- Email: [email protected]
Research and scholarship, ways of informing practice. Response to paper “Writing-up and writing-as: Rediscovering nursing scholarship Gary Rolfe”
Nurse Education Today 30 (2010) 100
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education Today journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt
Letter to the Editor Research and scholarship, ways of informing practice. Response to paper ‘‘Writing-up and writing-as: Rediscovering nursing scholarship Gary Rolfe’’ Rolfe (2009) has presented a timely reminder that not all developments in nursing theory and practice rest on research, particularly the research which rates highly in research assessment exercises. As Rolfe argues, the wider field of scholarship, which includes debate and argument, the presentation of ideas and thoughts, and invitations to join in discussions, can lead to cogent challenges to the way we conceptualise our work, and develop our practice. Even when research has been done in an area, studies often produce tentative rather than definitive results – more research or different research will always need to be done. Scholarly debate will then take place which will discuss these findings, their conceptual basis and their implications. Rolfe points to the esteem in which research is regarded, and a cynic would say that it is not so much that the research is useful, but that that it can be easily ranked and rated. This rating can arise from the degree to which studies adhere to methodological procedures. Moreover, this rating is done by journals through their review processes, and here we come across a circular system – studies are only published if they meet journal criteria, and journals are only accorded prestige if they have criteria which reflect current ideas of worth. As journals depend upon the publication of these studies to increase readership and subscription, there is little room for any papers which deviate from these criteria, which is what a non-research based scholarly paper will be. Ironically, Rolfe’s paper itself would go through this process of review and rating, and this would ask questions about methodological rigour – and Rolfe’s paper would not get a high ranking here, regardless of the debate it stimulates. Scholarly activity does, of course, go on in many settings, as teachers and students, say, debate ideas and develop principles for practice. The problem with this, however is that the discussions are often not disseminated or shared – they remain private. To open up these debates, and maximise their usefulness, then, we need to ensure that there is wider participation and engagement. There are a number of ways in which this can be facilitated, and these might include the following: 1. Developing different criteria for research assessment exercises which cover scholarship. A research assessment exercise clearly focuses on the rating of research. More widely, however, the purpose of research assessment exercises is to facilitate the evaluation of the basis of disciplines, and this basis can be seen as research. If we make a case that the basis of our discipline is
0260-6917/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.07.002
broader than research, we may have to develop a set of criteria which we can use to make explicit the quality of what we come across – what is good scholarship, and how can we tell? 2. Increasing the breadth of input in programmes. We may need to integrate scholarship in educational programmes, so that what is presented draws on a wide range of debates and discussions. This might incorporate research material, but also the way in which models and theories can be built, tested and used. This will entail discussion and development of scholarly work and in this both students and teachers will think anew about what they find useful. In order for this to happen, scholarly work needs to be available, which leads us to the third point. 3. Increasing the publication of scholarly material. Publication of material in journals, books, and the internet, opens up access to ideas and debates. In order to facilitate this, however, there needs to be some form of scrutiny and evaluation of this material. As previously described, research material does have a form of rating, which allows us to trust that prior to publication there has been some scrutiny. What we may need to do, then, is work out what system could fit scholarly material in order that publication and dissemination is informed. In all of this, the overall principle is the importance of practice development – we all need to do what helps that. As such, there is a sound case for developing scholarly activity which does not necessarily involve research, but does involve the exploration of debates and ideas. This might draw on the components of argument, and philosophy has developed the premises of logic which could be useful here. The forms of scholarship that we utilise, however, will ultimately be matched up to the core of nursing, and that is practice. Whatever we debate or disseminate, our touchstone will be the way in which this practice can be informed and inspired. Reference Rolfe, G., 2009. Writing-up and writing-as: rediscovering nursing scholarship. Nurse Education Today 29 (8), 816–820.
Jan Reed University of Northumbria, School of Health, Social Care and Education, Coach Lane Campus, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7XA, UK E-mail address: [email protected]
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education Today journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt
Letter to the Editor Research and scholarship, ways of informing practice. Response to paper ‘‘Writing-up and writing-as: Rediscovering nursing scholarship Gary Rolfe’’ Rolfe (2009) has presented a timely reminder that not all developments in nursing theory and practice rest on research, particularly the research which rates highly in research assessment exercises. As Rolfe argues, the wider field of scholarship, which includes debate and argument, the presentation of ideas and thoughts, and invitations to join in discussions, can lead to cogent challenges to the way we conceptualise our work, and develop our practice. Even when research has been done in an area, studies often produce tentative rather than definitive results – more research or different research will always need to be done. Scholarly debate will then take place which will discuss these findings, their conceptual basis and their implications. Rolfe points to the esteem in which research is regarded, and a cynic would say that it is not so much that the research is useful, but that that it can be easily ranked and rated. This rating can arise from the degree to which studies adhere to methodological procedures. Moreover, this rating is done by journals through their review processes, and here we come across a circular system – studies are only published if they meet journal criteria, and journals are only accorded prestige if they have criteria which reflect current ideas of worth. As journals depend upon the publication of these studies to increase readership and subscription, there is little room for any papers which deviate from these criteria, which is what a non-research based scholarly paper will be. Ironically, Rolfe’s paper itself would go through this process of review and rating, and this would ask questions about methodological rigour – and Rolfe’s paper would not get a high ranking here, regardless of the debate it stimulates. Scholarly activity does, of course, go on in many settings, as teachers and students, say, debate ideas and develop principles for practice. The problem with this, however is that the discussions are often not disseminated or shared – they remain private. To open up these debates, and maximise their usefulness, then, we need to ensure that there is wider participation and engagement. There are a number of ways in which this can be facilitated, and these might include the following: 1. Developing different criteria for research assessment exercises which cover scholarship. A research assessment exercise clearly focuses on the rating of research. More widely, however, the purpose of research assessment exercises is to facilitate the evaluation of the basis of disciplines, and this basis can be seen as research. If we make a case that the basis of our discipline is
0260-6917/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.07.002
broader than research, we may have to develop a set of criteria which we can use to make explicit the quality of what we come across – what is good scholarship, and how can we tell? 2. Increasing the breadth of input in programmes. We may need to integrate scholarship in educational programmes, so that what is presented draws on a wide range of debates and discussions. This might incorporate research material, but also the way in which models and theories can be built, tested and used. This will entail discussion and development of scholarly work and in this both students and teachers will think anew about what they find useful. In order for this to happen, scholarly work needs to be available, which leads us to the third point. 3. Increasing the publication of scholarly material. Publication of material in journals, books, and the internet, opens up access to ideas and debates. In order to facilitate this, however, there needs to be some form of scrutiny and evaluation of this material. As previously described, research material does have a form of rating, which allows us to trust that prior to publication there has been some scrutiny. What we may need to do, then, is work out what system could fit scholarly material in order that publication and dissemination is informed. In all of this, the overall principle is the importance of practice development – we all need to do what helps that. As such, there is a sound case for developing scholarly activity which does not necessarily involve research, but does involve the exploration of debates and ideas. This might draw on the components of argument, and philosophy has developed the premises of logic which could be useful here. The forms of scholarship that we utilise, however, will ultimately be matched up to the core of nursing, and that is practice. Whatever we debate or disseminate, our touchstone will be the way in which this practice can be informed and inspired. Reference Rolfe, G., 2009. Writing-up and writing-as: rediscovering nursing scholarship. Nurse Education Today 29 (8), 816–820.
Jan Reed University of Northumbria, School of Health, Social Care and Education, Coach Lane Campus, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7XA, UK E-mail address: [email protected]