A lived experience of dualism between the natural and human science paradigms in nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the use of narrative as both phenomenon and method to illuminate college nurse educators' nursing knowledge development through their day-to-day stories on the institutional landscape, which shape and are shaped by health-care and nursing education changes. BACKGROUND: The Ontario health-care reform in Canada and a shift in nursing curriculum have brought to light a different dimension of a theory-practice issue. The traditional predominant natural science approach in nursing is now no longer considered responsive to the unique characteristics of patients' health-care needs. Emerging from current nursing education is an emphasis on a human science paradigm. However, as many college nurse educators moved back and forth between their classrooms to clinical settings, they experienced tremendous tensions in living between the new caring paradigm and the old culture of biomedical science ideology. Compounding this challenge is a lack of understanding by the policymakers and administrators of the importance of nurses' contribution vis-à-vis an ailing health-care system. This growing complexity demands that nursing, as a practice discipline, should articulate its unique body of knowledge for advancing contributions in health care. METHODS: My stories of experience and those of my participants were analysed narratively to determine the knowledge and understanding developed from living the complex and interwoven changes in nursing education and practice. FINDINGS: Through living, telling, retelling and reliving our stories, my participants and I recognized a false dualism between the seemingly polarized biomedical and human science paradigms. CONCLUSION: The meaning of certainty-uncertainty inherent in nursing teaching and practice demands that nurse educators rethink how stories of experience play out in their understanding of teaching future graduates the interrelationships between these two approaches.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".