Evaluation of Research Findings

Evaluation of Research Findings

As an article I found ‘Unravelling the mysteries of unwinding’ had some interesting points and information, although I found it was very broad and lacking depth of information in some parts. I was unsure of whom it was directed at, and it felt like it was a bit of a jumble of information as it didn’t flow very well jumping from one topic to another.

I didn’t feel like I came away really understanding what fascia was or how it was connected to the mind, muscles and body posture. I think these points should have been covered to give more substance to their claims in the article. Also there seemed to be a bias in the article, which gave you the feeling they were trying to sell the technique to you rather than inform you about the technique, and allow you to make a informed decision or judgement. The way it was written gave the approach to the technique an air of mysticism, which could be off putting to many readers as it has no scientific explanation to why it would work e.g. In one paragraph it talks of the practitioner being aware of client’s inherent wisdom, which is not a very scientific or medical approach to a treatment. Someone who didn’t know about fascial release reading the article could think the article and technique to be a bit air ferry.

I thought the article did cover how a therapist could go about treatment and its possible outcomes, although it could have been explained in a more scientific and in-depth way. The pictures were a help to show some of the techniques, and gave the reader an idea of what could go on in a treatment. I thought that perhaps instead of directions on how to do the technique an explanation on what would happen through a technique would have been more appropriate as the article seemed more directed at a client than a therapist.

I think that the information could have been tied together in a way so there was better flow to the article as it seemed to jump from topic to topic instead of lead into the next naturally. The fact there where a lot of references from different sources, with many angles and areas of research made this hard. I think that I would have got a better understanding from the article if the writer had just gone into more depth on just a few of them.

The article was informative on the different treatments and outcomes of them, but lacked depth of research and I felt tried to cover, too many different angles instead of giving a good understanding of a few. Some of the claims of treatments needed to be backed by some more scientific research and explanations on how they worked to give them more substance. Over all I thought it was to general in its information and needed a more fluent structure.