Weaver Kathryn, Olson Joanne K
EQUIPP Postdoctoral Fellow, Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Feb;53(4):459-69. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03740.x.
The aims of this paper are to add clarity to the discussion about paradigms for nursing research and to consider integrative strategies for the development of nursing knowledge.
Paradigms are sets of beliefs and practices, shared by communities of researchers, which regulate inquiry within disciplines. The various paradigms are characterized by ontological, epistemological and methodological differences in their approaches to conceptualizing and conducting research, and in their contribution towards disciplinary knowledge construction. Researchers may consider these differences so vast that one paradigm is incommensurable with another. Alternatively, researchers may ignore these differences and either unknowingly combine paradigms inappropriately or neglect to conduct needed research. To accomplish the task of developing nursing knowledge for use in practice, there is a need for a critical, integrated understanding of the paradigms used for nursing inquiry.
We describe the evolution and influence of positivist, postpositivist, interpretive and critical theory research paradigms. Using integrative review, we compare and contrast the paradigms in terms of their philosophical underpinnings and scientific contribution.
A pragmatic approach to theory development through synthesis of cumulative knowledge relevant to nursing practice is suggested. This requires that inquiry start with assessment of existing knowledge from disparate studies to identify key substantive content and gaps. Knowledge development in under-researched areas could be accomplished through integrative strategies that preserve theoretical integrity and strengthen research approaches associated with various philosophical perspectives. These strategies may include parallel studies within the same substantive domain using different paradigms; theoretical triangulation to combine findings from paradigmatically diverse studies; integrative reviews; and mixed method studies.
Nurse scholars are urged to consider the benefits and limitations of inquiry within each paradigm, and the theoretical needs of the discipline.
本文旨在使关于护理研究范式的讨论更加清晰，并思考护理知识发展的整合策略。
范式是研究人员群体共享的一系列信念和实践，它们规范着学科内的探究。各种范式在概念化和开展研究的方法以及对学科知识构建的贡献方面，具有本体论、认识论和方法论上的差异。研究人员可能认为这些差异如此巨大，以至于一种范式与另一种范式不可通约。或者，研究人员可能忽略这些差异，要么在不知不觉中不恰当地结合范式，要么忽视进行必要的研究。为了完成开发用于实践的护理知识的任务，需要对用于护理探究的范式有批判性的、综合的理解。
我们描述了实证主义、后实证主义、解释性和批判理论研究范式的演变及影响。通过整合性综述，我们从哲学基础和科学贡献方面对这些范式进行比较和对比。
建议通过综合与护理实践相关的累积知识来发展理论的务实方法。这要求探究从评估不同研究中的现有知识开始，以确定关键的实质性内容和差距。在研究不足的领域，知识发展可以通过保持理论完整性并加强与各种哲学观点相关的研究方法的整合策略来实现。这些策略可能包括在同一实质性领域内使用不同范式进行平行研究；理论三角互证以结合来自不同范式研究的结果；整合性综述；以及混合方法研究。
敦促护理学者考虑每种范式内探究的益处和局限性以及该学科的理论需求。
