While it is not often true that magazine and mass media writers get the essence of a scientific study correct in their entertainment based interpretations, Alice Park of TIME magazine did just that in her article “Feeling Alone Together: How Loneliness Spreads” when interpreting and portraying the research done by John T. Cacioppo et al in their research “Alone in the Crowd: The Structure and Spread of Loneliness in a Large Social Network.” The overall flow of Park’s article is consistent with that of Cacioppo’s research. And while certain limitations of the study were glossed over in Park’s recount, the main points and arguments were clearly stated as well as what actionable steps individuals could take based on their reading. The organization
…show more content…
One would be to include the limitations that were discussed in the original research. By including these limitations (such as age range of participants) Park’s readers would have been better able to draw their own conclusions about the implications of the study on their own life, instead of merely taking her or Cacioppo’s word for how this information could be affecting them in their day to day lives. However, Park does include an important phrase during her discussion of the results and their implications, and this phrase is, “If these results hold up…”. This is monumental because it shows the reader that even though this information seems to be valid and well researched, there is the possibility that what the researchers found is, through no fault of their own, incorrect. At the time the TIME article was written there had not been time for Cacioppo’s findings to be corroborated by other researchers. Again, this is a real asset to Park’s article. Including an affidavit that there could be information in the future that disproves what the researchers found is an incredibly important step to increasing a reader’s scientific literacy. Many readers may not take into consideration that there is the chance for the findings they are seeing to be proven incorrect at a later date, but through this minute insertion, Park plants
One would be to include the limitations that were discussed in the original research. By including these limitations (such as age range of participants) Park’s readers would have been better able to draw their own conclusions about the implications of the study on their own life, instead of merely taking her or Cacioppo’s word for how this information could be affecting them in their day to day lives. However, Park does include an important phrase during her discussion of the results and their implications, and this phrase is, “If these results hold up…”. This is monumental because it shows the reader that even though this information seems to be valid and well researched, there is the possibility that what the researchers found is, through no fault of their own, incorrect. At the time the TIME article was written there had not been time for Cacioppo’s findings to be corroborated by other researchers. Again, this is a real asset to Park’s article. Including an affidavit that there could be information in the future that disproves what the researchers found is an incredibly important step to increasing a reader’s scientific literacy. Many readers may not take into consideration that there is the chance for the findings they are seeing to be proven incorrect at a later date, but through this minute insertion, Park plants