NUR646 Search the literature of a research study that uses an educational theory and how does the research contribute to understanding of the theory?
NUR646 Nursing Education Seminar 1
Week 2 Discussion
DQ2 Search the literature and find an example of a research study that uses an educational theory in a nursing education study. Does the study appear to use the theory appropriately? How does the research contribute to understanding of the theory? Be sure to cite the article.
The purpose of this article is to examine and advance the role of the theory as a device in the qualitative toolbox—an admittedly pragmatic premise. We review the various ways in which theory has been considered in qualitative methodology publications and highlight the ways in which a central role for theory can be useful for a study. Our developmental perspective is most useful for those who may not have fully considered the value of theory. We present theory as symbiotic with our actions and dispositions. Each section of this article works to modestly clarify the role of theory while avoiding the perception of a methodological orthodoxy around the tool.
Theory, theoretical frameworks, theory of method, and conceptual frameworks are terms that have blurred lines within qualitative methods literature and either suffer or benefit from widespread nuanced differences. In general, a theory is a big idea that organizes many other ideas with a high degree of explanatory power. Theory of method (or methodology) provides guidance to make sense of what methods will actually help answer the research questions. A conceptual framework is loosely defined and best functions as a map of how all of the literature works together in a particular study. A theoretical framework is the use of a theory (or theories) in a study that simultaneously conveys the deepest values of the researcher(s) and provides a clearly articulated signpost or lens for how the study will process new knowledge. A theoretical framework is at the intersection of:
existing knowledge and previously formed ideas about complex phenomena,
the researcher’s epistemological dispositions, and
a lens and a methodically analytic approach
Working through these three components renders theory a valuable tool to the coherence and depth of a study. Although there may be instances where the exploratory nature of a study overrules the benefits of a theoretical framework, theory-free research does not exist (Lincoln & Guba, 1994). A researcher who cannot articulate a theoretical framework may not have done the difficult and essential work to unearth their deepest operating principles and preconceptions about their study. The belief that preconceived notions do not exist or impact a study is, in fact, a theoretical disposition. This article maps the advantages of a theory-centric approach to qualitative research, while also considering the critiques and disadvantages of overreliance on a theory.
Theory and Knowledge Production
There are debates in all disciplines about the creation and use of theory and the degree to which starting from data (induction) or with a hypothesis (deduction) are more useful for knowledge production (cf. Hanson, 1958; Peirce, 1935). Consider a science that relies more upon inducting from data as opposed to generating a hypothesis. A potential lean away from deduction led Hanson (1958) to use physics to highlight the complexity of generating a hypothesis like universal gravity or acceleration even in the absence of evidence. The essential role of deductively formulating these ideas by Galileo and Newton were important in the knowledge production process. This poignant historical example was used to highlight the importance of balance between the role of theory and hypothesis and starting with data. Moving from natural science to social science and qualitative research, we acknowledge and take into account advanced discussions about how theory can be generated. For example, Timmermans and Tavory (2012) build on Peirce (1935) and Hanson (1958) to move beyond an inductive/deductive binary to consider abduction in grounded theory in order to enhance the potential ability for research to lead to innovative theories. Abduction is the creative process of generating new theories based on “surprising research evidence,” which ultimately leads a researcher away from old ideas to new insights coded into theory (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012, p. 170).
Even in traditional grounded theory there is a “reluctant engagement of theory” and the use of abduction advocates for a shift away from that hesitancy:
Abduction thus depends on the researcher’s cultivated position. The disposition to perceive the world and its surprises—including the very reflection on one’s positions in this world—is predicated on the researcher’s biography as well as on an affinity and familiarity with broader theoretical fields. Abductive analysis, consequently, rests for a large part on the scope and sophistication of the theoretical background a researcher brings to research. Unanticipated and surprising observations are strategic in the sense that they depend on a theoretically sensitized observer who recognizes their potential relevance. (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012, p. 173)
The pathway leading back to positionality is the net that captures the combination of epistemology, ontology, and methodology, which Guba (1990) calls a paradigm or interpretive framework, that is, a set of fundamental beliefs that guide action. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) offer the most comprehensive connections between paradigm/theory, criteria, form of theory, and corresponding method or type of narration (this arrangement builds upon previous work by Guba & Lincoln, 1994). A paradigm is an inclusive concept that captures the embodiment of theory and the necessity of reflexivity in researchers.
Name: Assignment Rubric
Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |||
Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. | 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. |
28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. |
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values. An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. |
0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing. An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing. |
||
Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing. |
||
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. |
||
Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
||
Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. |
||
Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: Assignment Rubric