Critique of a research paper qualitative in nature Assignment

Critique of a research paper qualitative in nature - Assignment Example The sample sizes of GPs and care home professionals were 3 and 8 respectively. Sample sizes of care home residents and family members were 23 and 2 respectively. On introspection from an academic researchers’ point of view, these sample sizes leave some ambiguity regarding the procedure adopted in selecting the sample. The researcher has not clarified which scientific method of sampling was adopted in selecting this sample. This raises a doubt about the authenticity and validity of this study. One definition of validity in research is that â€Å"we have reached the goal of validity when our statements or conclusions about empirical reality are correct† (Engel and Schutt, 2005, p.18). This research exercise is ambivalent, when considered from the angle of â€Å"measurement validity, generalizability, and causal validity,† which are the three aspects of validity as far as social science research is concerned (Engel and Schutt, 2005, p.19). This is so because no pro per measurement has been made by this research exercise, it has very limited generalizability because of the erratic sampling and also the cause of change has not been properly identified in terms of dependent variables other than the adoption of LES. There could be locally specific and institution-specific causal factors. Another matter of concern is that the sample size seems to be too small to be in agreement with the existing social science research norms. It has been observed, â€Å"you would need a very large sample in order to have a chance of finding an impact of social work† (Gorard, 2003, p.61). Though this notion has been somewhat changed after approval for qualitative research with smaller sample sizes grew, the extremely small sample size (with no consistency while selecting respondents from each category) in this research limits its scope of application to the narrow geographical area in which it is conducted. And it has to be reminded, â€Å"by convention, [â € ¦] thirty comprises the magic number for the allowable minimum sample size† (Seidman, Seidman and Abeyesekere, 2001, p.174). In this research, it can be seen that no sample from any of the categories of respondents chosen by the researcher meets this criteria. The researcher has said that, the â€Å"interviews were [†¦] open-ended and required participants to reflect on their general experiences of GPs and the ease of accessing support, and comment on any improvements to the service† (Briggs, 2011, p.6). Though open-ended questions are more suitable for small sample sizes, it has to be remembered, â€Å"open-ended questions are far more difficult to code† (McNabb, 2010, p.118). The researcher in this particular study has not given any information on the data collection procedure and also the coding of the data thus collected. This has badly affected the credibility of this study. At the same time, the research has fulfilled the ethical conditions require d in such a venture, by following the â€Å"established procedures† as prescribed by the British Sociological Association (Briggs, 2011, p.6). The researcher has maintained transparency by admitting that the â€Å"review [that was carried out] was not commissioned as research and therefore ethical approval was not required† (Briggs, 2011, p