How To Read Reasearch Articles

Medellãn,Colombia,,September,5,2018.,Tired,Woman,Sleeping,In,Front

Ways of Knowing Things

Humans use a variety of ways of knowing reality using empirical—“empirical” meaning experienced—and non-empirical means. There is knowledge from Authority which is a respected source of some kind. It could be an ancient text, a governmental leader, a noted scientist, or a famous movie star. Knowledge based on Authority has its limitations because the knowledge comes to us second-hand, so to speak, and cannot be questioned and that knowledge could be wrong or the authority might be speaking from hidden motives. Another means is through Logic. Logic is a powerful means of reasoning out problems to find the truth and was the only tool humans had for thousands of years. The problem with logic is that it too has its limitations. The statements in certain kinds of reasoned arguments may not be valid at all and this leads to faulty conclusions, so care must be taken when using logic to find knowledge.

The empirical methods are Intuition, Common Sense, Mysticism, and Scientific. Intuition is a spontaneous way of knowing something without using any means. It bypasses Logic, Common Sense, and reasoning.

Common Sense is a variant of Intuition based on a person’s judgement which is based on past experience or beliefs. It has two limitations. First, it is based on information that may change over time and so what was common sense a few years ago might not be today. And, its only criterion for truth is if it leads to results that are practical, effective, and predictable. This certainly is useful at times, but the criterion limits Common Sense as a strong source of knowledge.

Mysticism is similar to Intuition as a direct way of knowing something, but it often occurs in an altered state of consciousness due to extreme deprivation, emotional pain, drugs, hypnotic trance, religious ecstasy, and others. We usually think that mystical states are the sole realm of gurus and yogis, but surveys have found that about a third of Americans have had some sort of transcendental, spiritual experience. Mysticism is limited by several factors. First, only one person is accessing the knowledge and so it is a purely solitary source. Then persons who have had the experience have great difficulty in describing it. Finally, the mystical insight that is received may be entirely incorrect.[1]

Finally, there is the Scientific Method. This is a systematic procedure to measure a given phenomenon or some aspect of it and it has many strengths as a means of realizing true knowledge. It is self-correcting in that it revised current knowledge with new knowledge or revises it with knowledge shown be false. It is a public, community-based endeavor because it reports his findings to the scientific community which, in turn, critiques it and then advances it further. Science never claims to have the entire truth; just only bits and pieces which makes it a progressive process. It is parsimonious meaning that it focuses on the simplest explanations about reality as these can be tested while eschewing complex explanations which cannot. Finally, it is concerned with theory. A theory is a model of some aspect of reality which can be tested for its strength to describe, explain, and predict. As Kurt Lewin (1890-1047), one of the great experimental psychologists of the twentieth-century who developed both field theory and group therapy, once remarked, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.”

Understanding the Scientific Method

Science is based on the empirical method which seeks to reduce a given phenomenon down to its essential parts and then, after controlling for extraneous variables measures that phenomenon or some aspect of it.

Don’t Believe the Hype

A constant flow of research results come to us via the media which then makes all kinds of claims based on its interpretation of the findings… usually with great exaggeration. Headlines such as “Scientists have discovered…,” “the latest research shows that…,” “it has now been proven that…” and similar claims are made daily and oftentimes with studies contradicting one another. It is not uncommon to read studies that one day praising the value of a medicine or a food product for its miraculous results and then reporting the next week how both are definitely useless or bad they are for humans. It can be a very frustrating situation at times especially for those without education in the physical or social sciences. Research claims in the media should always be taken with a very large grain of salt until you are able to evaluate the actual study for yourself and that includes the size of the subject pool (bigger is usually better), professional affiliations of the authors, presence of a control group, and the statistical significance of the findings… and these are just for starters. This section will help you become a more sophisticated reader of scientific research studies.

Different Types of Measurement Techniques

There are several types of measurement methods. The first is a qualitative (or subjective) study which usually applies an interview or focus group design to a very small subject pool. Next is a descriptive survey of a group of subjects inquiring about some phenomena and then making observations about the data. The third type is the experimental method in which a controlled, laboratory situation is used to measure a specific variable while controlling for other variables that might interfere with the results. This is also referred to as a random control test (RCT) with two groups of subjects: those who are receiving the experimental variable and those who are not. The subjects are measured before the experimental variable is applied and then again afterwards. The data is then analyzed and compared. Lastly is the historical method that analyzes historical materials in a methodical fashion. There are a variety of methods for measuring psychological variables and these vary in their standardization, reliability, and validity.

The Research Process

Each research study is a small stone making up the immense mosaic of scientific knowledge. To know how to read and understand research is an essential skill for massage therapists and other holistic healthcare workers because, as we are part of the medical realm, our techniques and beliefs must be put to the test and verified for the good of our clients, the healthcare consumers. The primary purpose of research is to answer a question that is part of a larger area of inquiry. Research begins with a question or a problem. Scientists attempt to answer questions that have not been answered yet or to validate past answers using the same procedures. But, before there can be answers, there must first be questions and all research studies are driven by questions.

Question

The question is usually part of a larger problem or concern.

Hypothesis

The statement of what is being measured for and what result is expected. The question must be phrased in a way that can be investigated and tested.

Gathering facts to test the hypothesis

The results are then assembled and evaluated in light of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis is then either affirmed or negated

A conclusion is then drawn based on the strength or weakness of the hypothesis.

Answer to the question

The results are interpreted and a new question(s) is formed.

Document the process

The story of the research is then formalized in a research report which is then made available to scientific community for comment and criticism. This is where you come in.

The Research Report

The research report is the document that shows clearly and specifically the details of the research process. It includes a description of the research problem, the hypothesis or what the research study aims at, a brief review of previous research (optional), the methods, subjects, and analytic methods used, a presentation of the findings, and a discussion of the results. It is important then to understand that you don’t need to actually be capable of doing research to understand how it was done, comprehend the results, and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. The key is in how to approach reading the various parts of a research study. Each research study follows a pretty standard design format with very minor variations occasionally seen. Here are the different sections of the typical research study article.

Heading

The heading includes a title which states what the study is about and the authors’ names and professional affiliations.

Abstract

The next part summarizes the study including its results. The abstract serves as a very, very short “preview” of the article and what it contains.

Introduction

The introduction frames the problem and justifies the purpose of the study. It set the stage for the actual research project itself.

Review of past research in this area

Most studies will offer at least a brief summary of past researching leading up to the present moment. Part of this is to provide intellectual context for the reader as well as showing the necessity for the present student and its place in the area of study.

Design and method

This is technical portion of the study describing the steps of the research process, the subjects used (if any), measurement methods, and statistical analyses applied to analyze the data.

Results

The data that the study has yielded are presented. If the study is based on a hypothesis then the discussion will center on whether or not it was upheld or negated.

Discussion

The researcher then reviews the data, makes interpretations, and draws conclusion as to what it all means. Suggestions for future research may also be offered. Often times, the researcher will review the strengths and weaknesses of the research design.

Notes and references

This section gives the citations for all works referenced and footnotes.

How to Read a Research Report

Skim through it

Read the article beginning with the title and note who the authors are. Some universities and medical institutions are more prestigious than others and this may play a factor in your evaluation. Thumb through the article noting the sections and any charts or graphs; look for key ideas and conclusions.

Read the abstract

Read the abstract to get the essence of the article, but don’t rely on it alone because it does not include essential information. What is the key idea or problem? Can you explain the study and its results to someone else?

Read the introduction carefully

Look for key ideas. Set aside your own beliefs and opinions for a moment and open your mind (but not so open that your brains fall out, that is). The key idea and the main problem will be given here in more detail.

Read the conclusion carefully

Now go to the end of the study and review what was found and what it means. What do you think of the findings? Do they disagree with what you current believe? If so, that’s actually a good thing.

Skim the design and methods section

Most persons will not read the design or methods section, but having at least a basic idea of how the study was conducted and how the data is analyzed is important to keep in the back of your mind.

Summarize the article in your own words

Explain the article to someone who has no experience with the research and see if you can communicate its essence and significance. This is important for several reasons. First, it makes it clear in your mind and memory. It will help you see if you understand the article or if you’ve missed anything. Your ability to discuss the research with others subtly demonstrates your professional acumen.

Beware of the Pitfalls of Pseudoscience

Knowledge claims made by non-scientific sources appearing to be scientific are many and varied ranging from creationism to the flat-Earth theory to astrology and biorhythms. These things are called Pseudoscience which is really an “anti-science” as its features are negative versions of the qualities of actual Science. Pseudoscience is also sometimes called “psycho-babble.”

It is subjective rather than objective.

It is not concerned with measurement or systematic investigation of its claims. It seems to have a theory, but on closer inspection it usually turns out to be a belief system and a disjointed one at that. Beliefs are not knowledge no matter how hard one believes in them or argues for them. Real science seeks to challenge existing beliefs by finding evidence that will either confirm or disconfirm them. Pseudoscience seeks to reinforce specific beliefs while ignoring the need for evidence or contradictory evidence.

Its claims cannot neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed.

Its claims are often so nebulous as to be impossible to be operationalized into a solid structure that can bear empirical testing with results that can be replicated by experiments of others.

It lacks solid evidence.

Pseudoscience often makes dramatic claims, but without presenting any dramatic evidence to back up those claims. It relies on myths, unconfirmed history, anomalous facts, speculation, and exaggeration to make its point which it then defends against all criticism. Pseudoscience often presents itself as a real science that is misunderstood by the scientific community. It likes to play the victim and the underdog by stating that its knowledge and “discoveries” are so dramatic and awesome that powerful leaders in government and the scientific establishment are attempting to suppress them.

It lacks logic and statistical analysis.

What little evidence is offered cannot be analyzed by objective means. The reasoning within Pseudoscience usually starts from a group of fact or beliefs and then makes massive jumps in logic to dramatic conclusions. There is no tightly reasoned path based on objective research behind Pseudoscience.

It is a private activity that remains hidden.

Pseudoscience is aimed at confirming unsubstantiated beliefs while evading public scrutiny of its inner workings. It does not offer its information up to outside parties for further evaluation and criticism. It is not a self-correcting enterprise.

It does not progress or evolve over time.

Consequently, pseudoscience exists to perpetuate itself despite new knowledge disconfirming its beliefs. “Don’t confuse with the facts,” is one way of putting it.

It lacks precise definitions for its words and concepts.

Pseudoscience is usually vague in explaining how it knows things. It usually uses unusual words to name its concepts and “discoveries.” It often has difficulty in actually explaining in concrete terms its ideas and principles. It relies heavily on a warped understanding of what constitutes real scientific knowledge relying instead on half-baked ideas or mystical beliefs.

Some Useful Tools to Keep in Your Back Pocket

Define those terms

Understanding the words and concepts used in a research article is crucial. Look at how the researchers define their terms and keep those definitions in mind as you read the article. Give the definitions some thought. Are they too narrow or are they too broad? The former limits the nature of the phenomenon being examined while the latter makes it too diffuse for accurate measurement.

Keep an open mind, but be skeptical

If it is too good to be true then it’s probably too good to be true. How do the results compare with the hypothesis? How do the authors explain the results? What problems or limitations of the study do the author(s) describe? Do the results match the results other similar studies or not? Obtaining negative results is not a bad thing given the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.

What do the statistics say?

Statistics are tough and difficult to understand and require much study to fully comprehend, but there are some things to look for. Social sciences measure social phenomena which are dynamic processes unlike a piece of metal or a star’s gravitational field. Predictability of behavior is based on probabilities and often a probability rating of .30 is considered quite strong, but in reality, it means that a given phenomenon will occur three out ten times. But then that begs a question: Is it a difference that makes a difference? Some research results show that two variables are related, but the relationship—while it does exist—is quite weak statistically speaking. Therefore, one cannot draw a firm conclusion, but could make a guarded one.

Correlation does not prove causation

Correlation: All humans who breathe die.

Causation: All humans who stop breathing die.

Research measures the strength and direction of the relationship between two or more variables. It shows how the variables vary from one another. A positive correlation is when one variable increases, so does the other. A negative correlation is when one variable increases the other decreases. And, finally, there may be no correlation at all; a random relationship. The best we can often look for in scientific research the type of correlation and the strength of its probability in occurring.

Wield Occam’s Razor

Science is parsimonious which means “stingy.” It means that when we are faced with two possible explanations, we should always choose the simplest one. This principle comes to us from a 14^th century monk, William of Ockham (or Occam) who famously said, “Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate” which means do not multiply entities beyond necessity. In other words, keep it simple, stupid. This is Ockham’s Razor and is immensely useful when thinking about scientific findings. Some creationists misuse Ockham’s Razor by saying that God created everything. This statement does explain everything and, at the same time, explains absolutely nothing because it cannot be verified by objective means. Therefore, one must include the notion of “ceteris paribus” meaning a statement is true if all the variables have been controlled for. A scientific finding may be simple, but if it is not complete or has not controlled the variables, then it holds less power than a more complex one especially when it is complete and all things are held equal.