Authors Michael Samuel Ofori-Duodu and

Authors Michael Samuel Ofori-Duodu and Luke Humphries both attempt to achieve the same goal: to define what research is and to explain the different methods of research commonly used in the physical and social sciences. In this reviewer's opinion, Humphries' article is the more successful of the two. Ofori-Duodu's article suffers from a number of faults related to organization, content, and mechanics. Firstly, at one-and-a-half pages, the abstract is much too long and unwieldy. An abstract should summarize the contents of the article in a concise, focused manner.

In his abstract, Ofori-Duodu not only to tells his reader what concepts are found in the article, he also attempts to define them, which bloats this section of his manuscript all out of portion. He identifies and defines three types of research methods the article will address and also gives the same detailed treatment to six characteristics of research. Oddly, however, those characteristics are not examined in the body the article (Ofori-Duodu, 2011). Following so long an abstract, the "Introduction" section of the article strikes the reader as blatantly redundant.

It does not much information beyond what was already presented in the abstract, nor does it add much in the way of context for the information to come in the body of the paper. Context can help situate an article's message within a larger frame of reference in some interesting, meaning, relevant manner. Here again, Ofori-Duodu is long on words, but in light of the redundant information here, short on substance. The body of Ofori-Duodu's article explains in more detail the three research methods under examination.

The examples he uses to illustrate the different methods are a good feature of his manuscript and do serve their purpose well. The body is hurt, however, by poor grammar and mechanical inconsistencies such as shifting back and forth from the more common term "research" to the odd construction "a research" (Ofori-Duodu, 2011). Grammatical problems plague not only the body but also the abstract and the introduction of the paper. This article cries out for careful proofreading. The best part of the paper is the conclusion.

Here the writing is clear and to the point. The reader finally gets a simple, direct explanation concerning what the article is about. One wishes the writer had written like this from the start. That wish comes true for the reader in Humphries' article. While this manuscript has a few grammatical problems, it is overall a much better paper in every way. The entire manuscript is well organized and focused on the topic at hand.

Although Humphries doesn't use section headings, the writing of each part of the paper is so clear that it identifies itself to the educated eye. Each part of the paper accomplishes its purpose as expected -- and a significant measure of academic writing concerns fulfilling reader expectations of style and content. Humphries opens his article with content that contextualizes his topic. He places the understanding of research methodologies in the context of humankind's long history of inquisitiveness, learning, and knowledge seeking. Then he unambiguously states his thesis (Humphries, n. d.).

Next, the writer identifies and defines terms relevant to understanding the information to follow in the body paragraphs. Each body paragraph neatly discusses one of the five research methods named in the opening paragraph. Like, Ofori-Duodo, Humphries uses examples to better describe each method, however.