The Peer-Mentor Relationship for Nursing Students - Research Paper Example

The focus of the research paper is the peer-mentor relationship for nursing and the untapped potential that would be beneficial to undergraduate students especially. While the study for this research paper tries to handle this question in a detailed and thorough manner it falls short on some issues that will be discussed in detail below. The theoretical framework is explicitly explained in the opening lines of the paper and thus a score of 2 is given. This is because even though the theoretical framework provided is good enough to understand what the study aims to carry out it does not actually discuss how it applies to the research. The statement of aims and objectives in the main body is clearly provided and thus guarantees a score of 3. Research Method First and foremost is the research method used in collecting data for this study. According to the research paper data was collected from only those nursing students who had earlier participated in similar “peer learning partnerships”. This appears to be a narrow and restrictive criteria for carrying out this particular study since students who have already participated in such activities are generally conditioned to answer and/or show emotions a particular way as opposed to students who have never been part of such a study. Spontaneous responses, hence, are lessened to some extent. Moreover the paper fails to specify its data concerning the students involved within the study in a quantitative manner. There is no detailed mention of how many students joined in the research study or whether they were initially comfortable with the ground rules laid out for them. The study does not specify the number of dropouts (if any). There is also no detail why the students might have felt the need to be no longer part of the research study. The research setting is clearly described, however, there are certain points missing which account for a score of 2. Interviews The study does not make any mention of the response rate of the students under observation. It only mentions that in a moderated group environment the students tended to speak at the same time which again led to confusion when taking down responses in an organized manner. The nurses only provide data concerning their feelings and emotions when in a student-mentorship relationship. For most of the students in the group this would be classified as a positive experience since they would have decided it prior to joining the research study group that they were getting enrolled in this study as a positive experience and self study as well as self development. Hence, there are largely positive undercurrents to such a study as opposed to signs of any negative undercurrents in larger studies. Criteria Research settings have been clearly described in the paper however, again, no quantitative details are provided. Only a general description is provided of the research problem that is that only those students were taken in the research study group who had been active in such research activities in the past six months or so. As already taken up under the heading of research method this leads to narrowing the scope of the research. One of the most important issues in a group research is for the researcher to determine various goals and along with goals certain limits to the research module. The researcher needs to set standard upper and lower limits in order to standardise the research and the data collected. The flaw in this research paper seems to be the missing mention of any such upper and lower limits. There is no explanation why the group was confined to a smaller number of people rather a bigger number of people. Research studies that have larger number of people may give a harder time with the collection of data as opposed to smaller groups but it is also known that larger research groups give more data to work with. Larger research groups are based on a more dynamic group of people that mostly may not have prior knowledge of each other. In smaller groups it is sometimes the case, especially when including people from the same locality that the group members already know each other and this can result in the research study being affected one way or another. The study also makes no mention of the number of people that could have been included in the study. It is necessary to obtain a basic idea of how many people could have been included in the study to compute whether the same study could have been carried out with a larger and/or a smaller number of people and if yes, then would the study would have proved to be as effective as it currently appears to be. The number of people who joined the group when the research study started should have been earlier mentioned so that readers could get an idea whether anyone left the group during the carrying out of data collection. There is not any hint whether any group members left the group once the study began and if they did what were the main reasons behind their leaving the group. The merits of focus group session shave been justly mentioned in the given research study report. According to the study a focus group is essential for a number of reasons. It details how it allowed participants to come together on one ground and voice out their opinions unhesitatingly. It also points out that the participants were able to develop and environment where they could jointly discuss their issues and opinions along with sharing their experiences. Sharing experiences is an important step towards the building of trust between individuals and since the basic aim of this study was to understand the student-mentor relationship and how students reacted to it, this seemed a very favourable and rightly carried out activity. However, there are some flaws in which the study presents its results. The literature provided within the study is outdated as well as running the risk of repeated use. Moreover the study does not provide any clear cut ideas about the background of its participants. It heavily focuses on keeping the identity of its participants alive. It would have been marginally better if the study would have allowed the reader to form an opinion about the background of its participants and their day to day lifestyle. This allows readers to form bonds with the participants and helps them to relate to the emotions and issues that the participants faced in a more genuine manner. It would have been constructive if the study had commented on the success of using participants from a particular area. A comment on whether the study could have been carried out in a better manner in some other part of the world, or city, for that matter would have proved to be useful. No representative sample of a target group is provided within the study which would highlight the variable features of its participants, such as age, work and experience etc. The inclusion of limited participants and their information accounts for a score of 1. Data Collection Data collection appears to be guided towards particular responses. It would have been better if certain group sessions had not been moderated. As detailed in the paper, moderated group discussions led to certain individuals voicing out their opinions and overriding the opinions of other individuals which can lead towards a biased or tilted perception of the case study. The research paper also seems to take into account only limited sources of information. The references used under particular headings almost correspond to the same researcher’s findings. When conducting a study it is desirable to take into account the opinions and case studies of more than one researcher. The study appears to be geographically restrictive as well. It does not take into account the aspect of location when summing up conclusion to peer mentorship. Mentorship does not remain within confines of a particular location; rather it extends on to after work hours as well. This leads on to another important dimension and that is of the importance of mentorship in a non working setting. The level of stress, anxiety and fatigue experienced in a work environment is different from that experienced in a non-working environment; hence it would have been more wholesome for the study to interview and gather data with relation to a non-working context. The study points out one of the major limitations when carrying out data capture and that is leaving out the views of the mentors. Mentors are as much important to the success of the study as the novices and leaving out views of the mentors is akin to conducting an incomplete study. The views of the mentors would have helped to provide a detailed insight into how the novice nurse practitioners view their relationship with the mentors and vice versa. The research also only employed views of students from the 1st and 3rd year which can be considered a limitation when constructively criticising the research paper. Moreover, key ideas were identified after the focus group sessions, which do not seem to be a good way to go about dispatching key ideas. Key ideas are meant to help the participants as much as the researcher and should have been made a part of the focus group. Or, the researcher could have dispatched key ideas that may have emerged after a particular focus group session before the start of a new, proceeding session. There is no mention whether the study used a pilot study to conduct its research. Hence a score of 0 is given on this account. Pilot studies are useful to get a basic idea of the sort of research one wants to conduct and moreover, it provides the reader with an insight into understanding what the current research study meant to achieve. With the idea of a relevant pilot study in mind the reader can thus go through the new study in a more alert manner. However, since no mention is made whether there was a pilot study already existing at the time the research was conducted and if there was whether it was used or not in the course of this study. The recruitment data seems to be relatively general and does not specify particular numbers. This is why a score of 2 is given because even though the study mentions almost all aspects of recruiting students it does not specify clearly the various numbers and upper and lower limit data when taking in to account these recruits. The assessment process concerning the reliability of the assessment tools accounts for a score of 2. There is clearly a reliance on a single method. It seems as if the researcher is hesitant to branch out and check any other methods that might suit his research in the process of data collection. The idea of a focus group is good no doubt and even though it is helpful when considering the sort of research that is being conducted, it is redundant. The study briefly touches upon its limitations. It is felt that more detailed insight could have been taken into discussing the limitations of this study and its shortfalls as have been discussed in this paper. This allows for a score of 2. On the whole the research paper follows the basic design of how a research paper should be presented and what is demanded of a proper research paper. It manages to highlight the important aspects of its study and the reason behind carrying out this study with a good success ratio as provided in the results of the study. However, when taking into account the views and opinions that have been left out in the paper and things that could have been reworked to make the research paper better; it would appear that the study is not the ideal study to be carried out. If certain areas of this study are reworked it can be revamped to become a better version of itself and maybe provide more holistic results than it currently does. Read More