Critical: Qualitative Research
Nordby,K. Kjonsberg, K. Hummelvoll, J.K.(2009) Relatives of persons with recently discovered serious mental illness: in need of support to become resource persons in treatment and recovery.(Appendix 1). Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing. 17, 304-311.
The above article will be critiqued using Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor’s (2005) critiquing framework as a guide (Appendix 1). The intent is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the research article and demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research methodology.
The title of the above article reflects its contents and is easy to interpret, as Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor (2005) concur ‘the title should be clear and allow the reader to easily interpret its contents, an inaccurate title can confuse the reader. But it was a bit too long, as Polit et al (2000), claims that research reports begin with a title that succinctly conveys (typically in 15 or fewer words) the nature of the study.
The researchers of the article are highly qualified and indicate that they possess relevant academic skills and knowledge required for this area of study and have the experience of working in a mental health services. Playle (2000) suggests the qualification indicate the knowledge and expertise of the researcher.
The abstract offers a clear overview of the study, the research problem is identified and rationale is briefly described, findings and future recommendations are mentioned. This allows the reader to get an understanding of what the article entails and if it is of any relevance or interest to them, (Ryan, Coughlin and Cronin, 2007). The abstract should have included the research question to show the readers how the research was carried out. According to Burton & Steane (2004) the abstract is probably the most important section of an article because readers will look at the abstract first and on that basis, decide whether to keep reading or not. They also advice abstract should clearly and
The above article will be critiqued using Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor’s (2005) critiquing framework as a guide (Appendix 1). The intent is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the research article and demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research methodology.
The title of the above article reflects its contents and is easy to interpret, as Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor (2005) concur ‘the title should be clear and allow the reader to easily interpret its contents, an inaccurate title can confuse the reader. But it was a bit too long, as Polit et al (2000), claims that research reports begin with a title that succinctly conveys (typically in 15 or fewer words) the nature of the study.
The researchers of the article are highly qualified and indicate that they possess relevant academic skills and knowledge required for this area of study and have the experience of working in a mental health services. Playle (2000) suggests the qualification indicate the knowledge and expertise of the researcher.
The abstract offers a clear overview of the study, the research problem is identified and rationale is briefly described, findings and future recommendations are mentioned. This allows the reader to get an understanding of what the article entails and if it is of any relevance or interest to them, (Ryan, Coughlin and Cronin, 2007). The abstract should have included the research question to show the readers how the research was carried out. According to Burton & Steane (2004) the abstract is probably the most important section of an article because readers will look at the abstract first and on that basis, decide whether to keep reading or not. They also advice abstract should clearly and
Cited: Burton, S. & Steane, P. (2004). Surviving Your Thesis. Caldwell, K. Henshaw, L. & Taylor, G. (2005). Developing a framework for critiquing health research. Journal of health, social and environmental issues. Vol. 6 p45-54. Finlay, L. Baliinger, C, (2006). Qualitative Research for Allied Health Professionals. Holloway, I. & Wheeler, S. (2002). Qualitative research in nursing. (2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell publishing. Parahoo, K. (2006). Nursing research: principles, process and issues. (2nd ed). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Patton, Q. M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed). UK: Sage publications. Polgar, S. & Thomas, S. A. (2008). Introduction to research for health sciences (5th edition). Toronto: Elsevier. Playle, J. F. (2000). Critically appraisal research reports. Journal of Community Nursing. Vol 14 Issue 11. Polit, D. F. Beck, C. T. & Hungler, B.P. (2000). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. New York: Lippincott. Polit, D. Beck, C (2006) Essentials of Nursing Care: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization Rya, F. Coughlan, M. & Cronin, P. (2007). Step by step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. British journal of nursing. Vol 16, no 12. Walsh, M. And Wigens, L. (2003). Introduction to Research Foundation in Nursing and Healthcare. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.