FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023398436> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2023398436 endingPage "217" @default.
• W2023398436 startingPage "216" @default.
• W2023398436 abstract "In the theoretical article Reinstating the ‘Queen’: understanding philosophical enquiry in nursing, Pesut and Johnson (2008) attempt to provide a much needed structural guideline that articulates the nature and characteristics, including the problems and tools, of philosophical enquiry for novice nursing researchers interested in engaging in this mode of knowledge development. In nursing, there are very few available structural steps that outline the process of philosophical enquiry (Gray 2004). As such, it is suggested that two major questions are at issue: (1) how does one differentiate between nursing philosophy and nursing theory? and (2) is philosophical enquiry a branch of qualitative enquiry? In theorizing about the structure and validity of knowledge (Thagard & Beam 2004) created via the philosophical mode of enquiry, Pesut and Johnson (2008) use an ancient yet useful epistemological metaphor to depict philosophy as the dethroned ‘queen of the sciences’ in nursing. This depiction supports the author’s claim that philosophical enquiry is not positioned as substantially contributing to the knowledge base in nursing. It follows that this metaphor is ‘best viewed as theoretical so that its historical use supports a view of philosophy as the construction of descriptive and normative theories’ (Thagard & Beam 2004, p. 504). Accordingly, like science, the basic aim of philosophy is theory. Pesut and Johnson (2008, p. 116) posit that the distinguishing characteristics that make nursing philosophical theory different from scientific and other forms of theory lie in the nature of the problems of philosophy and the type of evidence gathered to address those problems. Arguably, despite the non-investigative nature of philosophical enquiry, this delineation requires philosophical enquiry to be viewed as a scientific method to investigate phenomena (Manchester 1986, as cited in Phillips 1992) in which the problems likely refer to epistemological questions and the evidence gathered refers to ideas as data, which is ‘always subject to and requires interpretation’ (Callahan 1996, p. 18). It is also implied that theories derived via the philosophical mode of enquiry be labelled nursing philosophical theory rather than nursing theory. Care must be taken not to be lured into the knowledge division slough dug by Hume and Kant (Simmons 1992) and emphasis must be placed on the usefulness of the theory. Pesut and Johnson (2008, p. 115) deem philosophical enquiry as a unique and distinct method from quantitative and qualitative approaches to knowledge development commonly used in nursing. Written argumentation, characterized by analysis, interpretation and logic, is the method of philosophical enquiry (Edgerton 1988, as cited in Gray 2004). This distinct method ‘allows the researcher to question beyond empirical evidence that can be investigated…permits us to step outside the box housing our cultural values and reframe our ideas from another perspective’ (Gray 2004, p. 1161). Accordingly, because this method is a legitimate mode of enquiry in nursing and of obvious value to nursing enquiry, Meleis (2007, chap. 9) proposes an integrated approach to theory development in which the philosophical process is integrated with the empirical scientific process as a strategy that may increase theorizing abilities for theory development and result in a more integrated nursing knowledge. Nursing theorist and/or researchers often use the tools of philosophy (Pesut & Johnson, 2008) in the philosophical and empirical scientific enquiry processes considering both the philosophical and empirical scientific enquiry processes are processes of theorizing that may or may not result in a theory (Meleis 2007, chap. 9). The theorizing process is comprised of processes of reflecting, analysing, questioning, relating, thinking, writing, changing and communicating, which are the integral parts of philosophical analysis. These integral parts are essential to theory development, a prelude to, and consequence of research (Meleis 2007, chap. 9). Pesut and Johnson (2008, p. 115) assert in their findings that philosophical enquiry relies upon the capacities to think and reason, that is, in creating nursing knowledge. As such, a theoretical thinker (i.e. theorist) is a critical thinker with a goal of discerning patterns, connecting ideas and developing explanatory models; whereas, a critical thinker is inquisitive, analytical, systematic and truth seeking (Meleis 2007, chap. 18). Hence, ‘philosophy is not the queen of the sciences…but rather a partner in the collaborative endeavour to understand and improve the world’ (Thagard & Beam 2004, p. 514). As a first year PhD student in nursing science, the first quarter of required coursework includes a course entitled ‘Philosophical Bases of Nursing Inquiry’. I am currently enrolled in a course entitled ‘Theoretical Perspectives in Nursing’. Given the discord over the nature and power of the philosophical and empirical scientific enquiry processes, I contend that much of the discord is unknowingly couched in scientific modernism, the cultural dominance of science, in which science as ideology, a set of beliefs/values, speaks authoritatively to public life and thus provides a sense of meaning while laying out a template for the living of life. A commitment to science as the most reliable source of knowledge about the nature of things is at the core of scientific ideology (Callahan 1996), which is implicitly authoritarian." @default.
• W2023398436 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2023398436 creator A5000844359 @default.
• W2023398436 date "2008-07-01" @default.
• W2023398436 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2023398436 title "In response to: Pesut B. & Johnson J. (2008) Reinstating the Queen: understanding philosophical inquiry in nursing.Journal of Advanced Nursing61(1), 115121." @default.
• W2023398436 cites W1534757936 @default.
• W2023398436 cites W2006596923 @default.
• W2023398436 cites W2014885937 @default.
• W2023398436 cites W2096813286 @default.
• W2023398436 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04740.x" @default.
• W2023398436 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18638163" @default.
• W2023398436 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2023398436 type Work @default.
• W2023398436 sameAs 2023398436 @default.
• W2023398436 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2023398436 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2023398436 hasAuthorship W2023398436A5000844359 @default.
• W2023398436 hasBestOaLocation W20233984361 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C110099512 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C139172840 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C146079980 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C2779702343 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C44725695 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConcept C85866746 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C110099512 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C111472728 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C138885662 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C139172840 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C144024400 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C146079980 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C17744445 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C199539241 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C2778311575 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C2779473830 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C2779702343 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C41895202 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C44725695 @default.
• W2023398436 hasConceptScore W2023398436C85866746 @default.
• W2023398436 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2023398436 hasLocation W20233984361 @default.
• W2023398436 hasLocation W20233984362 @default.
• W2023398436 hasOpenAccess W2023398436 @default.
• W2023398436 hasPrimaryLocation W20233984361 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W1489396074 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W1884771970 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W2027348004 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W2039607841 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W2098835699 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W4231279890 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W4289550167 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W4317838277 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W4321482283 @default.
• W2023398436 hasRelatedWork W629449697 @default.
• W2023398436 hasVolume "63" @default.
• W2023398436 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2023398436 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2023398436 magId "2023398436" @default.
• W2023398436 workType "article" @default.