Why or why not?

justice system and systemic issues with San Antonio
1. Is the topic manageable enough that the proposal author can feasibly offer a credible, thorough response or solution by the end of the course. Why or why not?
2. Has the proposal author established the problem beyond his/her own personal concerns and the local context through secondary research? If not, how would the author do this? Is this feasible within the time-frame of the course?
3. What research is already available on the topic? Is it more persuasive or less persuasive than the proposed primary research?
4. Does the primary research add to the value of the project? Explain and suggest other methods of obtaining results.
5. In what ways will providing the document to the primary audience be measurable or definable? In other words, what would a successful outcome of the project be?
Agreed Upon
6. Is the proposed audience relevant to the stated problem or opportunity? Why or why not?
7. How is this topic relevant to the proposal author?
8. Does the proposal author have plausible access to the audience? Would the primary audience listen to this person, take him/her seriously, and be willing to act on the document? If so, why?
9. If not, have they reached out to any of the audience members in order to establish credibility or access?
10. Can the author realistically meet the needs of the audiences with the proposed document?
11. Can the author realistically produce the sort of credible document the primary audience requires? Why or why not?
12. Based on the information provided, does the proposed research project seem feasible to complete by the end of the course? Why or why not?
13. What is the approximate time span that this project will take to complete? Would you say this is time-bound or more of a long-term development plan? Explain how this impacts the relevance/credibility of the proposed document/solution.