McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5.
Nurs Philos. 2010 Jul;11(3):191-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00444.x.
Abstract Nursing is frequently described as practical or pragmatic and there are many parallels between nursing and pragmatism, the school of thought. Pragmatism is often glancingly referenced by nursing authors, but few have conducted in-depth discussions about its applicability to nursing; and few have identified it as a significant theoretical basis for nursing research. William James's pragmatism has not been discussed substantially in the nursing context, despite obvious complementarities. James's theme of pluralism fits with nursing's diversity and plurality; his emphasis on social conscience in our actions matches nursing's fundamental purpose of improving the lives of others; his continuous testing of pluralistic truths in critically reflective practice pairs well with nursing's focus on developing best-available, holistic evidence; and his conceptualization of truth as being born in practice and becoming an instrument in practice is entirely compatible with nursing's theory-practice identity. The oft-discussed theory-practice gap is seen to hinder the development of nursing knowledge. If nursing is to find its identity in knowledge development and potentiate the knowledge developed, it is imperative to identify and address that which is impeding progress. By way of the pragmatic tenets of William James, I will argue that a significant part of the theory-practice gap lies in how nursing knowledge development is operationalized, creating a false dichotomy between practice and research. I will also argue that the research-practice schism has been widened by continued philosophical and methodological infighting in the research community. I will describe how Jamesian pragmatism can be 'what works' for rebuilding relationships and supporting an engaged plurality within nursing research and bring research and practice together into a collaborative and iterative process of developing nursing knowledge.
摘要 护理学常被描述为实践性或务实性，护理学与实用主义（一种思想流派）有许多相似之处。护理作者经常简要地提及实用主义，但很少有人深入探讨其对护理的适用性；也很少有人将其确定为护理研究的重要理论基础。尽管存在明显的互补性，但护理学领域并未深入讨论威廉·詹姆斯的实用主义。詹姆斯的多元主义主题与护理的多样性和多元性相吻合；他强调我们行动中的社会良知，与护理改善他人生活的基本宗旨相吻合；他在批判性反思实践中不断检验多元真理，与护理专注于发展最佳、整体证据的做法相吻合；他将真理概念化为在实践中产生并成为实践工具的观点，与护理的理论实践身份完全一致。经常讨论的理论实践差距被认为阻碍了护理知识的发展。如果护理要在知识发展中找到自己的身份，并增强所发展的知识，就必须确定并解决阻碍进步的因素。通过威廉·詹姆斯的实用主义原则，我将论证理论实践差距的很大一部分在于护理知识发展的运作方式，从而在实践和研究之间造成了人为的二分法。我还将论证，由于研究界持续的哲学和方法论内斗，研究实践的分裂已经加剧。我将描述如何将詹姆斯实用主义应用于重建关系和支持护理研究中的参与性多样性，将研究和实践结合起来，形成一个发展护理知识的协作和迭代过程。
