Abstract
Evaluating research and determining its legitimacy is an important step in advancing the exploration of a specific issue and developing a strong and vast system of knowledge on the subject. However, to assess the legitimacy of a specific study, one needs to take multiple variables into account and determine the general strength of the argument, thus establishing the veracity and credibility of the results. For this reason, a systematic guide for a careful assessment of a specific study is needed (Garritty et al., 2020). The guide below provides an assessment tool based on the IMRAD (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion) framework to pinpoint the main advantages and disadvantages of any study and determine its value in the academic discourse.
Introduction
The introduction sets expectations for the remainder of the paper and serves as a roadmap for the study, which is why the research topic, problem, and goals must be included in the specified element of an article first. In addition, a brief overview of the literature on the subject and the identification of a corresponding research gap is required (Khan et al., 2019). Finally, the introduction should establish a research question that the author strives to answer or a hypothesis to prove.
Methodology
Although arguably, every element of an article is essential to its quality and needs to be placed precisely in its place, the methodology represents the essence of a study. Therefore, to evaluate the worth of a specific article, one should consider the presence of a detailed and thoroughly developed methodological approach (Khan et al., 2019). It is expected that the author states whether the research method is qualitative, quantitative, or mixed, which will determine the criteria for further assessment.
Specifically, the research strategies such as an experiment, a case study, a randomized controlled trial, archival research, a grounded theory, or any other approach toward the research problem need to be evaluated. Additionally, the selected research strategy needs to correlate with the corresponding research method (Garritty et al., 2020). An appropriate research philosophy, such as positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, and other frameworks, should be defined clearly in an article. Furthermore, its choice needs to be justified based on the method of research.
Likewise, the data collection method needs to be scrutinized and assessed based on its legitimacy and effectiveness. A variety of approaches, including interviews and databases, searches for qualitative studies, and surveys for quantitative ones may occur in the specified section. About the data collection, a reasonable sampling method and appropriate sample size should be stated. Lastly, the data analysis tool should be explained and justified in the article.
Results
Key information derived from the analysis of the data obtained in the course of the study needs to be represented in the results section. Results need to correlate to the initial question or hypothesis, which suggests that the specified section should contain the responses to the research questions posed in the introduction. In case of a hypothesis being stated in research, the results section needs to establish whether it has been proven correct or incorrect. It is expected that the key outcomes are represented in a table for quantitative studies (Khan et al., 2019). Moreover, the key inventory utilized in the course of the analysis, including statistical tests and other types of statistical analysis, should be represented in this section. In the case of qualitative research, its outcomes may be shown as a diagram or listed as a text. Specifically, themes and categories are traditionally outlined as the main outcomes of qualitative analysis.
Discussion
Finally, the discussion section of an article is expected to provide a thorough evaluation of the research results and their significance. Namely, the importance of the results for future research and the development of future strategies for managing the issue at hand should be outlined in the specified section (Garritty et al., 2020). Furthermore, the issues such as the validity of the research outcomes and their applicability to different settings need to be overviewed.
Conclusion
Evaluating an article as a potential source to be incorporated in the management of a certain concern or the further exploration of a research issue needs to be performed with due diligence and accuracy. For this reason, several key criteria are to be established as the guidelines for determining the legitimacy of the study. By assessing an article with the help of the IMRAD framework, one will be able to define its value as a potential source of trustworthy information.
References
Garritty, C., Hersi, M., Hamel, C., Stevens, A., Monfaredi, Z., Butler, C.,… Thavorn, K. (2020). Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study. PloS One, 15(8), 1-16. Web.
Khan, M. S., Shaikh, A., Ochani, R. K., Akhtar, T., Fatima, K., Khan, S. U.,… Krasuski, R. A. (2019). Assessing the quality of abstracts in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 12(5), 1-9.
Appendix A: Resource Guide (IMRAD)
Introduction
- The introduction section details the topic of the research accurately;
- The main goal and objectives of the study are specified in the introduction;
- The research problem is stated clearly;
- A brief overview of the existing literature is offered;
- A research question or hypothesis is delineated properly.
Methodology
- The research method (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) is stated;
- The research strategy (such as field research, case study, etc.) is detailed;
- The target population is outlined;
- The sampling method is explained;
- The sample size is stated;
- The data collection technique is specified;
- The data analysis method is defined;
- Possible biases and limitations are discussed.
Results
- Key outcomes of the analysis are stated;
- The initial hypothesis is confirmed or rejected/The research question is answered.
Discussion
- The implications of research outcomes for the target population are discussed;
- The limitations of the research are acknowledged;
- Opportunities for a follow-up study are mentioned.