Compared with the CIBER/UCL extract, Williams and Rowlands take a broad and highly critical view of the research literature, citing numerous and varied sources, and drawing clear and emphatic conclusions. By contrast, the CIBER/UCL extract makes guarded and sometimes ambiguous statements based on selective results.
The dangers of reading less than the full report
It goes without saying that reading only an extract means missing out on the important conditions on which summary conclusions may be based. In other words, the reader may not be aware of the nature (and limitations) of the research design and methodology, and may fail to take account of the authors' acknowledged biases and caveats, which may qualify and take the shine off the headline 'results' forefronted in the executive summary, for example.
Williams and Rowlands – evidence or anecdote?
Their conclusions inevitably draw heavily on anecdote and their own subjective feelings and opinions. After all, it would be quite impossible to draw together a coherent summary from such a large number of resources. What is interesting (and revealing) is the authors' fondness for media resources, especially the BBC and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, suggesting a dependence on anecdotal, news-oriented forms of research as opposed to more rigorous, dispassionate enquiries.
H800 Week 11, Activity 3c
How do the two extracts compare?
Compared with the CIBER/UCL extract, Williams and Rowlands take a broad and highly critical view of the research literature, citing numerous and varied sources, and drawing clear and emphatic conclusions. By contrast, the CIBER/UCL extract makes guarded and sometimes ambiguous statements based on selective results.
The dangers of reading less than the full report
It goes without saying that reading only an extract means missing out on the important conditions on which summary conclusions may be based. In other words, the reader may not be aware of the nature (and limitations) of the research design and methodology, and may fail to take account of the authors' acknowledged biases and caveats, which may qualify and take the shine off the headline 'results' forefronted in the executive summary, for example.
Williams and Rowlands – evidence or anecdote?
Their conclusions inevitably draw heavily on anecdote and their own subjective feelings and opinions. After all, it would be quite impossible to draw together a coherent summary from such a large number of resources. What is interesting (and revealing) is the authors' fondness for media resources, especially the BBC and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, suggesting a dependence on anecdotal, news-oriented forms of research as opposed to more rigorous, dispassionate enquiries.