Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of this paper are to add clarity to the discussion about paradigms for nursing research and to consider integrative strategies for the development of nursing knowledge. BACKGROUND: Paradigms are sets of beliefs and practices, shared by communities of researchers, which regulate inquiry within disciplines. The various paradigms are characterized by ontological, epistemological and methodological differences in their approaches to conceptualizing and conducting research, and in their contribution towards disciplinary knowledge construction. Researchers may consider these differences so vast that one paradigm is incommensurable with another. Alternatively, researchers may ignore these differences and either unknowingly combine paradigms inappropriately or neglect to conduct needed research. To accomplish the task of developing nursing knowledge for use in practice, there is a need for a critical, integrated understanding of the paradigms used for nursing inquiry. METHODS: We describe the evolution and influence of positivist, postpositivist, interpretive and critical theory research paradigms. Using integrative review, we compare and contrast the paradigms in terms of their philosophical underpinnings and scientific contribution. FINDINGS: A pragmatic approach to theory development through synthesis of cumulative knowledge relevant to nursing practice is suggested. This requires that inquiry start with assessment of existing knowledge from disparate studies to identify key substantive content and gaps. Knowledge development in under-researched areas could be accomplished through integrative strategies that preserve theoretical integrity and strengthen research approaches associated with various philosophical perspectives. These strategies may include parallel studies within the same substantive domain using different paradigms; theoretical triangulation to combine findings from paradigmatically diverse studies; integrative reviews; and mixed method studies. CONCLUSION: Nurse scholars are urged to consider the benefits and limitations of inquiry within each paradigm, and the theoretical needs of the discipline.
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 | 0.219 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".