Introduction
The work of a modern medical staff involves continuous education. To form a reliable conclusion on a particular issue, it is crucial to be informed of current advanced research. Reading and understanding scientific literature requires the special skills that any modern health worker needs. Reading medical literature is the basis of this process. Sometimes it is necessary to face completely opposite results of research on one topic. The misinterpretation of scientific data can lead to severe problems for medical practice and patients. For this reason, a critical and analytical approach to scientific literature is the necessity of today’s reality.
It is essential to get the skill of critical analysis of articles and researches during the study at an educational institute, as, in the future, it will be beneficial. However, students often encounter certain difficulties as there are many different methods and tools for critique analysis. At the same time, among them, it is necessary to choose the one that will be most suitable for qualitative or quantitative research depending on the studied topic. To solve this problem, Caldwell, Henshaw, and Taylor (2005) developed a universal guide to critically review the research on medical subjects. This approach will be used to analyze the chosen article – ‘A phenomenological study of families with drug-using children living in the society’ (Ritanti et al., 2017). It is a qualitative study of the families’ experience with children who were addicted to drugs. Qualitative studies are usually difficult to assess due to their diversity because it is not clear whether it is possible to apply a single requirement to all works of this type (Mays and Pope, 2020). By this, it is crucial to evaluate how successful Caldwell’s instrument is in coming to life.
Research Critique
At first, expectations from the research’s title should correspond to its content. From the title, one can immediately distinguish the studied audience – “families with drug-using children”. In fact, the study focuses on parents, not including other family members. “A phenomenological study” part suggests what side of the problem the authors focus on. Following Vagle (2018), phenomenological research involves exploring and understanding the studied audience experience concerning a specific issue. This aspect corresponds to the content of the text, as this is the central focus of the article. The title’s last part – “living in the society” moves attention to another point – the problem, its consequences, and solutions are revealed more in a social context than medical or any other. The text does discuss this aspect but in a small amount. Thus, the title largely corresponds to the content, but not entirely.
The authors of the text are Tantut Susanto, WiwinWiarsih, Ritanti, ImaliaDewiAsih. At the end of the article, they presented notes on the role of everyone in conducting the study and drawing up the results. The search for these researchers with the help of Google Scholar allowed determining that two of them – WiwinWiarsih and Tantut Susanto are very actively engaged in researches and writing of works. When searching for the other two authors, only the analyzed study was found. However, it should be mentioned that the authors live and work in Indonesia and other their works may be presented in Indonesian and not displayed online. Thus, the cooperation of these authors should indicate the credibility of the study.
The next important component for analysis is the abstract of the article. According to Harris (2019), the abstract allows readers to know if the work should be read further. It should contain components such as theoretical framework (ideas and sources), methods, some concepts on necessity, and conclusions (Day, 2018). Ritanti et al. (2017) included all the necessary elements in their abstract. The purpose, methods, and materials, results, and conclusions are summarised here. In this way, they created the motivation to read their research.
The aim and rationale of the article should tell us what problem the authors are going to solve in their study. It will allow readers to understand the motivation of the authors in choosing the topic of work and the reasons that led them to take up this work (Blakeslee and Fleischer, 2019). Moreover, readers can find out what served as the main argument in the initiation of this scientific work. Meanwhile, it helps to understand what modern approaches to the problem are described in the article. The authors should note what issues remain unclear in the current context, what issues and constraints existed and continue to exist. It is not necessary to consider the preliminary generalization of the problem as an extra job. Only in this way can the reader explain the need to perform a given clinical scientific study and only then understand it.
In “A phenomenological study of families with drug-using children living in the society,” the authors aim to explore specific experiences endured. In the introduction, they focus more on the usual description of drug-related problems. It makes clear to readers that the topic is not solved and remains relevant, but the answer to what specific tasks the article should solve is not formulated. Moreover, it has been stated several times in the text that any action was carried out in accordance with “research objectives” (Ritanti et al., 2017). However, only one objective, mentioned earlier, has been formulated and identified. Thus, the authors do not provide sufficient justification for conducting their study other than describing the problem. It may affect the incorrect interpretation of its results by other researchers.
A literature review is a section of a study where the authors introduce readers to the context of their study and its theoretical framework (Whittaker and Williamson, 2019). The literature review must consider the works corresponding to the topic of research and justify the literature choice (Hart, 2018). Following the universal rule, authors are not encouraged to use writing that was released more than five years before presenting their research (Bryman, Foster, and Clark, 2019). The only exception is works that explain what prompted the authors to provide the study.
Article by Ritanti et al. (2017) does not contain a separate section on literature. Many references to sources are included in the introduction. They do not take the form of a review or analysis but merely provide some facts. Of the twenty-nine sources listed in the references, only eleven are not outdated. Throughout the text, the citation of the secondary source is used, and original works are mostly written in the late twentieth century. The importance of the sources used cannot be underestimated because it significantly affects the quality of the work and can present the author as a good or bad professional.
The text of the article does not articulate the ethical problems, which the study concerns. It mentions that the work was ethically approved by the university in which the authors conducted the study. The main ethical components of qualitative research are anonymity, respect for the individual, not condemnation (Hennink, Hutter, and Bailey, 2020). After studying the text carefully, it can be concluded that these requirements were met. It can be understood by learning the methods of conducting interviews used by the authors. They took into account all factors that could harm or insult the samples.
The identification of research methods suggests how authors plan to answer the questions they raise. When choosing methods of conducting research, it is necessary to indicate both the methods that were used and to argue their choice, to indicate why these methods will be better suited to achieve the goal. In this aspect, the authors took work more seriously. The methods section describes the sequence of the study and justifies the selection of the methods used. It should enable the reviewer and the reader to assess the correctness of this choice, the reliability, and the results’ reasoning.
The authors clearly define the background then justify their choice of study design. They also provide additional arguments clarifying this choice. The main concepts of the research can be considered as a system of views on the research, the basic ideas, goals, and the ways of its conduction (Boettke, Stein, and Storr, 2018). In this article, they are not clearly defined, and readers can only guess about the majority of them. Among all necessary and essential elements, only the methodology and design of the study are formulated and justified.
The context of the study should tell readers of the article how the study is connected with different spheres of human life or science (O’Cathain, 2018). The authors describe in more detail the general background of the problem – the negative impact of drugs on people’s health or morality, crime related to their traffic. They also suggest that public health nurses can help families with drug-abuse children to cope with the problem. However, this aspect is not described in detail and is mentioned only a couple of times. Thus, because the research goals are not enough formulated, it is not clear what the authors want to achieve with their study.
From the title of the article, it is possible to build assumptions about who the participants of the study are. They were selected using the snowballing sampling technique when already found participants, invite other right people. (Flick, 2018). It should be highlighted that the authors indicated the criteria by which the participants were selected very clearly. However, there is no justification for the fact that only parents were chosen for the survey, without the participation of children.
According to the only stated goal formulated in the article, the researchers chose the ideal method to work with the sample and data collection – conducting interviews and analyzing reports. The interview method is a popular means of obtaining primary sociological information, as evidenced by its active use in empirical sociological research (Lee, 2018). The rationale for using the interview method is a desire to understand the world from the interviewed person’s view, to reveal the meaning of his/her experience before giving a scientific explanation (King, Horrocks, and Brooks, 2018). Since this was the purpose of the interview research, this method is applicable to understanding the experience. It is possible to audit it by conducting a similar study or conducting the same interview as part of a broader analysis.
The article also sets out a sequence of steps for analyzing the obtained data, which makes it possible to conclude the reliability of this analysis. Ritanti et al. (2017) applied descriptive statistics as a data analysis method. Decrypting and interpreting transcripts of a conversation always requires a lot of attention and time (Townsend and Loudoun, 2018). However, it helped to identify both common and distinct characteristics of events and emotions experienced by families with child drug abuse. The results are formulated clearly and understandably; the main aspects of parents’ experience are identified by the categories/themes. This section is crucial because it briefly illustrates the logical connection between received data previously shown in a table, and the tasks of the researchers (Weaver-Hightower, 2018). The results presented in this form help researchers to look at problems from different sides and assess its complexity.
Ritanti et al. (2017) devoted a large part of the article to a discussion of the results. Much of this section was devoted to confirming the findings of other studies, that were published more than a decade ago. This fact indicates that results are transferable and can draw many parallels between similar studies. However, since task had been formulated, such discussion diminished the importance of the article and cannot be considered as comprehensive. Moreover, the discussion does not give any original ideas, concepts, and reflection – only general ones.
The article must end with a well-constructed conclusion summarising the main points of the research. The conclusion of the finished research work is one of the main sections of the work done in the process of its creation (Shields, 2019). The authors should not make any new arguments in conclusion. This section should summarise the essence of the whole study: the theses of the theoretical part, the solving all the tasks, and achievement of the paper’s purpose and the solution of the tasks, as well as future perspectives of the researches on this topic (Tusting et al., 2019). The conclusions formulated in the article give a short description of the results obtained by the authors. Such a conclusion cannot be seen as comprehensive, as several important features are lacking. First, the extent to which the authors have completed the task was not assessed. Secondly, the directions of future research are too brief and generic.
Conclusion
Using Caldwell’s (2005) critical instrument, the article “A phenomenological study of families with drug-using children living in the society” written by are Tantut Susanto, Wiwin Wiarsih, Ritanti, Imalia Dewi Asih was analysed. The main aspects of the article that describe the qualitative research were analysed and critically evaluated. Basing on the results, it is possible to claim that the research critique framework proposed by Caldwell is a useful and convenient tool. The analysed article does not meet many of the requirements of a good study. The main reasons for mistrust in the paper are the vague formulations of the goals, main concepts, and discussion of the results. Moreover, there was no review of the literature, and the works used are out-dated. Because of these shortcomings, it becomes unclear what the article is written for and what its achievements are. Other researchers may find it useless when searching for the information they need.
Reference List
Blakeslee, A. and Fleischer, C. (2019) Becoming a writing researcher. Abingdon: Routledge.
Boettke, P., Stein, S. and Storr, V.H. (2018) ‘Why methodology matters: reflections on brucecaldwell’s beyond positivism, including a symposium on Bruce Caldwell’s beyond positivism after 35 years’, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 36A, pp. 57-80.
Bryman, A., Foster, L. and Clark, T. (2019) How to do your social research project or dissertation. Glasgow: Oxford University Press.
Caldwell, K., Henshaw, L. and Taylor, G. (2005) ‘Developing a framework for critiquing health research’, Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues, 6(1), pp.45-54.
Day, T. (2018) Success in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Flick, U. (2018) An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Limited.
Harris, D. (2019) Literature review and research design: a guide to effective research practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Hart, C. (2018) Doing a literature review: releasing the research imagination. London: Sage Publications.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., and Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative research methods. London: SAGE Publications Limited.
King, N., Horrocks, C., and Brooks, J. (2018) Interviews in qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Limited.
Lee, Q. Y. (2018) ‘Being flexible in interviews: make sure that you account for power imbalance’,in Saunders M. N. K. andTownsend K. (eds.) How to keep your research project on track: insights from when things go wrong. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated, pp.109-113.
Mays, N. and Pope, C. (2020) ‘Quality in qualitative research’, Qualitative research in health care, pp.211-233.
O’Cathain, A. (2018) A practical guide to using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ritantiet al. (2017) ‘A phenomenological study of families with drug-using children living in the society’, International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 4(3), pp.100-107.
Shields, M. (2019) Research methodology and statistical methods. London: EDTECH.
Townsend, K. and Loudoun, R. (2018) ‘Just on goat’: the importance of interpretation in qualitative data analysis’, in Saunders M. N. K. and Townsend K. (eds.) How to keep your research project on track: insights from when things go wrong. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated, pp.113-121.
Tusting, K., et al. (2019) Academics writing: the dynamics of knowledge creation. London: Taylor & Francis.
Vagle, M. D. (2018) Crafting Phenomenological Research. London: Routledge.
Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2018). How to write qualitative research. London: Taylor & Francis.
Whittaker, A. and Williamson, G. R. (2019). Succeeding in literature reviews and research project plans for nursing students. London: SAGE Publications.