Park et al. (2016) argue that education has a great impact on the clergy's view on sexuality since it inspires them to have a diverse understanding of the topic. At first, the authors provide background research on past literature that addresses how lack of training affects clergies’ tolerance to homosexuality in society. Then, they continue to conduct primary research on clergies by interviewing them in order to evaluate the correlation between clergies’ education and their homosexuality opinions. Thereafter, the authors analyze the results and illustrate the impact of education on the different clergy views. After that, they add that the level and type of education influence the clergy's view on homosexuality while they make their findings and conclusion. In the end, they suggest that there is a need for clergy education and training in order to help them have substantial views of the different sexual orientations and make a recommendation for future research on the topic.
Although the article is effective, the authors fails to provide conclusive argument. More specifically, the authors ignore to put conclusive statements to support the main argument and wrap up the discussion. For example, the authors wrap up the discussion for the first finding by stating that, “Future research should look into how continuing education dealing with sexual orientation and homosexuality may affect clergy’s views on homosexuality” (Park et al., 2016, p. 784). Clearly, this is not a conclusive statement of their main argument. The article’s title reveals that the main argument is on the impact of education on the clergy’s view of homosexuality. No statement in the last paragraph ties up the discussion and links it to this argument. In addition, the authors do not put a conclusive statement that wraps up the introduction and relates it to the impact of education on the clergy’s view of homosexuality. They end the introduction by stating that, “When it comes to issues related to homosexuality, studies document that a significant proportion of clergy are uncertain or express ambiguity regarding their personal beliefs on such issues and are unsure how they should approach them in their roles as religious leaders” (Park et al., 2016, p. 779). Clearly, this reveals that the authors are not concluding their main argument. Although the authors mention homosexuality in this statement, they do not mention the impact of education. To wrap up their argument, they should have related education to the clergy’s views on homosexuality. Hence, the article is ineffective due to the authors’ inconclusive argument.
However, the article is effective because of the profound evidence the authors present through in-depth analysis of the topic. More specifically, the authors use credible information from previous literature to provide a comprehensive analysis to support the main argument of the article. For instance, when the authors investigate the relationship between clergy level of education and their views regarding homosexuality, they draw to past literature by Olson et al. (2016), which states that “People within the various faith communities who experience difficulties in regard to their sexuality often turn to their clergy for guidance and support” (Park et al., 2016, p.779). Clearly, the authors use past literature by Olson et al. (2016) to illustrate the relationship between clergy training and their perception of homosexuality, which supports the authors’ main argument. The in-depth analysis makes the authors successful in conveying the information and supporting the main idea. In addition, the article also states the information from past research done by Turner and Stayton (2014) to explain the clergy's inability to deal with topics such as sexual issues when they encounter people with such problems due to lack of training and education in such areas. For this reason, it reveals that the authors used an in-depth analysis to support their main argument in the article. The evidence portrays clergy’s insufficiency in dealing with homosexuality issues due to lack of education. This means that the criterion enables the authors to effectively provide sufficient evidence for their work. Therefore, the article is effective due to the authors' use of depth information through credible evidence from past research.
The article is also effective because of the authors’ use of proper work organization. More specifically, the authors effectively use headings and subheadings to guide readers and create a flow of ideas in the article. For instance, when the authors write about the objectives and assumptions made in research methodology, they use the subheading “Aims and Hypotheses” (Park et al., 2016, p.780). Clearly, the authors use the sub-heading “Aims and Hypotheses” to guide readers through the article. By having the sub-heading, the authors make it easier for the reader to identify their aims and hypothesis, which are key elements of any research article. In addition, the authors also use transition words and phrases to create a smooth connection between ideas. For instance, they write, “Second, similar to the conclusions of Cadge et al. (2012), this study may reveal that, overall, clergy are expressing uncertainty regarding their views on homosexuality” (Park et al., 2016, p.784). Clearly, this reveals how good the authors are in connecting ideas. The word “second” implies that the clergy’s uncertainty regarding their views on homosexuality is the second finding. The phrase “similar to the conclusions of” links their finding to other researchers’ findings. By having such flow in the article, it is easier for readers to understand how different ideas are related. Therefore, the article is effective due to the authors’ use of proper work organization.
In conclusion, the authors are both successful and unsuccessful in convincing their audience. Despite their effective use of evidence and proper work organizations, they fail to use conclusive statements to support their main claim. As a result, there is no clear identification of how different parts contribute to the argument. The article would be useful to clergy education stakeholders who wish to learn about the best education strategies for positive impacts on the clergy’s view on homosexuality. Future research should also investigate the impact of cultural backgrounds on the clergy’s view of homosexuality.
References
LinkedIn (n.d.). Johnny Ramirez-Johnson. https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnny-ramirez-johnson-22301a29/
LinkedIn (n.d.). Pamela R. Perez, PhD. https://www.linkedin.com/public-profile/in/pamela-r-perez-phd-a1368043?challengeId=AQGWD50HpchBugAAAXc-IPrPozYH-jio5OduoJiIHccNTO1xPOIy7msFl5XXc5t5zdauX36k7JhpokXMjNIbJcQ1UQQu3g2PKw&submissionId=330014ae-c2bf-5d16-b0fb-7af049ce053b
ResearchGate (n.d.). John Park. https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/John-Park-2040075703
ResearchGate (n.d.). Pamela R. Perez.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pamela_Perez9