4.6 Article

Building qualitative study design using nursing's disciplinary epistemology

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 451-460

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.12822

关键词

applied research; epistemology; methodology; nursing knowledge; qualitative research; theoretical framework

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. To discuss the implications of drawing on core nursing knowledge as theoretical scaffolding for qualitative nursing enquiry. Background. Although nurse scholars have been using qualitative methods for decades, much of their methodological direction derives from conventional approaches developed for answering questions in the social sciences. The quality of available knowledge to inform practice can be enhanced through the selection of study design options informed by an appreciation for the nature of nursing knowledge. Design. Discussion paper. Data sources. Drawing on the body of extant literature dealing with nursing's theoretical and qualitative research traditions, we consider contextual factors that have shaped the application of qualitative research approaches in nursing, including prior attempts to align method with the structure and form of disciplinary knowledge. On this basis, we critically reflect on design considerations that would follow logically from core features associated with a nursing epistemology. Implications for nursing. The substantive knowledge used by nurses to inform their practice includes both aspects developed at the level of the general and also that which pertains to application in the unique context of the particular. It must be contextually relevant to a fluid and dynamic healthcare environment and adaptable to distinctive patient conditions. Finally, it must align with nursing's moral mandate and action imperative. Conclusion. Qualitative research design components informed by nursing's disciplinary epistemology will help ensure a logical line of reasoning in our enquiries that remains true to the nature and structure of practice knowledge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据