Executive Fire Officer Program Capstone Research Paper Guidelines

EXECUTIVE FIRE OFFICER PROGRAM CAPSTONE RESEARCH PAPER GUIDELINES

INTRODUCTION

This guide is designed to assist students enrolled in the National Fire Academy's (NFA's)

Executive Fire Officer Program to fulfil the research requirements of the program. The

primary objective of the guide is to describe what is expected of students as they engage in

the research process. In addition, it provides guidelines for students to follow in the

preparation of the Capstone Research Paper (CRP).

Students perform original research, and foundational research considerations are provided

incrementally throughout the program based on Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,

and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5

ed. (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

M5104 R5201 R5202 R5203

R5204

Research design components are embedded in the first four EFO Program courses and

culminate in M5104 Applications in the Exercise of Leadership: Capstone I, in which

instructors evaluate and provide detailed feedback on research elements through

incremental writing assignments in preparation for the final submission.

Students must complete and submit the CRP prior to arrival on campus for the last EFO

Program course, R5204 Applications in the Exercise of Leadership: Capstone II. The CRP

must be submitted electronically, through the Learning Management System (LMS)

approximately four weeks prior to course’s start. CRPs must receive a total score of 31 or

higher to be considered acceptable and pass (see rubric in Appendix A). Students who

do not pass will not be able to attend the final resident course. Upon successful

completion of the last resident course students are awarded the EFO Program certificate.

A panel of subject matter experts and NFA staff review all CRPs to evaluate and potentially

recommend exemplary EFO Program CRPs to be archived in the National Emergency

Training Center's (NETC's) Library. Students who demonstrate exemplary work are

strongly encouraged to pursue publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

While examples from the Legacy EFO Program of Applied Research Papers (ARPs) may be

helpful and are available by title or area of interest at the NETC Library, the requirements are

different for the CRP and ARP’s cannot be cited in the CRP.

WHAT IS A CAPSTONE RESEARCH PROJECT?

The project selection for the CRP is designed to allow students to investigate a key issue or

problem that has been identified as important to their fire service organization and community.

The CRP is not intended to solve a task-level issue, it must demonstrate strategic value to the

organization and community. To ensure relevancy, students are strongly encouraged to select a

topic that falls within one of the critical issues discussed in the white paper: 21

Century Fire

and Emergency Services (Center for Public Safety Excellence [CPSE] & International

City/County Management Association [ICMA], 2020).

Research Approach - Literature Review - Quantitative Methods - Qualitative Methods

EXECUTIVE FIRE OFFICER PROGRAM CAPSTONE RESEARCH PAPER GUIDELINES

The capstone research process is designed to challenge and expand executive minds as it relates

to conducting thorough and responsible research to develop conclusions and recommendations

based on empirical evidence. This process is intended to challenge executives to think

strategically and more critically than they ever have before.

Note: The targeted community must be clearly defined within the parameters of the project and

within the content of the paper. Typically, communities are defined in the context of physical or

geopolitical boundaries, but the project should consider the impact of the selected topic on as

many facets of the whole community as possible. The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) identifies the whole community to include individuals and families, including those

with access and functional needs; businesses; faith-based and community organizations;

nonprofit groups; schools and academia; media outlets; and all levels of government including

state, local, tribal, territorial, and federal partners.

SELECTION OF RESEARCH TOPICS

Considerations for selecting a research topic:

1. The significance, originality, value, and relevance of the topic or issue to the student’s

organization and community.

2. The relevance of the topic or issue to the critical areas within the white paper: 21

Century Fire and Emergency Services (CPSE & ICMA, 2020).

3. The relevance of the topic or issue to U.S. Fire Administration’s (USFA’s)

strategic goals. (Use the USFA Web site as the primary source when referring to

the goal.)

4. The research depth, data collection, and writing required for the selected topic

must be manageable within six months to one year.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Students are provided preparation materials and have various opportunities throughout the

program to solicit feedback from instructors on proposed research topics. Formal review of

research proposals, preliminary literature searches, and data collation methodology occur

throughout the M5104 Applications in the Exercise of Leadership: Capstone I course.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Capstone Research Paper will be evaluated based on the rubric provided in Appendix A.

EXECUTIVE FIRE OFFICER PROGRAM CAPSTONE RESEARCH PAPER GUIDELINES

Evaluation/Assessment Policy Statement:

Students will receive extensive evaluations on writing and research components during M5104

Applications in the Exercise of Leadership: Capstone I and are expected to implement the

feedback received for their final research paper submission in R5204 Applications in the

Exercise of Leadership: Capstone II.

If a student does not pass the initial evaluation of the CRP made during R5204 Applications in

the Exercise of Leadership: Capstone II, NFA will notify the student immediately. Issues that

are easily remedied are adjudicated by the NFA and the student may be allowed to correct and

resubmit the CRP while on campus if all other capstone elements are successfully met.

However, if the CPR is missing in-depth elements, the student will not be able to attend R5204

Applications in the Exercise of Leadership: Capstone II and must retake M5104 Applications in

the Exercise of Leadership: Capstone I before resubmission.

Students have only one (1) opportunity for resubmission. Failure to pass the second review shall

result in removal from the program.

Effective 2023, plagiarism software will used for capstone assignments. Plagiarism will

result in a grade of “F” for the assignment and course, and potential expulsion from the

EFO Program.

CAPSTONE RESEARCH PAPER FORMAT

Executive officers will follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological

Association (2020) as the citation and reference style for the CRP. A Capstone Research

Paper template is provided in M5104 Applications in the Exercise of Leadership.

PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

Do NOT include personal identifying information (PII) within a CRP. CRPs are considered

government documents because they are completed as part of a federally funded and

sponsored program. Therefore, due to requirements of the Privacy Act, authors of CRPs are

cautioned to ensure that a CRP does not include any PII.

Personal information refers to any item, collection, or grouping of information about an

individual or individuals that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to,

education, financial transactions, medical history, and employment history.

Examples of PII include date(s) of birth, resident mailing addresses, resident telephone

numbers, all or portions of Social Security Numbers (SSNs), personal email addresses, ZIP

Codes, account numbers, certificate/license numbers, and vehicle identifiers including

license numbers. Authors are also cautioned to not include any other unique identifying

number(s) or characteristic(s) or any information where it is reasonably foreseeable that the

information could be linked with other information to identify the individual(s). An

example of a nuanced PII could be participation of one of only two individuals in a

department.

EXECUTIVE FIRE OFFICER PROGRAM CAPSTONE RESEARCH PAPER GUIDELINES

References

Center for Public Safety Excellence & International City/County Management Association.

(2020). 21st century fire and emergency services. [White paper].

https://www.cpse.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/21st-Century-Fire-and-Emergency-

Services-White-Paper-Final-07.15.20.pdf

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and

mixed methods approaches. (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Publication manual of the American Psychological Association : The official guide to APA

style. (7

ed.). (2020). American Psychological Association.

APPENDIX A

EFO Capstone Research Paper Rubric

This table details the point distribution for the EFO Capstone Research Paper.

Chapter Criteria Category Unsatisfactory Proficient Distinguished

2-3 Points

4 Points

5 Points

CHAPTER 1

Abstract

•

(A) Missing two or more items from the

Proficient category

(B) Does not follow a logical order to the

point that the reader may be confused

Contains citations, undefined abbreviations or

acronyms, results, or interpretations that are

not addressed in the text

•

Accurate and self-contained (250-word

maximum)

Problem statement defined with objectives and

intent

Purpose statement defined

Research method defined

Research questions or hypothesis summarized

or paraphrased

Procedures summarized

Results summarized

Recommendations summarized

Contains important key words

•

All criteria from the Proficient category

met and exemplary

AND

Correct tense is used throughout

AND

Appropriate focus on original work and

work of others

AND

Accessible to a large audience (minimal

jargon)

AND

Optimal use of key words

are

not the

use of

Introduction

•

Problem statement is not clearly and precisely

defined

References do not support the problem

statement

Purpose statement is not clearly and precisely

defined

Specific research methods are not identified

(A) Research questions/hypothesis are NOT

clearly stated

(B) Hypothesis is not appropriate for research

method identified

•

Problem statement clearly and precisely

defined

Utilized appropriate academic (peer-reviewed)

references in support of the problem statement

Purpose statement clearly and precisely

defined

Specific research methods identified

(A) Research questions/hypothesis clearly

stated

(B) Hypothesis appropriate for research

method identified

•

All criteria from the Proficient category are

met and exemplary

AND

Identified deficiencies in existing studies

AND

Demonstrates relevancy and interests the

reader

Background and

Significance

•

Background analysis of the stated problem is

not clear or complete

Sufficient evidence is not provided to justify

study from an organizational and community-

level perspective, based on past, present, and

probable future impact

Relevant financial, cultural, and ethical

considerations are insufficient, or

demographic and historical data are not

present where necessary

Original research methodology is not

communicated clearly

•

Clear and complete background analysis of the

stated problem

Sufficient evidence provided to justify study

from an organizational and community-level

perspective, based on past, present, and

probable future impact

Relevant financial, cultural, and ethical

considerations are sufficient, and demographic

and historical data are present

Original research methodology communicated

Clear, logical linkage established between the

research problem topic and the literature

and/or the critical issues identified in 21st

Century Fire and Emergency Services (CPSE

& ICMA, 2020) and the goals of the EFO

program

•

All criteria from the Proficient category are

met and exemplary

AND

Uses an appropriate contemporary event, case

study, etc. to demonstrate relevancy and secure

interest

APPENDIX A

Chapter

Criteria Category

Unsatisfactory

Proficient

Distinguished

2-3 Points

4 Points

5 Points

• The minimum number of required peer

• A minimum of eight peer-reviewed journals or

• All criteria from the Proficient category are

reviewed sources is not included textbooks cited (excluding EFOP texts or prior met and exemplary

• There is no clear connection between the

EFO papers/ARPs*) AND

literature, the research questions, and the • A minimum of two peer-reviewed journals or • Demonstrates a comprehensive review that

methodology textbooks cited outside of fire publications involves associated research from at least three

• The literature review does not critically

(e.g., public health, business, social science, other disciplines with logical linkages to the

analyze the data. For example, the literature

psychology, etc.) research topic

review may include relevant sources, but the • Citations are diverse, from a variety of authors

A TEP

Literature Review

literature review reads like a list of studies

without critical evaluation of the source

and sources

• Findings of others are incorporated

materials

• At least 50% of sources published within the

last 5 years

• Linkage from sources to research

questions/hypothesis and methodology is

clearly defined

*These items may be cited but will not count toward

the citation requirement.

APPENDIX A

Chapter

Criteria Category

Unsatisfactory

Proficient

Distinguished

2-3 Points

4 Points

5 Points

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

Research Approach

• Research approach is not scoped

appropriately

• Research questions/hypothesis are not

focused, measurable, and clearly articulated

Data Collection

• The selected data gathering

instruments/processes are not appropriate

(e.g., will not measure what the study intends

to measure)

• Procedures are not sufficiently delineated to

permit replication

• Variables and limitations do not include

exclusion criteria (e.g., an explanation of data

excluded from the study) or statement that all

data was used

• Explanation of considerations used to assure

validity and reliability during the data

collection, analysis, and interpretation are not

present in the document

• Results and explanation of inferential

statistics are not present. There is no clear

relationship to the research

questions/hypothesis are not included

Ethics

• Conflicts of interest are not addressed

• Procedures to ensure subject privacy are not

• Research approach is sufficiently scoped and

detailed

• Research questions/hypothesis are focused,

measurable, and clearly articulated and able to

address the research problem

• The selected data gathering

instruments/processes are provided and

appropriate

• Field test is discussed if researcher is

developing own instrument

• Research procedures (means of obtaining

participants, means of collecting data, and

means for analysis) are sufficiently delineated

to permit replication

• Variables and limitations noted to include

explanation of data excluded from the study or

statement that all data was used

• Explanation presented of considerations used

to assure validity, reliability, or trustworthiness

during the data collection, analysis, and

interpretation

• Conflicts of interest and bias are addressed

• Addresses how subject privacy information is

protected (confidentiality of participants)

• Addresses potential negative impact on

participants and mitigation strategies

• Addresses the security of data and integrity of

analysis

• Ethical considerations addressed

•

All criteria from the Proficient category are

met and exemplary

AND

Research questions are focused, measurable,

and clearly articulated

AND

The selected data gathering

instruments/processes are appropriate and the

process is explained thoroughly

AND

Appropriate data collection type and thorough

explanation of the choice as applicable to this

study

AND

The variables are correct, with sufficient

explanation of how they relate to the study

AND

Conflicts of interest have been thoroughly

explained and sufficiently justified

AND

Privacy protocols for subject information are

articulated

AND

Thoroughly addresses ethical considerations to

include the removal of bias and measures to

ensure participant safety

addressed

• Potential negative impact on participants and

mitigation strategies are not addressed

• Does not address the security of data and

integrity of analysis

• Ethical considerations are not sufficiently

addressed

IF Qualitative:

• Types/strategies are appropriate for the

research questions

• Appropriate data collection type, with

pertinent explanations

• The selection/recruitment of participants is

purposeful and of adequate numbers/sample

size is defended

IF Quantitative:

• The population, sampling design, and sample

is appropriate and defended

• Descriptive statistics of participant

demographics, responses, and/or observations

are considered

• Nonexperimental variables controlled

(experimental only)

• The statistical test(s) is/are appropriate for the

variables and purpose of the study

APPENDIX A

Chapter

Criteria Category

Unsatisfactory

Proficient

Distinguished

2-3 Points

4 Points

5 Points

CHAPTER 4

Results

•

Results/findings are not clearly and concisely

stated in narrative form

Results/finding descriptions are not organized

by research question

Detailed results of all procedures are not

provided

Specific answers to original research

questions are not provided or the explanation

of whether original hypothesis was supported

by results, as appropriate is not included

Comprehensive analysis of data is not

included in sufficient detail

Tables and/or figures are not clearly

•

Results/findings clearly and concisely stated in

narrative form

Results/finding descriptions organized by

research question

Detailed results of all procedures provided

Specific answers to original research questions

provided or explanation of whether original

hypothesis was supported by results, as

appropriate

Comprehensive analysis of data included

Tables and/or figures are clearly presented,

correctly labeled, and contain appropriate data

Real data (statistics for quantitative study or

•

All criteria from the Proficient category are

met and exemplary

AND

Thorough description of relevant research

results per research question upon which to

build an explanation of the subsequent sections

AND

Thorough evaluation and interpretation of the

results as they relate to the original hypothesis

or problem, from which, appropriate

conclusions can be drawn

•

presented, not correctly labeled, and/or

contain inappropriate data

Final product(s) of action research are not

included as an Appendix

•

quotes for qualitative study) are provided for

support

Final product(s) of action research included as

an appendix

CHAPTER

Implications,

Recommendations,

and Conclusions

•

Recommendations do not logically flow from

the results

Recommendations are not supported by the

data collected

Recommendations are not provided for the

organization and for future readers

Commentary on the “importance” of findings

and the impact on the organization and

community (APA 2020, p. 91) is absent or

incomplete

Recommendations for changing original

assumptions or methods that can/should be

made for future study are not included or

sufficiently addressed

•

Recommendations/conclusions logically

flowed from the results

Recommendations/conclusions were supported

by the data collected

Recommendations provided for the

organization and for future readers

“Reasoned and justifiable commentary of the

importance” of findings and the impact on the

organization and community (APA 2020, p.

91) are provided

Recommendations for future research are

provided

Limitations experienced in the application or

generalizability of the study are addressed

•

All criteria from the Proficient category are

met and exemplary

AND

Thorough discussion of the

generalizability/external validity of the study

AND

Thorough discussion of the shortcomings,

limitations, or barriers within your study

AND

Thorough “reasoned and justifiable

commentary on the importance of your

findings,” including the core contributions of

the study

APPENDIX A

Chapter

Criteria Category

Unsatisfactory

Proficient

Distinguished

2-3 Points

4 Points

5 Points

GLOBAL

Overall Scholarship

and Professionalism

•

Theories, principles, and procedures are not

presented and used properly

Information and data are not accurate and

current

There are errors in grammar, punctuation,

spelling, sentence structure, and

typing/editing style

Reference lists and in-text references are not

documented sufficiently

APA Style guidelines, edition (2020) are

not correctly implemented

Title does not reflect the nature of the study;

correct NFA title page format is not followed

Table of contents does not include all major

headings; a list of tables provided if more

than one is used; and/or appendices are not

listed and defined

Certification statement is not signed and

•

Theories, principles, and procedures were

presented and used properly

Information and data are accurate and current

Correct grammar, punctuation, spelling,

sentence structure, and typing/editing style

(with fewer than 4 minor errors)

Reference lists and in-text references are

documented

APA Style guidelines, edition (2020) are

primarily correctly implemented

Title reflects the nature of the study; correct

NFA title page format followed

Table of contents included all major headings;

a list of tables provided if more than one is

used; and appendices were listed and defined

Certification statement signed and included

•

All criteria from the Proficient category are

met and exemplary

AND

Theories, principles, and procedures were

extensive and convincing

AND

No errors in punctuation, spelling, and/or

capitalization. No word choice errors. Correct

tense used throughout

AND

All citations and references were in APA

format

included

Grading:

36–40 = A, 31–35 = B, 28–30 = C, 24–27 = D, 0–23 = F