somewhat abstract. For example, how specifically does HRO theory inform your module’s structure or content? Could you show how traits like “preoccupation with failure” or “reluctance to simplify interpretations” are embedded in the simulated scenarios or in the evaluation metrics? Similarly, how does Policy Implementation Theory illuminate the barriers to effective training at different airport types or levels of resource availability?
Lastly, consider expanding your discussion of limitations. You rightly note that generalizability is constrained by your single-case design, but the proposal could benefit from greater transparency around the challenges of evaluating training effectiveness without primary data. You briefly mention IRB limitations but could go further in acknowledging how the lack of direct input from airport personnel affects your ability to assess training impact or readiness gaps. You might also explore ways to mitigate this limitation, such as proposing hypothetical interview protocols or outlining future research steps.
In summary, your project is conceptually strong and addresses a crucial gap in aviation security training. To increase its impact, add more detail about your training module, research methods, theoretical application, and limitations. These additions will not only clarify your approach but also make your findings more actionable for both academic and professional audiences.”
