Reinstating the ‘Queen’: understanding philosophical inquiry in nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is an introduction to the characteristics of philosophical inquiry. BACKGROUND: Despite over a century of philosophical thinking in nursing, philosophical inquiry has yet to be positioned as contributing substantially to the field of nursing's inquiry. There is a need to articulate the nature and characteristics of philosophical inquiry for researchers new to this perspective. METHOD: We begin by addressing a common question that surfaces when one begins a work that is philosophical in nature, how does one differentiate between nursing philosophy and nursing theory? We then address the nature and characteristics of philosophical inquiry. We conclude by considering the question of whether philosophical inquiry might be considered a form of qualitative inquiry. FINDINGS: Unlike science, which relies upon investigative methods, philosophical inquiry relies upon the capacities to think and reason. Problems characteristic of philosophical inquiry include conceptual clarification, analysis of arguments and problems related to the ontology, epistemology and ethics of nursing. Although methodological approaches to philosophical inquiry are diverse, common tools include assumptions and the intellectual processes of conceptualizing, judging and reasoning within a context of wonder. CONCLUSION: Some have argued that to neglect philosophy in nursing is to place the discipline at risk. However, there is little guidance available to researchers new to this method of inquiry. By providing a beginning roadmap, our hope is that philosophical inquiry will take its place alongside scientific methods of inquiry with the goal of constructing robust knowledge for the discipline of nursing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.129 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".