Search

whitehead l. (2004) Journal of Advanced Nursing 45(5), 512–518 Enhancing the quality of hermeneutic research: decision trail Researchers have ethical and professional obligations to produce research of a high standard. The constituents of quality in research appear to differ between authors, leaving readers unsure about which pathway to follow. This can reflect inadequate consideration of the theoretical framework guiding the study. Many papers fail to consider the theoretical underpinnings of the methodology chosen and the link between these and the methods employed. These need to be accessible to readers in order to assess the trustworthiness of the research. This paper discusses the development of trustworthiness in hermeneutic phenomenological research. Referring to a study on lived experience of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/myalgic encephalitis, I describe the decision trail and discuss the strengths and limitations of the choices made throughout the study. The methodology focused my approach more fully on the importance of recognizing the influences that I brought to the study and the impact of these in generating the data. It highlighted the fact that the process of setting out my horizon can never be complete, the importance of analysing the data at a macro and micro level, acknowledging the evolution of the data over time, and ensuring that analysis does not move beyond the data and out of the hermeneutic circle. In seeking to make the decision trail clear to others, researchers must distill the philosophical principles of the methodology and set these out in a way that is accessible and open to scrutiny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

cutcliffe j.r. & mckenna h.p. (2004) Journal of Advanced Nursing 45(2), 126–135 Expert qualitative researchers and the use of audit trails Determining the credibility of qualitative research findings remains a contested area and leaves the way open for additional theoretical and methodological discussion. In this paper we focus on audit trails and confirmability, within the context of ‘expert’ qualitative researchers. Having outlined the audit trail process, we develop existing arguments about the ‘expert’ qualitative researcher. We then juxtapose the two, highlighting a number of issues in an attempt to advance the debate. These issues discussed are: (1) The shifting sands of methodological orthodoxy – the historical context in which audit trails emerged. (2) The individual construction of logic. (3) ‘Grounded in the data’ or ‘going beyond the words’– the key differences between descriptive and interpretive findings. (4) The singular relationship between qualitative researcher and their data. (5) The growing acknowledgement that method alone is insufficient. (6) The challenging example of visionaries. We argue that using audit trails as a means to achieve confirmability of qualitative research findings is an exaggeration of the case for method, and may do little to establish the credibility of the findings. We also introduce a preliminary case for testing the credibility of theory induced by expert qualitative researchers, in part by means of its usefulness; its ‘fit and grab’, rather than by the researcher's adherence to contemporary methodological orthodoxy. In other words, the absence of audit trails does not necessarily challenge the credibility of qualitative findings, particularly if an expert qualitative researcher produced the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent emphasis on community care for those with mental illness has changed working patterns and modified inter-professional role boundaries within multi-disciplinary teams. Clients with serious mental illness are usually prescribed medications, which have a wide range of side effects. However, it is uncertain who is responsible for monitoring clients for the side effects of their medications, ensuring clients' and carers' understandings of their prescribed medications and optimizing compliance with medication. This paper discusses the findings of the first phase of an ongoing study designed to assess the role of community mental health nurses (CMHNs) in managing clients' medication and the provision of appropriate continuing professional education. Our respondents were 14 CMHNs, seven of whom were preparing to undertake a pharmacology module as part of a higher education diploma, and seven who were to act as comparators. Data from questionnaires, interviews and clinical observations were triangulated. All respondents felt that issues surrounding clients' medication were not accorded a sufficiently high profile and that it was, in part, their responsibility to expand their roles to meet these unmet needs of clients. Administering and managing clients' medications were considered to be the main area of 'occupational territory' which distinguished CMHNs from social workers. However, the nurses felt that their practice was limited by lack of appropriate educational preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moral certainty and uncertainty have a profound impact on nurses' ethical choices. In order to describe these concepts, the author examined long-term care nurses' convictions about the issue of withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from elders. A convenience sample of 25 BSN and MSN-prepared long-term care nurses were interviewed and asked to describe their experiences with this issue. A qualitative analysis utilizing Colaizzi's (1978) methodology was performed. Five categories of conviction emerged from the data. These five categories included absolute moral conviction, strong moral conviction, moderate moral conviction, moral uncertainty with conviction and moral uncertainty. Eighty-four per cent of the sample was convinced that tube feeding was not always in the resident's best interest. Sixteen per cent of the sample were uncertain, but were convinced that the resident should not suffer. A pattern emerged from the interview results and the answers to three additional questions. The pattern suggests that the more experience a nurse has with nontreatment the more likely she or he is to agree with it. In this paper. the five categories of conviction are compared and contrasted, the pattern of conviction described, and the implications of the findings for nursing discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents guidelines on reporting qualitative research for submission to the periodical 'Journal of Advanced Nursing' as of June 15, 2003. Information about the periodical; Discussion on research methodologies and methods.

Comments on a study on the use of audit trails in expert qualitative researches. Discussion on the credibility of qualitative researches; Characteristics of an expert qualitative research; Discussion on the systematic process of conducting a qualitative research.

Presents letters about qualitative research. Response to an editor's note "Introduction to Guidelines on Reporting Qualitative Research," by Christine Webb, published in the 2003 issue of the "Journal of Advanced Nursing"; Reply to a critique by Edwin van Teijlingen on the article about reporting qualitative research.

Presents a reply to a critique by Doctor van Teijlingen on reporting qualitative research. Views on how to assess the quality of qualitative research; Discussion on the exclusion of interviews.