Establishing a niche in respiratory therapy research: Comparing novice and expert writing
Abstract
This study examines the phrases used to highlight research gaps in writing in the respiratory therapy discipline. A corpus of respiratory therapy research article introductions was compiled, and words and phrases associated with signaling research gaps were searched. To compare expert and student writing, the same phrases were searched in a corpus of thesis introductions written by respiratory therapy master’s students. To look for other ways of expressing research gaps, a subset of 52 articles was examined. The expressions of research gaps were identified, and the phrases for expressing gaps were examined qualitatively to find common themes. Out of the words and phrases searched automatically, the words however, but, limited, and need were common, but many devices for highlighting gaps that were noted in previous studies were not frequent in either corpus. Master’s students used the phrases no studies, need, and must significantly more than published authors. Outside of the words and phrases searched, the expressions used to describe gaps were quite varied. To describe research gaps, authors mentioned limited research, criticisms of previous research, or challenges in researching the topic of interest. To describe practice or training gaps, authors described burdens on the healthcare system, lack of knowledge among professionals, criticisms of respiratory therapy curricula, shortages of training programs, lack of guidelines or consistency in practice, treatment challenges and risks, and other practical problems that the study aimed to address. These findings have pedagogical implications for the phrases that students in this discipline should learn for highlighting gaps.
Link to publication in IBERICA
