Abstract
This paper presents the evaluation of an article that utilizes qualitative research methodology. The evaluation focuses on every section of the article, including the introduction, literature review, methods, results, and discussion. The literature review is incorporated into the introduction, leaving it shallow and short. The study’s purpose statement and hypothesis are well stated in the introduction section. While the methods are explained, the article lacks information on the sampling techniques used and the demographic characteristics of the participants. Overall, the article is not perfectly written but has major components of scientific research.
Introduction
The article evaluated was published in 2021 and is titled ‘Qualitative research on solving difficulties in maintaining continuity of food supply chain on the meat market during the COVID-19 pandemic.‘ The researchers of the study include Zielińska-Chmielewska, Mruk-Tomczak, and Wielicka-Regulska. The topic selected for this article evaluation is COVID-19 because it is a current public health problem affecting the entire world in health and economic aspects. Zielińska-Chmielewska, Mruk-Tomczak, and Wielicka-Regulska (2021) have published their research on the meat market disruption to recommend practical methods of maintaining the supply chain to achieve continuity of food. These authors combined various qualitative methods to collect data, analyze it, and report their results. While the authors have used the qualitative research design, some important aspects of a scientific research article are missing.
Evaluation of the Introduction and Literature Review
The introduction and literature review are put under the same section titled introduction. The researchers present an adequate rationale for the study, which is to ensure food security and sustainable development during a difficult economic period. They emphasize the need to secure supply continuity and reduce meat wastage and losses through the supply chain. In addition, the researchers seek to make recommendations for optimizing meat production in the targeted countries. Since meat contributes over 20% of the daily energy requirements for the human body, the study plays a critical role in analyzing how the need can be met during COVID-19 (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). Considering the importance of meat as part of human nutritional requirements, the rationale presented to conduct this study is adequate.
COVID-19 is affecting food supply worldwide, and finding practical solutions to these problems is important. Therefore, the study has great significance in the prevailing times. The researchers focus on actions that governments can implement to secure meat supply and reduce wastage. The study also evaluates actions in place in the meat markets and categorizes them as positive or negative, enabling authorities to change their approach for the betterment of their citizens. During the COVID-19 pandemic, different researchers have contributed to various areas of concern to help governments and individuals cope with the changes. This study offers solutions to authorities to prevent disruptions in the meat markets and ensure that people continue to get stable supplies.
The literature review is incorporated into the article’s introduction section. As such, it is not handled as an important part of the study, leaving it without depth. Therefore, it is not comprehensive and thorough as the literature review should be. For instance, the review does not elucidate how COVID-19 has led to disruption in the meat markets, providing no direct relationship between the pandemic and the supply. The literature review does not extensively examine previous studies to establish a gap in the field. However, the lack of an extensive and thorough literature review could be due to a lack of previously published resources linking meat supply and COVID-19. Since the pandemic has been around for only a few years, scholars have not conducted broad research on its impacts.
The introduction includes all the important definitions, including terminologies such as food, food security, and food supply chain. However, some critical concepts such as COVID-19 and government policy approaches are not defined. The researchers might have assumed that every reader is conversant with COVID-19 and considered a discussion of government policies unnecessary. For a wide audience, there is a need to discuss every concept included in the study to allow every reader to understand the article. There is no discussion of previous methods relevant to understanding the study’s purpose.
Evaluation of the Purpose Statement
The purpose statement is clearly stated at the end of the introduction section. The aim is to “report, analyze, and assess different influences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the supply and demand side on the meat market in the USA, China, and Russia” (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021, p. 3). Since there is no explicit literature review, the researchers do not link the purpose statement to it. The introduction includes various disconnected explanations of concepts but mentions some previous studies on COVID-19 and meat supply. There is no argument developed through a succinct literature review. However, the introduction identifies various problems related to food security, meat production, and COVID-19’s impact on the food supply chain. There is also a hypothesis stated towards the end of the section with three constructs: effectiveness of government policies, demand disruptors, and supply disruptors (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). Overall, the article could be improved in the literature review section and how that links to the purpose statement.
Evaluation of the Methods Section
The researchers have used mixed data collection techniques but a particular qualitative research method, the case study design. A case study involves the use of several sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observation. Participants in the study are related to the research question and have a unifying factor. The researchers utilized information from databases, newsletters, market reports, and information services (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). They also conducted in-depth interviews with industry experts. Therefore, a case study was the most suitable qualitative study design for the purpose stated in the article.
The researchers do not mention any biases in their study design or approaches under the methods section. However, they have discussed the general limitations of qualitative research in the conclusion section, citing subjectivity problems and the inability to quantify results as major ones. The biases were handled using broader analyses of wide and large materials from varied sources (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). Therefore, the biases are only related to the selected research methodology and not specific to this study.
The researchers do not discuss their sampling methods but only mention the number of involved participants. They interviewed six experts in the meat industry, with each participant taking 45 minutes (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). The lack of sampling technique information creates a bias in the article because readers cannot gauge the appropriateness of the method. The sampling method is used by scholars to determine a study’s accuracy, and its absence leaves the readers with essential questions unanswered. For example, this study was conducted in three countries, how did the researchers decide whom to interview in each country? In addition, there are no demographic characteristics of the experts interviewed in the research.
While the sampling technique is not mentioned, six experts is not a good representative sample for three countries. Although the six participants are experts in the fields, the sample is not large enough to represent three countries. The participants included a poultry farm owner, red meat slaughterhouse manager, two international sales managers in meat departments, and two meat wholesalers (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). The USA itself has over forty states, and each state would have produced an expert to participate. Similarly, China is divided into provinces that would provide experts for interviewing. Therefore, the assumption is that biases exist in sampling and the sample itself, which adversely affects the integrity and accuracy of the study.
The two main data collection methods employed in the study are interviews and document analyses. The participants were taken through semi-structured in-depth interviews where one participant was interviewed by one researcher at a time for 45 minutes (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). There is an adequate description of the interview process, ranging from the advantages, disadvantages, and types of questions administered. The limitations of the interviews include the required efforts by researchers due to unstructured questions. The responses from experts were used as a foundation for document analyses and helped in completing Kaoru Ishikawa Diagram (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). The interviews were recorded, and their transcripts were used to complete a coding process that produced themes for analyses. Biases in interviews could have arisen from varied responses from participants and improperly formulated questions.
Evaluation of the Results Section
The qualitative data was analyzed and presented in tabular form per country. The coded themes on the Ishikawa fishbone diagram indicated the identified problems with food supply due to COVID-19, which were discussed and linked to the meat industry in the results section (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). However, the analysis method is not mentioned or described, and there is no way for readers to infer from the section. Another weakness is in the linking of data to concepts, themes, and theories because the researchers do not show how the fishbone diagram’s contents are translated into the information in the tables under the results section. For example, throughout the methods section, the researchers do not mention any information for a specific country. Nevertheless, the results section begins with country-specific information without identifying its source or link to the data collected.
Evaluation of the Discussion Section
The discussion section is combined with the results section under the Results and Discussion section of the article. However, the section only discusses results, while purpose restatement, implications, and limitations are placed under the conclusion section. Therefore, the conclusion section is evaluated under this heading because it contains the required content. The researchers have not restated the purpose or their hypothesis but mentioned that it was accepted. They have also made recommendations for the demand and supply sides of the meat market during the pandemic. These are listed on numbered lists and not explained because of their targeted audience. However, ordinary readers would require explanations, but government authorities would understand the items on the list.
The research implications begin with general recommendations but narrow down to country-specific solutions. For China, the researchers suggest the establishment of donation centers where the government can compensate farmers for giving animals to people in crisis, the development of subsidy systems and technological support for farmers, and the introduction of preferential rates for transporting meat products via rail (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). For the US, they recommend the development of technological and technical facilities to speed up the connection between farmers and markets. Other suggestions are to divert meat products demand by promoting vegetables and fruits in retail shops. For Russia, they recommend the building of cold storage facilities, increasing exports of semi-processed poultry that do not need refrigeration, and use of e-commerce to expose farmers to more markets (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021). Although the researchers have provided these and other implications, they do not offer directions for actual practice.
As mentioned previously, the researchers have discussed the limitations of the qualitative study. However, these limitations are not specific to their study but apply to all qualitative research designs. For example, the challenge of subjectivity and the inability to produce quantifiable results. The researchers reduced these limitations by consciously using a “wide range of large diverse, but above all, reliable set of materials in the case studies” (Zielińska-Chmielewska et al., 2021, p. 15). Nevertheless, there was a need to mention limitations or biases related to sampling techniques because the sample size was extremely small for the three countries. For future research, the authors recommend broader and deeper analyses and the use of mixed qualitative and quantitative methods.
Conclusion: Remaining Questions
Qualitative research design poses challenges for researchers due to their lack of numerical data. This causes inconsistency between the methodology selected and the question under study. In addition, data analysis is more challenging because it involves social life involving what is considered as everyday activities and often taken for granted. The researchers must read transcripts that look like ordinary conversations so keenly that they develop themes for analyses. Therefore, they are forced to devise interviews in a way that the format and language are simple and provide response options that are uniform across participants.
Some information from the list provided in the instructions was lacking. The literature review section is missing, but there are mentions of previous studies in the introduction section. However, there is no good flow of ideas as expected of a literature review. The sampling method used and demographic characteristics of the participants were also missing. These are crucial aspects of every research article, and their lack reduces the accuracy of the results. The results and discussion are merged, and key elements of the two parts are missing. For example, there is no direct link between the data analyzed and the results discussed.
Reference
Zielińska-Chmielewska, A., Mruk-Tomczak, D., & Wielicka-Regulska, A. (2021). Qualitative research on solving difficulties in maintaining continuity of food supply chain on the meat market during the COVID-19 pandemic. Energies, 14(18), 5634.