Research plays a critical role in expanding knowledge and allowing for solutions to some of the greatest challenges facing humanity to be developed. Given the important role that research plays, it is vital for researchers to follow established procedures and guidelines. While it is essential that the researchers be guided by the guidelines throughout the entire research process, it is particularly important to ensure that the methodology employed is consistent with standard procedures. A flawed methodology is likely to yield inaccurate and unreliable finding. On the other hand, when researchers adopt appropriate methodology, the findings of their study are so reliable that they enhance practice. This paper reviews the methods used in two studies, finding that there are strengths and limitations in each study.
Rubio, M. (2016). A phenomenological view of opioid-addicted women entering methadone treatment. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 12 (9), 622-628.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The purpose of Rubio’s study was to shed light on the experiences of women who are addicted to opioids and had decided to seek treatment. To achieve this purpose, she adopted a method that involved interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA). In the article, Rubio indicates that one of the strengths of the IPA approach is that it allows the participants to share their stories as they please and not necessarily to fit the overall design of the study. As part of this method, the researcher posed open-ended questions which sought insights from the participants about their history with opioids and the reason for choosing to seek methadone treatment at that time. By asking open-ended questions, the researcher allowed the participants to have some level of control and to share as much detail as possible about their struggles with opioids. The use of this method is indeed a strength because this method made it possible for the women to talk about their struggles with addiction and the factors that led them to seek treatment. Essentially, the IPA method allowed the researchers to conduct a study that was unfiltered and unedited.
It is standard practice for researchers to obtain authorization before conducting a study. Rubio clearly understood the importance of obtaining permission. Before approaching the participants, she sought authorization from a review board and the director of her clinic. The importance of the authorization lies in the fact that it enhances accountability. When granting permission, the review board and the director must have received assurances that the welfare of the participants would be safeguarded and that the study would serve a beneficial purpose. Another strength can be seen in the method that Rubio used to select participants. She reports that she recruited the participants from a facility in Texas. To ensure that the participant pool was representative of the general population, she adopted a selection criterion that was not needlessly exclusive or restrictive. The participants were from diverse socio-economic backgrounds and of different ages. Given the diversity of the participant pool, the findings of the research can be extended to the general population.
The discussion above has made it clear that Rubio’s research method was wisely selected. However, there are some limitations that erode the impact of the research. Among these limitations is the method that Rubio used to analyze the data. She describes how she examined the testimonies that the participants shared. The purpose of the examination was to identify common themes. While it may be that no other method would be more reliable, the approach that Rubio implemented could have led to data corruption. In analyzing the data, Rubio must have used her own perceptions and views. This means that it is possible that personal biases, implicit and explicit, may have creeped into the data analysis process. One can raise questions about how she decided that one theme was important while another was irrelevant and should therefore not be included in the analysis. Instead of relying on her judgment to identify themes, Rubio should have used established procedures and standards that govern data analysis. Despite this limitation, Rubio’s research underscores the hardships that opioid addicts endure in their quest for healing.
Comiskey, C. M., & Cox, G. (2010). Analysis of the impact of treatment setting on outcomes from methadone treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 39, 195-201.
When they set out to conduct the study, Comiskey and Cox were driven by the goal of determining the impact that different settings have on the effectiveness of methadone treatment. An analysis of the method that these scholars employed reveals a number of strengths. Among these strengths is the sample size. For the study, Comiskey and Cox recruited 404 individuals. This sample size is large and enhances the reliability of the study’s findings, Generally, large samples allow researchers to obtain accurate results that can be considered to be representative of the situation in the general population. Another strength is that the researchers used the Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP). According to Comiskey and Cox, MAP is a powerful tool for gaining insights into the lives and experiences of participants. Thanks to this tool, they were able to understand the drug use histories of the participants while gaining insights into the general health, social functioning, and the harm that the participants have experienced.
The study that Comiskey and Cox conducted was of the observational kind. They note that they monitored the participants over a year. The length of the observation period lends further strength to the study. It can be argued that by monitoring the participants for one year, Comiskey and Cox were able to make all the observations they needed to gain a full understanding of the journey to recovery. The comparison of the experiences of the participants in different treatment settings is yet another strength in the method that Comiskey and Cox employed. Communities, general practitioners and health boards are the primary settings through which methadone treatment was administered. The range of settings allows the study to present implications for various interventions that are used to treat opioid addiction. Basically, by focusing on the three settings, Comiskey and Cox provide individuals struggling with addiction with insights they need to determine the treatment setting that is most appropriate and holds the greatest promise for facilitating recovery. That they examined a wide range of symptoms that accompany addiction to various opioids is another issue that makes the study by Comiskey and Cox as informative as it is credible. In the article, they report that they use interviews and assessment forms to determine the specific substances that the participants had used. Basically, Comiskey and Cox’s study is in-depth and extensive thanks to the methods that they employed.
For the most part, the methodology that Comiskey and Cox adopted is effective and appropriate. However, the study suffers from some drawbacks which lower the study’s credibility. Among these drawbacks is the failure by the researchers to use random sampling when selecting the treatment agencies to include in the study. Comiskey and Cox admit that they purposefully selected the agencies instead of implementing random sampling. The main benefit of random sampling is that it eliminates bias, thereby boosting accuracy and reliability. It is possible that personal bias played a role in how the researchers selected the agencies. If true, this means that the reliability of the findings can be called into question.
In conclusion, the review of the two articles shows that the methods that researchers use determine the outcome of the research process. To obtain credible and reliable results, the researchers need to be careful when selecting participants. Moreover, it is important for the researchers to use data collection techniques that allow for accurate insights to be gained. As the review has revealed, the use of flawed methods can taint a study. Therefore, if they truly wish to advance human knowledge and improve practice, researchers must use methods that have been shown to be reliable.
