Postmodernism has been criticized as failing to offer, on the one hand, authoritative explanations for social phenomena that might provide a scientific basis for policy formation or, on the other, the philosophical justification for emancipatory work – its radical scepticism about claims to knowledge leaving its advocates, including many nurses, with little scope to transform oppressive social and political regimes. Various approaches to this important problem have been offered, both philosophical and mediodological. Some critical theorists have rejected certain aspects of (...) postmodernism as dangerous and distracting. Some more accommodating solutions are troubled by unacknowledged inconsistencies. Others embrace post‐modernism's unavoidable ambiguity (towards the Enlightenment for instance) with a lighter heart. In this paper I will review some of the criticism of postmodernism and some proposed solutions to these problems. Using recent research into the impact of managerialism on nursing within the UK National Health Service as an example and drawing on deconstructive literary theory, I conclude by accepting a rhetorical agonistics of undecidability. I take postmodernism as a mandate for causing trouble for those groups who are currently having their say and whose version of truth and rationality has achieved domination over others. I do not take postmodernism as a place from which to champion the cause or privilege the view of any particular group. (shrink)

Reshaping ethnography: contemporary postpositivist possibilitiesFollowing Leinginger's introduction of ethnography into the field of nursing research, numerous descriptive and interpretive studies of health care beliefs and practices have been conducted. The resultant data have been translated into recommendations relative to the areas of nursing education, administration and clinical practice in an effort to ensure that the identified cultural needs are recognized and met. In this paper die discourses that inform such work are explored. Its practices and emergent dilemmas are reassessed in (...) die light of an emerging body of work that challenges its foundational assumptions. Linked under die umbrella of ‘postpositivist ethnography’, such work recognizes the research area as a social and political field of which the researcher is an integral part. Hence, as an informed subject, die researcher, like the informants, is seen to be implicated in the generation of data. She, or he, is not charged with occupying die opposing roles of objective researcher and subjective participant, nor with reporting ‘the truth’ as told by informants. This emergent tradition is not without its dilemmas and of particular concern is the issue of authority; that is, whose voice constructs the text? As nursing academics grapple with questions regarding die nature of die knowledge that informs their discipline, it is imperative that they critique potentially fruitful research practices before they appropriate them. Failure to do so may lead diem to unwittingly generate knowledge that is inimical to their particular quest. The lsquo;new edinographyrsquo; discussed in this paper, offers academics and odiers interested in the generation of knowledge, not only a mediodology that invites the possibility of opening up previously hidden areas of practice, but one that actively involves die researcher in challenging her taken‐for‐granted assumptions. (shrink)

This paper is a critique of some research methods evident in contemporary nursing literature. The arguments derive from critical‐feminist, humanist and ethical perspectives. As a consequence of investigating specific aspects of scientific method, an approach to research that is congruent with values intrinsic to an holistic approach to nursing practice is articulated. Such methodologies also render problematic withstatus quopower relations between nurses and other health professionals, as well as between nurses and patients. The central themes in this paper are: the (...) absence of overt conceptual frameworks; an avoidance of complex social contexts within which research subjects live; an apparent lack of empathy; and an apolitical articulation of research problems and data analyses. All four of these difficulties may be traced to scientific methodology by many researchers. Most nurse researchers may not actually adhere to this technique, but I propose that they have been informed by belief systems associated with scientific methodology and diat these have dire consequences for the discipline of nursing. A key argument is diat the apparent lack of conceptual frameworks in the majority of nursing research is due to the epistemology, which therefore provides a pre‐existing, non‐declared conceptual framework, that is incorporated into the research by drawing upon scientific mediodology. A further argument is diat scientific, or scientistic, ways of approaching situations are antithetical to nursing values and to constructive social change for the benefit of patients, nursing and nurses. (shrink)

While discussing how the grounded theory mediod has been situated during the five moments of qualitative research history, a detailed analysis is offered of die differences between the classic mode of die mediod and Strauss and Corbin's reformulation of the mediod. Such differences include: philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, intended product, dieoretical underpinnings, procedural steps and claims of rigour. Reasons for Strauss. and Corbin's elaboration of the mediod are suggested, widiin an historical context.

Methodologies of poststructuralist theory and critical social theory may be appropriated for nursing research and practice. Researchers using either methodology employ an analysis of power to explore experiences in various fields, and raise issues diat are highly relevant to nursing. However, the two methodologies differ and, often, die respective dieories are sharply opposed. In diis paper, die differences bodi from widiin and between each approach are explored, showing dieir tensions and limits. I contend that a reflexive approach to discourse analysis (...) provides insight into some of die methodological challenges diat arise in die context of bodi dieories. It is argued diat die differences between poststructuralism and critical social dieory seem likely to be mellowed by encounters diat treat each other with respect. To some extent, such encounters may tend to converge die two positions. (shrink)