I will pay for the following essay Critical Analysis of Two Articles about PEG Feeding. The essay is to be 12 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.
As a core requirement in the presentation of a scientific argument a paper has to begin by introducing the topic chosen in terms of a “research question” and a “hypothesis” (a “preliminary”, i.e. ahead of the actual research, answer to the question). It should then proceed by clearly stating the aim of the research and how the authors propose too “explore the problem” by comparing to other “literary source and concept”. Importantly, such published articles need to define the “setting” and/or the “sample” and qualify these and the literature in terms of a particular set of “methods” to be used and deemed appropriate, be they person-oriented and qualitative, or of a more quantitative nature, or a mix of the two groups. Following the method, is the “results-section”, analysis and discussion of the data collected. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are made and including a discussion on how the study has tested the research question. Limitations of one’s findings should also be noted (Rees, 2003).
Research, the search for knowledge and problem-solving, is a process of adding to knowledge (Ellen, 1984). By this understanding, research is an ongoing process. There are, however, certain procedures to be followed and standards to be adhered to, be they of an “inductive” (experimental: “arriving at a theory based on facts”) or “deductive” (“facts are organized to match theory”) nature. Based on this division, one arrives at a “positivistic” and “relativistic stance”, resulting in a contrast of “explanation” (deduction, positivism) and “understanding” (induction, relativism) (Bowling, 2002, pp. 117-32. Alexander, 1983. Gellner, 1985).
“The contrast has been exemplified by the different emphases placed upon the structure and upon process. upon positivist, empiricist observation as against intellectual inference and propositions about deep structures of society. . .