In today’s meeting with SS and MK, when going through the description of the method and methodology, I realised that it was lacking essential parts. We started out in the ‘Statistical Analysis’ description but they thought that I included things there that should be included earlier, such as the description of how (and why) certain variables were dichotomized, etc.
So, I realised that in a specific section in method one needs to specify how the concepts that one uses and brings from the aim and RQs are conceptualized in this particular study. To be more specific, one needs to explain what specific questions in the survey (or taken from elsewhere, such as the perceived health question) relate to the concepts (awareness, attitudes, willingness, etc.) being used.
MK recommended me to go back to the study protocol and also to have a look at an article that she has written in order to get a better idea of what a method section in this kind of studies usually looks like and what subsections it entails. By mail she sent me an excerpt from how she mentions the ‘perceived health’ instrument (similar to the one used here) in her article. She there writes:
The question ‘‘In general would you say your health is…?” from the SF-36 questionnaire  was used to capture a global self-rating of perceived health. The scale has five response alternatives ranging from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor).
Ref: Ware, J.E., Jr.; Sherbourne, C.D. The mos 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care. 1992, 30, 473–483.
Furthermore, SS and MK were not so happy with the writing of why a logistic regression was done as it was written now (“to estimate the potential impact of demographics and health on the respondents’ willingness to be actively involved in research on ageing and health”). Rather than ‘impact’ one should write ‘associated with’ in the aim and in the RQs one should write how are these factors ‘related to’ x.
Furthermore we reformulated the study purpose, aim and RQs so that they look like this now:
The overarching aim was to investigate the awareness and attitudes towards public involvement in research on ageing and health among 60+ citizens in Sweden.
Research question 1: What are the awareness and attitudes towards active involvement in research among 60+ citizens in Sweden?
Research question 2: How do the willingness of 60+ citizens to be actively involved in research on ageing and health relate to age, gender, level of education, economic situation, and perceived health?
Let’s see how this idea of an updated aim and updated RQs is received by my supervisors during tomorrow’s supervision.