Agents of innovation? Institutional conditions shaping nurse students’ positions in practice development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates how institutional conditions shape nurse students' possibility to contribute to the development of clinical practices by applying the results of their bachelor thesis. The empirical context is a novel educational organization of the final study year, where the bachelor thesis is integrated with clinical placement and includes a mandatory bachelor conference, where students discuss the results from their bachelor thesis with clinicians at their clinical placement for the purpose of enhance innovative ideas for practice development. Drawing on institutional ethnography, the research adopts a mixed-method design, where data were collected via field observations of the bachelor conferences, focus group interviews with students who had held the conference, and a comparative questionnaire with 56 nurse students participating in the intervention and 48 completing existing educational format. The analysis reveals that the conference serves as a pivotal space for professional dialogue with different patterns of reactions. Students reported feelings of professional recognition, but also expressed concern about presenting critical reflections on clinical practice. The relational dynamics—such as fear of exposing poor care or not having enough knowledge themselves—highlight the complexity of embedding innovation within real-world healthcare environments. The findings suggest that integrating bachelor thesis with clinical practice enhances students’ innovation competencies and development of practice. However, the increased complexity calls for deliberate pedagogical strategies that support relational and communicative skills essential for sustainable practice development.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".