Purpose, Quality, and Value in Critical Realist Research within Nurse Education

*Phil Coleman  -  Staff Tutor/Senior Lecturer, School of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care Faculty of Wellbeing, Education & Language Studies The Open University, United Kingdom
Received: 28 May 2019; Published: 26 Jun 2019.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2019 Nurse Media Journal of Nursing


Citation Format:
Article Info
Section: Articles
Language: EN
Statistics: 446 390
Abstract

Background: There have been a wide range of practice fields in nursing research including education; however, the quality of research in these disciplines has often failed to provide a sufficiently robust foundation.     

Purpose: This paper explores the purpose of educational research, how quality can be assured in such research and how the value of a research study in nurse education can be determined; focusing predominantly on arguments associated with the use of qualitative, and to a lesser extent, mixed methods research.  

Methods: A Critical Realist review drawing upon relevant literature from the fields of nursing, education, and healthcare was undertaken to examine issues of purpose, quality, and value in such research.

Results: A wide range of criteria were identified to evaluate the purpose, quality, and value of Critical Realist research using qualitative and mixed methods research within nurse education.

Conclusion: The holistic, theoretically-eclectic, pragmatic, and solution-focused nature of nursing as a discipline means that Critical Realist research in nursing, and more specifically, nurse education should explicitly reflect these principles.
Keywords: Critical realist; nurse education; research

Article Metrics:

  1. Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organisational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13-33.
  2. American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN]. (2006). AACN position statement on nursing research. Aliso Viejo: American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
  3. Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8) Article 141,1-7.
  4. Anderson, G. & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities?. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12-21.
  5. Arksey, H. & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory resource with examples. London: Sage.
  6. Barbour, R. (2001) Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. British Medical Journal, 322(7294), 1115-1117.
  7. Beck, C. T. (2009). Critiquing Qualitative Research. Archives of Research in Nursing Journal, 90(4), 543-554.
  8. Behar-Horenstein, L. & Feng, X. (2015). Emancipatory research: A synthesis of quantitative evidence. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(3), 46-56.
  9. Bisman, J. (2010) Postpositivism and accounting research: a (personal) primer on critical realism. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 4(4), 3-25.
  10. Bogdan, R. & Knopp Biklen, S. (2010). Foundations of qualitative research in education. In Luttrell, W. (ed). Qualitative Educational Research. Abingdon: Routledge.
  11. Brossett-Garner, D. (2014). Theories from the behavioral sciences. In McEwan M. & Wills, E. Theoretical basis for nursing. 4th Ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.
  12. Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Teasure, E. & Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. British Dental Journal, 204(8), 429-432.
  13. CareSearch. (2011). Evidence-based practice: Nurses as researchers. Retrieved from: https://www.caresearch.com.au/caresearch/Portals/0/Documents/PROFESSIONAL-GROUPS/Nurses%20Hub/NH_EBP_Nurses-as-Researchers_July_2011.pdf.
  14. Carr, W. (2007). Educational research as a practical science. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 271-286.
  15. Clark, A. (2008). Critical realism. In Given, L. (ed) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  16. Clegg, S. (2001). Is computing really for women? A critical realist approach to gender issues in computing. In Lopez, J. & Potter, G. (eds.). After postmodernism. An introduction to critical realism. London: The Athlone Press.
  17. Clegg, S. (2005). Evidence-based practice in educational research: a critical realist critique of systematic review. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(3), 415-428.
  18. Cody, W. (1996). Drowning in eclecticism. Nursing Science Quarterly, 9(3), 86-88.
  19. Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism. An introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. Verso: London.
  20. Cooley, A. (2013). Qualitative research in education: The origins, debates, and politics of creating knowledge. Educational Studies, 49(3), 247-262.
  21. Edgley, A., Stickley, T., Timmons, S. & Meal, A. (2016). Critical realist review: exploring the real, beyond the empirical. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(3), 316-330.
  22. Evans, J. & Benfield, P. (2001). Systematic reviews of educational research: Does the medical model fit?. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 527-541.
  23. Fealy, G. (1997). The theory-practice relationship in nursing: An exploration of contemporary discourse. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 1061–1069.
  24. Feuer, M., Towne, L. & Shavelson, R. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
  25. Fisher, P. & Freshwater, D. (2015). An emancipatory approach to practice and qualitative inquiry in mental health: Finding ‘voice’ in Charles Taylor's ethics of identity. Ethics and Social Welfare, 9(1), 2-17.
  26. Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F. & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 717–732.
  27. Gorard, S. & Cook, S. (2007) Where does good evidence come from?. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 307-323.
  28. Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
  29. Groundwater‐Smith, S. & Mockler, N. (2007). Ethics in practitioner research: An issue of quality. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 199-211.
  30. Hammersley, M. (2003). Can and should educational research be educative?. Oxford Review of Education, 29(1), 3-25.
  31. Hewitt, J. (2009). Redressing the balance in mental health nursing education: Arguments for a values-based approach. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 18(5), 368-79.
  32. Kinsella, E. (2007). Technical rationality in Schön’s reflective practice: dichotomous or non-dualistic epistemological position. Nursing Philosophy, 8(2), 102–113.
  33. Knowles, J. & Gray, M. (2011). The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective. Nurse Education in Practice, 11(6), 390-394.
  34. Leach, M. & Tucker, B. (2018). Current understandings of the research-practice gap in nursing: A mixed-methods study. Collegian, 25(2), 171-179.
  35. Luttrell, W. (2010). Introduction. The promise of qualitative research in education. In Luttrell, W. (ed). Qualitative Educational Research. Abingdon: Routledge.
  36. Madill, A. (2008). Realism and critical approaches. In Given, L. (ed). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  37. Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320, 50-52.
  38. McEvoy, P., & Richards, D. (2006). A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(1), 66-78.
  39. Mellor, N. (2001). Messy method: The unfolding story. Educational Action Research, 9(3), 465-484.
  40. Miller, K. & Tsang E. (2010) Testing management theories: critical realist philosophy and research methods. Strategic Management Journal, 32(2), 139-158.
  41. Mischler, E. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: the role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), 415-442.
  42. Moreno Casbas, T. (1999). Building a European nursing research strategy. Madrid: Instituto de Salud Carlos III.
  43. Mulholland, J. (1997). Assimilating sociology: critical reflections on the ‘Sociology in nursing’ debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 844-852.
  44. National Nursing Research Unit [NNRU]. (2012). Policy+Review. Kings College: London.
  45. National Research Council Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research [NRCCSPER]. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington: National Research Council.
  46. Nursing & Midwifery Council [NMC]. (2018). The code. Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses, midwives and nursing associates. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council.
  47. Oltmann, C. & Boughey, C. (2012). Using critical realism as a framework in pharmacy education and social pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 8(4), 333–337.
  48. O'Mahoney, J. & Vincent, S. (2014). Critical Realism as an empirical project: a beginner’s guide. In Edwards, P., O'Mahoney, J. & Vincent, S. (eds). Studying organizations using critical realism. A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. Onwuegbuzie, A. & Leech, N. (2005). Taking the “Q” out of research: teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality & Quantity, 39(3), 267-295.
  50. Patomaki, H. & Wight, C. (2000). After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 213-237.
  51. Pring, R. (2000). The ‘false dualism’ of education research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 14(2), 247-260.
  52. Rennie, I. (2009). Exploring approaches to clinical skills development in nursing education. Nursing Times, 106(3), 20-22.
  53. Royal College of Nursing [RCN]. (2009). Research ethics. RCN guidance for nurses. London: Royal College of Nursing.
  54. Samsi, K. (2012). Critical appraisal of qualitative research. London King’s College. Retrieved from https://www.kcl.ac.uk/scwru/pubs/2012/conf/samsi26jul12.pdf.
  55. Savage, M. (2019). NHS England loses 6,000 mental health nurses in 10 years. The Guardian, 19/5/19. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/19/mental-health-nursing-numbers-6000-fall-nhs-england.
  56. Schiller, C. (2016). Critical realism in nursing: An emerging approach. Nursing Philosophy, 17(2), 88-102.
  57. Scott, D. (2007) Resolving the quantitative-qualitative dilemma: A critical realist approach. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(1), 3-17.
  58. Sellman, D. (2010). ‘Values and Adult General Nursing’. In Pattison, S., Hannigan, B., Pill, R. & Thomas, H. (eds). Emerging values in health care: The challenge for professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  59. Smith, R. (2014). Medical research—still a scandal. The BMJ opinion. Retrieved from https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/01/31/richard-smith-medical-research-still-a-scandal/
  60. Smith, B. A, Lee, H.-J., Lee, J. H., Choi, M., Jones, D., Bausell, R. B., … & Broome, M. (2008). Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTS) in the nursing literature: Application of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). Nursing Outlook, 56(1), 31-37.
  61. Stenhouse, L. (1981). What counts as research?. British Journal of Educational Studies, 29(2), 103-114.
  62. Stiles, W. (1993). Quality control in quality research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(6), 593-618.
  63. Sutton, J. & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management. Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3), 226-231.
  64. Swedish Society of Nursing [SSN]. (2016). Nursing-research and the future. A strategy for nursing research. Stockholm:S wedish Society of Nursing.
  65. Terry, K. (2013) The competency landscape: A critical realist exploration of the ways nurses understand and utilise competency standards (Unpublished Doctoral thesis). University of Tasmania.
  66. Thorn, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing Notebook, 3, 68-70.
  67. Torrance, H. (2012). Triangulation, respondent validation and democratic participation in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 111-123.
  68. Van Cleave, J. (2012). Scientifically based research in education as a regime of truth: An analysis using Foucault's genealogy and governmentality (Doctoral thesis). University of Georgia.
  69. Wand, T., White, K. & Patching, J. (2010). Applying a realist(ic) framework to the evaluation of a new model of emergency department-based mental health nursing practice. Nursing Inquiry, 17(3), 231-239.
  70. Watson, S. & Watson, W. (2011). Critical, emancipatory, and pluralistic research for education: A review of critical systems theory. Journal of Thought, 46(3-4), 63-77.
  71. Willis, L. (2015). Raising the bar. Shape of caring: A review of the future education and training of registered nurses and care assistants. Leeds: Health Education England/Nursing and Midwifery Council.
  72. Wilshaw, G. (1997). Integration of therapeutic approaches: A new direction for mental health nurses?. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(1),15–19.
  73. Wilson, V., & McCormack, B. (2006). Critical realism as emancipatory action: The case for realistic evaluation in practice development. Nursing Philosophy, 7(1), 45-57.
  74. Woolner, P., Clark, J., Hall, E., Tiplady, L., Thomas, U. & Wall, K. (2010). Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: Using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design. Learning Environment Research, 13(1), 1-22.
  75. Woolner, P., Hall, E. & Wall, K. (2007). Getting together to improve the school environment: User consultation, participatory design and student voice. Improving Schools, 10(3), 233-248.