Norman and Mall (1983) introduction differs from the guidelines illustrated in Burton (2010), as there is no running heading, no title and the introduction does not start on new page. Question 2 Do you think the Introduction provides a clear and critical literature review that covers relevant research, which leads logically to the hypotheses being proposed? Justify your answer with two key points. The introduction does not provide a clear and critical literature review, as it is not clearly written nor easily understood. Therefore, it does not lead logically to the hypotheses.
The introduction does not adhere to the PAP guidelines outlined in Burton, it is challenging to follow logically what they are trying to say. The researchers, Norman and Mall, have included an excessive amount of references. Whilst extensive, they do not appear current, and therefore perhaps not all are required. They use extended quotes, which makes it confusing for the reader to follow takes away from what is actually being said. Question 3 Have authors stated their hypotheses clearly? Read Burton (2010) page 90-91 ND make one specific suggestion for improving this part of the article.
The authors have not stated their hypotheses clearly, as it is not written in a logical format and therefore not easy to follow. The hypothesis is not written in past tense as Burton reports it should be. Also, the measures that are stated in the introductory paragraph, are not in their correct position, as in accordance with the to PAP guidelines. One specific suggestion for improving this article would be to follow the PAP guidelines and change the hypotheses so that it is concise and easy to read. This WOUld include the hypotheses: Being amended so they are written in ‘past tense’.
Being specific as Burton states, “exactly what you thought the study would discover’. (2010, pop). Having clear, quantifiable measures so that the reader can see how it was tested. Being included in the final section or paragraph of the introduction. Question 4 Does the procedure provide enough information for the study to be replicated by someone who reads the work? If not, what additions do you suggest? Do you think any unnecessary information is included in the Method section? Briefly justify your answer. Norman and Mall procedure did not provide enough detailed information in the methodology for it to be replicated.
A suggestion would be to provide more detail about the participants involved in the study, an example of this would be “how were they put into groups” as Burton suggests (2010, p. 93). The procedure should also read like a recipe, that is “step by step” as Burton reports. No information was provided around what materials were needed for the study, this made it difficult to replicate the study. Burton explains that materials and equipment needed in the study need to be described. There was a great deal of unnecessary information, which made it difficult to follow.
Norman and Mall could have been more concise rather than overloading the reader with information such as the descriptions of the different types of behaviors; these descriptions could have been referred to in the appendix. The questions did not need to be part of the method section. Again, as I understand this could have been place at the end as additional information, such as an appendix as stated by Burton (2010, P 106). Question 5 Read Burton (2010) page 93-104 and identify whether the authors followed PAP deadlines for report writing in respect of the Results section? Do you think this section conveys the findings clearly?
Justify your answer. If not, make two “specific” suggestions to improve this part of the article. Norman and Mall did not adhered to the PAP guidelines for report writing in respect to the results section. They have failed to follow the PAP guidelines in regards to how it was presented. The results section could have been more concise by placing the tables in the appendix rather than in the middle of the results and discussion section. Norman and Mall could have also ensured that the tables where resented correctly. Burton (2010, p 100) states a “set format is required” and this has not been followed.
The results and discussion sections also need to be clearly identified, this has not been successfully done by Norman and Mall. Once identified, the results section can then concentrate on how the information was analyses. By summarizing and describing the statistical date as Burton (201 0, p 93) reports the result section should do. The discussion section should analyses the information in more detail. Burton (201 0, p 105) reports that the discussion would restate aims and discuss the results regardless of whether or not they support the hypotheses; Norman and Mall adhered this to.
The results and discussion sections should also have been written in the past tense, as stated in the PAP guidelines. Question 6 See Table 1, and read Part I of the Result section. L’s the ‘perception of mental illness’ attitude component correlated with the ‘physical etiology’, psychosocial etiology’ and ‘social distance’ components? If so, report these correlations and indicate whether the relationships are positive or negative. Explain in simple arms, what these three correlations mean to you. (In addition to the Norman and Mall article, you will need to read relevant notes on correlations from the Burton et al (2012, up. 9-60) Text, however, you are not required to do any calculations to answer this question). Correlation 1, ‘perception of mental illness’ attitude component correlated positively with the ‘physical etiology as it states its 0. 30. Simplified, this means if someone is seen to have a behavior or physical cause for their mental illness, for example hereditary, illness or brain injury, people’s perceptions change, Hereford making the person and their illness more acceptable. Correlation 2, ‘perception of mental illness’ attitude component correlated with the psychosocial etiology’ has a negative correlation of -0. 1. Simplified, this means that if a person with a mental illness is perceived by others to have external factors, such as grief or divorce, these factors can influence or dictate their emotional state. Therefore this negatively impacts how people perceive the mental illness. However, the correlation is weak and statistically insignificant so is not a reliable predictor of how people perceive mental illness. Correlation 3 ‘the ‘perception of mental illness’ attitude component correlated with the ‘social distance ‘has a positive correlation of 0. 3. This can be interpreted as meaning that people who are thought to be mentally ill are more likely to experience social distance and isolation. Question 7 Read Burton (2010) pages 105-106. Do you think the Discussion of the article provides an accurate interpretation of the results? Are the findings explained thoroughly and discussed in relation to the appropriate literature presented in the Introduction? Support your answer with three main points. Norman and Mall did not provide an accurate interpretation of the results.
The figures have been reported correctly, however it is very difficult to follow, as it is not concise. The findings are not thoroughly explained or discussed, as Norman and Mall have not commented on the support or lack of support for the hypotheses. As the discussion and results section were combined, it is difficult for the results to be clear and therefore did not flow. There was also no clear discussion of the hypotheses as Burton (2010, Pl 05) stated there should be and there seemed to e minimal consideration given to key findings. This resulted in a lack of support for the hypotheses.
The discussion, also failed to show how this information can been used in future research. Question 8 The conclusion of a good discussion should contain information that can direct future research. Briefly present your evaluation of the Conclusion section of this article with respect to this remark. The Norman and Mall conclusion refers to the need for further clarification and empirical research. They suggest that future research could address how adult’s perception of mental illness may differ to adolescent’s perception of mental illness.
However, this is not a sound conclusion of a discussion, as it does not convey a concise understanding of the main results, as Burton (2010, p 106. ) sates it should. It fails to identify the limitations or faults with the research they have done, and most importantly does not discuss the significance of the findings clearly enough. The conclusion of a good discussion should also be included in the discussion section. Norman and Mall have not followed the PAP guidelines and have separated this section,
Cite this Essay – Psychosocial Etiology
Essay – Psychosocial Etiology. (2018, May 31). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/essay-psychosocial-etiology/