t supplementary facts that were expected from the implementation of the smoke-free legislation, as they acknowledge, “Our study is part of a comprehensive evaluation of Scotland’s smoke-free legislation” (Haw & Gruer, 2007: 549).
The researchers successfully deal with the comprehensiveness of the topic of their study. Though previous researches on the air quality of the public places of Scotland refer to the subsequent impact of the smoke-free legislation, their acute limitation was that they do not tell much about the impacts on the private places. Haw and Gruer’s comprehensive approach to the research topic pertinently includes the exposure of the non-smokers in the private places. Such comprehensive approach to the changes in exposure aids the readers to achieve an overall picture of the change in exposure.
Another thing is remarkable that the researchers are more concerned to prove the consistency of the findings of their paper with other studies than to clarify the concepts of “exposure to second-hand smoke” (Haw & Gruer, 2007: 549) and the parameters of “change” that they are dealing in the paper. Significantly their paper lacks any efficient literature review that could have clarified the outline of their research topic and other related concept. Also it lacks a sufficient literature review to support its methodology and other approaches to the research topic.
Haw and Gruer do not tell anything about ethical approval by any ethic committee. Also they do not describe the maintenance of ethical issues for the paper. As to research method, Haw and Gruer chose the cross-sectional approach for their research. But the flaw within their methodological approach is that though in the first place they chose the cross-sectional method, they used longitudinal data also. Though they expressed the aim of the study as “to measure change in adult non-smokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke in public and private places after smoke-free legislation was