| |
| |
| Preface | |
| |
| |
| Foreword | |
| |
| |
| |
| Nursing Knowledge And The | |
| |
| |
| Challenge Of Relevance | |
| |
| |
| Introduction to Part I | |
| |
| |
| Nursing knowledge | |
| |
| |
| Two kinds of theorypractice gap | |
| |
| |
| Philosophy of nursing science | |
| |
| |
| |
| Prehistory of the problem | |
| |
| |
| The domain of nursing | |
| |
| |
| Professionalization and the translation gap | |
| |
| |
| Nursing education reform in the United States | |
| |
| |
| Nursing research begins | |
| |
| |
| A philosophy of nursing | |
| |
| |
| What would a nursing science look like? | |
| |
| |
| Nursing theory and nursing knowledge | |
| |
| |
| Borrowed theory | |
| |
| |
| Uniqueness | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: the relevance gap appears | |
| |
| |
| |
| Opening the relevance gap | |
| |
| |
| Two conceptions of nursing science | |
| |
| |
| The demise of practice theory | |
| |
| |
| The argument from value freedom | |
| |
| |
| The argument from theory structure | |
| |
| |
| The consensus emerges | |
| |
| |
| Carpe's patterns of knowledge | |
| |
| |
| Donaldson and Crowley on the discipline | |
| |
| |
| Fawcett on the levels of theory | |
| |
| |
| The relevance gap | |
| |
| |
| The qualitative research movement | |
| |
| |
| The middle-range theory movement | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: the relevance gap endures | |
| |
| |
| |
| Toward a philosophy of nursing science | |
| |
| |
| Philosophical questions about nursing | |
| |
| |
| Questions about the discipline | |
| |
| |
| Questions of philosophy | |
| |
| |
| Science, value, and the nursing standpoint | |
| |
| |
| Qualitative research and value-freedom | |
| |
| |
| Standpoint epistemology | |
| |
| |
| Theory, science, and nursing knowledge | |
| |
| |
| The received view of theory | |
| |
| |
| Explanatory coherence and inter-level models | |
| |
| |
| Consequences for nursing knowledge | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: closing the gap | |
| |
| |
| |
| Values And The Nursing Standpoint | |
| |
| |
| Introduction to Part II | |
| |
| |
| |
| Practice values and the disciplinary knowledge base | |
| |
| |
| Dickoff and James | |
| |
| |
| practice theory | |
| |
| |
| Values and theory testing | |
| |
| |
| Challenges to Dickoff and James | |
| |
| |
| criteria | |
| |
| |
| Beckstran's critique | |
| |
| |
| Fact and value | |
| |
| |
| Intrinsic and instrumental values | |
| |
| |
| Carpe's factvalue distinction | |
| |
| |
| Problems with patterns | |
| |
| |
| The disintegration of nursing knowledge | |
| |
| |
| The obfuscation of evaluative commitments | |
| |
| |
| The role of theory in ethical knowledge | |
| |
| |
| Sociopolitical knowing | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: fact and value in nursing knowledge | |
| |
| |
| |
| Models of value-laden science | |
| |
| |
| The Johnson model: nursing values as guides for theory | |
| |
| |
| Constitutive and contextual values | |
| |
| |
| Constitutive values in science: Kuh's argument | |
| |
| |
| Epistemic and moral/political values | |
| |
| |
| Models of value-laden inquiry | |
| |
| |
| Value-laden concepts in nursing inquiry | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: constitutive moral and political values in nursing inquiry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Standpoint epistemology and nursing knowledge | |
| |
| |
| Social role and epistemic privilege | |
| |
| |
| Feminist appropriation of standpoint epistemology | |
| |
| |
| Generalizing standpoints | |
| |
| |
| Knowledge and the division of labor in health care | |
| |
| |
| Nursing knowledge and nursing roles | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: nursing knowledge as an epistemic standpoint | |
| |
| |
| |
| The nursing standpoint | |
| |
| |
| Top-down and bottom-up views of nursing | |
| |
| |
| Values in the nursing standpoint | |
| |
| |
| The philosophical questions revisited | |
| |
| |
| Questions and concerns | |
| |
| |
| What is the nursing role? | |
| |
| |
| How are the boundaries of the profession determined? | |
| |
| |
| Qualitative or quantitative? | |
| |
| |
| Is nursing an applied science? | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: science and standpoint | |
| |
| |
| |
| Nursing Theory And The Philosophy Of Science | |
| |
| |
| Introduction to Part III | |
| |
| |
| |
| Logical positivism and mid-century philosophy of science | |
| |
| |
| Some history and terminology | |
| |
| |
| Empiricism | |
| |
| |
| Logical positivism | |
| |
| |
| Conceptions of theory in nursing | |
| |
| |
| Theories and axiom systems | |
| |
| |
| Euclid and Newton | |
| |
| |
| Challenges to an axiomatic treatment of theory | |
| |
| |
| Implicit definition | |
| |
| |
| Theory structure: the received view | |
| |
| |
| Theoretical and experimental laws | |
| |
| |
| The hierarchy of theory | |
| |
| |
| Explanation and confirmation | |
| |
| |
| Explanation | |
| |
| |
| Theory testing | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: logical positivism and scientific knowledge | |
| |
| |
| |
| Echoesinnursing | |
| |
| |
| Did logical positivism influence nursing? | |
| |
| |
| Three kinds of influence | |
| |
| |
| Positivism and the critique of nursing metatheory | |
| |
| |
| The metaparadigm of nursing | |
| |
| |
| Validity of the metaparadigm | |
| |
| |
| What is a metaparadigm;? | |
| |
| |
| Levels of theory 100 | |
| |
| |
| How the levels are distinguished | |
| |
| |
| How the levels are related | |
| |
| |
| Why the levels are supposed to be necessary | |
| |
| |
| Borrowed theory | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: the relevance gap and the philosophy of science | |
| |
| |
| |
| Rejecting the received view | |
| |
| |
| Holistic confirmation | |
| |
| |
| The necessity of auxiliary hypotheses | |
| |
| |
| Auxiliary hypotheses and borrowed theory | |
| |
| |
| Consequences for nursing | |
| |
| |
| Failure of the theoryobservation distinction | |
| |
| |
| The vagueness of the distinction | |
| |
| |
| The role of training | |
| |
| |
| Observation and theory testing | |
| |
| |
| Levels of theory and interdisciplinary research | |
| |
| |
| Theory change and level mixing | |
| |
| |
| Theoretical integration | |
| |
| |
| Consequences for nursing | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: rejecting the received view of nursing science | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Idea Of A Nursing Science | |
| |
| |
| Introduction to Part IV | |
| |
| |
| |
| Postnursing theory inquiry | |
| |
| |
| Passion for substance | |
| |
| |
| Situation-specific theories | |
| |
| |
| Postnursing theory inquiry | |
| |
| |
| Research example: mastectomy | |
| |
| |
| Background | |
| |
| |
| Patient responses to radical mastectomy | |
| |
| |
| Background | |
| |
| |
| Sensory and distress components of pain | |
| |
| |
| Breakthrough research and situation-specific theory | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: revisioning nursing theory | |
| |
| |
| |
| The structure of theory | |
| |
| |
| Questions and answers | |
| |
| |
| Coherence and confirmation | |
| |
| |
| Horizontal and vertical questions | |
| |
| |
| Breakthrough research revisited | |
| |
| |
| Radical mastectomy | |
| |
| |
| Pain research | |
| |
| |
| Borrowed theory | |
| |
| |
| Research example: pain intervention | |
| |
| |
| Borrowed theory and the nursing standpoint | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: piecing the quilt | |
| |
| |
| |
| Models, mechanisms, and middle-range theory | |
| |
| |
| What is middle-range theory? | |
| |
| |
| An old, new definition of middle-range theory | |
| |
| |
| The semantic conception and the received view | |
| |
| |
| Middle-range theories as theoretical models | |
| |
| |
| Physical and nonphysical theoretical models | |
| |
| |
| The challenge of precision in nursing models | |
| |
| |
| Interlevel models in nursing science | |
| |
| |
| Theoretical models and explanatory coherence | |
| |
| |
| Holism, reductionism, and the nursing standpoint | |
| |
| |
| The holistic patient care argument | |
| |
| |
| The inconsistency argument | |
| |
| |
| The causation and control argument | |
| |
| |
| Causality, holism, and professional values | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: causal models and nursing science | |
| |
| |
| |
| Concepts And Theories | |
| |
| |
| Introduction to Part V | |
| |
| |
| |
| Consequences of contextualism | |
| |
| |
| Concepts: theory-formed or theory-forming? | |
| |
| |
| Public and personal concepts | |
| |
| |
| The priority of theory | |
| |
| |
| Linguistic arguments for contextualism | |
| |
| |
| Scientific and colloquial contexts | |
| |
| |
| Contextualism and realism | |
| |
| |
| Moderate realism | |
| |
| |
| Contextualism and antirealism | |
| |
| |
| Realism and representation | |
| |
| |
| Concept analysis and borrowed theory | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: philosophical foundations of multifaceted concepts | |
| |
| |
| Theory development and multifaceted concepts | |
| |
| |
| Concepts, borrowed theory, and interlevel models | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conceptual models and the fate of grand theory | |
| |
| |
| Models and theories | |
| |
| |
| The orientation and abstraction pictures | |
| |
| |
| Arguments against the abstraction picture | |
| |
| |
| Harmful effects of the abstraction picture | |
| |
| |
| Advantages of the orientation picture | |
| |
| |
| Rereading the early theorists | |
| |
| |
| Nursing pedagogy and early theory | |
| |
| |
| Conceptualizing the nurses role | |
| |
| |
| Models of nursing and models for nursing | |
| |
| |
| Conceptual models as nursing philosophy | |
| |
| |
| Philosophical criticism of conceptual models | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: science, practice, and philosophy | |
| |
| |
| |
| Paradigm, Theory, And Method | |
| |
| |
| Introduction to Part VI | |
| |
| |
| Terminological preliminaries | |
| |
| |
| |
| The rise of qualitative research | |
| |
| |
| Making space for qualitative methodology: Carper, Benner, and Watson | |
| |
| |
| The triangulation problem | |
| |
| |
| Triangulation and confirmation | |
| |
| |
| Objections to triangulation | |
| |
| |
| Two paradigms of nursing inquiry | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: method, theory, and paradigm | |
| |
| |
| |
| What is a paradigm? | |
| |
| |
| Components of a paradigm | |
| |
| |
| Theory and ontology | |
| |
| |
| Theory and method | |
| |
| |
| Values | |
| |
| |
| Incommensurability | |
| |
| |
| Pulling paradigms apart | |
| |
| |
| Theory and method (reprise) | |
| |
| |
| Theory and ontology (reprise) | |
| |
| |
| Against paradigms | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: nursing science without paradigms | |
| |
| |
| |
| Methodological separatism and reconciliation | |
| |
| |
| Reality and realities | |
| |
| |
| Idealism | |
| |
| |
| Meaning and reality | |
| |
| |
| Static and dynamic | |
| |
| |
| Objective and subjective | |
| |
| |
| Deduction and induction | |
| |
| |
| Reductionism and value-freedom | |
| |
| |
| The unity of nursing knowledge | |
| |
| |
| Reconciling qualitative and quantitative research | |
| |
| |
| Methods as bridges | |
| |
| |
| The objective support | |
| |
| |
| The query support | |
| |
| |
| Method in the middle | |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: local methodological decision-making | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conclusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| Redrawing the map | |
| |
| |
| Theory | |
| |
| |
| Criteria for theory evaluation | |
| |
| |
| A new perspective on theory | |
| |
| |
| Evaluating theoretical models | |
| |
| |
| Evaluating intervention research | |
| |
| |
| Evaluating interpretations | |
| |
| |
| New questions about nursing theory | |
| |
| |
| Professional values and disciplinary knowledge | |
| |
| |
| Nursing knowledge and the relevance gap | |
| |
| |
| New questions about evidence-based nursing practice | |
| |
| |
| New maps, new directions | |
| |
| |
| References | |
| |
| |
| Index | |