Chapter Twenty Two Presentation of health science research
Knowledge in the health sciences is the sum of the individual efforts of investigators working all over the world. Professional journals in science and health care provide the dominant medium for disseminating information about the outcome of specific investigations. Investigators must report their procedures and results in an accurate and complete fashion. In this chapter, we outline the format and style generally followed for presenting the results of empirical investigations.
The format of a professional publication reporting empirical research reflects the stages of the research process discussed in this book. Table 21.1 represents the relationship between the stages of research and the commonly used publication format. This format is generally used to report quantitative empirical research, although you will find that some variations on this theme are adopted by some professional journals. This format is not necessarily followed for certain types of scholarly communications, such as for qualitative research, theoretical papers or literature reviews. In the subsections following, we examine in detail each of the components of a research report shown in Table 21.1.
Table 22.1 Format of research publications and the research process
| Publication format | Research process |
|---|---|
| Title | |
| Abstract | |
| Introduction | Research planning |
| Method: | Design |
| Subjects | |
| Apparatus | Measurement |
| Procedure | |
| Results | Descriptive statistics |
| Inferential statistics | |
| Discussion | Interpretation of the data |
| References | |
| Appendices |
The title is a descriptive sentence stating the exact topic of the report. Many titles of research reports take one of the following two forms:
In causal research, such as experiments, y refers to the dependent variable being measured and x refers to the independent variable being manipulated. For example:
For descriptive or qualitative research the title should inform the reader about the groups being studied and the characteristics being reported, for example: ‘The attitudes of physicians to the professional functions of podiatrists’. In general, titles should be concise and informative, enabling a prospective reader to identify the nature of the investigation. Immediately below the title should appear the name(s) of the investigator(s) and affiliation.
The abstract is a short (not more than 250 words) description of the entire report. The purpose of this section is to provide the reader with a general overview of the communication. It should provide enough details to enable the reader to decide whether or not the article is of interest. This section can be difficult to write because of its precise nature. When writing an abstract you should include:
In some journals, this section may appear at the end of the manuscript in the form of a summary. For our purposes, however, we will treat this section as an abstract.
The title and the abstract together are important and should contain key words that enable the efficient retrieval of the information.
The introduction is equivalent to the planning stages of research, discussed in Section 2. A good introduction will set the stage for the hypotheses being tested. It should do this by discussing the theoretical background of the problem under consideration and evaluating the relevant research done previously. The introduction thus serves as a link between the past and the present.
Generally, all aspects of the literature cannot be covered in a relatively brief research paper, therefore the review of past research is done with a bias towards only those aspects of the problem which are of direct relevance to your report. In this way the hypotheses being tested can be derived in a logical manner. For this reason, a good introduction starts out by making a few general statements about the field of research, leading logically to a narrow and specific set of statements which represent the aims or hypotheses. The final paragraph of the introduction should state the precise aims or the hypotheses being investigated.
The purpose of the method section is to inform the reader of how the investigation was carried out. It is important to remember that the method section should contain enough detail to enable another researcher to replicate your investigation. (Of course, replications may not be feasible for a unique event, such as a case study of a specific individual.) Conventionally, three subsections are used: subjects, apparatus and procedure.
In a sense, the method section should read like a cookbook. The ‘subjects’ subsection describes the ingredients. The ‘apparatus’ subsection describes the equipment necessary for baking (note we did not say ‘cooking’ the experiment) and, finally, the ‘procedure’ subsection describes how the ingredients were mixed to produce the final outcome: the results section.
The results section presents the findings of the investigation and draws attention to points of interest. Raw data and statistical calculations are not presented in this section. Rather, we use the principles of descriptive and inferential statistics to present the summarized and analysed data: graphs, tables and the outcomes of statistical tests are presented in this section. It is essential that all the findings are presented and that the graphs and tables are correctly identified.
The discussion section restates the aim(s) of the investigation and discusses your results with reference to the aims or experimental hypothesis stated in the introduction. Did you find what you expected? How do the present results relate to previous research?
It is important to remember that one experiment in isolation cannot make or break a theory or establish the effectiveness of a practice. Thus, the discussion should connect the findings with similar studies and especially with the theory underlying such studies. If unexpected results were obtained, possible reasons for the outcome (such as faulty design and controls) should be discussed. By this, the discussion will point the way to further problems which remain to be solved. Unconstructive, negative or unimportant criticism should be avoided, so that the report does not end with long discussions of possible reasons for the outcome. Brief, concise discussion is more appropriate.
In the conclusion, which is usually the last paragraph of the discussion section, the main findings are summarized and suggestions made for further research. For example, you may have demonstrated certain phenomena which may have implications for explaining broader concepts which can be empirically tested. You are therefore taking your findings and generalizing them to phenomena not directly tested in the present research.
It is expected that all the literature discussed in the paper is listed in the references section. This enables your reader to evaluate your sources. You should refer to appropriate style manuals for information on how references should be listed. Sufficient information must be provided for an interested reader to be able to identify and retrieve the sources. In addition, a report may include labelled appendices. These might include a full description of questionnaires or other measuring instruments, raw data or statistical calculations if required.
It is essential that you read research publications in your professional area to gain a ‘feel’ for the appropriate style of writing. In general, the following points should be kept in mind when writing reports:
In general, you should aim to improve your report writing and your ability to communicate your findings and ideas by seeking constructive criticism from your colleagues and supervisors.
The formal knowledge representing the empirical and professional basis for your professional practice is in large part stored in journals, books and conference reports. Journals are published by appropriate professional associations, government departments or private companies. Having completed a research project, how does one publish it in a professional journal? After all, the value of research is negligible if it is not made public.
In general, the prospective author will:
The editor is generally a person of high standing in a given scientific or professional area. If the article is judged as being appropriate for the journal, the editor will send the article to two or more referees and, on the basis of the referees’ reports, publish or reject the manuscript. Sometimes the referees recommend certain additions or changes which have to be made by the author before the manuscript is judged to be publishable.
Therefore, when you read research publications in refereed journals, you can be confident that the articles have been scrutinized by experts. However, as shown in the next subsection, this does not necessarily guarantee the truth of either the evidence or the conclusions.
The health science researcher has an obligation to publish honest and accurate results that would not harm those people who participated in the research.
Most ethics committees in health care institutions and universities have the twin objectives of not only advancing knowledge for the common good but also preventing harm to those participating in the research. This is particularly so in the situation where the participants may have a diminished capacity to consent freely to their involvement (e.g. children or people who are unconscious or seriously ill). It is crucial to maintain the dignity and confidentiality of participants in health research.
Therefore, in the process of ethical evaluation of health science research, the researcher can expect to be closely questioned on these issues. If the researcher cannot convince the ethics committee that the research will deliver knowledge for the common good and that it will not harm the participants, then the research will not usually proceed.
In research performed for a higher degree, many universities will not accept a thesis without an accompanying ethical clearance from the relevant ethics committee. Most hospitals and universities have strict ethical procedures that must be followed before any research work is commenced by their staff. Most, if not all, health research grant bodies require an ethical clearance before they will release the funds to successful applicants. Many journals also require certification from the researcher that the work complies with ethical principles. It is likely that this trend towards tightening of procedures will continue.
The ultimate unethical act is to manufacture data. Broad & Wade (1982), in their book Betrayers of the Truth, describe this problem. It would seem to be a growing problem that may be associated with the ‘publish or perish’ requirements placed upon health science researchers by granting bodies and employers.
In the health sciences, it is not only the participants in research who may be harmed or assisted by the research. If an erroneous research finding is widely applied, it may harm many thousands of people. Ethics are therefore not simply concerned with whether the researcher has good intentions and treats the research participants well; there is also the issue of competence. Poorly designed research is unethical in that it may bring great harm to others. Thus, the ethical researcher must also be a competent researcher.
In this chapter we outlined the general format followed by researchers for publishing their results. The format is related to the logical steps of planning, conducting and interpreting research. The style involves clarity, accuracy and sufficient completeness for colleagues to understand or replicate the research project. Research is published in journals, which are generally edited by persons of high standing in the field. Every effort is made by editors to ensure the validity of the research published in their journals. The individual researcher is also ethically bound to report findings in an unbiased and truthful fashion.
Although the format and style outlined in this chapter might seem rather arduous, poor presentation may destroy the intrinsic value of a research project.
Explain the meaning of the following terms: