Sampling Methods in Obesity and Fat Stigma Research Articles
This paper critiques the sampling methods used in three scholarly articles addressing obesity and fat stigma. The first is a bioethics critique by Mayes (2015) examining the arguments of Singer and Callahan regarding obesity as a social and ethical issue. The second is a Level VII article by Wetter and Hodge (2016) arguing in favor of a soda tax to combat childhood obesity. The third is a Level V meta-synthesis by Pause (2017) examining fat stigma and public health. For each study, the paper evaluates sampling technique, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample frames, generalizability, and ethical considerations, ultimately finding that all three studies lack sufficient transparency in how their data samples were obtained.
- Introduction: Overview of three articles and analytical focus
- Mayes (2015): A Critique of Bioethicists on Obesity: Sampling and ethics in a targeted bioethics critique
- Wetter and Hodge (2016): Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and the Soda Tax: Data transparency issues in a Level VII argumentative article
- Pause (2017): Fat Stigma and Public Health: Sampling gaps in a Level V fat stigma meta-synthesis
- Conclusion: Shared need for sampling transparency across all three studies
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Applies a consistent analytical framework — sampling technique, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample frame, generalizability, and ethical principles — to each article, making comparisons clear and fair.
- Distinguishes meaningfully between different evidence levels (Level V vs. Level VII) and explains what those distinctions imply for data collection transparency.
- Maintains a critical but measured tone, identifying methodological weaknesses in each article without dismissing their scholarly contributions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied methodological critique — evaluating not the content of three published articles but the research design decisions underlying them. By asking the same set of questions about each article (How was the sample obtained? What are the inclusion criteria? Is there risk of researcher bias?), the author shows how to assess scholarly rigor systematically across sources of varying design types.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction identifying the three articles and the analytical focus. Each of the three body sections is organized around a single source, covering sampling approach, ethical considerations, and generalizability in the same sequence. The conclusion synthesizes the shared methodological weakness across all three studies — insufficient transparency about data collection — and explains why that matters for scholarly replication and peer review.
Introduction
This paper examines three scholarly articles and discusses the sampling techniques associated with each study. 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 data sampling, and examining each one provides an opportunity to understand how different sets of data may be obtained and what ethical parameters should govern that process.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.