Cherry Mae V.

Gatin

Trinah Mae C. Vinluan

12- B

The first journal entitled “A qualitative exploration of how adopted children and their

parents conceptualise mental health difficulties”, was written by Michelle O’Reilly, Jeannet

Bowlay-Williams, Nadzeya Svirydzenka, and Panos Vostanis. Upon looking at their

universities and the course programs they took up, the critics must say that the topic of

the research is connected and precise with their level of education. On the other hand,

the second journal entitled “Reunifying from behind bars: A quantitative study of the

relationship between parental incarceration, service use, and foster care reunification”

was researched by Amy C. D’ Andrade and Melanie Valdez. Both journals are

appreciated and acknowledged. Nevertheless, such analysis and evaluation of the two

journal articles are to be discussed to further elaborate both of the journal’s objectivity,

relevance, interpretation, and statement structures.

A.

I. Background and Nature of the Study

The critics have noticed a typographical error located at the abstract of the first journal

and a specific formatting error which is that the text or the whole document were not

justified. However, both journals have established a well-written abstract considering that

the statements contain coherence and precision. In spite of the well-written abstract and

introduction of the second journal, the research questions number 2-4 is answerable by

“yes” or “no”, which makes the questions closed-ended and viewed with limited answers.
Prior to this, both journals share a certain idea: how different factors affect the parent-

child relationship and how the services help in different situations. The first article focused

not only on the adopted children’s mental health difficulties but also to the experiences of

the adopted children’s carers. The researchers have written this research study for the

reason that the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) lack

developmental service which somehow neglects the children’s needs. CAMHS did not

fully devote themselves in being an instrument for the betterment of the adopted children.

Instead, CAMHS treated the adopted children like babies and this has affected the way

the children see themselves. Similar to the second article, the researchers aimed to

provide change to the services to benefit the incarcerated parents and their children. They

also aimed to provide knowledge to the readers due to the fact that there are not enough

studies related to incarcerated parents and reunification. In line with those, the studies

have shown its relevance to the society as a whole. The research studies would help

improve the services of the CAMHS and the reunification services by their studies being

published and being read by students and the people concerned and are interested in

this topic—they will understand the experiences and how the children perceive their

situations. The researchers aimed to supply a chance of improvement to the services

provided to the incarcerated parents since it was also mentioned in the study that it seems

impossible to the incarcerated parents to reunify with their children. The critics

acknowledge the fact that the researchers did not fail to recognize its main purpose which

is to contribute their research studies to the society.

II. Sampling Method and Population

 Upon reading the sample and setting part of the first journal, the critics have noticed

a formatting error specifically the arrangement of the pages since it was stated that there

was supposed to be a table about the information and the characteristics of the

participating families but the table was located at the last page of the document.

Nonetheless, the table that was presented is commendable for they have introduced and

classified their respondents according to their demographics. Similarly, the second journal

committed the specified formatting error which was the appearance of the table at the last

pages of the document. This may have caused confusion for the flow of the information

are not in order, thus creating chaos in organizing ideas and information. On a side note,

the first journal has a sample of 12 participants, consisting of 6 parents and their 6

adopted children that attended CAMHS. With no sampling method mentioned, the critics

suggest that the study with the way the respondents were introduced to the research have

used the non-probability sampling, specifically the quota sampling. Since the researchers

have focused on the adopted children who attended CAMHS, there has been a prior

decision that the respondents should possess particular characteristics beforehand. As

per the critics, the sampling method used was appropriate enough yet the critics

encourage the researchers to have used purposive sampling method for this method is

more appropriate and applicable to their research. The second article did not fully specify

the type of sampling method they have used. In the way of how the sample population

was gathered and introduced, the critics suggest that they could have possibly used a

non-probability sampling, specifically purposive sampling method since they needed

particular people which were the incarcerated parents used as the observational unit to

gather data and information to accomplish the paper. The similarity between the two
journal articles pertaining to its sampling methods was it is not mentioned thus the

suggestion of the critics for the sampling method for both journals is purposive sampling

since it is applicable.

III. Methodology

Both journal articles differ from each other in terms of the research design used for

the first journal used qualitative design and the second journal used quantitative design.

Due to the high sample population of the second journal, it is appropriate to have used

quantitative design that naturally involves statistical analysis for it can measure a large

amount of population, though in the 200 gathered children and 400 observations made,

41 respondents were unable to be located, 13 cases were removed, 13 children had only

one parent, and 132 children with two known parents, which left the sample a total of 277

parents. It was also stated that fifty-two of them were not given reunification services.

With the statements mentioned, these do not take away the fact that the results were

evident despite the large amount of respondents for studies that rely on statistics demand

a great number of population since it is considered idea. Along with this idea, the

researchers never failed to specify the type of statistical tests that they have used to

identify the variables needed for the research. The critics commend the coherence and

the clarity of the statements that regulated the total and final sample population for it was

stated clearly beforehand so it did not confuse the readers while going through the paper.

The first journal made use of multiple-case study design adding it to the approach

used which was the social constructionist approach which is highly recommendable for it

provided a stronger study. The research design is appropriate since the first article talks

about the behavior and how the children and the carers perceive their experiences and
current situations—it is expressed with words and that is what is applicable to the chosen

design and approach of the study thus they were also able to provide similarities and

differences between the respondents. The critics approve of the use of such research

design for these are dependable especially in qualitative studies.

IV. Data Gathering Process

The first article made use of semi-structured audio-recorded interviews which is a

reliable type of research instrument for it is favorable to both the respondents and the

researchers since the respondents can express their experiences and their current

situation freely with the type of language they want to use and the researchers could be

proven unbiased within the scope of the research. For all that, the first article still lacks

the sense of having good questions to ask, though the questions are still pertinent. They

did not further elaborate their choice of questions that is why there is something lacking

within the respondents’ answers. Despite the inadequate sample questions, the research

instrument is accepted in all aspects. On the other hand, the second article used

observational study with multivariate controls that specified where the data originated,

which were from a secondary source of information such as court reports and cases that

could provide adequate data to accomplish a good analysis for the study.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations

The critics commend both of the journal articles despite the lack of different factors

that should have made the studies a bit more understandable and well-grounded. The

first article acknowledged and recognized their own errors particularly in data gathering

for they have mentioned that their research has some limitations due to a small sample,
lack of information on the interventions, and corroborative information from the clinicians.

This being said, the readers will be fully aware of the limitations of the research as well

as how they would expect the results and discussions would be. Both of the journal

articles identified literature gaps that can be filled by the future researchers if they have

focused on a certain subtopic. However, both have also established a concise and a

coherent manner of writing as the critics would also like to commend both of the journals’

choice of words for it helped a lot of readers to look at a wide range of knowledge and

ideas.

B.

Studies like these give the readers awareness and knowledge for they tackle topics

that are not given much attention of. As the critics of two well-written and respective

journal articles, the research studies have contributed not only to the field of the parent-

child relationship and the factors affecting it but also to the society as a whole. Looking at

the technical manner of writing, the critics highly suggest that the researchers should pay

attention to the technical writing style for it is one of the simplest ways to measure a

paper’s credibility—they should know the proper order or arrangement of the pages to

avoid confusion to the readers; if a table should be inserted to a specific location on the

document, a table should be there and they should be careful in citing sources properly,

excluding hyperlinks, and the proper capitalization of the first word after a punctuation

mark. The researchers should have also justified and stated the supporting statements

clearly after every argument presented. The researchers should also improve their data

gathering process since the data gathered are still limited in a way. The first article
acknowledged its limitations and the critics commend the paper for that. On a deeper

scale, the first article should have considered the sensitivity of the topic to the children

involved. On the other hand, the second article should have been able to include a

recommendation for future researchers to focus on. Since their topic is very interesting

and can be a big contribution to the society, writing a recommendation is encouraged so

that the future researchers could know the researchers’ lack of information though it was

well-written. In relation to this, the critics highly commend the research topic and the

research itself for it they are considered to be interesting journal articles.