Choose ONE of the following assignments. NB: This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment. 1

Choose ONE of the following assignments.
NB: This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment.
1. Option 1: True Crime Episode with Field Research: “The Lucy Letby Case”.
Objective:
To engage you in an in-depth analysis of the biases that impact human decision-making processes through the real-life example of the Lucy Letby case. You will combine desk research with field research to understand how biases influence decision-making in workplace contexts and legal contexts and you will analyse how different stakeholders involved in this case acted on these biases.
Assignment:
Create a “True Crime” documentary-style video (5-8 minutes), podcast (8-10 minutes) or multimodal document (800-1000 words plus images, infographics and hyperlinks to relevant audio and video material on the case) explaining and analysing the biases at work in the Lucy Letby case.
Make sure you include references to academic texts (textbooks, journal articles) when identifying, defining and analysing the biases you see at work in this case.
Make sure you include key points from the interviews and surveys you carried out, highlighting how cognitive biases influenced different stakeholders. If possible, include a copy/paste of the transcriipts or a copy/paste of the notes you took during the interview and focus notes, and post them as raw data in an appendix.
Include too a brief reflection on your own opinions, focusing on two key insights you learned about cognitive biases and their impact on decision-making.
NB: The video must be a true video that uses editing to weave together images, snippets of film from tv news sources / documentaries and your own spoken scriipt into a quality production. Filmed presentations will not get more than a C.
Assignment Requirements:
Desk Research:
Conduct comprehensive research on the Lucy Letby case, including the timeline of events, the trial proceedings, evidence presented, and media coverage.
Identify key cognitive biases discussed in class that could have influenced decisions in the case, such as the halo effect, confirmation bias, anchoring effect, availability heuristic, outcome bias, and overconfidence bias.
Review relevant literature on cognitive biases in similar legal contexts from reputable sources, such as relevant academic articles and textbooks on the psychology of decision-making, and news outlets like the Guardian, the New Yorker and the Financial Times.
Field Research:
Focus group with members of the public (suggested group number of 4)
Conduct a focus group with a small group of members of the public. Ask them to imagine themselves as jurors in the Lucy Letby case.
Use open-ended questions to explore how they would have approached decision-making in the case, what information they would find most compelling, and how they might be influenced by various cognitive biases.
Analyse how their responses reveal specific biases, such as anchoring (focusing on initial information presented), confirmation bias (seeking evidence that confirms pre-existing beliefs), or availability heuristic (being influenced by the most emotionally striking information).
Interviews with an Expert:
Identify and interview ONE expert in the field of law (could be a lawyer, judge, law student), law enforcement officer (such as a police detective), or a psychologist specializing in forensic or cognitive psychology.
Ask your chosen expert to discuss the case, focusing on their views on how cognitive biases might have influenced the decisions of the jurors, hospital management, and other stakeholders.
Inquire about their professional experience with cognitive biases in their field and any strategies they use to mitigate these biases in decision-making processes.
Bias Identification and Analysis:
Compile and analyse the data from both the desk and field research.
Identify the cognitive biases present in the field research (responses from ordinary people and the insights provided by the expert) and desk research (the biases evident in the real-life case in hospital management, health care colleagues and legal experts). Use quotes from the interviews and from your desk research to illustrate how these biases operated in practice.
Present your research, thoughts, conclusions in EITHER a video OR a podcast OR a multimodal document as detailed above.
2. Option 2: “Corporate Crisis Analysis: The Volkswagen Dieselgate Scandal”
Objective:
To engage you in an in-depth analysis of the biases that impact human decision-making processes through the real-world example of the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal. You will combine desk research with field research to understand how these biases influenced corporate decision-making and public perception during this crisis.
Assignment:
You will investigate the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal, focusing on identifying cognitive biases that influenced the decision-making processes within the company, as well as those affecting the public’s perception and response. You will create a documentary-style video (5-8 minutes), podcast (8-10 minutes) or multimodal document (800-1000 words plus images, infographics and hyperlinks to relevant audio and video material on the case) explaining and analysing the biases at work in this scandal.
Make sure you include references to academic texts (textbooks, journal articles) when identifying, defining and analysing the biases you see at work in this case.
Make sure you include key points from the interviews and surveys you carried out, highlighting how cognitive biases influenced different stakeholders in this case. If possible, include a copy/paste of the transcriipts or a copy/paste of the notes you took during the interview and focus notes, and post them as raw data in an appendix.
Include too a brief reflection on your own opinions and conclusions, focusing on two key insights you learned about cognitive biases and their impact on decision-making.
Assignment Requirements:
Desk Research:
Conduct comprehensive research on the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal, including the timeline of events, the technological and ethical aspects of the emissions cheating, the regulatory response, and the consequences for Volkswagen.
Identify key cognitive biases discussed in class that could have influenced decisions within Volkswagen, such as confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, groupthink, moral licensing, and anchoring effect.
Review relevant literature on cognitive biases in corporate decision-making from reputable sources, such as Harvard Business Review, academic journals, and news outlets like the Financial Times.
NB The scandal has been written about and studied extensively, you will find it easy to research. Here are some examples:
“How VW Paid $25 Billion for Dieselgate – And Got Off Easy” https://www.propublica.org/article/how-vw-paid-25-billion-for-dieselgate-and-got-off-easyLinks to an external site.
Fey, L.Links to an external site. and Amis, J.Links to an external site. (2023), “Organizational Wrongdoing, Boundary Work, and Systems of Exclusion: The Case of the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal”, Gabbioneta, C.Links to an external site., Clemente, M.Links to an external site. and Greenwood, R.Links to an external site. (Ed.) Organizational Wrongdoing as the “Foundational” Grand Challenge: Definitions and Antecedents(Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 84), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 171-192. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20230000084009Links to an external site.
https://www.ft.com/content/263c811c-d8e4-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8eLinks to an external site. The FT has lots of articles on Dieselgate; this one examines the role of corporate culture in the scandal. Rich in biases!
Field Research:
Focus Group with Ordinary Consumers:
Conduct a focus group (suggested number 4 people) with ordinary people, asking them to imagine themselves as consumers deciding whether to buy a Volkswagen vehicle after the scandal broke.
Use open-ended questions to explore how the scandal affected their perception of Volkswagen, what factors would influence their decision to trust or distrust the company again, and how they might be influenced by various cognitive biases.
Analyse how their responses reveal specific biases, such as anchoring effect (relying on initial news of the scandal), availability heuristic (being influenced by memorable aspects of the scandal), or moral licensing (forgiving the company because of past good experiences or products).
Interview with an Expert:
Identify and interview ONE expert in a relevant field, such as an automotive industry analyst, an environmental lawyer, a psychologist or a corporate ethics consultant.
Ask the expert to discuss their views on the case, focusing on how cognitive biases might have influenced the decisions of Volkswagen executives, regulators, and the public.
Inquire about their professional experience with cognitive biases in corporate crises and any strategies companies can use to mitigate these biases in decision-making processes.
Bias Identification and Analysis:
Collect and analyse the data from both the desk and field research. Make sure to identify the cognitive biases you can see in your desk research on the case, and those responses in your field research from ordinary people and the insights provided by the expert.
Discuss how these biases might have influenced Volkswagen executives’ decision to install the defeat devices, the regulators’ initial responses, and the public’s reaction to the scandal.
Use real-life examples and quotes from your research to illustrate how these biases operate in practice.
Key Biases to Explore:
Confirmation Bias: Investigate how Volkswagen engineers and executives might have focused on information that supported their decision to use defeat devices while ignoring data that highlighted the risks and ethical issues.
Overconfidence Bias: Examine the possibility that Volkswagen leadership overestimated their ability to conceal the defeat devices from regulators and the public, believing they could avoid detection.
Groupthink: Analyze the potential for a culture of conformity within Volkswagen that discouraged dissenting opinions, leading to a collective decision to pursue the emissions cheating strategy.
Moral Licensing: Consider how Volkswagen’s prior reputation for engineering excellence and environmental consciousness might have led executives to feel justified in their actions, believing that their past good deeds would mitigate the scandal’s impact.
Anchoring Effect: Discuss how early communications or decisions by Volkswagen executives anchored subsequent responses, affecting how they managed the crisis as more information emerged.
WARNING: Cutting and pasting from AI tools, or using ideas generated by them without acknowledging the tool as a source, is plagiarism and any such assignments will be given a 0. In order to help avoid cases of plagiarism, we are requiring you to submit screenshots showing how you have used ChatGPT / other AI tools you have used in your assignment.
———————————————
Please do the multimodal one, I have attached an example that the professor sent and also I have attached the grading rubric.
———————————————-
1. You can CHOOSE between a video, a podcast, or a multimodal document. See the attached example to see what a multimodal document looks like. You do NOT have to do a video if you don’t want to. All three kinds of submissions are equally welcome!
NB I will be showing you an example of a good video submission from a student in class on Wednesday.
2. Your final product, whether a video, podcast or multimodal document, should combine your desk research (the chapters and articles you have read on your chosen case, and other resources you relied on like news items and podcasts about your chosen case) AND your field research (insights from your interview and focus groups). You can put in snippets of the interview and focus group session in your video/podcast/ multimodal document OR you can simply include bits of the transcriipt. Give us your insights and conclusions into what this raw data means. I will show you how to do this on Wednesday in class.
3. It is considered best practice to include transcriipts of raw data from interviews and focus groups in an appendix to the main document, particularly in qualitative research. I will go over the reasons why this is done with you in class tomorrow. Please include these transcriipts if you have them, and include a photo or screenshot of your detailed notes if you didn’t actually record the sessions (it is best to record them though!)