Navigating through Turbulence in the Nursing Talent Pipeline: A Constructivist Grounded Theory of Academic Success in Polytechnic Nursing Education.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nursing profession is experiencing increasing challenges related to student retention, program attrition, and entry-to-practice preparedness. A significant proportion of new graduate registered nurses in Canada are exiting acute care roles early in their careers. Polytechnic nursing education in Canada focuses on preparing nurses to enter practice, primarily in acute care hospital settings, where the workforce shortages are sizeable and growing. Transition to practice challenges are muti-faceted, however, they are inherently tied to undergraduate nursing education in nursing. Considering several polytechnic nursing programs in Canada have committed to student seat expansion, there is a need to understand how students experience a academic success, as defined by using a multi-faceted conceptualization, in this underexplored context. Academic success in undergraduate nursing education, is predominantly examined using narrow measures of what it means to be successful. Grade point average and program completion as outcomes dominate the existing research literature, however, academic success in undergraduate nursing education is multi-faceted. Competence for entry to practice is not measured solely based on grades, therefore, research related to investigating this phenomenon requires a comprehensive framework as the starting point for inquiry. In an aim to address these gaps, this grounded theory study explores how undergraduate nursing students in non-university-affiliated polytechnic nursing programs in Canada navigate the complexities of achieving academic success. Using constructivist grounded theory, this study integrates interview data with theoretical sampling from open online discussion forums to co-construct a substantive theory of navigating turbulence in the nursing talent pipeline. The resulting theory conceptualizes academic success as a dynamic and iterative process influenced by institutional structures, personal strategies, and social networks. This study also highlights the methodological implications of integrating data scraping from online discussion forums as a novel approach to theoretical sampling in grounded theory research. This research identifies key recommendations to support nursing student success in polytechnic institutions across institutional, social, and personal levels. The findings highlight strategies to enhance educational experiences, optimize resources, and foster environments that promote both program completion and readiness for entry-to-practice and presents considerations regarding education policy changes that support equitable and sustainable approaches to polytechnic nursing education. Additionally, this study offers novel insights into the use of online discussion forums as a data source to expand concepts derived from participant interviews, applying grounded theory tools to deepen theoretical development. This research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on nursing education, academic success, and professional preparedness, offering a practical framework to inform curriculum development, institutional policies, and student support initiatives in polytechnic nursing education.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".