Elisions in the field of caring

V Deary, IJ Deary, Hugh McKenna, TV McCance, R Watson, AL Hoogbruin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Contemporary research into caring in nursing was criticized in the pages of this journal by John Paley. He charged that the study of caring has not been advanced by research which, he reckoned, merely generates endless lists of terms to describe caring. He also argued that research in the field was largely flawed by confusion over the difference between things said about caring and the act of caring itself. The present paper. We have analysed Paley's criticism. Essentially, he is criticizing the whole field of survey research. The scientific process is underpinned by the implicit understanding that any field moves forward cautiously. In the social sciences multiple perspectives enrich understanding of phenomena and often confirm previous perceptions. The lack of any alternative approach from Paley is evident. Examples from psychology, where seemingly endless lists of descriptors have led through rigorous concept and statistical analysis to genuinely useful psychological and clinical data, are expounded. In contrast to Paley's assertions, the study of caring in nursing to date has also produced information which is useful within nurse education and practice. Conclusion. There is no confusion concerning the things said about and the things done in the name of caring in our minds. We acknowledge that studying the actual phenomena of caring is difficult. However, in the absence of definitive descriptions of caring and precise methods to study it, the search for perfection has not paralysed action. Much has been learned about caring and much remains to be learned.
LanguageEnglish
Pages96-102
JournalJournal of Advanced Nursing
Volume39
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2002

Fingerprint

Research
Nursing
Psychology
Confusion
Social Sciences
Nurses
Education
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

Deary, V ; Deary, IJ ; McKenna, Hugh ; McCance, TV ; Watson, R ; Hoogbruin, AL. / Elisions in the field of caring. In: Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2002 ; Vol. 39, No. 1. pp. 96-102.
@article{a693a89d99cf423fa3d2c0c550f610ef,
title = "Elisions in the field of caring",
abstract = "Background. Contemporary research into caring in nursing was criticized in the pages of this journal by John Paley. He charged that the study of caring has not been advanced by research which, he reckoned, merely generates endless lists of terms to describe caring. He also argued that research in the field was largely flawed by confusion over the difference between things said about caring and the act of caring itself. The present paper. We have analysed Paley's criticism. Essentially, he is criticizing the whole field of survey research. The scientific process is underpinned by the implicit understanding that any field moves forward cautiously. In the social sciences multiple perspectives enrich understanding of phenomena and often confirm previous perceptions. The lack of any alternative approach from Paley is evident. Examples from psychology, where seemingly endless lists of descriptors have led through rigorous concept and statistical analysis to genuinely useful psychological and clinical data, are expounded. In contrast to Paley's assertions, the study of caring in nursing to date has also produced information which is useful within nurse education and practice. Conclusion. There is no confusion concerning the things said about and the things done in the name of caring in our minds. We acknowledge that studying the actual phenomena of caring is difficult. However, in the absence of definitive descriptions of caring and precise methods to study it, the search for perfection has not paralysed action. Much has been learned about caring and much remains to be learned.",
author = "V Deary and IJ Deary and Hugh McKenna and TV McCance and R Watson and AL Hoogbruin",
year = "2002",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02246.x",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "96--102",
journal = "Journal of Advanced Nursing",
issn = "0309-2402",
number = "1",

}

Elisions in the field of caring. / Deary, V; Deary, IJ; McKenna, Hugh; McCance, TV; Watson, R; Hoogbruin, AL.

In: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 39, No. 1, 07.2002, p. 96-102.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Elisions in the field of caring

AU - Deary, V

AU - Deary, IJ

AU - McKenna, Hugh

AU - McCance, TV

AU - Watson, R

AU - Hoogbruin, AL

PY - 2002/7

Y1 - 2002/7

N2 - Background. Contemporary research into caring in nursing was criticized in the pages of this journal by John Paley. He charged that the study of caring has not been advanced by research which, he reckoned, merely generates endless lists of terms to describe caring. He also argued that research in the field was largely flawed by confusion over the difference between things said about caring and the act of caring itself. The present paper. We have analysed Paley's criticism. Essentially, he is criticizing the whole field of survey research. The scientific process is underpinned by the implicit understanding that any field moves forward cautiously. In the social sciences multiple perspectives enrich understanding of phenomena and often confirm previous perceptions. The lack of any alternative approach from Paley is evident. Examples from psychology, where seemingly endless lists of descriptors have led through rigorous concept and statistical analysis to genuinely useful psychological and clinical data, are expounded. In contrast to Paley's assertions, the study of caring in nursing to date has also produced information which is useful within nurse education and practice. Conclusion. There is no confusion concerning the things said about and the things done in the name of caring in our minds. We acknowledge that studying the actual phenomena of caring is difficult. However, in the absence of definitive descriptions of caring and precise methods to study it, the search for perfection has not paralysed action. Much has been learned about caring and much remains to be learned.

AB - Background. Contemporary research into caring in nursing was criticized in the pages of this journal by John Paley. He charged that the study of caring has not been advanced by research which, he reckoned, merely generates endless lists of terms to describe caring. He also argued that research in the field was largely flawed by confusion over the difference between things said about caring and the act of caring itself. The present paper. We have analysed Paley's criticism. Essentially, he is criticizing the whole field of survey research. The scientific process is underpinned by the implicit understanding that any field moves forward cautiously. In the social sciences multiple perspectives enrich understanding of phenomena and often confirm previous perceptions. The lack of any alternative approach from Paley is evident. Examples from psychology, where seemingly endless lists of descriptors have led through rigorous concept and statistical analysis to genuinely useful psychological and clinical data, are expounded. In contrast to Paley's assertions, the study of caring in nursing to date has also produced information which is useful within nurse education and practice. Conclusion. There is no confusion concerning the things said about and the things done in the name of caring in our minds. We acknowledge that studying the actual phenomena of caring is difficult. However, in the absence of definitive descriptions of caring and precise methods to study it, the search for perfection has not paralysed action. Much has been learned about caring and much remains to be learned.

U2 - 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02246.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02246.x

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 96

EP - 102

JO - Journal of Advanced Nursing

T2 - Journal of Advanced Nursing

JF - Journal of Advanced Nursing

SN - 0309-2402

IS - 1

ER -