{"product_id":"nursing-knowledge-9781405184342","title":"Nursing Knowledge","description":"\u003cb\u003eBook Synopsis\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003eNurses who conduct research have a longstanding interest in questions of nursing knowledge. Nursing Knowledge is a clear and well-informed exposition of the philosophical background to nursing theory and research.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cb\u003eTrade Review\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cp\u003e“This book will remain a companion for quite some time: a great compass.”  (\u003ci\u003eHodges Health Career\u003c\/i\u003e, 5  October 2012)\u003c\/p\u003e \"Overall, the book is clearly written, well signposted and very thoroughly researched. It is a pleasure to read and should be compulsory reading for anyone involved in teaching nursing science or theory. It can usefully form part of teaching in medical science and philosophy of science modules too.\" (Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 19 September 2010)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable of Contents\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cb\u003ePreface\u003c\/b\u003e  \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eForeword.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePART I NURSING KNOWLEDGE AND THE\u003c\/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eCHALLENGE OF RELEVANCE.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntroduction to Part I.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo kinds of theory–practice gap.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhilosophy of nursing science.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1 Prehistory of the problem.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe domain of nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessionalization and the translation gap.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing education reform in the United States.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing research begins.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA philosophy of nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat would a nursing science look like?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing theory and nursing knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBorrowed theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniqueness.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: the relevance gap appears.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2 Opening the relevance gap.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo conceptions of nursing science.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe demise of practice theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe argument from value freedom.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe argument from theory structure.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe consensus emerges.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarper’s patterns of knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDonaldson and Crowley on the discipline.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFawcett on the levels of theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relevance gap.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe qualitative research movement.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe middle-range theory movement.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: the relevance gap endures.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3 Toward a philosophy of nursing science.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhilosophical questions about nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestions about the discipline.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestions of philosophy.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScience, value, and the nursing standpoint.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative research and value-freedom.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandpoint epistemology.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory, science, and nursing knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe received view of theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplanatory coherence and inter-level models.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequences for nursing knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: closing the gap.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePART II VALUES AND THE NURSING STANDPOINT.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntroduction to Part II.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4 Practice values and the disciplinary knowledge base.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDickoff and James’ practice theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValues and theory testing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChallenges to Dickoff and James’ criteria.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeckstrand’s critique.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFact and value.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntrinsic and instrumental values.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarper’s fact–value distinction.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblems with patterns.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe disintegration of nursing knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe obfuscation of evaluative commitments.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe role of theory in ethical knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSociopolitical knowing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: fact and value in nursing knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5 Models of value-laden science.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Johnson model: nursing values as guides for theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstitutive and contextual values.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstitutive values in science: Kuhn’s argument.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEpistemic and moral\/political values.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModels of value-laden inquiry.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue-laden concepts in nursing inquiry.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: constitutive moral and political values in nursing inquiry.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6 Standpoint epistemology and nursing knowledge.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial role and epistemic privilege.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeminist appropriation of standpoint epistemology.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneralizing standpoints.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge and the division of labor in health care.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing knowledge and nursing roles.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: nursing knowledge as an epistemic standpoint.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7 The nursing standpoint\u003c\/b\u003e.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop-down and bottom-up views of nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValues in the nursing standpoint.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe philosophical questions revisited.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestions and concerns.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat is the nursing role?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow are the boundaries of the profession determined?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative or quantitative?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIs nursing an applied science?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: science and standpoint.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePART III NURSING THEORY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntroduction to Part III.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8 Logical positivism and mid-century philosophy of science.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome history and terminology.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpiricism.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLogical positivism.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptions of theory in nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheories and axiom systems.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEuclid and Newton.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChallenges to an axiomatic treatment of theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplicit definition.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory structure: the received view.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical and experimental laws.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hierarchy of theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplanation and confirmation.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplanation.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory testing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: logical positivism and scientific knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9 Echoesinnursing.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDid logical positivism influence nursing?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree kinds of influence.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositivism and the critique of nursing metatheory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe metaparadigm of nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidity of the metaparadigm.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat is a “metaparadigm”?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevels of theory 100.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow the levels are distinguished.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow the levels are related.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhy the levels are supposed to be necessary.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBorrowed theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: the relevance gap and the philosophy of science.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e10 Rejecting the received view.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHolistic confirmation.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe necessity of auxiliary hypotheses.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuxiliary hypotheses and borrowed theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequences for nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailure of the theory–observation distinction.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe vagueness of the distinction.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe role of training.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eObservation and theory testing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevels of theory and interdisciplinary research.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory change and level mixing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical integration.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequences for nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: rejecting the received view of nursing science.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePART IV THE IDEA OF A NURSING SCIENCE.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntroduction to Part IV.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e11 Postnursing theory inquiry.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePassion for substance.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSituation-specific theories.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePostnursing theory inquiry.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch example: mastectomy.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBackground.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatient responses to radical mastectomy.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBackground.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSensory and distress components of pain.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBreakthrough research and situation-specific theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: revisioning nursing theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12 The structure of theory\u003c\/b\u003e.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestions and answers.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoherence and confirmation.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorizontal and vertical questions.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBreakthrough research revisited.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRadical mastectomy.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePain research.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBorrowed theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch example: pain intervention.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBorrowed theory and the nursing standpoint.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: piecing the quilt.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e13 Models, mechanisms, and middle-range theory.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat is middle-range theory?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn old, new definition of middle-range theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe semantic conception and the received view.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle-range theories as theoretical models.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysical and nonphysical theoretical models.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe challenge of precision in nursing models.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterlevel models in nursing science.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical models and explanatory coherence.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHolism, reductionism, and the nursing standpoint.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe holistic patient care argument.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe inconsistency argument.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe causation and control argument.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCausality, holism, and professional values.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: causal models and nursing science.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePART V CONCEPTS AND THEORIES.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntroduction to Part V.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e14 Consequences of contextualism.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcepts: theory-formed or theory-forming?\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic and personal concepts.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe priority of theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinguistic arguments for contextualism.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScientific and colloquial contexts.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContextualism and realism.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate realism.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContextualism and antirealism.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRealism and representation.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcept analysis and borrowed theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: philosophical foundations of multifaceted concepts.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory development and multifaceted concepts.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcepts, borrowed theory, and interlevel models.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e15 Conceptual models and the fate of grand theory.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModels and theories.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe orientation and abstraction pictures.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eArguments against the abstraction picture.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHarmful effects of the abstraction picture.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvantages of the orientation picture.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRereading the early theorists.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing pedagogy and early theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptualizing the nurses’ role.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModels of nursing and models for nursing.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptual models as nursing philosophy.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhilosophical criticism of conceptual models.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: science, practice, and philosophy.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePART VI PARADIGM, THEORY, AND METHOD.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntroduction to Part VI.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTerminological preliminaries.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e16 The rise of qualitative research.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaking space for qualitative methodology: Carper, Benner, and Watson.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe triangulation problem.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTriangulation and confirmation.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eObjections to triangulation.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo paradigms of nursing inquiry.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: method, theory, and paradigm.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e17 What is a paradigm?\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComponents of a paradigm.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory and ontology.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory and method.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValues.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncommensurability.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePulling paradigms apart.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory and method (reprise).\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory and ontology (reprise).\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgainst paradigms.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: nursing science without paradigms.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e18 Methodological separatism and reconciliation.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReality and realities.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdealism.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeaning and reality.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatic and dynamic.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eObjective and subjective.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeduction and induction.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReductionism and value-freedom.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe unity of nursing knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReconciling qualitative and quantitative research.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethods as bridges.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objective support.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe query support.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod in the middle.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion: local methodological decision-making.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePART VII CONCLUSION.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e19 Redrawing the map.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriteria for theory evaluation.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA new perspective on theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluating theoretical models.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluating intervention research.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluating interpretations.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNew questions about nursing theory.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessional values and disciplinary knowledge.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing knowledge and the relevance gap.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNew questions about evidence-based nursing practice.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNew maps, new directions.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eReferences.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndex.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","brand":"John Wiley and Sons Ltd","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":49407916278103,"sku":"9781405184342","price":37.95,"currency_code":"GBP","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0817\/1739\/5799\/files\/9781405184342.jpg?v=1730500949","url":"https:\/\/bookcurl.com\/products\/nursing-knowledge-9781405184342","provider":"Book Curl","version":"1.0","type":"link"}