Arizona State University Week 5 Legitimate and Reward Power Discussion Writing Assignment Help

In light of this week’s article, l’d like you to find an artwork for which an online component is a constitutive aspect- that is, an artwork that is made to be on the internet, not just a picture of an artwork that can be found on the internet. You are welcome to write about any artist that you find – if you’re not sure where to look, I would suggest Wafaa Bilal or Hasan Elahi. How does the internet feature in the artwork that you’re looking at? What role does the internet play? How does the anonymity of the internet play a role, or the borderless participation, or the lack of physical presence? In other words, using any work, I would like you to reflect on online artistic practice in which the internet is in some sense the medium itself.

*** Words count = 600 words.

*** In-Text Citations and References using Harvard style. (If Needed)

• The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated folder.
• Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
• Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
• Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
• Late submission will NOT be accepted.
• Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
• All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
• Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.

Research Proposal and Preliminary Bibliography

In Module 2, you began conducting research for your final paper examining one of the themes noted in the course.

For
this Critical Thinking Assignment, provide a short research proposal
and cite 7 or more credible sources in an annotated bibliography. You
may use the sources you worked with in this week’s discussion.

This Critical Thinking Assignment has two parts.

Part 1: Research Proposal

Address the following in your proposal:

• What
  topic/question do you plan to research? Why? What sparks your interest
  in this issue? And why does this issue matter to others beyond yourself?
• Who
  are the various stakeholders when it comes to this issue? Then, who
  your intended audience? What specific group of individuals has the power
  to make change when it comes to this issue?
• How have you narrowed this topic/question to make it more manageable? How could you keep narrowing it if needed?
• What makes your topic/question debatable? What are 3-5 open-ended questions within this topic?
• Based
  on your preliminary bibliography, how researchable does this question
  seem? Have you found a wealth of diverse sources and opinions? How
  credible and reliable do your sources seem? How easy or difficult was it
  to find peer-reviewed/scholarly sources? Which sources are most
  promising? Why?

NOTE: This assignment is not a
full research essay. For now, you are writing a few paragraphs
defending your research topic, why it matters, what its central
questions are, etc.

Your research proposal must be approved by your instructor to move forward with your research.

Part 2: Annotated Bibliography

Address the following for the annotated bibliography:

• APA formatting for the citations
• Citations/sources listed in alphabetical order
• Note how each source will help you explore your topic more fully.
• All
  sources should be print books, eBooks from the library, articles from
  the library databases, or articles (print or web) from local, regional,
  and national/international newspapers and magazines. No general
  websites, .com websites, wiki sites, personal blogs, etc.
• At
  least 2 of your sources need to be peer-reviewed/scholarly journal
  articles from the library databases. What is a peer-reviewed scholarly
  article? Watch the following video: The Peer Review Process (Links to an external site.)
• All
  sources should be from the last five years (approx.) to avoid out of
  date information. Include annotations for at least 4-5 sources cited in
  the discussion board.

Use the following template:

• Research Proposal and Preliminary Bibliography Template (Template found in the Module folder.)

Required elements to turn in with submission:

• Research Proposal
• Annotated Bibliography
• Appendix – following references:
  • Pattern of error log (Template found in the Module folder.)
  • Turnitin report (provide similarity score and any comments)

Requirements:

• Part 1 Length: Minimum of 300 words
• Part 2 Length: 1-2 paragraphs

.doc file

Assignment Purposes/Learning Outcomes:

After completion of Assignment-3 students will able to understand the

LO 1.1 Demonstrate a solid understanding of prominent theories of ethics and morality

LO 2.1. Defend their rationale for decisions related to acceptable and unacceptable business conduct based on the business ethics principles.

LO 4.5. The capacity to write a coherent project about a case study or actual research about ethics.

Assignment-3

• Read the case article “Ethical dilemma of who survives self-driving car accident”Publication info: The New Zealand Herald; Auckland, New Zealand [Auckland, New Zealand]03 Jan 2019: B.3. available in SDL and answer the following questions:

Critical Thinking Question(s):(Marks 5)

1. Analyze the philosophical approach (3 prescriptive approaches) the author speaks about considering the examples mentioned in the article. (3 Marks)
2. Evaluate one of the Philosophical approaches and describe why you have (or would) use this approach to guide your decision making. (2 Marks)

Grading Criteria – Rubric for Assignment

Criteria/Achievements	Excellent	Average	Below Average
The philosophical approach to ethical decision making involves Prescriptive approaches (Students must discuss ethical perspectives of Consequentialist theory, Deontological Theories, and Virtue Ethics) must be clear. (60 % Score)	Explain all the three approaches with relevant examples from the article case is clear. (3 Marks)	Examples are clearly explained but fail to explain all the three approaches. (2 Mark)	Examples and Approaches are not well explained. (1 Mark)
The explanation should be based on selecting and reasoning the approach being used as a guideline for decision making. Eg if the student chooses the consequentialist approach then reasoning should be based on maximum benefits to society and minimize harms. (40 % Score)	All the facets of the approach along with reasons are well explained. (2 Marks)	Explanation lacks clarity about the approach. (1.5 Mark)	Reasons are not acceptable for selecting a particular approach. (0.5 Mark)