Fairly Critiquing an Investigator’s Research Endeavor

Fairly critiquing an investigator’s research endeavor is a task that must be taken seriously. Although it is quite easy to have an opinion of another’s research it is something quite different to be able to evaluate the research activity in terms of topic specificity and soundness, intent or purpose, data analysis, and informational importance. When embarking upon a critical analysis of another’s work the reviewer must, at all times, adhere to the basic principle of prudent evaluation; namely, evaluating the structure of the research upon which scientific conclusion is drawn. More specifically, the function of a research report (article) is to inform readers about the problem being investigated, the methods used to solve the problem, the results of the investigation, and the conclusions being inferred from the results. The printed manuscript is to inform the reader, as expeditiously as possible, what was done, the outcome of the doing, and the investigator’s conclusion.

In addition to the above, research reports must be succinct, objective, and crystalline. The ultimate test of an excellent research report is in its ability to be replicated by those who read it. If this criterion cannot be met, then the report is inadequate. The remainder of this review will be an analysis of a particular professional article wherein a group of nurses was interviewed and questioned with respect to their knowledge about promoting sun care from a personal perspective. Further, as stated in the assignment guidelines the paper will be paying particular attention to the following: substantive qualities (research significance, variable identification, supportive literature, conceptual framework), research methodology, research ethics, data interpretation, writing and presentation style, and quality of presentation and writing. The specific title of the article is as follows: Morrison, G. (1996). Sun exposure and skin cancer development: Nurses’ attitudes, Nursing Standard.

Substantive Qualities All empirical research reports, albeit medical, sociological, psychological, or educational, must first be well-defined, remindful of ambiguity, and reader-friendly – even for those who are not pundits in the subject matter being reported upon. The research article was written by Morrison (1996) not only began with a weakened abstract but the title of the article did not match the stated research purpose or stated aims. The title referenced nursing attitudes toward sun exposure and cancer but the stated research purpose informed the reader that an assessment and examination would be conducted with respect to nursing attitudes toward and knowledge of sun exposure and skin cancer. The term “knowledge gap” was completely omitted from the title. Further, using the terms examination and assessment in a research investigation alerts the reader to the idea that the research is to be quantitative and, as such, will pose a quantifiable research question and testable null hypothesis. Unfortunately, Morrison did not take this into account. The research reported upon ended up to as a rather loose assessment of personal nursing attitudes and content knowledge deficiency about sun exposure and skin cancer. The study should have formulated, from the beginning, a researchable question such as: To what extent does there exist a statistically significant difference in the nursing attitudes and knowledge toward the effects of sun exposure on the rate of skin melanoma. The resulting hypothesis, null form, would, therefore, have been stated as such: There exists no statistically significant difference (á<0.05 or 0.01 – depending on the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument) in nursing attitudes and content knowledge toward sun exposure and skin cancer. Without a research question and testable hypothesis, there is no basis for the study and all results are declared unusable and without validity and reliability.