- Email: [email protected]
Information and IT for primary care. Everything you need to know but are afraid to ask.
370
Book reviews / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 369–371
trial? Some dilemmas of the scientific methods and ‘good’ research practice’ (Oakley, 1990). The chapter on interviewing grew out of her studies of housework and childbirth, and was probably the earliest British contribution to a feminist approach to interviewing women. She drew attention to what she saw as inherent differences when women interviewed women, compared with ‘traditional’ ‘male’ approaches described in research methods textbooks. What she saw as different was that, because women research participants and researchers had shared experiences, the dynamics of interviewing were those of sharing, decrease in hierarchical relationships and thus an altered power balance. Much debate has occurred since about whether power really changes and what it means to bring friendship and reciprocity into interviews between women (See for example Webb, 1993), and ‘participative’ research has involved both women and men in new ways of doing research. However, when Oakley published the randomised controlled trials article, many were surprised at her apparent change of direction. This evolution in her thinking about how research should be done is the theme of Experiments in Knowing. She begins by discussing the ‘paradigm wars’ between quantitative and qualitative researchers, in which each side uncompromisingly rejects the other’s beliefs and arguments about what is ‘real’ research and how it should be evaluated. But as Shulamit Reinharz (1992), another pioneering feminist writer on research methods, has also pointed out, quantitative research is a vital way of researching issues relevant to women. For example, it is through quantitative studies that we know about income and health inequalities between men and women and this knowledge has been the foundation of campaigns for improved legislation and more equal opportunities. At the same time, as Oakley discusses in this book, qualitative research and a ‘softer’ approach to evaluation research, have often not delivered the goods in terms of being able to distinguish between effective and ineffective or even damaging social interventions, for example in the areas of welfare benefits and children’s services. Her more recent involvement in evaluation projects such as examining social support in pregnancy has convinced Oakely that randomised controlled trial are essential if we are to conduct rigorous evaluations of interventions designed to improve women’s (and men’s) lives. But research designs must be carefully thought out to ensure that participants are fully informed and, therefore, be able to give valid consent to take part in trials so that the results will be dependable. A short book review cannot do justice to the range of historical detail contained in the book and it will be a valuable source for post-graduates and researchers. Nursing readers who have come to understand that
early qualitative research imitated quantitative methods in striving to achieve recognition, and then later evolved its own approaches and evaluation criteria, only to be followed by a third paradigm often called ‘critical research’ and including action research, feminist research and other participative methods may be surprised that Oakley writes of two-sided paradigm wars and sets all other approaches against quantitative research. I imagine that she used this ‘straw person’ as a device to strengthen her argument but I think it leads to inaccurate simplification. In my understanding, critical research developed precisely because of dissatisfaction that much qualitative work did not lead away from researcher-led and potentially exploitative ‘smash and grab’ data collection. Without wishing to detract from the useful information and discussion in Experiments in Knowing, I would like to retain the three paradigm scheme whilst acknowledging that this is not the last word and that there will be no doubt more paradigms – and wars – to come! Christine Webb Institute of Health Sciences University of Plymouth Earl Richards Road North Exeter Devon EX2 6 AS UK
References Oakley, A., 1981. Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms? In: Roberts, H. (Ed.), Doing Feminist Research. Routledge, London. Oakley, A., 1990. Who’s afraid of the randomised controlled trial? Some dilemmas of the scientific methods and ‘good’ research practice. In: Roberts, H. (Ed.), Women’s Health Counts. Routlege, London. Reinharz, S., 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research OUP, New York. Webb, C., 1993. Feminist research: definitions, methodology, methods and evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 18, 416–423.
PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 4 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 9 - 9
Information and IT for primary care. Everything you need to know but are afraid to ask; Alan Gillies; Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd. Professor Gillies has produced a straight-forward practical volume that, in its style at least, seems to live up to the subtitle of ‘‘everything you need to known but are afraid to ask’’ about IT in primary care. The layout and graphics along with the light-hearted approach to
Book reviews / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 369–371
learning a new and important skill base makes this book very ‘‘user friendly’’. The content of the book is entirely focused on health professionals and support staff in PCGs (Primary Care Groups) in the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) and seems to have been written particularly with the GP in mind. This readership might be extended however, to medical and nursing students before they joined a PCG for supervised practice. The book correctly identifies the central role that information plays in quality health care and provides a good introductory level self-paced course in IT for Primary Care using exercises, case studies, key points, model answers and think boxes to stimulate learning and understanding. The book begins with an overview of how information is organised using computerised technology by comparing it with familiar processes. This sets the style of the book, which continues to use familiar language to explain idea, clearly defines jargon where it is necessary to be introduced. Practical insights into issues such as purchasing of equipment through the NHS, the legal implications of the Data Protection Act
371
and clear information relating to the common confusing aspects of computerisation. Professor Gillies provides his web site address in appendix one, which is a helpful addendum to the book and will assist new users in accessing valuable health information on-line. Some links to professional web pages for health professionals other than medicine would be a good update for the wed site. For those just joining the computerised information revolution in primary health care, this book will go some way in allaying the common fears associated with computers and information technology.
D. Porock School of Nursing, University of Hull East Riding Campus, Beverley Road Willerby, Hull HU106NS, UK E-mail address: [email protected]
PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 4 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 8 - 7
Book reviews / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 369–371
trial? Some dilemmas of the scientific methods and ‘good’ research practice’ (Oakley, 1990). The chapter on interviewing grew out of her studies of housework and childbirth, and was probably the earliest British contribution to a feminist approach to interviewing women. She drew attention to what she saw as inherent differences when women interviewed women, compared with ‘traditional’ ‘male’ approaches described in research methods textbooks. What she saw as different was that, because women research participants and researchers had shared experiences, the dynamics of interviewing were those of sharing, decrease in hierarchical relationships and thus an altered power balance. Much debate has occurred since about whether power really changes and what it means to bring friendship and reciprocity into interviews between women (See for example Webb, 1993), and ‘participative’ research has involved both women and men in new ways of doing research. However, when Oakley published the randomised controlled trials article, many were surprised at her apparent change of direction. This evolution in her thinking about how research should be done is the theme of Experiments in Knowing. She begins by discussing the ‘paradigm wars’ between quantitative and qualitative researchers, in which each side uncompromisingly rejects the other’s beliefs and arguments about what is ‘real’ research and how it should be evaluated. But as Shulamit Reinharz (1992), another pioneering feminist writer on research methods, has also pointed out, quantitative research is a vital way of researching issues relevant to women. For example, it is through quantitative studies that we know about income and health inequalities between men and women and this knowledge has been the foundation of campaigns for improved legislation and more equal opportunities. At the same time, as Oakley discusses in this book, qualitative research and a ‘softer’ approach to evaluation research, have often not delivered the goods in terms of being able to distinguish between effective and ineffective or even damaging social interventions, for example in the areas of welfare benefits and children’s services. Her more recent involvement in evaluation projects such as examining social support in pregnancy has convinced Oakely that randomised controlled trial are essential if we are to conduct rigorous evaluations of interventions designed to improve women’s (and men’s) lives. But research designs must be carefully thought out to ensure that participants are fully informed and, therefore, be able to give valid consent to take part in trials so that the results will be dependable. A short book review cannot do justice to the range of historical detail contained in the book and it will be a valuable source for post-graduates and researchers. Nursing readers who have come to understand that
early qualitative research imitated quantitative methods in striving to achieve recognition, and then later evolved its own approaches and evaluation criteria, only to be followed by a third paradigm often called ‘critical research’ and including action research, feminist research and other participative methods may be surprised that Oakley writes of two-sided paradigm wars and sets all other approaches against quantitative research. I imagine that she used this ‘straw person’ as a device to strengthen her argument but I think it leads to inaccurate simplification. In my understanding, critical research developed precisely because of dissatisfaction that much qualitative work did not lead away from researcher-led and potentially exploitative ‘smash and grab’ data collection. Without wishing to detract from the useful information and discussion in Experiments in Knowing, I would like to retain the three paradigm scheme whilst acknowledging that this is not the last word and that there will be no doubt more paradigms – and wars – to come! Christine Webb Institute of Health Sciences University of Plymouth Earl Richards Road North Exeter Devon EX2 6 AS UK
References Oakley, A., 1981. Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms? In: Roberts, H. (Ed.), Doing Feminist Research. Routledge, London. Oakley, A., 1990. Who’s afraid of the randomised controlled trial? Some dilemmas of the scientific methods and ‘good’ research practice. In: Roberts, H. (Ed.), Women’s Health Counts. Routlege, London. Reinharz, S., 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research OUP, New York. Webb, C., 1993. Feminist research: definitions, methodology, methods and evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 18, 416–423.
PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 4 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 9 - 9
Information and IT for primary care. Everything you need to know but are afraid to ask; Alan Gillies; Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd. Professor Gillies has produced a straight-forward practical volume that, in its style at least, seems to live up to the subtitle of ‘‘everything you need to known but are afraid to ask’’ about IT in primary care. The layout and graphics along with the light-hearted approach to
Book reviews / International Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 369–371
learning a new and important skill base makes this book very ‘‘user friendly’’. The content of the book is entirely focused on health professionals and support staff in PCGs (Primary Care Groups) in the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) and seems to have been written particularly with the GP in mind. This readership might be extended however, to medical and nursing students before they joined a PCG for supervised practice. The book correctly identifies the central role that information plays in quality health care and provides a good introductory level self-paced course in IT for Primary Care using exercises, case studies, key points, model answers and think boxes to stimulate learning and understanding. The book begins with an overview of how information is organised using computerised technology by comparing it with familiar processes. This sets the style of the book, which continues to use familiar language to explain idea, clearly defines jargon where it is necessary to be introduced. Practical insights into issues such as purchasing of equipment through the NHS, the legal implications of the Data Protection Act
371
and clear information relating to the common confusing aspects of computerisation. Professor Gillies provides his web site address in appendix one, which is a helpful addendum to the book and will assist new users in accessing valuable health information on-line. Some links to professional web pages for health professionals other than medicine would be a good update for the wed site. For those just joining the computerised information revolution in primary health care, this book will go some way in allaying the common fears associated with computers and information technology.
D. Porock School of Nursing, University of Hull East Riding Campus, Beverley Road Willerby, Hull HU106NS, UK E-mail address: [email protected]
PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 4 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 8 - 7