Guidelines for Research Analysis Section of Doctoral Research Portfolio
Introduction
After the introductory paragraph or paragraphs to the chapter, begin your analysis section study-by-study. Provide the name of the journal article in full using a modified APA style. An example of the heading for each study analyzed is as follows:
Study One: Rethinking Police Training Policies: Large Class Sizes Increase Risk of Police Sexual Misconduct. Gonzalez, J.M., Bishopp, S.A., & Jetelina, K.K. (2015).
Journal of Public Health, 38(3), 614-620. [Note: This is not precise APA because it is neither a citation nor a reference. It is a heading].
Next, provide the background to this piece of research, establishing its place within the field:
Use the answers to these to develop this section:
Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?
When and where was the research conducted?
Why did they do this research?
Was this research pertinent only within the authors’ geographic locale, or did it have broader (even global) relevance?
Were many other laboratories pursuing related research when the reported work was done? If so, why?
For experimental research, what funding sources met the costs of the research?
Was the selection of the research topic influenced by the source of research funding?
On what prior observations was the research based? What was and was not known at the time?
How important was the research question posed by the researcher?
Analysis
Follow the structure of the journal article. Evaluate each section of the article. Here are some guidelines in doing so:
Introduction
Read the statement of purpose at the end of the introduction. What was the objective of the study?
Consider the title. Does it precisely state the subject of the paper?
Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it match the one in the introduction?
Check the sequence of statements in the introduction. Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
Methods
Review all methods in relation to the objective(s) of the study. Are the methods valid for studying the problem?
Check the methods for essential information. Could the study be duplicated from the methods and information given?
Check the methods for flaws. Is the sample selection adequate? Is the experimental design sound?
Check the sequence of statements in the methods. Does all the information belong there?
Is the sequence of methods clear and pertinent?
Results
Examine carefully the data as presented in the tables and diagrams.
Does the title or legend accurately describe the content? Are column headings and labels accurate?
Are the data organized for ready comparison and interpretation? (A table should be self-explanatory, with a title that accurately and concisely describes content and column headings that accurately describe information in the cells.)
Review the results as presented in the text while referring to the data in the tables and diagrams. Does the text complement, and not simple repeat, data? Are there discrepancies between the results in the text and those in the tables?
Check all calculations and presentation of data.
Review the results in light of the stated objectives. Does the study reveal what the researcher intended?
Discussion
Check the interpretation against the results. Does the discussion merely repeat the results? Does the interpretation arise logically from the data or is it too far-fetched?
Have the faults/flaws/shortcomings of the research been addressed?
Is the interpretation supported by other research cited in the study?
Does the study consider key studies in the field?
Are there other research possibilities/directions suggested?
Significance of the Research and Conclusions
Finally, it is important to establish whether the research has been successful – has it led to new questions being asked, new ways of using existing knowledge? Are other researchers citing this paper?
Use this section to sum up the strengths and weaknesses of the research as a whole.
The following questions should be answered:
How did other researchers view the significance of the research reported by your authors?
Did the research reported in your article result in the formulation of new questions or hypotheses (by the authors, by other researchers)?
Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the
observations/interpretations of these authors?
Did the research make a significant contribution to human knowledge?
Did the research produce any practical applications?
What are the social, political, technological, medical implications of this research?
How do you evaluate the significance of the research?
