Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues

Product Information

Jirojwong, S., Johnson, M. and Welch, A. (2014). Research Methods in Nursing and Midwifery: Pathways to Evidence-Based Practice. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sandelowski M. (2000). Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 334–340. [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar] To assist in this process the use of frameworks such as PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) are used (Figure 1) (Richardson et al., 1995).

Patterson B., Morin K. (2012) Methodological considerations for studying social processes. Nurse Researcher, 20, 33–38. [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar] Trace, S. and Kolstoe, S. (2017) ‘Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review’, BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), pp.229-232. Walby, K. and Luscombe, A. (2018) ‘Ethics review and freedom of information requests in qualitative research’, Research Ethics, 14(4), pp.1-15.

There is a myriad of qualitative approaches to research. Yet, the researcher may be confronted with a question or a topic that belongs within the qualitative paradigm but does not correspond neatly with approaches that are well documented and clearly delineated. Within the literature, various terms have been used to describe research that does not fit within a traditional qualitative approach. Thorne, Kirkham, and MacDonald-Emes (1997) define “interpretive description” as a “noncategorical” qualitative research approach (p. 169). Merriam (1998) refers to this type of research as “basic or generic qualitative research” (p. 20) and Sandelowski (2000, p. 335, 2010) explores what she calls “basic or fundamental qualitative description.” Exploratory research is the umbrella term used by Brink and Wood (2001) to describe all description qualitative research and suggest it “is a Level 1 research endeavor” (p. 85), and Savin-Baden and Howell Major (2013) refer to a pragmatic qualitative approach. This interchangeable use of terms creates ambiguity and confusion in relation to qualitative description research as a methodology in its own right. Reference to “interpretive” as described by Thorne et al. (1997) can cause confusion with phenomenology, for example, and Savin-Baden and Howell Major’s (2013) use of a “pragmatic qualitative approach” might suggest that if all else fails, the researcher should adopt a pragmatic approach. Savin-Baden M., Howell Major C. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Oxon, UK: Routledge. [ Google Scholar] Within the aims section, the objectives are reinforced using one unambiguous sentence, displaying clear intentions of the study to the reader (Nieswiadomy, 2012). Also, within the findings section the results reflect the aims, the questions are related to competency of physical assessment skills. Kingdon C. (2005). Reflexivity: Not just a qualitative methodological research tool. British Journal of Midwifery, 13, 622–627. [ Google Scholar] AUTHORS: Abdulqadir J. Nashwan, Dana B. Mansour, Abdulkarim Alzayyat, Sindhumole K. Nair, Amer I. Zawahreh

Ayres L., Kavanaugh K., Knafl K. A. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 871–883. [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar] Sullivan-Bolyai S., Bova C., Harper D. (2005). Developing and refining interventions in persons with health disparities: The use of qualitative description. Nursing Outlook, 53, 127–133. [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar]Wartolowska, K., Beard, D. and Carr, A. (2018) ‘Blinding in trials of interventional procedures is possible and worthwhile’, Research Method, 6(1), pp.1663-1669. LoBiondo-Wood G., Haber J. (2014). Nursing research, methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (8th ed.). St. Louis, MI: Mosby. [ Google Scholar] Reviewing pre-diabetic patients for development of diabetes mellitus and designing an IT procedure for routine follow-up Petkovic, J., Duench, S., Welch, V., Rader, T., Jennings, A., Forster, A. and Tugwell, P. (2018) ‘Potential harms associated with routine collection of patient sociodemographic information: A rapid review’, Health Expectations, 22(1), pp.114-129.