Absorb Them and Regurgitate Them at Face

¶ … absorb them and regurgitate them at face value. To the contrary, part of conducting research is scrutinizing our research sources to determine their scholarly credibility. The importance of this ability is demonstrated in the discussion here, which considers two articles which are drawn from scholarly journals but which differ considerably in their scholarly credentials.

A study by Anderson & Keller (2002), published in the Western Journal of Nursing Research, concerns the therapeutic implications of smoking cessation. The primary objective of the study by Anderson & Keller is to draw a direct correlation between the transtheoretical model of health behavior and the variables associated with smoking cessation. The purpose is to promote an improvement of existing smoking cessation programs by finding ways to hone in on determinant independent variables. The transtheoretical model employed in the study is important to our discussion because, as the researchers acknowledge, this is a commonly employed mode to altering health behaviors where smoking is concerned. Anderson & Keller describe the transtheoretical model of behavior change, explaining that "five stages of change represent a temporal dimension that provides a means to understand when a change in attitude toward a problem behavior occurs." (p. 282)

Here, the researchers have applied a proven theoretical framework to a sample population. The result is an empirical study which indicates that there is valid evidence that can be replicated in real-world conditions employing transtheoretical strategies of therapy to help change health behaviors relating to smoking. This applicability underscore the scholarly legitimacy of the research endeavor and findings produced by the selected journal article.

By contrast, we consider an article that offers a compelling case, that is well-reasoned but that is not necessarily scholarly in nature. An article by Mohammed Motahari Farimani, published in a 2007 issue of Journal of Religion & Science, offers an interesting qualitative examination of the subject of human cloning. This article addresses the perceived conflict between religious beliefs and potential advances in medical practice relating to the manipulation or replication of genetic materials. Pulling into consideration a host of wide-ranging opinions from members of the Islamic religious community, Farimani disputes the idea that cloning is counterintuitive to religious observation.

Farimani's argument hinges on the academic teachings of members of the Islamic community. For instance, the article leans heavily on the words of Mullah Sadra. Using Sadra's ideas, he provides a theologically-based acceptance of the idea that man's tendency toward innovation and creation is not to be seen as a threat to god's will. Instead, there is a fundamental causality in god's wishes which inclines man's actions. In this case, the will and the ingenuity to resolve human ailment become causative features of the innovations now being made in the area of genetic manipulation. As Farimani phrases this idea, "the argument demonstrates that seeing biological advances as rivaling God's creation, as traditionally understood in the Abrahamic religions, is a premature judgment based on faulty conflation." (Farimani, 145)