Namely, Evaluating the Structure of the Research

¶ … namely, evaluating the structure of the research upon which scientific conclusion are 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 were 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 pay 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. 10, 36, 39-42.

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 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 (?

When a research question and stated null hypothesis have been formulated it is the responsibility of the investigator to provide background information, visa via a literature review, as to the necessity of conducting the research. Although a subtle and often committed research error, the literature review should never have pre-empted Morrison's statement of aims. Literature reviews are to support the need for a study, not give rise to a study. The present study failed to produce historical information as to the need for the research. The literature review did not present, nor analyze, existing statistically significant research findings that dealt with similar issues, or the absence of issues, other than reporting a few studies that provided simple percentages with respect to sun exposure and skin cancer rates. In fact the review failed to precisely reference previous studies that would support or not support the present investigation. Most noteworthy is the fact that the present investigation presented itself as being pivotal to reducing skin cancer rates due to sun exposure on the basis of nursing attitudes and content knowledge, yet failed to transition the present study purpose with that of previous research.

Other failures contained within the beginning of the research article include, but not limited to, the author's omission of a definition of terms section, a statement of study limitations, and an announcement as to the type of research being conducted (i.e., empirical, descriptive, historical, etc.).

Methodology. Crucial to any investigation is the soundness of the investigative procedure. The present study selected 142 nurses from a wide variety of nursing backgrounds and of variable age and experience. Not only did Morrison fail to state how the sample was selected there was no determination made as to how sampling bias was to be curtailed, why 142 nurses were surveyed, or why other demographics such as gender, patient-nurse ratio, and participant geographic locations were not considered. The fact that error can occur and contaminate results by not selecting the appropriate sampling procedure gives credence that the results can be skewed, faulty, misrepresented, and extremely biased. Knowing that the population from which a sample of subjects could have been drawn the investigator would have been wise to have used a stratified random sampling technique. Such a procedure would have limited potential bias in interpreting the results -- even the reported percentages. In order to garner accurate results, sampling procedures must be strictly enforced.

Other factors affecting the interpretation of the results, visa via the data situation, include, but not limited to, the total lack of appropriate statistical data analysis. Simply to report percentages without direct affiliation to the variables under investigation and hypotheses being tested serve no fundamental research purpose. Reporting study results by way of percentages offers little interpretive value to the study results and bears no statistical importance whatsoever. To interpret nursing attitudes and knowledge factors in relation to sun exposure and skin cancer on the basis of percentages is unacceptable in empirical investigation. Credence can only be given to such an investigation if there exists a statistical determination as to the differences and/or relationships that might possibly exist between and amongst the selected variables. To this end the investigator should have used what is called an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or at least an independent "t" Test analysis utilizing the raw data garnered from the survey questionnaire. In as much as no statistical data analysis technique was ever employed in conjunction with the variables and testable hypotheses all reported results are without merit as to whether or not nursing attitudes and content knowledge is important with respect to sun exposure and skin cancer.

Knowing that the research investigation did not state a definable research question, testable hypothesis, or select an appropriate sampling procedure and data analysis technique there is little that can be said about the results. Results emanating form such a loosely constructed investigation (i.e., percentages) are best left without an academic reaction. In fact, to present all the misgivings concerning this research investigation would exceed the parameters of the present assignment. Although findings have been reported as to nursing attitudes and content knowledge with respect to sun exposure and skin cancer, the findings are not supported by empirical investigative requirements. Therefore, all findings should be taken from a point of possible medical interest rather than as empirical evidence.