Fostering Scholarship Capacity: The Experience of Nurse Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a milieu where traditional views of scholarship are embedded in the culture of educational institutions, and nursing programs in particular, this paper reports on a research project designed to support nurse educators’ capacity to engage in scholarly activities. Rogers’ (2003, 2004) “Diffusion of Innovation” model provided a theoretical vantage point from which to consider the ways scholarly inquiry in and across the nursing programs could be promoted. The project was evaluated between 2004 and 2007 using both quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper we highlight some of the meanings emerging from the qualitative information collected because this data best illustrates Rogers’ (2003) model. Although significant progress was made towards building scholarship capacity with nursing faculty there remains ongoing work to be undertaken. Continuing to support a broader view of scholarship and intentional scholarship capacity building, particularly the scholarship of teaching and learning is becoming increasingly difficult given existing cultural and structural contradictions such as traditional ideologies associated with research; the competitiveness associated with the valuing of individual research; lack of infrastructure supports; and time for research in contexts where there are decreasing numbers of faculty. The authors think it is important to pay attention to this feedback as advances in scholarship of teaching and learning may be at risk. Le présent article traite d’un projet de recherche visant à soutenir la capacité des enseignants en sciences infirmières à entreprendre des activités scientifiques dans un milieu où la vision traditionnelle de l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage est enchâssée dans la culture des institutions d’enseignement, et en particulier, dans les programmes de sciences infirmières. Le modèle de « diffusion de l’innovation » de Rogers (2003, 2004) a fourni un point de vue théorique à partir duquel il est possible de réfléchir à la façon de promouvoir la recherche en pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur dans les programmes de sciences infirmières. Le projet a fait l’objet d’une évaluation qualitative et quantitative entre 2004 et 2007. Dans cet article, nous soulignons certaines interprétations qui émergent des données qualitatives recueillies parce qu’elles illustrent le mieux le modèle de Rogers (2003). Même si d’importants progrès ont été effectués en matière de renforcement des capacités relatives à l’avancement des connaissances en pédagogie chez les enseignants en sciences infirmières, il reste encore du travail à faire. Il est de plus en plus difficile de continuer à appuyer une vision plus large de l’avancement des connaissances et du renforcement intentionnel des capacités en la matière, surtout de l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage, étant donné les contradictions culturelles et structurelles existantes. À titre d’exemples, mentionnons les idéologies traditionnelles associées à la recherche, la compétitivité liée à l’évaluation de la recherche individuelle. l’absence de soutien à l’infrastructure et le temps consacré à la recherche dans les milieux où le nombre d’enseignants est en baisse. Les auteurs pensent qu’il est important de tenir compte de cette rétroaction puisque les progrès en matière d’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage pourraient être menacés.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".