After reading and evaluating the colleagues' postings, the following responses are hereby noted: For research #1 which aimed to determine the perception and awareness of safety specialists and other external stakeholders regarding crucial ingredients to be integrated within an Indiana school safety plan, one strongly shares the same contention that a quantitative research design in required to solicit the needed information from the identified sample. However, in conjunction with this method, one also asserts that a qualitative method need to be used to support the quantitative design through the need to interview some of the safety specialists and participants who could have provided responses that need to be further verified. As such, to increase the reliability and credibility of the responses generated from the survey, an interview method should also be used to ensure that all concerns are appropriately answered, cross-checked, verified as to accuracy, prior to arriving at a conclusive outcome.
For research #2 which aimed to determine the relevant profiles and factors for high achieving economically disadvantaged students. One asserts that there is a need to streamline and qualify the research problem. Would the researcher aim to identify the factors that contribute to high or successful academic performance, despite being classified under economically disadvantaged? And so, if these factors have been determined, what would be the relevance of the results? In addition, the case study alone as the research method could be restrictive. One believes that a quantitative method of research could initially be conducted to determine the potential population, considered as economically disadvantaged (ED), could first be solicited from district schools database and then, from here, appropriate number of participants could be surveyed and interviewed using a larger sample size to increase the reliability and validity of the results.