Mulhall A
Independent Research Consultant, West Cottage, Hook Hill Lane, Woking, Surrey, England.
J Adv Nurs. 1997 May;25(5):969-76. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025969.x.
From both a theoretical and a practical standpoint the research-practice gap in nursing is as wide as ever. This, despite an increasing literature on the subject and a gamut of practical initiatives aimed at bridging the divide. This paper explores the two worlds of practice and research and the factors contingent on them. It suggests that academic researchers and practitioners have different foci and are working under different imperatives. These different cultures need to be recognised and made more explicit within current writing. The discordance between the worlds of research and practice forms the basis for extending the discussion to consider the principal conduit of research, i.e. the written word. The question is raised as to why research is typically reported as a seamless account, bereft of any information beyond details of the research process as it is currently legitimised within nursing ideology. Finally consideration is given to strategies which might facilitate the 'outing' of both researchers and their research.
从理论和实践的角度来看，护理领域的研究与实践差距依旧巨大。尽管关于这一主题的文献日益增多，且有一系列旨在弥合差距的实践举措。本文探讨了实践与研究这两个领域以及与之相关的因素。研究表明，学术研究者和从业者有着不同的关注点，且工作的要求也不同。这些不同的文化需要在当前的著述中得到认可并更加明确地呈现。研究与实践领域之间的不一致成为了扩展讨论的基础，以考虑研究的主要载体，即书面文字。有人提出疑问，为何研究通常被报告为一个无缝衔接的叙述，除了研究过程的细节之外，没有任何超出护理意识形态目前所认可范围的信息。最后，本文考虑了可能有助于使研究者及其研究“公开化”的策略。
