Entering the field: intrusions of the social and its exclusion from studies of nursing practice
Abstract
In this paper the exclusion of 'the social' from studies of nursing practice is addressed with regard to two important pieces of empirical fieldwork. The claim advanced in this paper is that methods currently advanced in the nursing literature for gathering and analyzing data, are constituted by theoretical notions which themselves exclude the social from understandings of nursing practice. Drawing on structuration theory, the paper advances an understanding of the research process as one parallel to nursing or that of any other practice-based discipline. Accounts arising from the research projects of Field and Benner are examined critically in this paper. The examination is informed by wider social theory, but with particular reference to Giddens' (1984) theoretical formulations. It is concluded that unless the knowledgeability of social actors is accounted for, both in the planning of empirical research studies and in interpreting the findings of such studies, crucial aspects of social conduct organized through nursing practice and organizing nursing practice are excluded from considerations of practice. The implications of such exclusion are addressed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Benner's theory has been previously critiqued for a simplistic positive view of progress that recommends retraining without attention to place or social knowledge and structure.
“Benner's (2001) theory has been previously critiqued for a simplistic positive view of progress that recommends retraining without attention to place (Purkis 1994) or social knowledge/structure (Thompson 1990).”
From Understanding skill acquisition among registered nurses: the ‘perpetual novice’ phenomenon (2015) · cites this paper as Purkis 1994
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding skill acquisition among registered nurses: the ‘perpetual novice’ phenomenon
Wilson, B., Harwood, L., & Oudshoorn, A. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.12978 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Purkis, M. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Victoria (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Purkis, Mary Ellen
- ORCID
- Purkis, Mary Ellen
- Venue
- International Journal of Nursing Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1994-08
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 315-336
- ISSN
- 0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2038125536
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Realism in Sociology
- Keywords
- nursing practice, structuration theory, social theory, nursing research methodology, knowledgeability, Anthony Giddens
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Humans, Language, Nurse-Patient Relations, Nursing Process, Nursing Theory, Power, Psychological, Professional Practice, Psychological Theory, Social Behavior, Nursing Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review