Friday Writing 1/24

Both the grant proposal and the research article contain descriptive titles. They are obvious titles that represent the overview of the topic. The research article contains two different tables in order to help highlight the statistical aspects of the study. The grant proposal does not contain and images, perhaps because they text and the analysis of funding is far more important. The research article uses more qualifiers and modifiers than the grant proposal. The most qualifiers and modifiers are used in the introductory section of the research article. After comparing the research article and the grant proposal, it is evident that the research article dedicates more time towards reviewing the limitations. However, the grant proposal sounds more confident because they do a great job at implementing background information on their research, rather than filling in the information as they continue, like the research article did. The vocabulary can be described as highly accessible for general audiences. The grant proposal did a stellar job at providing information required to understand the research, therefore not much prior knowledge was required. The research article assumed that the audience was familiar with the process of meditation, therefore, it lacked additional knowledge for the uninformed audience. The more technical sections in the research article involves the statistical aspects. The more technical section in the grant proposal involves the budget analysis. The verb use is more prominent when the author describes the past research from individuals. In the research article, the author identifies the limitations of the study by explaining in a designated section, after the results and discussions. The author identifies five different limitations of the study, followed with an explanation for each reason. The first limitation discussed that it is uncertain if the three main supporting dependent variables continued longer after meditation training has ceased. The author suggested further studies to provide evidence if mediation would improve everyday activities. The second limitation claimed that the study did not review if mindfulness was involved with the three dependent variables, but rather, it demonstrated the rewarding aspects of meditation in relation to them. The author suggested further futures discussions to see the relationship between mindfulness and the three dependent variables: emotional intelligence, perceived stress and negative mental health. The third limitation involved the bias that comes with self-reporting questionnaires. The author claims the issue would be resolved once multiple periods of ratings are completed. The fourth limitation describes how when the control group was asked to relax their moods, it is unknown if they were actually relaxed because it is unknown if their persistent thinking continued. The author does not provide a solution. The final limitation is in regards to the experimental study’s sample size being too small, which led to a generalization of the study. The author states that the studies should be elaborated further in order to distinguish if other styles of meditation would be superior. In the grant proposal, the limitations of the study are examined in the last chapter, titled “Lessons Learned”. The main limitations it reviews is how the program funding is subjected to the individual's health insurance. A solution mentioned is providing the mindful meditation treatment after the program hours in order other therapy session not to overlap so that the insurance company can allow individuals to participate. However, therapist facilitation would need to take place in order for the plan to be executed.