Pragmatism as a philosophical foundation to integrate education, practice, research and policy across the nursing profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: A discussion of the philosophy of pragmatism and how it can underpin and integrate nursing education, practice, research and policy across the nursing profession. BACKGROUND: Although the concepts of plurality, truth, fallibilism, subjectivity and meliorism have been discussed across foundational philosophical literature, the relation of these concepts across various facets of the nursing profession have not been thoroughly articulated in the nursing literature. DESIGN: Critical theoretical reflection. DATA SOURCES: In this article, we draw from literature written on the philosophy of pragmatism from 1907 through to 2021. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: We propose an integrative approach for the nursing profession where education, practice, research and policy speak and contribute to each other through a lens of pragmatism. In this approach, education has a relationship with practice and practice has a direct line to research where nurses on the front lines can engage with pragmatic inquiry. Researchers in return can inform frontline nurses and policymakers of evidence emerging in areas pertinent to practice. These relationships are made possible through integrated knowledge translation by including all stakeholders at every point of knowledge generation. Each facet of the nursing profession is filled with stakeholders of nursing knowledge, who are invested in its utility. Although it requires focused effort to integrate knowledge across the profession, pragmatism calls for action in the face of challenges in hope for a stronger body of nursing knowledge and ultimately profession. CONCLUSION: Pragmatism is an apt philosophy to underpin and integrate nursing education, practice, research and policy across the nursing profession.
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 | 0.107 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.127 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".