RESEARCH PROPOSAL 5 Running head: RESEARCH PROPOSAL 1 The Impact of Technological



The Impact of Technological Changes on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Vietnamese Organic Food Industry






The Vietnamese organic food industry is fast-growing, and this has contributed to the country’s economic growth. It is a result of the diversification of exports and by meeting the needs of the population. The employment created in the agri-food processing sector in Vietnam is also instrumental in raising the economy and improving the people’s well-being. As product innovations and technological advancement increase, there is a need to look at how such transformation impacts small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Despite the theoretical aspect of technology in business, less research has been done on the practical importance of technology on SMEs in the organic food industry (Van Huy et al., 2019). Thus, to get a better conclusion for the research, it is crucial to develop a research question that will guide the study.

The first research question is ‘How do the technological changes improve sales among SMEs?’ Another one is ‘What role does technological know-how have on the rivalry between firms in the food industry?’ and ‘What is the relationship between new technology and customer experience in the food sector?” This research is worth conducting since it will determine whether government and stakeholders businesses in Vietnam will adopt new technology or pursue traditional methods in operations. It will also show the link between technological changes and market penetration.

Literature Review

According to research done by Kushwah et al. (2019), organic food consumption has been highly dependent on how the customers have been engaged in the marketing process. With the advancement in technology, the chances are high that more customers would be reached and they would be aware of specific organic food products. However, there exist some barriers in terms of misleading information posted online due to exaggeration. The research considered the evaluation of 89 research studies to determine the motives and barriers of the consumption patterns in the organic food sector.

Another research done by Cullen et al. (2018) aimed at showing how plasma technology has been applied successfully in the organic food industry. Keeping organic food fresh has been the objective of most plasma technological developments, making it easier for goods to be transported from one place to another (Nguyen, 2020). Similarly, in the manufacturing of food, cold plasma is pursued in atmospheric pressure, and the outcomes are highly instrumental in determining the uptake of organic food products (Smyt et al., 2015). In the past, the manufacturing process faced many problems which resulted in contamination as the cold plasma had not been adopted as one of the technological know-how.

van Hilten et al. (2020) further elaborate how blockchain technology has been used in the organic food industry to ensure that fair-trade or organic food are easily traced from the farm all the way to the stalls. It is done while maintaining a focus on the European regulations. Thus, the study aims at evaluating the challenges and opportunities in the use of this technology. The use of a case study approach was instrumental in determining the success of blockchain technology (Padel et al., 2010). The findings in this research are similar to what was covered by Vieira & Hoppe (2016), whose focus was the technology used in the production process and the controls made in transporting and storing the organic foods.

Despite the research done, there is a gap that needs to be bridged based on how new technology can be applied in the organic food industry in the production of quality organic foods which are safe for human consumption (My et al., 2021). It also trickles down to the marketing and distribution of organic foods in the respective markets.

Research Design and Methods

To collect reliable data for the research, qualitative techniques will be used since they aim at picking the opinions of the key players or firms in the Vietnamese organic food industry. The use of questionnaires administered through emails will be embraced. Additionally, telephone interviews will help in reaching out to the participants. A sample of Vietnamese firms dealing in the production and supply of organic foods will be picked randomly. Each of the heads of the marketing and production departments will be picked in each of the selected firms, which will be 40 in number as 20 will be the sample size of the firms that would be considered to take part in the study. The questionnaires will also be administered to the respondents so that crucial information will be obtained regarding the contribution of the changing technology to the welfare of the organic food industry (Williams, 2007). After the data is collected, it will be subjected to data analysis using SPSS and Excel to attain a conclusion.

One of the limitations during the data collection will be the low response rate of emailed questionnaires. So, to deal with this, a follow-up through telephone calls will be adopted. Another issue is that not all firms in the organic food sector use similar technology since some might still be stuck in the traditional production, storage, and sale of organic foods.

Implications and Contribution to Knowledge

This research will offer better views regarding the kind of technology suitable for firms in the organic food sector. The policymakers in the industry will also be given a better platform to develop some of the most successful ways of making the firms in Vietnam to gear up towards increasing production and observing safe ways of producing and distributing organic foods. Through social media, marking can also be improved significantly as per the results obtained from the research.


Cullen, P. J., Lalor, J., Scally, L., Boehm, D., Milosavljević, V., Bourke, P., & Keener, K. (2018). Translation of plasma technology from the lab to the food industry. Plasma Processes and Polymers, 15(2), 1700085.

Kushwah, S., Dhir, A., Sagar, M., & Gupta, B. (2019). Determinants of organic food consumption. A systematic literature review on motives and barriers. Appetite, 143, 104402.

My, N. H., Demont, M., & Verbeke, W. (2021). Inclusiveness of consumer access to food safety: Evidence from certified rice in Vietnam. Global Food Security, 28, 100491.

Nguyen, V. K. (2020). Perception of Challenges in Opportunities for Organic Food Research and Development in Vietnam. Regulatory Issues in Organic Food Safety in the Asia Pacific, 199-216.

Padel, S., Niggli, U., Pearce, B., Schlüter, M., Schmid, O., Cuoco, E., … & Micheloni, C. (2010). Implementation Action Plan for organic food and farming research.

Smyth, S., Kerr, W., & Phillips, P. W. (2015). The unintended consequences of technological change: winners and losers from GM technologies and the policy response in the organic food market. Sustainability, 7(6), 7667-7683.

van Hilten, M., Ongena, G., & Ravesteijn, P. (2020). Blockchain for Organic Food Traceability: Case Studies on Drivers and Challenges. Frontiers in Blockchain, 3, 43.

Van Huy, L., Chi, M. T. T., Lobo, A., Nguyen, N., & Long, P. H. (2019). Effective segmentation of organic food consumers in Vietnam using food-related lifestyles. Sustainability, 11(5), 1237.

Vieira, L. M., & Hoppe, A. (2016). Organic food: production and control. Encyclopedia of Food and Health, 6, 178-180.

Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 5(3).[supanova_question]

help me edit and construct a complete meaningful ted-talk speech

I have written down a story with a moral story, but I need someone with knowledge about ted-talk, public speaking to make adjustment and turn my story to an appropriate speech for presentation as a ted-talk video. I attached my story file below.
Why tell a story?
FIRST — It makes it possible for others to know more about you as a person so they can learn more about you as a leader.
SECOND — It enables others to benefit from the key learnings and insights you have discovered from your personal experiences to enlighten, guide, and inspire. In essence, it is to move people to action.
But I am not a leader, or at least I don’t have a leadership role.
You are a leader, regardless of the role you hold at work, home, or at school. You have a story to share.
We have watched a lot of TED talks during this class because everyone on the TED stage is a leader in some way. It is helpful to pull out what makes for a successful TED talk, and there is a pattern. The best speakers tell a personal story as part of their talk. The personal story gets people interested because we are all storytellers who rely on stories for instructions on how to be in the world. Our societies rely on the telling of stories to maintain a particular culture. Indeed, the stories that are told often change as different events happen so that we will know how to respond. As controlling as this sounds, and as it is, what if we told our stories? What if we helped the culture be better by sharing? What if we could inspire someone to step out of the life that others had decided for them into a life of their own choosing? What if we could help someone else overcome what we have worked so hard to leave behind?
The purpose of this assignment is to give you practice in writing and telling your leadership story from your own life.

English project: Adaptation

Final Project about adaptation. This is my English project which is about adaptation. I have also attached all the instructions. my professor mentioned adapting to the topic from our course. The topic is:
this is the link for more information about this topic.
this is the topic that you’ll be going to adapt on. make sure to read the instructions.
I have attached all the instruction that my professor mentioned.

9 PSYCHOLOGY Student’s Name Institutional Affiliations Tutors Name Course Title Date How

Writing Assignment Help 9


Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliations

Tutors Name

Course Title


How can members of the public differentiate true experts from mere would-be experts?

Initially, we must evaluate who is a true expert. In the words of Goldman (2001), a true expert emphases on the notion of truth, and therefore a true expert should have true opinions and other false opinions. The experts usually acquire more true beliefs since most of their expertise is derived from their more comprehensive range of knowledge. The experts should not have more true belief in the domain compared to false ones. A crucial part is that they can bale to apply expertise and offer a genuine opinion on what is happening.

It appears to be difficult for the public to know the true experts since the problems lie in the asymmetric information between the expert with a domain and the public. Differing from this, the experts should evaluate any process of direct calibration. However, a non-expert does not know. This gives rise to the problem of a non-expert. This public cannot be able to determine who the real expert is in society.In response to the problem, a skeptical approach is possible to know who would be the expert. Goldman (2001) indicates five areas in which there is a source of evidence as follows;

The sources are as follows:

“(A) Arguments presented by the contending experts

(B) Agreement from additional putative experts

(C) Appraisals by “meta-experts” of the experts’

(D) Evidence of the experts’ interests and biases vis-à-vis the question at issue.

(E) Evidence of the experts’ past “track-records.” (Goldman, 2001)

It is crucial to allow for a non-expert public. This criterion will assist in evaluating the expert’s honesty and competency. All the information may be available to people for a quick and smooth in their argument. The truth value has also become one of the quick and soft in their counterarguments. The expertise of an individual should also be evaluated on the internet. The information portrays as it may lead someone to become astray. An expert should train how to speak smoothly and quickly, leading to a comprehensive expert. Focusing more on the track records is trustworthy versus what would-be expert.

The paradox of experts is exhibited as, to judge if a view is reasonable, an individual must be a knowledgeable himself at a point in which he no longer needs any idea. Brennan (2020) indicates that assessing the experts is a second-order judgment of relative capability and honesty. This is an appeal that has pleased to many, including Scholars. Indeed, competency and integrity are the core matter in which people should consider when evaluating any experts.

Novices face a problem in forming factual opinions on contentious issues that individuals cannot evaluate themselves. Brennan (2020) indicates that the challenge with the identification of experts has created a great deal in many scholars. He also suggests one possible way of improving the ability for people to believe in independent decisions. Brennan (2020) indicates that Anderson is quite optimistic about the ability of the experts. The Anderson criteria are credentials, epistemic responsibility, honesty, and expert consensus, which is a similar aspect that has been brought out in the critical questions.

The first sure way to evaluate the expert’s opinion is to become an expert oneself. There is not enough time to become an expert on everything. Moreover, Elizabeth Anderson offers four dimensions to assess an expert. All novices must utilize the four dimensions termed ordinary education and basic knowledge of navigating the internet. This provides a crucial social issue to the novices. The criteria for assessing the experts are user-friendly and have a better payoff. The novices face two problems when they try to evaluate the experts. First is that they lack adequate knowledge that is easily found on the internet. They are also prone to the problematic cognitive bias that does not push them to resist correction of their wrongdoing opinions.

Novices ought to settle the issue of trustworthiness, sincerity, and competency to assess whether the expert information can be reliable. They ought to ascertain whether an expert is relevant in that field, and they should verify that the expert is responsible and honest in her research.

Initially, the novices ought to evaluate competency by evaluating the hierarchy of expertise. Those who have mastery or have PhDs are regarded as experts and must be a leader in their field area. The novices can evaluate the level and hierarchy in which they are placed in their field and whether the information is available online. Secondly, individuals can evaluate the honesty of an expert. This can be done by searching for dishonesty evidence. The dishonesty pertains to plagiarism, conflict of interests, faking data in the research.

The third criteria are Epistemic responsibility as the case with direct, the expert’s Epistemic responsibility by evaluating any indication of lack of accountability on experts. This irresponsibility can occur in the form of skirting the peer review. Dialogic illogicality is a mess to answer to any counterevidence that may arise. According to Elizabeth Anderson, there is a need for consensus, public policy, and lay valuations of scientific evidence. There is a gap between the public opinion and the scientific agreement of the people. The critics of democracy indicate that technological society relies on difficult research. The Lay citizens lack the information required to evaluate the virtues of any investigation. The Laypersons have a second-upper capability to judge consensus and trustworthiness.

Moreover, access to information should also be considered in every evaluation. Many people cannot openly judge the experts on the merits of their scientific prerogatives. However, most usually assume them on the person they are and what they believe in. the judgment should have a testimony on the scientific matter that can be easily reliable and whether the responsible agrees on the matter in query. In the words of Anderson (2011), to make a reasonable judgment, there is a need for criteria for consensus and trustworthiness. People usually rely on the ordinary education which they can quickly obtain to come up with their arguments. The judgments should also be accompanied by the information that is obtainable on the websites.

The judgments on trustworthiness are rooted in three assessments. According to Anderson (2011), one must know whether the testifiers are in a place to identify the claim in question. This is regarded as an assessment of the expertise. Additionally, individuals should evaluate whether the testifiers are inclined to communicate fairly in what they consider. Honesty is assessed through the mean in which they utilize to communicate. Moreover, one should judge whether the expert has evidence arguments or any reasoning against their beliefs. According to Anderson (2011), this criterion is crucial and responsible for their skills in coming up with counterarguments, and counterevidence. To evaluate Scientific expertise, laypersons should assess different kinds of situated knowledge, which is also relevant to the resolution of scientific questions. In the words of Anderson (2011), a hierarchy of expertise can be evaluated from the lowest to highest to know scientific knowledge.

The qualities for the experts should be evaluated on the objective expertise. The cognitive perspective should be offered in a truth linked terms. The experts have more belief on the true propositions and a fewer belief in the domain that most people do. To qualify as a cognitive expert, Goldman (2001) argues that one must have a wider lnowledge that can be compared with others. The expeerts shopuld also hold truths in the in the target domain. This has als been supperted by Anderson on his four criteria of evaluating the expersts. The experts hsould show a higher level of honesty in his work. Being an expert is not a matter of being superior in the community, there should be a veritistic attainment that ought to be reached (Hendriks, Kienhues, & Bromme, 2015). There is alos a wide vagueness in setting the thresholds. Epertise requires having a accurate informatrion and the capiility to deploy any question that may be raised to oppose the infrmation. Generally, an expert is someone who have a wide knowledge on the existing a and arguments that bears a primary questions.

According to Goldman (2001), an expert must have argument-based evidence. The arguments must be supported by the individual views and criticize the rival’s views. Secondly, an agreement should have a subject in question. In addition, the experts’ evidence should indicate a track record.The phenomena are a particular case that depends on other individuals to suffice our own needs. There is a need for epistemic dependence. There is a relationship between layperson to experts, as Goldman (2001) indicates.

No one can depend in countless ways since there is a ubiquity of asymmetric dependence. There is excellent evidence that we depend on numerous ways for our experts. According to Goldman (2001), considerable dialogue raises epistemological, political, and ethical questions. The third evidence that an expert is genuine is an agreement from other experts. This relates to a question of numbers. When it comes to evaluating the experts, it should be presented and indicated how good it is to appeal to the same consensus (Scholz, 2009). Every opinion holder should add weight to the established argument.

According to Goldman (2001), it is objected that other rumor spreaders do not ass credibility to the initial rumor monger since the additional one has no reliability. Social epistemology is emphasized among people on seeking knowledge from people on what they knew. In some areas, some people are either experts while others are laypersons. Many people who claim to be experts are not the real thing.The fourth argument is evidence from Biases and interests. The evidence from a distorting interest and bias may be putative to any claim that may occur. This argument comes directly proportional to experience and common sense.

In response to Brennan (2020), an additional criterion is crucial in considering the potential bias, which is a reliability condition. The second assessment is critical to coming up with own judgment and doing things such as teaching new information and thinking out loud. These are some of the measures in which complete knowledge regarding the experts can be attained. In addition, those who criticize the experts usually lack the required information, but it can only be obtainable through the internet. They are also prone to challenging cognitive behavior that resists correction of their wrong opinion. The evidence-based necessitates a line of knowledge itself.

The novices ought to settle two crucial issues of honesty that is sincerity and competency. It is evident that the excellent expert is always genuine and are honest in their field of research. In addition, there is a need to investigate their area of dimensions. What makes the picking of trustworthy experts difficult is a conflict of interest. There is a need for evolution to have more experts that can correctly interpret the facts. There are some of the criteria which play different roles and different kinds of epistemic integrity. This requires a lot of work in the reliability of their beliefs. When an assessment of trustworthiness is achieved, there is a better chance of recognizing the best experts in any field.

In conclusion, the paradox of experts is exhibited as, to judge if a view is reasonable, an individual must be a knowledgeable himself at a point in which he no longer needs any idea. An expert must have argument-based evidence. The Anderson criteria are credentials, epistemic responsibility, honesty, and expert consensus, which is a similar aspect that has been brought out in the critical questions. The arguments must be supported by the individual views and criticize the rival’s views. All these arguements should be supported by the individual views and criticize the rival’s views. Secondly, an agreement should have a subject in question.


Anderson, E., 2011. Democracy, Public Policy and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony. Episteme, 8(2), pp. 144-164.

Brennan, J., 2020. Can Novices Trust Themselves to Choose Trustworthy Experts? Reasons for (Reserved) Optimism. Social Epistemology , 34(3), pp. 227-240.

Goldman, A. L., 2001. Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), pp. 85-110.

Scholz, O. R., 2009. Experts: What They Are and How We Recognize Them – A Discussion of Alvin Goldman’s Views. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 79(1), pp. 187-205.

Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PloS one, 10(10), e0139309. [supanova_question]




Partnering With Community Based Organization To Advance Juvenile Justice Diversity

Caline Ormil

Diana Mitchell

University of Phoenix



Program To Advance Diversity In Police Work Force

Following the discrimination and unfairness perspectives raised in the last few decades, there has been an emphasis of diversifying the criminal justice system and law enforcement. Such emphasis focused on how to increase the proportion of female police and recruiting police from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. By 1987, the female police accounted for only 8%, while the minority ethnic groups occupied only 15 % of the total police workforce in the US (Bury et al., 2018). However, by 2003, these statistics had increased to 11% and 24%, respectively (Bury et al., 2018). Since these data showed an increased diversity in the police workforce, the paper is geared to determine and explain the programs enacted to increase diversity and inclusion of the female and minority into the police workforce. The main program explored in the paper is the program to partner with community-based police organizations to increase diversity in criminal justice.

Program To Partner With Community Based Organization To Improve Diversity At Criminal Justice

The police workforce should reflect the community they serve. As a result, several police agencies such as Philadelphia in the US and the London Police Department have implemented a program to incorporate community-based organizations to achieve a diversified workforce (Bury et al., 2018). For the effective implementation of this program, the police agencies must form a reputable image that reflects diversity to recruit minority groups. Perhaps, The program has been in place for three decades in both countries. For instance, the US Philadelphia, whereby the program has been in place since the 1980s effectively implemented (Bury et al., 2018).

Community-based organization partnership with police agencies is a program implemented by the recruiting teams and the HR departments from the police agencies (Bury et al., 2018). Therefore, the program targets to address the inclusion of minority people into the police workforce. As a branch of the criminal justice system, the police workforce must reflect the culture and the image of the people it serves (Bury et al., 2018). The need to address the diversity in police originates from speculations of the unfairness and discrimination by the justice (Bury et al., 2018). From such speculations, there were reports that the minority ethnic population and women were treated brutally by the white-dominated police force (Bury et al., 2018).

The program is geared to implicate positive results to the justice system if implanted by all agencies. This is because diverse police work shall increase productivity, creativity in decision making, and problem-solving (Bury et al., 2018). Moreover, since the diverse sectors are said to be more ethical than the non-diverse ones, the criminal justice sector generally stands a chance to advance its ethical issues through diversity in the police force. Perhaps, engaging all communities in the police work proportionately shall ensure trust in the judicial systems by the public (Bury et al., 2018). This follows after the better services the public will receive from the diversified police workforce.

Additionally, the cooperation with the community-based organization increases the pool of potential police officers from the underrepresented communities (Bury et al., 2018). Research supports the idea that incorporating the underrepresented communities into the police workforce reduces the rate of crime from that population hence reducing the accumulation of criminal cases (Bury et al., 2018). The program is more impactful at this judicial level; since its enactment, the minority has felt included, and the criminal justice system takes care of their affairs. Therefore, the criminal justice benefits significantly from the community-based organization partnership with police recruiting staff.

Through this program, the police agencies shall pilot ambassadorial teams geared to explore the diverse community to spot any individuals fit for the job. The ambassadorial teams from the agencies may or shall attend events involving the diversified communities, such as the college athletic games. Together with members of the recruiting team, the agency shall identify the youth with physical fitness and those with desirable law enforcement features (Bury et al., 2018). As a result, I feel the partnership with community-based police organizations such as the national Latino peace association and the National Black Police association shall make law enforcement and criminal justice procedures fair and just. Unlike the white-dominated judicial justice system in the jim crow era, the increment in the proportion of the underrepresented groups in the criminal justice systems makes its decision and procedures appear just and fair (Bury et al., 2018). Perhaps, I feel the procedures such as the criminal trials, obtaining bail, and incarceration shall be fair after the diversification of the police force. Those who were previously underrepresented in the systems shall now feel incorporated hence unlikely to be discriminated against (Bury et al., 2018). Moreover, the judicial procedures delegated to police, such as the investigation, arrest, and booking, can be fair and just if the minorities from diverse communities are recruited into service to mitigate the forms of discrimination perpetrated by the white officers (Bury et al., 2018).

The recruitment teams from all the police agencies need to partner with community-based organizations such as the Latino peace association and the black police association who work closely with the minority communities across the nation. As observed, this program increases access to a large pool of police recruits. The diversifying of the police workforce can be achieved through the inclusion of underrepresented populations into the criminal justice system to increase productivity and decision-making when problem-solving. A criminal justice service must reflect the image of all communities they serve through diversifying their operations recruitments and promotions.


Bury, J., Pullerits, M., Edwards, S., Davies, C., & DeMarco, J. (2018). Enhancing diversity in policing. Report prepared by NatCen Social Research for the National Police Chiefs Council and the Police Transformation Fund.[supanova_question]

I attached the table that is supposed to be filled out.

The first step of the evidence-based practice process is to evaluate a nursing practice environment to identify a nursing problem in the clinical area. When a nursing problem is discovered, the nurse researcher develops a clinical guiding question to address that nursing practice problem.

For this assignment, you will create a clinical guiding question know as a PICOT question. The PICOT question must be relevant to a nursing practice problem. To support your PICOT question, identify six supporting peer-reviewed research articles, as indicated below. The PICOT question and six peer-reviewed research articles you choose will be utilized for subsequent assignments.

Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” to complete this assignment.

Select a nursing practice problem of interest to use as the focus of your research. Start with the patient population and identify a clinical problem or issue that arises from the patient population. In 200–250 words, provide a summary of the clinical issue.
Following the PICOT format, write a PICOT question in your selected nursing practice problem area of interest. The PICOT question should be applicable to your proposed capstone project (the project students must complete during their final course in the RN-BSN program of study).
The PICOT question will provide a framework for your capstone project.
Conduct a literature search to locate six research articles focused on your selected nursing practice problem of interest. This literature search should include three quantitative and three qualitative peer-reviewed research articles to support your nursing practice problem.
Note: To assist in your search, remove the words qualitative and quantitative and include words that narrow or broaden your main topic. For example: Search for diabetes and pediatric and dialysis. To determine what research design was used in the articles the search produced, review the abstract and the methods section of the article. The author will provide a descriiption of data collection using qualitative or quantitative methods. Systematic Reviews, Literature Reviews, and Metanalysis articles are good resources and provide a strong level of evidence but are not considered primary research articles. Therefore, they should not be included in this assignment.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines.[supanova_question]