Automatic Insulin Delivery System
Table of Contents
Automatic Insulin Delivery System …………………………………………………….. 3
Research Method ……………………………………………………………………….. 3
Summary of Chapter 1 …………………………………………………………………. 4
Summary of Chapter 5 ………………………………………………………………….. 5
References ………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Automatic Insulin Delivery System
Introduction
The first device cleared by the Food and Drug Administration incorporates a glucose metre and an insulin pump. The device has a calculator into one device. This is a significant step in the development of entirely automated glucose monitoring and insulin delivery equipment. This equipment combines the Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm insulin pump having a Becton Dickson sugar detector and enables data exchange between the two (Kadish, 2004). The system technology in the equipment makes it effective for calculation and transmission of information to the insulin pump. This prevents erroneous results that emanate when patients enter this information manually (Bourgeois& Eisenhardt, 2008). There is the need to incorporate the right measure to ensure proper functional of the performance of the organs. The analysis of the performance is made accurate following the incorporation of the devise. The device has plenty of science and technology at work to make work easier for both patients and medical practitioners
Research Method
The three articles, Dyer & Wilkins, LePine & Wilcox-King, and Eisenhardt have incorporated the scientific form of research in their discussion. For instance, LePine & Wilcox-King have heavily relied on the review of existing theories and research to develop novel insight in theories (Miller, 2004). This involves considering what has already been said by other researchers as well as comparing different views by different scientists on the same subject, and finally reaching a conclusion.
In LePine & Wilcox-King’s article, they have presented the research method of Review-Centric. In this case, they propose for a review and summarization of theoretical and empirical knowledge (Timpane, 2005). In this case, it is possible for a researcher to point out potential shortcomings or factual errors in the previous research. A researcher should challenge and clarify existing theories and concepts. As a result, he searches for novel theories through identification, and delineation of novel theoretical problems. In the final stages, the research method should synthesize current improvements and ideas into the new theory (Abbott, 2008).
Eisenhardt in this article proposes construction of new theories from case study research. It is imperative according to her that research questions are specific to ensure closure. In the research method, scientists should define the problem and construct validation which is similar to hypothesis testing form of research (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 2006). During the case study research, that there is a comparison of variables. According to her, different researchers differ on a subject. Using such theories to construct novel ideas may result into bias (Timpane, 2005). It is imperative to consider that multiple subjects before drawing a conclusion that is valid.
Summary of Chapter 1
In chapter one, Kerlinger & Lee (2000) focuses on the two notions of science and the scientific approach in research. As a result, the chapter’s subdivision is in six imperative sections. The notions entail science and common sense, four methods of knowing, science and its functions, the aims of science, scientific explanation, and theory, scientific research: a definition, and finally the scientific approach. Each of these subtopics is significant in the bringing out of the major topic, “Science and the Scientific Approach”.
In science and common sense comparison, Kerlinger and Lee draw a comparison of Science and the Scientific Approach and consider the two notions different on how they handle research. It is clear that the two differ in their use of concepts and theories. Science is systematic and empirical in testing theories and hypotheses. At the next level, the authors of this work have clearly outlined four methods of knowing. This is because research is all about knowing and establishing facts. Such methods of knowing as indicated are the method of tenacity, the method of authority, the method of intuition and finally the method of science. The method of science, which is the scientific approach, has emphasis (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 2008).
The authors have indicated that the definition of science is most misled during the discussion of science and its functions. They propose for the use of static and dynamic views in the explanation of what science is. At the next level, Kerlinger & Lee offer the definition of scientific research as being a systematic, controlled, empirical, amoral, public, and critical investigation of natural phenomena. According to them, the theory and hypotheses about the presumed relations among the phenomena is a directive of scientific research.
Summary of Chapter 5
In this chapter, Kerlinger and Lee are interested in handling the topic of Relations in Scientific Research Approach. As such, they put their focus on the following: relations as a set of ordered pairs, determining relations in research, rules of correspondence and mapping, ways to study relations, and finally the multivariate relations and regression. In this chapter, the significance of knowledge in scientific research is knowledge of the relations among phenomena.
Under the relations as a set of ordered pairs, Kerlinger and Lee point out that they have always been between classes or sets of objects. For instance, the relation between set A and B Kerlinger and Lee define relations as ordered match up, which overlooks any form of ambiguity. The provision of a comprehensive definition of what “relation” is under the subtopic “Determining Relations in Research” was done through the Cartesian product in which case a product of say set A and B is taken (Hausheer & Harris, 2004). In the determination of a relation, Kerlinger and Lee propose that it is crucial to establish the set of A that should go with B based on some criterion. The chapter has also identified the rules of correspondence and mapping. In this case, consideration is to any object that is a member of a set and the two can be related. This relation is what Kerlinger and Lee are calling mapping. A rule of correspondence entails the prescription that tells the research how to map the objects of a set onto another set. The authors have also stipulated ways of studying relations under this chapter. In their discussion, they have proposed graphs, and tables (Barinaga, 2003).
References:
Abbott, A. (2008, September). “Workshop on sequence methods.” National Science Foundation Conference on Longitudinal Research Methods in Organizations, Austin.
Alllson, G. (2001). Essence of decision. Boston: Little, Brown.
Anderson, P. (2003). “Decision making by objection and the Cuban missile crisis.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 201-222.
Bartunek, J. (2008). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Towards a theory of change in organization and management (PP. 137-162). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (2006). “The emergence of norms in competitive decision making groups.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350-372.
Bourgeois, L., & Eisenhardt, K. (2008). “Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry.” Management Science, 34, 816-
Burgelman, R. (2003). A process model of internal corporate venturing in a major diversified firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223-244.
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2008). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Barinaga, M. (2003). “Philosophy of science: Feminists find gender everywhere in science.” Science 260: 392-393.
Hausheer, J., & Harris, J. (2004). “In search of a brief definition of science.” The Physics
Teacher 32(5): 318.
Holton, G. (2006). “The controversy over the end of science.” Scientific American
273(10): 191.
Horgan,]. (2004). Anti-omniscience: An eclectic gang of thinkers pushes at knowledge’s limits. Scientific American 271: 20-22.
Horgan, J. (2007). The end of science. New York: Broadway Books.
Kadish, A.H. (2004). Automation control of blood glucose: a servo mechanism for glucose monitoring and control. Am J Med Electron 2003; 3:82–6.
Miller,]. A. (2004). “Postmodern attitude toward science.” Bioscience 41(6): 395.
Scientific American. Science versus antiscience. (Special report). January 1997, 96-101.
Smith, B. (2005). “Formal ontology, common sense and cognitive science.” International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5-6): 641-667.
Timpane, J. (2005). “How to convince a reluctant scientist.” Scientific American 272:
