This study addresses the question of normative analysis of the value‐based aspects of nursing. In our perspective, values in science may be distinguished into (i) epistemic when related to the goals of truth and objectivity and (ii) non‐epistemic when related to social, cultural or political aspects. Furthermore, values can be called constitutive when necessary for a scientific enterprise, or contextual when contingently associated with science. Analysis of the roles of the various forms of values and models of knowledge translation provides (...) the ground to understand the specific role of values in nursing. A conceptual framework has been built to classify some of the classical perspectives on nursing knowledge and to examine the relationships between values and different forms of knowledge in nursing. It follows that adopting a normative perspective in the analysis of nursing knowledge provides key elements to identify its proper dimension. (shrink)

This study addresses the question of normative analysis of the value‐based aspects of nursing. In our perspective, values in science may be distinguished into (i) epistemic when related to the goals of truth and objectivity and (ii) non‐epistemic when related to social, cultural or political aspects. Furthermore, values can be called constitutive when necessary for a scientific enterprise, or contextual when contingently associated with science. Analysis of the roles of the various forms of values and models of knowledge translation provides (...) the ground to understand the specific role of values in nursing. A conceptual framework has been built to classify some of the classical perspectives on nursing knowledge and to examine the relationships between values and different forms of knowledge in nursing. It follows that adopting a normative perspective in the analysis of nursing knowledge provides key elements to identify its proper dimension. (shrink)

The use of correlational probability values (p‐values) as a means of evaluating evidence in nursing and health care has largely been accepted uncritically. There are reasons to be concerned about an uncritical adherence to the use of significance testing, which has been located in the natural science paradigm. p‐values have served in hypothesis and statistical testing, such as in randomized controlled trials and meta‐analyses to support what has been portrayed as the highest levels of evidence in the framework of evidence‐based (...) practice. Nursing has been minimally involved in the rich debate about the controversies of treating significance testing as evidentiary in the health and social sciences. In this paper, we join the dialogue by examining how and why this statistical mechanism has become entrenched as the gold standard for determining what constitutes legitimate scientific knowledge in the postpositivistic paradigm. We argue that nursing needs to critically reflect on the limitations associated with this tool of the evidence‐based movement, given the complexities and contextual factors that are inherent to nursing epistemology. Such reflection will inform our thinking about what constitutes substantive knowledge for the nursing discipline. (shrink)

Pragmatism emphasizes practical consequences and empirical explanations rather than introspective contemplations. However, the arguments of pragmatists are not uniform, as shown by the four prominent pragmatists presented in this article. The major difference between them is that Peirce and Haack acknowledge an objective truth, whereas James and Rorty do not. Thus, for a fuller understanding of the pragmatist view of our knowledge, both camps must be consulted. In the nursing field, pragmatism is occasionally referred to as a guiding philosophy. However, (...) the influence of James and Rorty has been greater than that of Peirce and Haack on pragmatists, which may risk leading to a skewed understanding of pragmatism by nursing scholars. Still, the four pragmatists share naturalism, which rejects a metaphysics that defines the nature of knowledge before our enquiry and emphasizes experience and practice. Pragmatic naturalism can help ensure that nursing theory does not deviate from clinical practice. This article also explores the broad adaptability of the ideas of all four pragmatists to philosophical issues in nursing, such as mixed‐methods research, epistemic relativism and realism. By showing that pragmatism can be relevant and stimulating to each of these topics, the article demonstrates that the different approaches to pragmatism can provide more inspiration for nurses and nursing researchers in the future. (shrink)

The focus of this article is the life and work of the French thinker Michel de Certeau, here presented as a philosopher of special interest for nursing. Although in some countries he is relatively unknown, international authors from scientific disciplines regard his texts as a fundamental source in the opening of new intellectual perspectives on current global problems. Some nurses have also considered his ideas as a useful aid for reflecting on their professional activities, and their most important research is (...) cited. Over these pages, we also examine how Certeau's work can enrich nursing philosophy in regard to three specific issues: resistance practices in nursing in the face of pressure from health institutions; the social configuration of nursing knowledge; and the importance of the body in current nursing practice. (shrink)

Nursing scholars continuously refine nursing knowledge and the philosophical foundations of nursing practice. They advance nursing knowledge by creating new knowledge and weighing the relevance of developments in cognate sciences. Nurse philosophers go further by providing epistemological and ontological arguments for explanations of nursing phenomena. In this article, I engage with Bender's arguments about why mechanisms should have more primacy as carriers of nursing knowledge. Despite the careful scholarship involved, Bender's arguments need to be more convincing. Accordingly, this article encourages (...) debate about Bender's arguments for reorientating nursing science to mechanisms. I begin by suggesting that the claim that the theory‐practice divide can be overcome by reorientating to mechanisms is acceptable only if we accept Bender's depiction of the challenge. Then I question the ontology Bender relies on to justify reorientating nursing science. After that, I argue that mechanisms in models that parallel analytical sociology undermine the kind of nursing science Bender advocates. I illustrate my arguments with a social mechanism thought experiment. Then I explain why Bender's arguments cannot escape the received view of science or inform emancipatory nursing action without theory. Finally, I mention some caveats and implications for nursing science. (shrink)

Nursing knowledge development and application are influenced by numerous factors within the context of science and practice. The prevailing culture of science along with an evolving context of increasingly technological environments and rationalization within health care impacts both the generation of nursing knowledge and the practice of nursing. The effects of the culture of science and the context of nursing practice may negatively impact the structure and application of nursing knowledge, how nurses practice, and how nurses understand the patients and (...) families for whom they care. Specifically, the nature of critical care and its highly technical environment make critical care nursing especially vulnerable to these potentially negative influences. The influences of the culture of science and the increasingly technical practice context may result in an overreliance on the natural sciences to guide critical care nursing actions and an associated marginalization of the caring relationship in critical care nursing practice. Within this environment, nursing philosophy may not be foundational to nursing actions; rather, the dominant culture of science and the rationalization of health care may be informing nursing practice. As such, the ideology and goals of nursing may not be central to the practice of critical care nursing. The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of the culture of science on the development of nursing knowledge and theory. Further, we aim to describe the value of using conceptual frameworks, such as Roy's Adaptation Model, as a nursing philosophy to influence the development of person‐centred nursing knowledge and theory to inform critical care nursing practice as it related to the care of patients and families. In doing so, nursing philosophy is situated as foundational for nursing actions. (shrink)

There is an enduring debate in nursing regarding the art–science dualism, involving an articulation of two distinct ‘kinds’ of disciplinary knowledge: objective/scientific and subjective/artistic. Nursing identifies both as necessary, yet unbridgeable, which creates problems in constructing a coherent disciplinary knowledge base. We describe how this problem arises based on an ontological assumption of two different kinds of ‘stuff’ in the world: that with essential determinate properties and that without essential properties. We experiment with a solution by ontologically understanding the world (...) as made from a single kind: That the most irreducible element of the world is process, in that reality is a continuous construction whereby subject and object are products, not independent constituents, of reality. Process philosophy overcomes nursing's ontological bifurcation and enables nursing's art–science dualism to be re‐conceptualized as a cohesive logic of skilled reality production. An unavoidable implication of a process turn in nursing philosophy is that the disciplinary goal no longer becomes a privileged ‘body of knowledge’ that authorizes, which has always been a defining challenge in nursing. Rather, and more productively perhaps, the aim is for greater sophistication and plurality in its ongoing commitment to attuning to reality in ways that shape disciplinary attainment. (shrink)

Theories and models are not equivalent. I argue that an orientation towards models as a primary carrier of nursing knowledge overcomes many ongoing challenges in philosophy of nursing science, including the theory–practice divide and the paradoxical pursuit of predictive theories in a discipline that is defined by process and a commitment to the non‐reducibility of the health/care experience. Scientific models describe and explain the dynamics of specific phenomenon. This is distinct from theory, which is traditionally defined as propositions that explain (...) and/or predict the world. The philosophical case has been made against theoretical universalism, showing that a theory can be true in its domain, but that no domain is universal. Subsequently, philosophers focused on scientific models argued that they do the work of defining the boundary conditions—the domain(s)—of a theory. Further analysis has shown the ways models can be constructed and function independent of theory, meaning models can comprise distinct, autonomous “carriers of scientific knowledge.” Models are viewed as representations of the active dynamics, or mechanisms, of a phenomenon. Mechanisms are entities and activities organized such that they are productive of regular changes. Importantly, mechanisms are by definition not static: change may alter the mechanism and thereby alter or create entirely new phenomena. Orienting away from theory, and towards models, focuses scholarly activity on dynamics and change. This makes models arguably critical to nursing science, enabling the production of actionable knowledge about the dynamics of process and change in health/care. I briefly explore the implications for nursing—and health/care—knowledge and practice. (shrink)