Scholarly paper based on three articles

Introduction
This paper examines three scholarly articles and discusses the sampling technique associated with the studies. The first is a critique by Mayes (2015). The second is a Level VII study by Wetter and Hodge (2016). The third is a Level V study by Pause (2017). These three studies offer different approaches to the sample of data used in each of the studies and thus examining each provides an opportunity to understand how different sets of data may be obtained and what the ethical parameters associated with each one should be.
Mayes
In the study by Mayes (2015), the study examines the work of bioethicists Peter Singer and Dan Callahan in order to provide a critique of their arguments regarding obesity. The study defines their arguments as essentially that “obesity is not simply a clinical or personal issue but an ethical issue with social and political consequences” (Mayes, 2015, p. 217). The study’s focus is on identifying the problematic parts of the bioethicists approach to the issue of obesity. Because of the nature of Mayes’ (2015) study, the normal ethical considerations related to sampling (such as obtaining consent forms or submitting to an IRB) are not evident in the study. Mayes (2015) presents a critique of two scholars’ recent arguments regarding obesity scholarship.
Thus, the sample in this study is the scholarly work of two bioethicists and the sample is selective in the sense that two specific bioethicists are selected for examination in this study. This is not a general literature review or a systematic literature review of scholarly data on the subject of obesity. Rather, Mayes (2015) specifically sets out to examine the works of Singer and Callahan with regard to their precise position on the issue of obesity.
A reason for the critique is given so as to explain why it is necessary to examine these two bioethicists in the first place. The reason given is that there is already a great deal of scholarly information published on the subject of obesity but that Singer and Callahan have attempted to alter how the academic and medical professional community should view not only the history of literature on the subject but the subject itself. For that reason, Mayes (2015) sets about to identify some of the underlying positions and assumptions of the two bioethicists and show why they are essentially wrong-footed in their approach to the subject of obesity and why their “superficial readings of public health research” are cause for alarm (Mayes, 2015, p. 217).
The issue of inclusion and exclusion criteria is not specifically addressed in the critique, as the sample is not like that of a quantitative sample in which a group of people are included for a certain set of characteristics and those who do not possess the characteristics are dismissed from the sample. Here, the study aims solely to evaluate the theses of the two bioethicists and explore the rationale for why the logic employed in their argument is faulty and contradictory.
Likewise, no sample frame is furnished, as the study is not actually a statistical sample of any group of individuals but rather a critique of two specific works. The characteristics of the two authors whose work is evaluated by Mayes (2015) is that they are making a claim about obesity research and scholarship that is unfounded and in fact harmful, according to Mayes (2015). As Mayes (2015) points out, Singer and Callahan, “in attempting to activate the harm principle both Singer and Callahan rely on superficial readings of public health research to amplify the harm caused by obese individuals and ignore pertinent epidemiological research on the social determinants of obesity” (p. 218). This is the main characteristic that is explored, analyzed and evaluated by Mayes (2015) in the study.
The ethical principles that are reflected in the sampling criteria used for this critique are those that are consistent with any critique of existing literature. The aim is identified, the theoretical approach is discussed, and the analysis is conducted according to the parameters set out at the beginning of the study. Since no participants were included in this study, the ethical principles normally associated with statistical sampling, such as IRB guidelines or the gathering of consent forms from participants, do not apply. The author is making a scholarly, reasoned, and public critique of the works of two bioethicists and publishing it in an academic journal to await response from other medical peers. In this sense, the study follows sound ethical principles in terms of how an academic should go about discussing a piece of scholarship. As for sampling, because the scholars’ arguments were presented in published journals, there is no ethical imperative for Mayes to obtain consent forms in order to name them or discuss their arguments in a separate article in an academic journal.
The data from the sample obtained by Mayes (2015) is presented in a manner that it appears to be applicable to the general public. However, the method in which the sample was obtained is not clearly defined and therefore there is no way for the reader to validate this appearance or to test to see whether there is any case of researcher bias or confirmation bias evident in the study. A lengthier discussion of how the data was gathered, what sample methods were used, how inclusion or exclusion data was applied, and where information was searched would all help to make the study more academically rigorous and appropriate for a scholarly journal publication.
Wetter & Hodge
Wetter and Hodge (2016) provide a Level VII article that relies heavily on a number of statistics and figures presented by expert committees, independent research, and other data sets to present an argument. Every claim is supported by an endnote reference to a study that can be verified by independent review. The sample of data used for the article ranges from scholarly studies published in nutrition journals to news articles from mainstream media news outlets like The New York Times. As a result, the article is an amalgamation of information from academic and journalistic sources. The exact method of sampling used to gather the information is not defined, as the article is not written in order to take a scientific approach to information available in the public arena, but rather to make an argumentative claim regarding the topic, which in this case is the
While Wetter and Hodge (2016) might have opted to conduct a systematic review of literature, complete with sampling techniques regarding how articles were searched, what keywords were used, what inclusion criteria was set and what exclusion criteria was determined, their article focuses instead on relaying a series of facts published by other scholars and/or journalists in order to make an argument about sugar-sweetened beverages and their relation to weight gain. The article, as such, does not set forth any indication of how data was collected or what methods were used to obtain the data. The sample of data provided to the reader is never even clearly identified because the piece is not oriented towards identifying a clear sample or conducting statistical analysis on a particular sample. The piece instead is written as an argumentative journal supported by a host of factual statements that are linked to research articles, scholarly journals, or news items.
The study by Wetter and Hodge (2016) could be classified as a Level V study, being a review of other systematic reviews, but as it does not clarify itself as such, and as still no parameters are set forth in the article declaring how or which reviews were examined for the collection of data, it would be inappropriate to identify the study as being of this level. Since it is a Level VII study, therefore, examining it in terms of how sampled data is collected is to make several assumptions based on the evidence put forward in the study. Upon establishing the facts of the case, linking sugar-sweetened beverages to weight gain, Wetter and Hodge (2016) move onto the legal and ethical aspects of governments adopting a soda tax for public health purposes, similar to the tobacco tax as a deterrent to people who might want to start smoking, which has been identified as a danger to one’s health. The soda tax is also identified similarly by Wetter and Hodge, and while they examine the legal and ethical supports for a soda tax, the inclusion criteria and the exclusion criteria for their data sample is not identified here either.
A sample frame is identified in terms of governments that have applied a soda tax in order to reduce the exposure of the public to sugar-sweetened beverages and mitigate the risk of obesity impacting the community. However, this sample frame is only provided as a means of illustrating that some communities have enacted this soda tax and there is nothing done with the data set that might obtained from this sample other than to indicate that sample does exist. In other words, it is used as a support for the main argument of Wetter & Hodge, which is that soda taxes are possible and even permissible from a legal point of view if one is to judge from past and current experience.
The characteristics of the sample of data that is used, which is identified in the reference list but not in the article itself, is that the data is in every case related to the issue of obesity, either by way of how sugar-sweetened beverages impact a person’s body weight and contribute to the spread of obesity or by way of how a soda tax may have legal or ethical ramifications. The data set used to support the claims of the article is not discussed in terms of how or why this material was selected or how or why other material was not selected, and so it is left to the reader to hypothesize on the matter and formulate what amounts to an educated guess on the matter.
It appears, however, that sampling methods used in the article followed ethical guidelines and principles: no one’s identifying information was used without consent, as all data obtained and used in the study comes from already published material and thus there is no question of Wetter and Hodge (2016) violating a participant’s rights by not obtaining a consent form. In no instance in this article is it obvious that a consent form may have been required by participants in the study, as the Level VII nature of the article is such that participants are not required.
The use of an IRB is also not identified in the article and it may be assumed that none was used since the main ethical principles in this article are related to citing informational sources, and Wetter and Hodge do that superbly well, placing an endnote after each statement of fact or claim to show where the evidence to support that claim may be found. In total, Wetter and Hodge (2016) use 41 footnotes to support the claims in their article and thus they demonstrate an ethical use of source material by citing and referencing where information comes from.
The data obtained in the study from the sample obtained by Wetter and Hodge (2016) is presented as though it may be generalized and placed on the public as a whole. There is no way for the reader to verify, however, whether or not the data may be generalized because the methods by which the sample was obtained are not clearly or carefully elucidated. The study could stand to have the sample process discussed more substantially so that the reader could determine if researcher bias or confirmation bias might have played a part in how data was obtained and presented. At least some discussion of how the sample was obtained in terms of inclusion and exclusion data would have been helpful in this regard.
Pause
In the study by Pause (2017), the Level V article that uses evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative literature—otherwise known as a meta-synthesis, information is given on the subject of fat stigma and how it relates to public health. The article does not explain how studies were gathered or used for the article but rather simply provides a rundown of information that other scholars and researchers have presented in the past on the same subject. The purpose of doing so is for Pause (2017) to highlight trends in the subject matter and identify where the current train of thought on fat stigma has come from and where it may be said to be going.
Pause (2017) does make claims such as “fat stigma impacts negatively on the physical health of fat individuals,” which are supported by data that contains endnotes and references at the end of the article (p. 511). For example, Pause (2017) notes that “Meunning argues that the poor metabolic health outcomes associated with fatness is better understood as a result of fat stigma” and that “there is increasing evidence to support this contention. Independent of BMI, fat stigma increases: levels of cortisol, blood pressure, and inflammation, while decreasing executive function. Fat stigma also contributes to higher circulating levels of C-reactive protein” (p. 511-512). Throughout, Pause (2017) makes substantial use of endnotes and references to support the claims made in the study, but how the sample of data was obtained or what filters were used to obtain the data set is never discussed by Pause (2017) and thus the study lacks the rigor of a statistical sample in which the parameters are clearly identified and the pathways of inclusion and exclusion criteria can be identified and evaluated.
Pause (2017) makes no use of inclusion or exclusion criteria in the article and the reader is left, again, to surmise, based on an evaluation of the Reference List on what parameters the author might have used inclusion or exclusion criteria in order to obtain the data set. The characteristics of the sample of systematic reviews indicates that the main theme throughout them is related to the concept of fat stigma, but by what measure or filter or set of criteria these reviews were selected remains largely unknown.
Likewise, a sample frame is not identified and there is no indication that the sample of reviews was selected from a specific location, a specific time, or a specific set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The sample frame is not defined and so how the researcher set about collecting the data is left to guess.
The information contained in the article is used to generalize about the population as a whole and whether this is acceptable based on the sample is unclear. The generalizability of the data appears warranted but there is no way for the reader to assess whether the researcher used appropriate selection criteria when selecting which systematic reviews to use for the study and which to discard. It could very well be that the researcher was impacted by research bias and the evidence from the systematic reviews for this study was obtained based on the researcher’s own aims in tracing the history of the concept of fat stigma and its impact on public health.
As sampling methods are not defined for this study it is also unclear whether the author followed any ethical principles related to data retrieval or if confirmation bias or researcher bias did in fact play a part in which reviews were selected. Since no participants were included in the study through direct involvement, there is no question of any ethical violations in terms of participants not giving their consent or of participant rights being violated. All of the information obtained for the study comes from published articles and there is no indication that any of it was obtained through any set of ulterior means.
The use of an IRB is also not evident and it appears that the researcher set about this article with the intention of furthering the discussion on fat stigma but not in a scholarly or academic way that invites rigorous examination of the author’s approach to the subject, inclusion of data, sampling methods, or approach to the topic. The article could be supported by a better discussion of how material was selected for analysis, as this would give the article more weight and help it to be better received by the academic community. It would also help readers to better evaluate whether the author’s methods were suitable. The other reason why it is important to discuss how a sample is collected is that it allows for other researchers to duplicate the study’s approach and sample method practices. Duplication is one way that the academic community can test the work of other researchers to see whether the claims are validated by external review. That is, after all, the purpose of peer-review in scholarly journals, but Pause (2017) does not appear interested in maintaining that sort of standard.
Conclusion
Sampling methods are important in scholarly research because they help other researchers to see how data was obtained, what sampling methods were used and where information came from. This is helpful because it is the job of researchers to validate and test the claims and arguments of other researchers, and if it cannot be shown how researchers set about obtaining a sample of data, the sample itself can become immediately suspect. This is why it is so crucial that researchers explain clearly in a step-by-step manner without any ambiguity how information is obtained and where it comes from. Other researchers want to be sure that no confirmation bias or researcher bias is evident in the article written by another scholar, and discussing the sampling methods can help to clarify this question. If a researcher does not clarify it then the readers and the academic world are essentially in the dark regarding how information was obtained or why specific information was focused on as opposed to other information sets. This is especially true with regard to information provided in scholarly articles that are information, argumentative or of a level other than that which facilitates the arrangement of information procured from statistical analysis. For a sample to be worthwhile, the parameters used to obtain the data must be identified and must be appropriate for the purposes of the study. For the three studies examined in this paper, it is unclear what parameters were used and therefore it is unclear as to whether the researchers followed appropriate measures in obtaining their sample.
References
Mayes, C. (2015). The harm of bioethics: A critique of Singer and Callahan on obesity. Bioethics, 29(3), 217-221.
Pause, C. (2017). Borderline: The ethics of fat stigma in public health. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 45, 510-517.
Wetter, S., Hodge, J. (2016). Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages to lower childhood obesity. Ethical and Legal Issues in Pediatrics, 44, 359-363.