Dr. V.D Iarrhea, in his article: “The Causal Relationships Between Toilet Paper Purchasing and Aggression in Adults”, tries to argue how adult aggression affects the purchasing behaviors among the consumers. The author explores several past studies on the topic to support his arguments. Fifty participants were involved in answering the research questions and proving or disapproving the research hypotheses. The researcher utilized six variables that were coded and entered into IBM’s SPSS for analysis. The researcher concluded that there was a strong relationship between toilet paper purchasing and adult aggression. However, the researcher failed to state the limitation, and succinct recommendations for future research on the overarching thematic area. The article’s inconsistency in research design and flow of ideas makes it difficult to understand.
Errors Identified and Their Corrections
The article presents itself as a poorly researched, organized, and concluded study. The author has failed to follow the basic requirement for a research topic in social sciences. A concise and well-organsed study helps the audience place the findings in context, interpret the study’s validity, and ascribe to the credibility level of the research’s conclusions (Jaakkola, 2020). The submitted article exhibits many errors in its hypothetical, design, methodological, analysis, and interpretation sections. Although some of the errors are common among other authors, the majority of the errors are likely caused by the author’s writing incompetency. Inconsice and poorly structured study encumber the audience’s understanding (Pati & Lorusso, 2018). Therefore, Dr. V.D Iarrhea’s article fails to meet the minimum requirements of an appealing scholarly article.
Errors In Hypotheses
Research hypotheses play a significant role in any scientific and social science study. The hypotheses involve the statements of expectations and predictions that will be tested in research (Barroga & Matanguihan, 2022). Therefore, the hypotheses should be concisely and simply structured for the reader to relate the study with previously conducted studies on the overarching research topic (Betts et al., 2021). On page 3, Dr. V.D Iarrhea lists his three hypotheses: “ Will high levels of toilet paper purchasing cause an increase in aggression?”, “ Will there be a causal relationship between sex and relationship toilet paper purchasing and aggression?”, and “ Will a stronger relationship be evident for males over females?” The three hypotheses are poorly structured and do not constitute a basic hypothetical design.
The three hypotheses are poorly structured and do not conform to the rules of hypothetical development. Firstly, the researcher framed the hypotheses as research questions, and not statements. For instance, a correct first hypothesis would be, “ High levels of toilet paper purchasing cause an increase in aggression.” Secondly, the variables used in hypothetical development are inconsistent with the researcher’s argument. For instance, the term ‘aggression’ is used out of context and presents a different meaning. Therefore, the developed hypotheses are illogical and inconsistent. A logical second hypothesis would be: that there is a casual relationship between sex, toilet paper purchasing, and consumer confusion. Therefore, the hypotheses are poorly structured and illogical making them difficult to understand.
Errors In Design
A research design is significant since it allows the researcher to ensure that the research methods are consistent with the research aim and that the high-quality data is collected. Moreover, the research design is crucial in correctly analyzing the collected data and utilizing credible sources (Greenland, 2021). Therefore, a research design is more concerned with logic than the logistical problem (Carter et al., 2021). Dr. V.D Iarrhea’s article lacks the major components of research design: study questions, study propositions, and linking of collected data to the suggested propositions. Consequently, the entire study’s flow of ideas and arguments is illogical.
The article presents several errors in its design making the researcher’s main ideas inconsistent with the theme. On page 3 the author states that his study aimed to explore the causal relationship between toilet paper purchasing behavior and aggression in a sample of Australian adults. A logical and precise purpose statement would be to investigate the impact of adult aggression on toilet paper purchasing in Australia. Moreover, the researcher failed to give a succinct theoretical perspective of his study. Furthermore, the study lacks a design description: qualitative or quantitative. Therefore, the poorly organized research design makes the article illogical and difficult to understand.
Errors In Methods
The research methods give a study legitimacy and connect its hypotheses with scientifically sound findings. The methodology involves the techniques employed for data collection and the number of involved participants (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The article presents many errors in its methodology section. The writer errored in stating the total number of the participants which was inconsistent with the total female and male respondents. A consistent claim would be, “A total of 60 participants, 30 males, and 30 females, took part in the research.” Moreover, the participants were recruited from one region of Melbourne making the research biased. The researcher could have involved the respondents from different parts of Australia to make the research less biased.
A research methodology must be ethical for the accurate presentation of information by the respondents. In the first paragraph of the methodology section, the writer states that the participants were informed that their participation was compulsory. A more appropriate data collection mechanism would be participating with the respondents’ consent. Moreover, the participants were informed to write their names on the survey form. A more appropriate methodology would be to allow the participants to provide their names’ initials and state any lawlessness act they have been involved in, but only if they are comfortable with providing such information. Furthermore, the author failed to precisely state the sample questions asked to the respondents. Instead, it should be clear that the questions asked were consistent with the identified research variables: age, sex, and toilet paper roll purchased. Therefore, the study’s methodology does not conform to research ethics and the overall design of the article.
Errors In Analysis
The analysis involves making data more simpler and accurate for interpretation. Moreover, the analysis helps the researcher answer the set of research questions (Chun Tie et al., 2019). Dr. V.D Iarrhea’s article lacks crucial data representation diagrams like the histogram to show the distribution of males and females. The author errored in coding the data since he did assign codes for males and females. An accurate data coding would be “1” for males and “2” for females. Moreover, a suitable data representation would be the use of a histogram to represent the total number of male and female participants. Although the author used the SPSS to check data entry errors, he did not generate the appropriate reports that ought to be attached to the article.
SPSS would enable the author to measure the internal consistency of the data collected. The researcher failed to use Cronbach’s alpha in determining the internal consistency and reliability of the collected data. The Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6-0.7 could indicate an acceptable level of reliability, and 0.8 or greater is a very good level. On page 7 the author used a statistics table to present SAAG and ASS scores among the various participants. A more significant analysis would be by use of pie and bar charts to represent the data. Pie charts and bar graphs are appealing and easy to interpret compared to numerical information (Kannan et al., 2019). Therefore, the article’s analysis section does not present crucial information for interpretation and conclusions.
Errors In Interpretation
The interpretation sections help in making conclusions based on the interpreted data. The researcher ought to give conclusions that are consistent with the data presented (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). On page 6 the author approves the hypothesis that there is a casual relationship between toilet paper purchasing and adult aggression. However, he fails to support his conclusion with evidence drawn from the analysis section. A more accurate claim would be, “There is a casual relationship between toilet paper purchasing and adult aggression since lawlessness participants purchased more toilet paper rolls.” Moreover, the author failed to approve or disapprove of other hypotheses as mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the researcher fails to give a more coherent recommendation based on his research’s limitations. More substantive recommendations would include the involvement of evenly distributed participants and sufficient time to conduct future research. The data interpretation and discussion sections do not give clear answers to the research questions and hypotheses.
References
Barroga, E., & Matanguihan, G. J. (2022). A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles.Journal of Korean Medical Science, 37(16).
Betts, M. G., Hadley, A. S., Frey, D. W., Frey, S. J., Gannon, D., Harris, S. H.,… & Zárrate‐Charry, D. (2021). When are hypotheses useful in ecology and evolution?. Ecology and Evolution, 11(11), 5762-5776.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3.
Carter, S. M., Shih, P., Williams, J., Degeling, C., & Mooney-Somers, J. (2021). Conducting qualitative research online: challenges and solutions.The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14(6), 711-718.
Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?.Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning, 10(6), 807-815.
Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE open medicine, 7, 2050312118822927.
Greenland, S. (2021). Analysis goals, error‐cost sensitivity, and analysis hacking: Essential considerations in hypothesis testing and multiple comparisons.Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 35(1), 8-23.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18-26.
Kannan, S., Dongare, P. A., Garg, R., & Harsoor, S. S. (2019). Describing and displaying numerical and categorical data. Airway, 2(2), 64. DOI: 10.4103/ARMY.ARWY_24_19
Pati, D., & Lorusso, L. N. (2018). How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 11(1), 15-30.