Search

Nursing education plays a central role in the ability to practice effectively. It follows that an optimally educated nursing workforce begets optimal patient care. A framework for excellence in nursing education could guide the development of novice educators, establish the basis for evaluating teaching excellence, and provide the impetus for research in this area. However, a review of the social sciences and nursing literature as well as a search for existing models for teaching excellence revealed an apparent dearth of evidence specific to excellence in nursing education. Therefore, we developed the Caring Framework for Excellence in Nursing Education. This framework evolved from a review of the generic constructs that exemplify teaching excellence: excellence in teaching practice, teaching scholarship, and teaching leadership. Nursing is grounded in the ethic of caring. Hence, caring establishes the foundation for this uniquely nursing framework. Because a teaching philosophy is intimately intertwined with one's nursing philosophy and the ethic of caring, it is also fundamental to the caring framework. Ideally, this framework will contribute to excellence in nursing education and as a consequence excellence in nursing practice and optimal patient care.

Ethical questions dealt with by nurses who have Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degrees include traditional bioethical questions, but also business and legal ethics. Doctorally prepared nurses are increasingly in positions to make ethical decisions rather than to respond to decisions made by others. The traditional master's-degree advanced practice nursing curriculum does not address the extended expertise and decision-making skills needed by DNP practitioners as they face these new types of ethical dilemmas. We propose that a curricular framework that addresses clinical, research, business, and legal ethics is needed by all DNP students.

This article describes the role of a committee in the Graduate School of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, that is referred to as the research advisory committee. It was developed to sustain the research mission, to facilitate faculty scholarship, and to provide a venue for presubmission grant review (hence called mock review) in a graduate school of nursing that is not considered "research intensive." We present its historical framework, the development of a mock review process, faculty accomplishments thus far, and our plans for the future. It is hoped that our experiences of building and supporting faculty research efforts in a research dynamic environment may provide guidance for others working in similar institutions.

The purpose of the present article was to highlight the methodological challenges we have experienced in conducting adolescent research for the past 20 years or more. In this article, we describe the methodological issues we have encountered with nonexperimental research designs, sampling, instrumentation, data collection procedures, statistical analyses, and ethical concerns of adolescent research, particularly the process of informed consent. Sharing our experiences with adolescent research can shed light on methodological issues (specifically in this age group) that are not addressed in research textbooks and can provide guidance for other researchers who are interested in developing knowledge relevant to adolescent populations.

Incarcerated populations have disparities in health risks and illness conditions meriting study, but the history of prison research is marred by unethical conduct. Ethical participation strategies are discussed in the context of studies implemented by the author in a state prison system. This study used ethnographic approaches, observed adherence to federal and institutional review board regulations and corrections department directives, and maintained continuous communication with vested interests to provide entry and long-term access for studies on female prisoners and their civilian infants. A culture clash between the punitive restrictive environment that serves the custody-control-care mission of corrections systems and the open inquiry environment needed for conduct of health research exists. Federal regulations protect prisoners as human subjects but additional vigilance and communication by researchers are required. Gaining and maintaining access to prison inmates for nursing research are leadership challenges that can be met within the caring and collaborative paradigm of nursing.

In February 2001, President Clinton's Information Technology Advisory Commission reported that information technology has the potential to advance biomedical research. As nursing research via the Internet expands, important ethical and legal issues need to be addressed. The purpose of this article is to report one researcher's journey in attempting to conduct ethical and legal nursing research via the Internet. The ethical and legal issues needing attention are discussed. Potential guidelines are provided for researchers wanting to use Internet technology.

Most nurse researchers are embedded in research ethics guidelines based predominantly on the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. They are oriented toward protecting the rights of individual research participants. However, in cross-cultural, community-based, and international projects, further examination is required of community rights, as an entity in and of itself, to acknowledge and protect the community's rights. We suggest that communitarian philosophy is a perspective for the researcher to use in examining cross-cultural and international ethical questions. To show this assertion, dilemmas in community research are examined by using case studies and existing research ethics guidelines. Specific recommendations are offered for nursing scientists in practice, educational, and research settings seeking to balance the rights of the individual with those of the community.

The successful recruitment of participants is essential to the research process. To increase the rate of subject participation, investigators have to rely on help from health care providers who often serve as gatekeepers to potential research study subjects. These well-meaning professionals may limit subject participation in a study involving vulnerable populations under the guise of protecting these individuals from harm. We describe some of the characteristics of vulnerable populations affecting their recruitment into research studies. We examine the ethical conflicts that occur when health care professionals control access to these subjects during recruitment for research studies. Finally, we discuss the implications for practice and research designed to protect the rights of vulnerable populations participating in research. We identify collaboration and dialogue between researchers, health care providers, and members of the potential subject populations as most important in recruiting sufficient numbers of subjects to ensure the scientific merit of the study., (Copyright 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Most nurse researchers are aware of the ethical implications of research including the need to ensure confidentiality for research participants, as well as to provide full disclosure of the risks and benefits of the study. However, another consideration that can impact methodology from the perspective of the protection of human subjects from research risks includes the measurement of certain psychosocial variables such as depression and appropriate disclosure of such information to research participants. This issue has received little attention in the nursing literature. The intent of this article is to provide an overview of (1) the importance of informing participants about possible depression, (2) issues of identifying potential depression in clinical research including those related to depression measures, (3) strategies for the investigator/clinician to ensure protection of research participants and potential impact of those strategies, and (4) considerations in addressing depression in study design and analysis., (Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.)