Critical appraisal of a research paper - Assignment Example

1). The research paradigm: The introduction section of an article is aimed at identifying the research problem, to determine the magnitude of the problem in the society and to provide the rationale behind carrying out the study, as suggested by Parahoo (2006). In this paper, the background to the research objective is clearly and adequately explained in the introduction. The authors shed light on both the significance of narratives in an individual’s lives and the role of narratives in describing ones experience of a chronic illness in a precise manner.

Moreover, they also describe the DIPEx database which was used to extract the information of the patient’s narratives utilized in this study (Cheshire & Ziebland, 2005, p. 1). The most important aspect of this study is narratives. The authors have used the classic definition of narrative as defined in previous literature and have discussed the different sections and forms of narratives, in order to provide the readers with a sufficient background to aid their understanding of the upcoming sections of the research paper.

Thus, overall, the authors have provided sufficient background and have laid down the conceptual framework for this research, which is a requirement of any good research paper (Holliday, 2004, p. 68) Research questions /hypotheses/ issues: Although the authors provided a justifiable rationale for conducting this study (Treloar, Champness, Simpson, & Higginbotham, 2000, p. 347) in the introduction section of their paper, they have not provided any properly formulated research hypothesis. They do mention the issue that they want to address, i.e.: to examine how individuals express their experiences of illnesses using narratives, but the research question itself is not expressed in an explicit, unambiguous form for the readers.

Methodology used: This study aimed to examine the various aspects of subjective experiences of patients. Thus, for such a study, where subjective experiences of study participants are being elucidated, the qualitative methodology is best suited and the authors’ use of this methodology is justified. Data collection methods:  The researchers used convenient, purposive sampling. The study sample was limited to just two participants. There was no clear sampling method or strategy defined, which is an important requirement for research papers (Greenhalgh, 2006, p. 172). No inclusion or exclusion criteria for selecting the study participants were mentioned.

The authors used convenient sampling and arbitrarily chose two patients. They justify their selection by mentioning that these two patients were chosen because they had similar medical histories. However, this methodology is not explained clearly enough to be replicated by other researchers in future studies. In addition, although the subjects were similar in terms of their medical history, they might vary in other demographic aspects such as age, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, etc, about which no information has been provided (except for age).

Since these factors also have a role in shaping peoples perspectives