Critical analysis on two primary research papers Essay

Critical analysis on two primary research papers - Essay Example The aim of this analysis is to assess these two articles and how well they follow general research standards and the use of (appropriate) methods. As a core requirement in the presentation of a scientific argument a paper has to begin by introducing the topic chosen in terms of a â€Å"research question" and a â€Å"hypothesis† (a â€Å"preliminary†, i.e. ahead of the actual research, answer to the question). It should then proceed by clearly stating the aim of the research and how the authors propose too â€Å"explore the problem† by comparing to other â€Å"literary source and concept†. Importantly, such published articles need to define the â€Å"setting† and/or the â€Å"sample† and qualify these and the literature in terms of a particular set of â€Å"methods† to be used and deemed appropriate, be they person-oriented and qualitative, or of a more quantitative nature, or a mix of the two groups. Following the method, is the †Å"results-section†, an analysis and discussion of the data collected. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are made, and including discussion how the study has tested the research question. Limitations of one’s findings should also be noted (Rees, 2003). The Research Process Research, the search for knowledge and problem-solving, is a process of adding to knowledge (Ellen, 1984). By this understanding, research is an ongoing process. There are, however, certain procedures to be followed and standards to be adhered to, be they of an â€Å"inductive† (experimental: â€Å"arriving at a theory based on facts†) or â€Å"deductive† (â€Å"facts are organized to match theory†) nature. Based on this division, one arrives at a â€Å"positivistic† and â€Å"relativistic stance†, resulting in a contrast of â€Å"explanation† (deduction, positivism) and â€Å"understanding† (induction, relativism) (Bowling, 2002, pp. 117-3 2; Alexander, 1983; Gellner, 1985). â€Å"The contrast has been exemplified by the different emphases placed upon structure and upon process; upon positivist, empiricist observation as against intellectual inference and propositions about deep structures of society; by notions of detachment and objectivity opposed by more subjectivist views; by assumptions of validity and certainty of generalisation set off against those of ambiguity, uncertainty of findings. Such contrasts are not unilineal; they often overlap† (Firth, 1992, p. 215). Firth’s last sentence is revealing. Contrasts between a quantitative and qualitative approach are often being set up but they do not refer to real differences in the end. It is, as another anthropologist notes, rather â€Å"a matter of degree† since both dimensions (induction and deduction) are indispensable for an understanding of other people and their worlds (Geertz, 1974). The alleged contrast is as straw man argument. Research question and hypothesis in the two articles 1. Brotherton, Abbott and Aggett’s (2006) article is about how percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding relates to the daily lives of adult patients. The authors aim was to explore that question (research question) from two perspectives, that of patients and carers. Their research question assumes (hypothesis) that the two parties hold different notions and models regarding the