Nursing research unit 8 (part 2)

REFERENCE AND
BIBLIOGRAPHY,
RESEARCH CRITIQUE
PREPARED BY
MRS.AKILA.A; M.Sc (N),M.Sc (PSY),
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

INTRODUCTION
• Reference and Bibliography is an
important part of any project under study
because it helps in acknowledging other’s
work and also help the readers in finding
the original sources of information. It not
only prevents plagiarism but also indicates
that the writer has done good research on
the subject by using a variety of sources to
gain information.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• At the end of the research report,
bibliography is added, which contains a list
of books, magazines, journals, websites or
other publications which are in some way
relevant to the topic under study, that has
been consulted by the researcher during
the research. In finer terms, it comprises of
all the references cited in the form of
footnotes and other important works that
the author has studied

• The bibliography is helpful to the reader in
gaining information regarding the literature
available on the topic and what influenced the
author.
• For better presentation and convenient
reading, the bibliography can be grouped into
two parts, wherein the first part lists out the
names of books and pamphlets consulted,
and the other contains the names of
magazines and newspapers considered.

TYPES OF BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Bibliography of works cited: It contains the
name of those books whose content has been
cited in the text of the research report.
• Selected Bibliography: As it is evident from the
name itself, selected bibliography covers only
those works which the author assumes that are of
major interest to the reader.
• Annotated Bibliography: In this type of
bibliography, a small description of the items
covered is given by the author to ensure
readability and also improve the usefulness of the
book.

REFERENCE
• Reference can be understood as the act of
giving credit to or mentioning the name of,
someone or something.
• In research methodology, it denotes the items
which you have reviewed and referred to, in
the text, in your research work.
• It is nothing but a way to acknowledge or
indirectly showing gratitude, towards the
sources from where the information is
gathered.

• While using references, one thing is to be
noted that you go for reliable sources only,
because it increases credence and also
supports your arguments. It may include,
books, research papers, or articles from
magazines, journals, newspapers, etc.,
interview transcripts, internet sources such as
websites, blogs, videos watched, and so
forth.
• These are used to inform the reader about
the sources of direct quotations, tables,
statistics, photos etc. that are included in the
research work.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
REFERENCE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY :
• Reference implies referring to someone or
something, that means it provides the list of
sources, whose text is used in the
assignment or research work. Conversely,
bibliography represents the list of all the
sources, from which the research has gained
some information about the topic, irrespective
of the work cited or not.
• References are based on primary sources,
whereas bibliography is created on the basis
of primary and secondary sources.

• References used in the assignment can be
arranged alphabetically or numerically. On
the contrary, list of sources used in the
bibliography is arranged numerically.
• The bibliography is used to list out everything
you go through to obtain the information
relating to the assignment, no matter if you
specifically cite it in your assignment or not.
Now coming to references, it only takes into
account those sources which have been cited
in the assignment.

• The main objective of adding a reference
at the end of the document is to improve
credence or support an idea or argument.
As against, the bibliography is not used for
supporting an argument.
• While reference is used in thesis and
dissertation. On the other hand,
bibliography is used in case of journal
paper and research work.

BASIS FOR COMPARISON REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Meaning Reference implies the list of
sources, that has been
referred in the research
work.
Bibliography is about listing
out all the materials which
has been consulted during
the research work.
Based on Primary Sources Both Primary and
Secondary Sources
Arrangement Alphabetically and
numerically
Numerically
Includes Only in-text citations, that
have been used in the
assignment or project.
Both in-text citations and
other sources, that are
used to generate the idea.
Supporting argument A reference can be used to
support an argument.
A bibliography cannot be
used to support an
argument.
Used for Thesis and Dissertation Journal Papers and
Research work

REFERENCE STYLES
• Harvard style
• Vancouver style
• APA style

APA (AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION)STYLE
Eg:Book
• Morales, L. (1987). The history of Cuba. New York: Franklin Watts.
• Ellington, W., Jr., & Henrickson, E.B. (1995). The elements of dance
(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Book Chapter
• Tizol, W.P. (1976). Brain function and memory. In J.M.O. Corney &
H.L. Center (Eds.), An inside look at what we think we know. (pp.
154-184). Springfield, IL: American Psychiatric Press.
Journal Article
• Bauza,R.H. (1982).Manitobanematodes. Journal of Cool Nematodes,
10, 252-264.
• Gillespie, R.C., & Tupac, R.M. (1976). How confident people dance.
American Dancing, 225, 82-90.
Magazine Article
• Pozo, E. R. (2008, November 19). The way she loved me. Personal
Literature, 290, 1113- 1120.

VANCOUVER STYLE OF REFERENCE WRITING
Books :
• Author/editor AA. Title: subtitle. Edition (if not the first).
Vol. (if a multivolume work). Place of publication:
Publishers; Year. Page number(s).
Parts of a Book:
• Author of part, AA. Title of chapter or part. In: Editor A,
Editor B, Title: subtitle of Book. Edition (if not the first).
Place of publication: Publishers; Year. Page number(s).
Journal Articles:
• Author of article AA, Author of article BB, Author of
article CC. Title of article. Abbreviated Title of Journal.
Year; Vol.(issue): page number(s).
E – Books
• Author A, Author B. Title of e-book (format). Place:
Publisher; Date of original publication (cited year
abbreviated day). Available from: Source. URL.

Book:
• Cronon, William. 1991. Nature's Metropolis: Chicago
and the Great West. New York: W. W. Norton.
Edited Book:
• Fainstein, Susan S., and Scott Campbell, eds. 1996.
Readings in Urban Theory. Cambridge, MA and
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Chapter in an Edited Book:
• Fishman, Robert. 1996. Bourgeois Utopias: Visions of
Utopia. In Readings in Urban Theory, edited by S. S.
Fainstein and S. Campbell. Cambridge, MA and
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
CAMPBELL STYLE

Harvard style of referencing…
• Author’s name followed by its initials.
• Year of publication.
• Article title with single quotation mark followed by full stop.
• Name of Journal in italic form.
• Volume followed by a comma
• Issue no. in bracket.
• Page no.
Example
1. Padda, J. (2003) ‘creative writing in coventry'.
Journal of writing studies 3 (2), 44-59.
2. Lennernas, H. (1995) ‘Experimental estimation of
the effective unstirred water layer thickness in the
human jejunum & its importance in oral drug
absorption’. Eur. J. pharm sci (3), 247-253.

RESEARCH CRITIQUE
• A research critique is a careful, critical
appraisal of the strengths and limitations
of a study.
• A written critique should serve as a guide -
to researchers, to editors, or to
practitioners

RESEARCH CRITIQUE –
DEFINITION
• “Systematic, unbiased, careful
examination of all aspects of a study to
judge the merits, limitations, meaning and
significance based on previous research
experience and knowledge of the topic” -
Burns, N. & Grove, S., 2005.

PURPOSES OF RESEARCH
CRITIQUE
• Students are often asked to prepare critiques to
demonstrate their methodologic skills.
• Seasoned researchers are sometimes asked to
write critiques of manuscripts to help journal
editors make publication decisions or to
accompany reports as published commentaries
• Seasoned researchers may also be asked to
present an oral critique if they are invited as
discussants of a paper at a professional
conference.

• Journal clubs in clinical settings may meet
periodically to critique and discuss research
studies.
• critiquing individual studies plays a role in
assembling evidence into integrative reviews of
the literature on a topic.
• All the above purposes serves to develop a
balanced evaluation of a study’s contribution to
knowledge.
• A good critique objectively and critically identifies
adequacies and inadequacies, virtues as well as
faults.

RESEARCH CRITIQUE … Requires
• critical thinking,
• appraisal
• intellectual skill

Importance of research
critique
• To broaden understanding for use in
practice.
• For implementing an evidence based
nursing practice.
• Encourages nurses to participate in
clinical inquiry and provide evidence for
use in practice.

General Guidelines for the
Conduct of
a Written Research Critique
1. Be sure to comment on the study’s strengths as
well as weaknesses. The critique should be a
balanced analysis of the study’s worth. All reports
have some positive features—be sure to find and
note them.
2. Give specific examples of the study’s strengths
and limitations. Avoid vague generalizations of
praise and fault finding.
3. Justify your criticisms. Offer a rationale for your
concerns.

4. Be objective. Avoid being overly critical of
a study because you are not interested in
the topic or because your world view is
inconsistent with the underlying paradigm.
5. Be sensitive in handling negative
comments. Put yourself in the shoes of the
researcher receiving the comments. Do not
be condescending or sarcastic
6. Don’t just identify problems—suggest
alternatives, indicating how a different
approach would have solved a methodologic
problem. Make sure the recommendations
are practical.

RESEARCH CRITIQUE
• CRITIQUE OF THE STUDY
BACKGROUND:
1.Research Problem
2. Objectives
3.Operational definition
4. Hypothesis
5. Conceptual framework
6.Literature review

• CRITIQUE OF THE
METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS:
1.Research design
2.Sample and sampling technique
3. Data collection and tools
4. Ethical considerations

• CRITIQUE OF THE RESULTS, CONCLUSION
AND MISCELLANEOUS ASPECTS:
1. Analysis of data
2. Interpretation and discussion of data
3. Conclusion and recommendations
4. references

Elements of a Research
Critique
Research reports have several important
dimensions which include,
• Substantive dimensions
• Theoretical dimensions
• Methodologic dimensions
• Interpretive dimensions
• Ethical dimensions and
• Presentational/ stylistic dimensions

Substantive and Theoretical
Dimensions
It refers to critiquing the study report’s
• Significance of the problem (Research
Problems, Research Questions, and
Hypotheses),
• Soundness of the conceptualizations
(Research Literature Reviews), and
• Appropriateness of the conceptual
framework (Theoretical and Conceptual
Frameworks)

Dimensions
Guidelines for Critiquing Research Problems,
Research Questions & Hypotheses
1. Has the research problem been clearly identified?
Has the researcher appropriately delimited its scope?
2. Does the problem have significance for nursing?
How might the research contribute to nursing
practice, administration, education, or policy?
3. Is there a good fit between the research problem
and the paradigm within which the research was
conducted?

4. Does the report formally present a statement of
purpose, research questions, or hypotheses? Is this
information communicated clearly and concisely, and is it
placed in a logical and useful location?
5. Are purpose statements or questions worded
appropriately (e.g., are key concepts/variables identified
and the population of interest specified)?
6. If there are no formal hypotheses, is their absence
justifiable? Are statistical tests used despite the absence
of stated hypotheses?

7. Do hypotheses (if any) flow from a theory or
previous research? Is there a justifiable basis for the
predictions?
8. Are hypotheses (if any) properly worded—do they
state a predicted relationship between two or more
variables? Are they directional or non-directional,
and is there a rationale for how they were stated?
Are they presented as research or as null
hypotheses?

Dimensions (cont…)
Guidelines for Critiquing Research Literature
Reviews
1. Does the review seem thorough—does it include
all or most of the major studies conducted on the
topic? Does it include recent work?
2. Does the review cite primarily primary sources
(the original studies)?
3. Is the review merely a summary of existing work,
or does it critically appraise and compare key
studies? Does the review identify important gaps in
the literature?

4. Does the review use appropriate language,
suggesting the tentativeness of prior findings?
Is the review objective?
5. Is the review well organized? Is the
development of ideas clear?
6. Does the review lay the foundation for
undertaking the new study?

Dimensions (cont…)
Guidelines for Critiquing Theoretical and
Conceptual Frameworks
1. Does the research report describe a theoretical
or conceptual framework for the study? If not, does
the absence of a theoretical framework detract
from the usefulness or significance of the
research?
2. Does the report adequately describe the major
features of the theory so that readers can
understand the conceptual basis of the study?

3. Is the theory appropriate to the research
problem? Would a different theoretical
framework have been more appropriate?
4. Is the theoretical framework based on a
conceptual model of nursing, or is it
borrowed from another discipline? Is there
adequate justification for the researcher’s
decision about the type of framework used?
5. Do the research problem and hypotheses
flow naturally from the theoretical
framework, or does the link between the
problem and theory seem contrived?

6. Are the deductions from the theory or
conceptual framework logical?
7. Are all the concepts adequately defined in
a way that is consistent with the theory?
8. Does the researcher tie the findings of the
study back to the framework at the end of
the report? Do the findings support or
undermine the framework?

Methodologic Dimensions
Guidelines for critiquing the methodology in
a quantitative study
The four major decision points on which
• Decision 1, Design: What design will yield the
most unambiguous and meaningful (internally
valid) results about the relationship between the
independent variable and dependent variable, or
the most valid descriptions of concepts under
study? What extraneous variables need to be
controlled, and how best can this be
accomplished?

• Decision 2, Sample: Who should
participate in the study? What are
the characteristics of the population
to which the findings should be
generalized (external validity)? How
large should the sample be, from
where should participants be
recruited, and what sampling
approach should be used?

• Decision 3, Data sources: What should the
sources of data be, and how should data
be gathered? Should multiple sources of
data (e.g., unstructured interviews and
observations) be used to achieve method
triangulation?
• Decision 4, Data analysis: What data
analysis techniques are appropriate for the
research tradition?

• Decision 5, Quality enhancement: What types
of evidence can be obtained to support the
credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability of the data, the analysis, and
the interpretation?

Ethical Dimensions
This dimension needs to consider whether
the rights of human subjects were violated
during the investigation. If there are any
potential ethical concerns, you need to consider
the impact of those problems on the scientific
merit of the study on the one hand and on
participants’ wellbeing on the other.

There are two main types of ethical
transgressions in research studies.
1. Inadvertent actions or activities that
researchers did not interpret as creating
an ethical dilemma.
2. Researchers might be aware of having
committed some violation of ethical
principles, but made a conscious decision
that the violation was modest in relation
to the knowledge that could be gained by
doing the study in a certain way.

Guidelines for Critiquing the Ethical Aspects
of a Study
1. Were study participants subjected to any
physical harm, discomfort, or psychological
distress? Did the researchers take appropriate
steps to remove or prevent harm or minimize
discomfort?
2. Did benefits to participants outweigh any
potential risks or actual discomfort they
experienced? Did the benefits to society or
nursing outweigh costs to participants?

3. Was any coercion or undue influence
used in recruiting participants?
4. Were groups omitted from the inquiry
(e.g., women, minorities) without a justifiable
rationale?
5. Were vulnerable subjects used? Were
special precautions instituted because of
their vulnerable status?

6. Were participants deceived in any way?
Were they fully aware of participating in a
study and did they understand the purpose
of the research?
7. Did participants have an opportunity to
decline participation? Were appropriate
consent procedures implemented? If not,
were there valid and justifiable reasons?

8. Were participants told about any real or
potential risks associated with participation in
the study? Were study procedures fully
described in advance?
9. Were appropriate steps taken to safeguard
the privacy of participants?
10. Was the study approved and monitored by
an Institutional Review Board or other similar
ethics review committee? If not, did the
researcher have any type of external review
relating to ethical considerations?

Interpretive Dimensions
It refers to critiquing the final section
that researchers attempt to make sense of
the analyses, to consider whether the
findings support or fail to support
hypotheses or theory, and to discuss what
the findings imply for nursing.

Guidelines for Critiquing the Interpretive
Dimensions of a Research Report
Interpretation of the findings
1. Are all important results discussed? If not,
what is the likely explanation for omissions?
2. Are interpretations consistent with
results? Do the interpretations take into
account methodologic limitations?

• 3. What types of evidence are offered in
support of the interpretation, and is that
evidence persuasive? Are results interpreted
in light of findings from other studies? Are
results interpreted in terms of the original
study hypotheses and the conceptual
framework?
• 4. Are alternative explanations for the findings
mentioned, and is the rationale for their
rejection presented?

5. In quantitative studies, does the
interpretation distinguish between practical and
statistical significance?
6. Are any unwarranted interpretations of
causality made?
7. Does the researcher offer implications of the
research for nursing practice, nursing theory, or
nursing research? Are implications of the study
omitted, although a basis for them is apparent?

8. Are the stated implications appropriate,
given the study’s limitations?
9. Are generalizations made that are not
warranted on the basis of the sample used?
10. Are specific recommendations made
concerning how the study’s methods could
be improved? Are there recommendations
for future research investigations?

11. Are recommendations for specific
nursing actions presented?
12. Are recommendations consistent with
the findings and with the existing body of
knowledge?

Presentational and Stylistic
Dimensions
The writing in a research report, as in any
published document, should be clear,
grammatical, concise, and well organized.
Unnecessary jargon should be minimized, but
colloquialisms usually should be avoided.
Inadequate organization is another
presentation flaw in some research reports.
Continuity and logical thematic development
are critical to good communication of scientific
information, but these qualities are often
difficult to attain.

• Styles of writing do differ for qualitative
and quantitative reports, and it is
unreasonable to apply the standards
considered appropriate for one paradigm
to the other.
• Quantitative research reports are typically
written in a more formal, impersonal
fashion, using either the third person or
passive voice to connote objectivity.

• Qualitative studies are likely to be written in a
more literary style, using the first or second
person and active voice to connote proximity
and intimacy with the data and the
phenomenon under study.
• Regardless of style, however, reviewer
should be alert to indications of overt biases,
unwarranted exaggerations, emotionally
laden comments, or melodramatic language.

Guidelines for Critiquing the Presentation
of a Research Report
1. Does the report include a sufficient amount of
detail to permit a thorough critique of the study’s
purpose, conceptual framework, design and
methods, handling of critical ethical issues
analysis of data, and interpretation?
2. Is the report well written and grammatical? Are
pretentious words or jargon used when a simpler
wording would have been possible?
3. Is the report well organized, or is the presentation
confusing? Is there an orderly, logical
presentation of ideas? Are transitions smooth,
and is the report characterized by continuity of
thought and expression?

4.Is the report sufficiently concise or does
the author include a lot of irrelevant detail?
Are important details omitted?
5. Does the report suggest overt biases?
6. Is the report written using tentative
language as befits the nature of
disciplined inquiry, or does the author talk
about what the study did or did not
“prove?”

7. Is sexist language avoided?
8. Does the title of the report adequately
capture the key concepts and the
population under investigation? Does the
abstract (if any) adequately summarize
the research problem, study methods,
and important findings?

Nursing research unit 8 (part 2)

Nursing research unit 8 (part 2)

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Nursing research unit 8 (part 2)

More from Akila anbalagan

Recently uploaded

Nursing research unit 8 (part 2)