Hi Carol, I'm A Bit Concerned Here The Assignment Was To

Hi Carolcarol Im A Bit Concerned Here The Assignment Was To Take T

Hi Carol, Carol, I'm a bit concerned here. The assignment was to take the article that you submitted during Week 3 and answer the questions based on that article. You submitted three different articles, the final one was approved ("Retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics, involuntary admissions under the Mental Health Act 1983, and number of psychiatric beds in England"), and this article had all the information that you needed to answer the questions. It was actually a very good article for the assignment because they used relatively straightforward statistical procedures. I am concerned because you open the paper by discussing data collection as though you yourself did the study.

Because it is highly unlikely that you completed any sort of study within the time frame of this class, especially one on such a sensitive topic with 500 responses, could you please provide more explanation on where this information came from? There is no other reference besides the one for the power analysis, which is well beyond what we discussed in here. I'm at a loss for how to grade this. Even though the basic questions were answered (you stated a statistical procedure, the statistical significance and discussed the conclusions), the purpose of the assignment was to answer these questions in relation to the article that you submitted in Week 3, which was supposed to be the article that you submitted in Week 3.

Please get back in touch with me as soon as possible so that I know how to proceed with this. Denise

Paper For Above instruction

The core issue in this scenario is the discrepancy between the assignment's instructions and the submitted work. The instruction was to analyze an article submitted during Week 3, specifically answering questions based on that article. The student submitted multiple articles, with the final one being approved, which pertained to a retrospective analysis involving hospital statistics and mental health data in England. The instructor noted that this article utilized straightforward statistical procedures suitable for the assignment but expressed concern because the student’s submission opened with a description of data collection as if they conducted the study themselves.

This raises a fundamental problem of academic integrity and understanding. The student appears to have misrepresented or exaggerated their involvement in the study, which is problematic because the purpose of the assignment is to demonstrate comprehension of a published article, not to recount original research work. Without proper citation and clarification, the submission suggests the student may be claiming a level of involvement or data familiarity that is unlikely to be accurate within the context of this course.

It is crucial to address the importance of proper attribution and critical reading skills in academic work. Students must distinguish between summarizing and analyzing an existing article and claiming firsthand involvement with the research. In this situation, the student needs to clarify the source of their information—whether it was indeed the article they submitted or if they are inadvertently representing data or findings as their own.

There are several implications for such misrepresentation. First, it undermines the integrity of the academic process and the trust between instructor and student. Second, it can affect grading, as the student has not convincingly demonstrated understanding solely through proper analysis but may have mistaken or misrepresented their familiarity with the data. Third, it highlights the importance of citations; even if the student discusses their interpretation, they should explicitly state that the data and findings originate from the published article and are not their own research.

To address this issue, the student should be advised to review and revise their submission by clearly referencing the article in Week 3 from which their analysis is derived. They need to explain that their discussion of data collection and findings is a summary or interpretation of that article, not their own study. This involves explicit citations and a clarification of their role—whether they are analyzing an existing case study or presenting original research.

Ultimately, this situation underscores the fundamental skills of critical reading, proper citation, and honest representation of one's work. As an instructor, providing guidance on how to appropriately discuss and analyze published research will help students develop these skills. It also emphasizes the importance of understanding the distinction between analyzing literature and conducting original research, especially within the scope of academic coursework.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
• Hammersley, M. (2019). The Politics of Research. Sage Publications.
• Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International.
• Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2019). Practical Research: Planning and Design. Pearson.
• Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson.
• Pope, C., & Mays, N. (2020). Qualitative Research in Health Care. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real World Research. Wiley.
• Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for People Who (Think They) Know Nothing. Sage Publications.
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.