Philip Burnard

Analysing and presenting qualitative data

This paper provides a pragmatic approach to analysing qualitative data, using actual data from a qualitative dental public health study for demonstration purposes. The paper also critically explores how computers can be used to facilitate this process, the debate about the verification (validation) of qualitative analyses and how to write up and present qualitative research studies.

Writing forpublication: a guide for those who must

All nurse educators must write and most must publish. This paper outlines the principles that need to be observed if the nurse educator is to get his or her work into print. The paper offers a summary of the work that needs to be done before manuscript preparation, commentary on preparing the manuscript and a discussion of what must be done after the manuscript has been submitted. The paper concludes with the argument that writing for publication involves the learning of certain basic skill and the observation of certain conventions.

A randomized controlled trial comparing an adult education class using cognitive behavioural therapy ("stress control") anxiety management group treatment and a waiting list for anxiety disorders

Background: Anxiety disorders are extremely common and regularly treated in group settings. At present there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of group anxiety management courses. Aims: To examine the relative efficacies of a six week cognitive behavioural adult education evening class, a traditional anxiety management group and a waiting list group in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Method: Individuals with a DSM IV anxiety disorder were randomized to either a cognitive behavioural therapy adult education evening class (Stress Control), anxiety management group treatment or a waiting list control condition. Both active treatments lasted 2 hours per week for 6 weeks in total. Results: There were no significant differences between any of the groups on the main outcome measure. Stress Control and Anxiety Management showed significantly greater mean reductions on the Fear Questionnaire than the Waiting List group post-treatment but this difference was no longer present at one month follow-up. There were no differences at any time point between anxiety management and Stress Control. The initial presence of depression was highly predictive of poor outcome. Conclusions: This study does not support the routine use of Stress Control or Anxiety Management in group settings for individuals referred to secondary care with anxiety disorders. Further research is required to determine if specific individuals would benefit from these approaches or whether they should be included in a stepped-care pathway for the treatment of anxiety disorders.

Time to end the vagaries of PhD examining

Doctoral education has proliferated significantly in recent years, particularly in nursing, as building research capacity has been a priority. There has also been an increase in the range of doctorates available, including traditional PhD by research, professional doctorates and PhD by publication and/or portfolio. Consequently, PhD examination is now a relatively common feature of higher education in the UK (Tinkler and Jackson, 2004). Whilst there are international variations, PhD examination in the UK is in two stages; submission and assessment of a thesis followed by oral examination (viva). Doctoral examination is normally conducted by at least two suitably qualified examiners; one internal and one external, although this may vary for PhD students who are also members of staff in the host institution. In many Universities the viva is also facilitated by an ‘independent chair’ (normally an experienced academic with examining experience), who does not take part in the examination as such; but is there to ensure fairness and consistency and to provide academic and/or institutional advice and support, where appropriate. However, whilst British PhDs have undergone considerable changes over the last decade, (much of which has been informed by the UK Research Councils) particularly in relation to research and supervision training and support, the examination of the PhD has escaped comparable critical scrutiny (Tinkler and Jackson, 2004). Unlike taught undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, the PhD itself lacks any agreed, formalised assessment criteria and the entire process is largely based on the [subjective] academic judgement of the respective examiners. This anachronistic approach is questionable at best and would probably not hold up to public scrutiny.