Darbyshire P
Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland.
J Adv Nurs. 1994 Apr;19(4):755-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01148.x.
In a recent critique of the work of Patricia Benner in relation to expertise, skilled intuitive grasp and the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, English (Journal of Advanced Nursing 1993, vol. 18, pp. 387-393) uses the tenets of positivism and cognitive psychology to criticize Benner's work for lacking objectivity, validity, generalizability and predictive power. In this response to English's critique I show how he has misread, failed to read, and consequently misunderstood her work, and, equally importantly, its philosophical basis. Benner's work is developed from a philosophical foundation grounded in interpretive and Heideggerian phenomenology. This wholly different 'take' on the world and on human behaviour embodies a strong critique of those very same traditional-science worldviews which English uses to damn her work. English's critique is valuable in highlighting the ways in which Benner's work can be misrepresented and this response tries to remedy this misunderstanding by attempting to clarify the fundamental differences between phenomenological and cognitive understandings. These differences are crucial to understanding Dreyfus's and Benner's work. Here, I also attempt to correct some of English's wilder assertions regarding Benner's work. Finally, I try to show how Benner's work has empowered, enthused and challenged, rather than being 'denigrating to the majority of nurses'.
在最近一篇关于帕特里夏·本纳的专业技能、熟练的直观把握以及德雷福斯技能习得模型的相关研究的评论文章中,英格利希(《高级护理杂志》,1993年,第18卷,第387 - 393页)运用实证主义和认知心理学的原则,批评本纳的研究缺乏客观性、有效性、普遍性和预测力。在对英格利希评论的回应中,我将展示他是如何误读、未阅读以及因此误解了她的研究,同样重要的是,误解了其哲学基础。本纳所做的研究是基于解释学和海德格尔现象学的哲学基础发展而来的。这种对世界和人类行为截然不同的“理解方式”,本身就是对英格利希用以诋毁她研究的那些传统科学世界观的有力批判。英格利希的评论在凸显本纳研究可能被误读的方面具有价值,而这篇回应试图通过阐明现象学理解与认知理解之间的根本差异来纠正这种误解。这些差异对于理解德雷福斯和本纳的研究至关重要。在此,我还试图纠正英格利希对本纳研究的一些更为离谱的论断。最后,我将展示本纳的研究是如何激励着、鼓舞着并挑战着人们,而不是如他所说的“诋毁了大多数护士”。