Critical Analysis of the Article: Research of Perceptions and Experiences of Community First Responders on Their Role and Relationships

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

As previously stated in the introduction the article I have chosen to critically analyse with the guide of Coughlan, Cronin, and Ryan (2007) critiquing framework is the article ‘Perceptions and experiences of community first responders on their role and relationships: a qualitative interview study. This article was written by Viet-Hai Phung, Ian Trueman, Fiona Togher, Roderick Ormer and Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena.

For Critiquing purposes, I will use CCR (2007) when referring to Coughlan, Cronin, and Ryan (2007).

Writing Style

CCR (2007) asks the question is the writing style of the article I am critiquing, well written, grammatically correct, does it avoid any jargon and is it well laid out? My answer to that is because I could not find any evidence to argue the question, I then compared it to another article written by Peter Kindness (2014) An insight into the demands and stressors experienced by Community First Responders. To which I found that they were both easy to read, well written and grammatically correct and avoided any jargon. When comparing the way, the article I am critiquing was laid out and organised I found the article I am comparing it to a lot easier to read due to the way it was laid out, as well as the Arial font, being a lot bolder making it stand out more.

Author/s

Do I think it’s important for the author/s to have a field of knowledge in the paper I have decided to critique, my answer is yes because in my opinion when reading a journal, it would make it easier to read and understand knowing that the researcher/author had some knowledge on the specific paper he/she chose to write about. Auburn University (2019) back up what I am saying, It is imperative to think about the thought processes and capabilities of writers, they proceed to state that it’s an author’s business to attempt and persuade the reader that their perspective is the correct one. CCR (2007) is asking the do the researchers who have been associated in the research and writing of the journal that I have chosen to critique, have the qualifications or knowledge in the field that they are writing about. The answer I have come up with after reading the paper is, not all of them do. How do I know this, and what evidence do I have to back this up. Under the heading Data Collection and Analysis found on page 2 of the journal, it says researchers Viet-Hai Phung and Fiona Togher have experience and knowledge in qualitative interviews, and along with researcher Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena also have knowledge in analysing qualitative data. The University of Lincoln (2017) and Researchgate (2019) back the journals claim, and that both researchers do have the knowledge and expertise in qualitative research, furthermore Researchgate (2019) also confirms Niroshans experience in the field of qualitative research all which can be found on their website. Continuing with the authors, the journal then goes on to say Ian Trueman is a trained Community First Responder to which I was not able to find any evidence confirming he is, and that Roderick Orner is a Consultant Psychologist, but the journal does not say whether they have any background in the research field. However, the University of Lincoln (2018) does give information on Ian Trueman including his skills and expertise, to which none of them involves qualitative research. ResearchGate (2019) continues to share the information of Roderick Orner and does state he has a background in psychology but doesn’t give any information on any research background.

Report Title

CCR (2007) asks is the report title clear and unambiguous?. One of the reasons that attracted me to the journal I opted to critique was the title. It was bold, big, not too long and easy to read. After reading the article I found that the title was not misleading, it was clear and accurate. When researching to find any evidence that went against what I was saying, I was unable to find anything. So, my next option was to find some evidence to back up my opinion. What makes a good report title, Kulkarni (2013) says a research title should be able, to sum up, the paper in a few words, and able to catch the reader’s attention. Meehan (1999) continues in an online journal, that a title should be no less than ten and no more than fifteen words. Parahoo (2006) carries it on by saying if a title is too long or short, it can be confusing and misleading to the reader. Hartley James (2005) agrees with both by going on to say the title is the part of the paper that is read the most, and if the title is too long there will be a lot of unnecessary words, and then finishes of by saying if it’s too short it won’t tell the reader what is being studied.

Abstract

According to Slade (2000), an abstract is a precise summary of your entire paper. Slade (2007) continues by saying your abstract should be a brief but precise statement, followed by a description, method, findings, and conclusion. CCR (2007) questions, does the abstract of my journal offer a clear overview including a sample, methodology, findings and recommendations. On reading the journal I found the background, discussion, and conclusion was accurate and well written. From a negative point of view, the method and result contained some evidence of jargon, which I didn’t understand and took me away from the journal briefly whilst I found out what the meaning of the jargon was. In my opinion, an abstract should be easy to read and understand, to avoid any misunderstanding. Cole (2018) backs my opinion up by stating an abstract should avoid acronyms as well as jargon. This is supported further by Elsvie (2019) who says too much jargon makes an abstract difficult and even harder to understand.

The phenomenon of interest /Purpose/significance of the study

CCR (2007) are asking is the phenomenon to be studied clearly identified, and consistent. The phenomenon in the journal to which I am reading is the Perceptions and experiences of a community first responders (CFR) on their role and relationships. Van de Ven (2016) backs me up by saying, a research phenomenon may be a problem, issue, or topic that is a selected subject, of an investigation. CCR (2007) then go on to question, is the purpose of the study or research clearly recognised. The significance of the study in the journal is to explore the background of CFR through a qualitative interview and finding ways of improving relations within the ambulance service and the public. Admin (2018) supports this by signifying that it is critical to a paper to show the significance of the study so that the person who reads, knows and understands the reasons for the research.

Literature Review

What is a literature review.? According to Boote & Belle (2005), a literature review is an appraised report of studies found in the literature, associated with your selected study. CCR (2007) have asked has a literature review been undertaken. Although there is no evidence saying there hasn’t, in my opinion, one has been undertaken. Viet – Hai Phung and the other authors involved in the journal have backed up what Boote & Belle (2005) said. The abstract alone gives a good insight into what the literature review is by covering, the main topic, background, results, discussion, and conclusion. Viet – Hai Phung further backs that up by going more in depth, about the findings further into the journal. All data and research that was done for the journal are well referenced in the study. CCR (2007) does the literature review meet the philosophical underpinnings of the study? Scotland (2012) explains what elements are usually involved in when trying to decide what the philosophical underpinnings are. Scotland (2012) names the elements as, ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Moon & Blackman (2014) gives a brief insight to ontology saying the researcher must decide, does it exist, how certain they can be about the existence, and then finally decide what is real. Moon & Blackman (2014) then say that epistemology is concerned with all aspects of validity, scope, and methods of acquiring knowledge. Brookshire (2018) finishes off with methodology by calling it a general research strategy, that outlines the way research is to be undertaken. To my knowledge to which I am not an expert in this field, I do think the philosophical underpinnings were met. The authors/researchers have gone into a lot a detail where they talk about the (CFR) by saying what they do, why they do it, what is involved. The authors then talk about (CFR) schemes, and that they have been supporting pre-hospital care and working alongside the ambulance service since 1990, s. The researchers then tell the reader how they have conducted and gathered the information, through a qualitative interview study. All participants interviewed, were (CFR,s) from a single rural scheme. Their age ranged from 18 to 74 and had different levels of experience. The authors then finished off by revealing how the data was collected, and analysed, the researcher’s background who conducted the research and finished off by announcing the results they found.

Theoretical Framework CCR (2007) wants to know is the theoretical framework identified, and appropriate for this journal. Anfara & Mertz 2006) highlights the process of authors theoretical framework to their own research. Anfara & Mertz (2006) point out how Merriam (2006) defines the theoretical framework as the “tailoring” component in the study. Merriam (2006) continues to say that the framework in the case being studied will determine the problem that is being investigated, the specific research questions being asked, the particular data that was collected and how it was analysed and interpreted. Viet – Hai Phung adapts a similar approach in this journal, by explaining what the research is about, the methods they intend to use to obtain all the information. Viet – Hai Phung then finishes off by revealing the results and conclusion on what was found.

Sample

Fossey (2002) talks about sampling in qualitative research and what you should be looking for when reading a paper. Fossey (2002) says participants chosen for the research will usually have experience in the area of the study. Fossey (2002) goes on further by stating, samples are often small, and all data gathered from participants can offer a piece of significant information on the phenomenon. In my opinion, the sample size, method, and all the participants identified were identified properly, and suitable for the study. The authors/researchers have said, they interviewed participants of various ages, sex and length of experience. They go on to say initially 23 (CFR, s) showed interest, in taking part in the study, but only 16 went through with it. Under the heading Data collection, and analysis. Each interview was semi-structured, taking around 30 to 90 minutes to conduct. The researchers go on, insisting interviews were subsequently transcribed verbatim, and coded thematically in NVivo 10, using framework analysis.

Ethical considerations

Parahoo (2006) says in qualitative research, the most common way of collecting data is by the way of interviews, and participant observations. Parahoo (2006) goes on by saying, participants involved in the study will usually be known to the researchers, so anonymity won’t be possible. Parahoo (2006) finishes off by insisting the researcher must reassure the participants that their identities will not be revealed and that any data collected will not be disclosed to any third party. Beauchamp & Childress (2001) talks more about ethical considerations, by maintaining that all participants should have the right to give informed consent. Furthermore, they should be fully aware of what the study is about, and the purpose for it. Beauchamp & Childress (2001) finishes by saying the participants should also be made aware of the information being sought, and how they intend to use it. Burns & Grove (1999) finish the discussion on ethical considerations saying that an ethics committee review board should be sought before any research should commence.

CCR (2007) wants to know, was the participant fully informed about the nature of the study. Was confidentiality guaranteed, and were they protected from any harm. Lastly, did the researchers get approval from the ethics committee. My answer to CCR (2007), yes they did gain approval ethics committee, it is printed in the article that the study received ethical approval, from the University of Lincoln School of Health and Social Care ethics committee. Were all participants aware of the nature of the study, were they protected, and was their confidentiality guaranteed?. I would like to say yes, otherwise, they wouldn’t have got past the ethics committee, but at no point in the article do they state this. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any evidence to confirm that it wasn’t.

Click Here To Order Now!