Diabetes, a metabolic disease occurring due to high level of glucose (blood sugar) content in humans.

The health condition is often considered lifelong. The condition occurs when pancreas does not produce or not enough insulin to help glucose enter bodys cells or insulin doesnt work its function known as Insulin Resistance (O'Connell & Hieronymus, 2003) Diabetes are categorised into two main categories:
a) Type 1: This results from bodys failure to produce any insulin as the producing cells

are destroyed. The cause of destroyed cells is unknown but evidence suggests it might be induced by genetic susceptibility, exposure to virus or antigen. (D Fairweather & N R. Rose,2002) b) Type 2: This results from insulin deficiency caused by cells failing to use insulin. The defective responsiveness is triggered because of insulin receptor. This type of diabetes is most common.

The literature search was done using Cinahl, Medline, Science Direct, Oxford Journals and Internurse.com electronically. The terms used to search were; research analysis, qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, qualitative research process, quantitative research process, diabetes, type 2 diabetes. Two articles choosen for the purpose are based on type 2 diabetes. Researchers decide the type of approach used to collect and analyse the data accordingly to tackle the empirical side. The articles chosen use quantitative and qualitative approach for the respective articles. The first article Patients Waiting by Parry et al (2003) which follows a qualitative approach in assessing the effect of diabetes on 40 newly diagnosed patients. The main aim of the project was to examine how diagnosis is perceived. Results suggested that patients were unwilling to accept the diagnosis report and were confused with the referral, the other issue was relating to convey the seriousness of the diagnosis. The article should use simple language for better understanding (Polit et al, 2001). Both the study have entirely different approach one being a translated work Lingren et al (2002) was more complicated where as Parry et al (2003) was casted in simple language for easy understanding. Design of both the work had differentiated characteristics as it used different approach in identifying the sources. Research methodologies should describe the clear channelizing the data collected, processed and analysed (Gerish and Lacey, 2006).

Parry et al (2003) conducted the research in Lothian, Scotland through 16 General Practices, 4 Local health care centre and 3 Hospitals. 40 patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were selected to conduct the research. The diagnosed were interviewed in-depth for better understanding and identifying clarity of their perspectives. The privacy of the interview is not mentioned. Researchers direct their work for verification with clear and definite idea, as the patients were interviewed three times at 6 monthly intervals. Lingren et al (2002) conducted research in Botnia, Finland 58 mutiplex families comprising of 440 individuals. The diagnosed for type 2 diabetes were only 223 individuals. The individuals who were identified as unaffected were rediagnosed after 5 years. The study of Parry et al (2003) got approval from Lothian Research Ethics Committee. The sample size of 40 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were only taken as this study shows is purposive. Purposive sampling is effective and showcases the exact purpose of the sample (Procter and Allan, 2006, p. 182). This gave the study an advantage as the selected people have been diagnosed with diabetics. Researchers often spend a lot of time in recruiting people to find the right choice (Denscombe, 2005, p.16). The recruitment of people spanned from poor to affluent areas covering all social classes. Recruiting covered all areas of the society helped it to diversify the study rather than constraining or limiting itself to certain areas. Recruitment flaws can be found in case study as one among the 40 patients belonged to Asian ethnicity which meant one exception. Lingren et al (2002) got approval from the local ethics community. The sample size of 440 individuals being vast to be diagnosed involved lot of cost, time to analyse and structuring the data as it used numbers and figures. Quantitative approach uses variables to predict between numbers and figures all the time (Morse and Field, 1998). The sampling used for this research is Convenience sampling using most of the people available at the time. The method of acquiring data is not clearly mentioned it is based upon the assumption. Parry et al (2003) conducted interviews on the patients which lasted for 1 hour, this proceedings where tape recorded and transcribed using verbatim. The question for the

interview were semi-structured. The interviews were one-on-one sessions and were conducted by researchers themselves. Interviews involved with collecting data or understanding data is a verbal process with question and answer session (Whiting, 2008, p.35). Semi-Structured style is one of the key method in qualitative approach used to collect data (Burns and Grove, 2005, p.396), this is an effective method as it provides researchers more flexibility, control and direction to carry out interview according to the opposite person for easy adaptability (Tod, 2006, p.347). One on one sessions of interview always plays a vital role in helping the interviewee to be more relaxed and open to discuss more personally and in-depth. Lingren et al (2002) study used software package GENEHUNTER to compare multi-point analysis, which also estimates the information content. The data analysed used historical data from the database banks to identify the individuals in the family and were excluded as the analysis was in progress. The data analysis was made through the tape-recorded transcripts. The transcripts were cross compared before and after data collection. Parry et al (2003) used grounded theory for analysis. Grounded theory, a qualitative approach is the method of collecting data and its corresponding analysis which derivates to create a theory (Holloway & Todres, 2006). Two studies showed extensively and exclusively dealt with type 2 diabetes. Parry et al (2003) approached qualitatively and enhanced the knowledge relating for nursing background. Lingren et al (2002) used quantitative approach, which extensively added value to the methodologies for nursing knowledge. Drawing a line of comparison between both the case is difficult as it involves two different research approach. Language of the research is important for better understanding which clearly outlines the objectives, mission and aims of the research (Burns and Grove, 2001). Parry et al (2003) have used language in a simplified manner compared to Lingren et al (2002) which have used rather more confusing jargons and terminologies.

Both the research have used figures and tables efficiently which according to Freeman and Walters (2006) is a useful tool in justifying the research. The overall perspective of type 2 diabetes is uniquely differentiated by both the research paper. Parry et al (2003) highlighted the issues faced by diabetes patients who are newly diagnosed and the aftermath in their lives. Lingren et al (2002) identifies the genetic importance of how diabetes is spread in the families or is it more generic. Diabetes will be a metabolic disease which is very destructive in the field of medical science. The research of Lingren et al (2002) and Parry et al (2003) should be efficiently used to derive potential knowledge to critically evaluate the knowledge generated and will be helpful in future developments for nurses.

REFERENCE LIST

Britten N, Jones R, Murphy E, Stacy R. Qualitative research methods in general practice. Fam Pract 1995; 12: 104114 Burns, N. and Grove SK (2003) Understanding Nursing Research. Conduct Critique and Utilization. Fifth Edition. Elsevier Saunders: St Louis DeLisa Fairweather & Noel R. Rose, (2002) Diabetes, Nature Immunology http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v3/n4/full/ni0402-338.html Denscombe, M. (2003) The good research guide for small scale research projects. 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Gerrish, K. And Lacey, A. (2006) The Research Process in Nursing. Fifth Edition. Blackwell Science: Oxford.

Kumar, Vinay; Fausto, Nelson; Abbas, Abul K.; Cotran, Ramzi S. ; Robbins, Stanley L. (2005). Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease (7th ed.). Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders. pp. 11941195. Lindgren et al (2002) 'Genomewide Search for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Susceptibility Loci in Finnish Families: The Botnia Study' The American Journal of Human Genetics, 70 (2) pp. 509 - 516. Science Direct available on http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JDD-4RDPT55S&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_orig in=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersio n=0&_userid=10&md5=a84dfca09e3d56d46b3dc05bff246413&searchtype=a [Accessed on April 1, 2011] Morse, J.M. and Field PA (1998) Nursing Research The Application of Qualitative Approaches. Second Edition. Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd, Cheltenham O'Connell, B, & Hieronymus, L 2003, 'Diabetes basics. What is diabetes?', Diabetes SelfManagement, 20, 5, p. 93, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 April 2011. Parry O, Peel E, Douglas M and Lawton J (2003) Patients in waiting: a qualitative study of type 2 diabetes patients' perceptions of diagnosis. Family Practice 2004; 21: 131136. Oxford Journals Polit, D.F. et al (2001) Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods Appraisal and Utilization. Fifth Edition. Lippincott: Philadelphia Procter, S. & Allan, T. (2006) Sampling, in Gerrish, K. & Lacey, A. (eds.) The research process in nursing. (5th edn) Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 173-187. Tod, A. (2006) Collecting Data, in Gerrish, K. & Lacey, A. (eds.) The research process in nursing. (5th edn.) Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 335-352. Whiting, L S. (2008) Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers Nursing Standard, 22 (23) pp. 35-40 Ebscohost EJS [Online]. Available at: http://0ejournals.ebsco.com.brum.beds.ac.uk. (Accessed 1 April 2011).