Scholarly writing is one of the fields in the life of a student that is used help in the presentation of the ideas whenever doing academically. In scholarly writings, there are elements which cannot be ignored such as formatting and use of jargon as it is aimed at providing information regarding a particular field of study (Lillis & Curry, 2010). In various levels of academics, there are varied expectations of the outcomes of scholarly writing. Apart from the level of academics presented, scholarly writing is also dependent on style guides provided. The results of the scholarly writing are as a result of literature available as the majority of them are an improvement of work that already exists. Critical reading and biases are some of the issues that should be focused on presenting a scholarly work. In this piece of work, the focus will be on scholarly writing through analysis of health-related work previously conducted and also give an explanation as well as give suggestions on how biases can be avoided in writing.
Beghe in a non-peer reviewed article related to satisfaction has presented aspects of biases in the course of the work. In the “An advance directive program in nursing homes reduced health services utilization without affecting patient satisfaction" article, Beghe tried to focus on the programs that can be introduced in nursing homes that promote patient satisfaction. The author researched previously work done related to the topic as well as case studies of nursing homes that were in reach of him (Beghe, 2000). The data collected was analyzed, and a better part of it showed that there is a relationship between the nursing home services and directive programs induced. In the conclusion part of the work, Baghe gave a closing argument that directive programs that are introduced in nursing homes to reduce health service utilization do not affect patient satisfaction.
In the publication of the article by Beghe, there are aspects of biases that can be noticed openly. In the introduction part of the article, the author was supposed to give an overview of the project to be undertaken, but instead gave information could depict the conclusions of the results that have not been conducted (Carless, 2006). It shows that from the start point of the research work the author was determined to the conclusions even before carrying out of the research. Research in the scholarly writing should be used for future analysis and improvement. In the case of Baghe giving a closed conclusion limits other researchers in future to criticize the work as well as to suggest improvement (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). Through Baghe’s data collection, the materials used for literature as well as case studies showed different conclusions but could not be given a room for analysis. A predetermined result of a result study nullifies the arguments.
In conclusion, being bias in the scholarly writing presentation reduces the reliability of the research. When an author decides to utilize other literary works from outside sources, it is important to acknowledge it to create a continuation of the work. After a specified duration, literature works cannot be referred for advancement and improvement due to rapid evolution that is taking place. Scholars should always ask that the work will be in the future regardless of the trends in a particular field. The success of scholarly work is not only determined by the current problem is solved but also the future credibility.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human relations, 61(8), 1139-1160.
Beghe, C. (2000). An advance directive program in nursing homes reduced health services utilization without affecting patient satisfaction. ACP Journal Club, 133(3), 85-85.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 219-233.
Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in global context. London: Routledge.