Positivism Scientific Foundation of Research Methods In Nursing Education

What is Positivism Scientific Foundation of Research Methods In Nursing Education. This approach seeks to generate generalizable knowledge applicable to broader populations and contribute to evidence-based nursing practice.

The Positivism Scientific Foundation of Research Methods In Nursing Education

Positivism, as a philosophical foundation, significantly influences research methods in nursing education by prioritizing objective, measurable, and verifiable data. It promotes the use of quantitative methods, such as statistical analysis and experimental designs, to establish cause-and-effect relationships and test hypotheses.

Influence on nursing practice: Positivism has influenced nursing practice by promoting evidence-based practice, encouraging the use of research findings to inform clinical decisions, and emphasizing the importance of objective data in the evaluation of patient outcomes. However, it is important to recognize that a purely positivist approach can neglect the subjective experiences and perspectives of patients and nurses.

What is Positivism?

Although positivism has been a recurrent theme in the history of western thought from the Ancient Greeks to the present day, it is historically associated with the nineteenth-century French philosopher, Auguste Comte, who was the first thinker to use the word for a philosophical position (Beck, 1979). Here ex planation proceeds by way of scientific description (Acton, 1975). In his study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of science, Oldroyd (1986) says: It was Comte who consciously ‘invented’ the new science of society and gave it the name to which we are accustomed.

He thought that it would be possible to establish it on a ‘positive’ basis, just like the other sciences, which served as necessary preliminaries to it. For social phenomena were to be viewed in the light of physiological (or bio logical) laws and theories and investigated empirically, just like physical phenomena. Likewise, biological phenomena were to be viewed in the light of chemical laws and theories; and so on down the line. (Oldroyd, 1986).

Core Doctrine of Positivism

Comte’s position was to lead to a general doc trine of positivism which held that all genuine knowledge is based on sense experience and can only be advanced by means of observation and experiment. Following in the empiricist tradition, it limited inquiry and belief to what can be firmly established and in thus abandoning meta physical and speculative attempts to gain knowledge by reason alone, the movement developed what has been described as a ‘tough-minded orientation to facts and natural phenomena’ (Beck, 1979).

Challenge of Definition

Since Comte, the term positivism has been used in such different ways by philosophers and social scientists that it is difficult to assign it a precise and consistent meaning. Moreover, the term has also been applied to the doctrine of a school of philosophy known as ‘logical positivism. The central belief of the logical positivists is that the meaning of a statement is, or is given by, the method of its verification. It follows from this that unverifiable statements are held to be meaningless, the utterances of traditional metaphysics and theology being included in this class.

Residual Meaning: Natural Science as the Paradigm

However the term positivism is used by philosophers and social scientists, a residual meaning is always present and this derives from an acceptance of natural science as the paradigm of human knowledge (Duncan, 1968). This includes the following connected suppositions which have been identified by Giddens (1975). First, the methodological procedures of natural science may be directly applied to the social sciences. Positivism here implies a particular stance concerning the social scientist as an observer of social reality.

Second, the end-product of investigations by social scientists can be formulated in terms parallel to those of natural science. This means that their analyses must be expressed in laws or law-like generalizations of the same kind that have been established in relation to natural phenomena. Positivism here involves a definite view of social scientists as analysts or interpreters of their subject matter.

Limitations of Positivism in Human Behavior

Positivism may be characterized by its claim that science provides us with the clearest possible ideal of knowledge. Where positivism is less successful, however, is in its application to the study of human behavior where the immense complexity of human nature and the elusive and intangible quality of social phenomena contrast strikingly with the order and regularity of the natural world.

This point is nowhere more apparent than in the contexts of classroom and school where the problems of teaching, learning and human interaction present the positivistic researcher with a mammoth challenge. For further information on positivism within the history of the philosophy and methodology of science, see Oldroyd (1986). We now look more closely at some of its features.

Assumptions and Nature of Science

Since a number of the research methods we describe in this blog post draw heavily on the scientific method either implicitly or explicitly and can only be fully understood within the total framework of its principles and assumptions, we will here examine some of the characteristics of science a little more closely. We begin with an examination of the tenets of scientific faith: the kinds of assumptions held by scientists, often implicitly, as they go about their daily work.

First, there is the assumption of determinism. This means simply that events have causes that events are determined by other circumstances; and science proceeds on the belief that these causal links can eventually be uncovered and understood, that the events are explicable in terms of their antecedents. Moreover, not only are events in the natural world determined by other circumstances, but there is regularity about the way they are determined: the universe does not behave capriciously. It is the ultimate aim of scientists to formulate laws to account for the happenings in the world around them, thus giving them a firm basis for prediction and control.

The second assumption is that of empiricism. We have already touched upon this viewpoint, which holds that certain kinds of reliable knowledge can only originate in experience. In practice, therefore, this means scientifically that the tenability of a theory or hypothesis depends on the nature of the empirical evidence for its support.

Empirical here means that which is verifiable by observation; and evidence, data yielding proof or strong confirmation, in probability terms, of a theory or hypothesis in a research setting. The viewpoint has been summed up by Barratt who writes, ‘The decision for empiricism as an act of scientific faith signifies that the best way to acquire reliable knowledge is the way of evidence obtained by direct experience (Barratt, 1971).

The Five Steps of Empirical Science

Mouly (1978) has identified five steps in the process of empirical science:

1 experience—the starting point of scientific endeavor at the most elementary level

2 classification—the formal systematization of otherwise incomprehensible masses of data

3 quantification—a more sophisticated stage where precision of measurement allows more adequate analysis of phenomena by mathematical means

4 discovery of relationships—the identification and classification of functional relationships among phenomena

5 approximation to the truth—science proceeds by gradual approximation to the truth.

The third assumption underlying the work of the scientist is the principle of parsimony. The basic idea is that phenomena should be explained in the most economical way possible. The first historical statement of the principle was by William of Occam when he said that explanatory principles (entities) should not be needlessly multiplied.

It may, of course, be interpreted in various ways: that it is preferable to account for a phenomenon by two concepts rather than three; that a simple theory is to be preferred to a complex one; or as Lloyd Morgan said as a guide to the study of animal behavior: ‘In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psycho logical scale.

The final assumption that of generality played an important part in both the deductive and inductive methods of reasoning. Indeed, historically speaking, it was the problematic relationship between the concrete particular and the abstract general that was to result in two competing theories of knowledge—the rational and the empirical. Beginning with observations of the particular, scientists set out to generalize their findings to the world at large. This is so because they are concerned ultimately with ex planation.

Of course, the concept of generality presents much less of a problem to natural scientists working chiefly with inanimate matter than to human scientists who, of necessity having to deal with samples of larger human populations, have to exercise great caution when generalizing their findings to the particular parent populations.

Static View of Science

Having identified the basic assumptions of science, we come now to the core question: What is science? Krlinger (1970) points out that in the scientific world itself two broad views of science may be found: the static and the dynamic. The static view, which has particular appeal for laypeople, is that science is an activity that con tributes systematized information to the world. The work of the scientist is to uncover new facts and add them to the existing corpus of knowledge. Science is thus seen as an accumulated body of findings, the emphasis being chiefly on the present state of knowledge and adding to it.

Dynamic View of Science

The dynamic view, by contrast, conceives science more as an activity, as something that scientists do. According to this conception it is important to have an accumulated body of knowledge, of course, but what really matter most are the discoveries that scientists make. The emphasis here, then, is more on the heuristic nature of science.

Functions of Science: Theory as the Ultimate Goal

For the professional scientists however, science is seen as a way of comprehending the world; as a means of explanation and understanding, of prediction and control. For them the ultimate aim of science is theory.

Defining Theory

Theory has been defined by Kerlinger as ‘a set of interrelated constructs [concepts], definitions, and propositions that presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena (Kerlinger, 1970). In a sense, theory gathers together all the isolated bits of empirical data into a coherent conceptual framework of wider applicability. Mouly expresses it thus: ‘If nothing else, a theory is a convenience—a necessity, re ally—organizing a whole slough of unassorted facts, laws, concepts, constructs, principles, into a meaningful and manageable form. It constitutes an attempt to make sense out of what we know concerning a given phenomenon (Mouly, 1978).

Theory as a Source of Discovery

More than this, however, theories is itself a potential source of further information and discoveries.

It is in this way a source of new hypotheses and hitherto unasked questions
It identifies critical areas for further investigation
It discloses gaps in our knowledge
Enables a researcher to postulate the existence of previously unknown phenomena

Types of Theory: Understanding the Different Approaches

Clearly there are several different types of theory, and each type of theory defines its own kinds of ‘proof’. For example, Morrison (1995a) identifies empirical theories, ‘grand’ theories and ‘critical’ theory.

1. Empirical Theories

These are grounded in observable data and empirical evidence, focusing on what can be measured and tested.

2. ‘Grand’ Theories

Grand theory’ is a metanarrative, defining an area of study, being speculative, clarifying conceptual structures and frameworks, and creatively enlarging the way we consider behavior and organizations (Layder, 1994). It uses fundamental ontological and epistemological postulates which serve to define a field of inquiry (Hughes, 1976).

Here empirical material tends to be used by way of illustration rather than ‘proof’. This is the stuff of some sociological theories, for example Marxism, consensus theory and functionalism. Whilst sociologists may be excited by the totalizing and all-encompassing nature of such theories, they have been subject to considerable undermining for half a century.

For example, Merton (1949), Coser and Rosenberg (1969), Doll (1993) and Layder (1994) contend that whilst they might possess the attraction of large philosophical systems of considerable Byzantine architectonic splendor and logical consistency, nevertheless, they are scientifically sterile, irrelevant and out of touch with a postmodern world that is characterized by openness, fluidity, heterogeneity and fragmentation.

3. Critical Theory

Critical theories focus on power relations, social justice, and transformation of society.

Characteristics of an Effective Empirical Theory

This blog post does not endeavor to refer to this type of theory. The status of theory varies quite considerably according to the discipline or area of knowledge in question. Some theories, as in the natural sciences, are characterized by a high degree of elegance and sophistication; others, like educational theory, are only at the early stages of formulation and are thus characterized by great unevenness. Popper (1968), Lakatos (1970),5 Mouly (1978), Laudan (1990) and Rasmussen (1990) identify the following characteristics of an effective empirical theory:

Empirical Testing: A theoretical system must permit deductions and generate laws that can be tested empirically; that is, it must provide the means for its confirmation or rejection. One can test the validity of a theory only through the validity of the propositions (hypotheses) that can be derived from it. If repeated attempts to disconfirm its various hypotheses fail, then greater confidence can be placed in its validity. This can go on indefinitely, until possibly some hypothesis proves untenable. This would constitute indirect evidence of the inadequacy of the theory and could lead to its rejection (or more commonly to its replacement by a more adequate theory that can incorporate the exception).
Compatibility: Theory must be compatible with both observation and previously validated theories. It must be grounded in empirical data that have been verified and must rest on sound postulates and hypotheses. The better the theory, the more adequately it can explain the phenomena under consideration, and the more facts it can incorporate into a meaningful structure of ever-greater generalizability. There should be internal consistency between these facts. It should clarify the precise terms in which it seeks to explain, predict and generalize about empirical phenomena.
Simplicity: Theories must be stated in simple terms; that theory is best that explains the most in the simplest way. This is the law of parsimony. A theory must explain the data adequately and yet must not be so comprehensive as to be unwieldy. On the other hand, it must not overlook variables simply because they are difficult to explain.
Predictive Power: A theory should have considerable explanatory and predictive potential.
Adaptability: A theory should be able to respond to observed anomalies.
Research Generation: A theory should spawn a research enterprise (echoing Siegel’s (1987) comment that one of the characteristics of an effective theory is its fertility).
Precision and Universality: A theory should demonstrate precision and universality, and set the grounds for its own falsification and verification, identifying the nature and operation of a ‘severe test’ (Pop per, 1968). An effective empirical theory is tested in contexts which are different from those that gave rise to the theory, i.e. they should move beyond simply corroboration and induction and towards ‘testing’ (Laudan, 1990). It should identify the type of evidence which is required to confirm or refute the theory.
Operationalization: A theory must be operationalizable precisely.
Replicability: A test of the theory must be replicable. Sometimes the word model is used instead of, or interchangeably with, theory. Both may be seen as explanatory devices or schemes having a broadly conceptual framework, though models are often characterized by the use of analogies to give a more graphic or visual representation of a particular phenomenon.

Theory vs. Models: Understanding the Distinction

Providing they are accurate and do not misrepresent the facts, models can be of great help in achieving clarity and focusing on key issues in the nature of phenomena. Hitchcock and Hughes (1995:20–1) draw together the strands of the discussion so far when they describe a theory thus: Theory is seen as being concerned with the development of systematic construction of knowledge of the social world.

In doing this theory employs the use of concepts, systems, models, structures, beliefs and ideas, hypotheses (theories) in order to make statements about particular types of actions, events or activities, so as to make analyses of their causes, consequences and process. That is, to explain events in ways which are consistent with a particular philosophical rationale or, for example, a particular sociological or psychological perspective?

Theories therefore aim to both pro pose and analyze sets of relations existing between a number of variables when certain regularities and continuities can be demonstrated via empirical inquiry. (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995:20–1) Scientific theories must, by their very nature, be provisional. A theory can never be complete in the sense that it encompasses all that can be known or understood about the given phenomenon.

The Development of Scientific Disciplines

As Mouly says, invariably, scientific theories are replaced by more sophisticated theories embodying more of the advanced state of the question so that science widens its horizons to include more and more of the facts as they accumulate. No doubt, many of the things about which there is agreement today will be found inadequate by future standards. But we must begin where we are. (Mouly, 1978)

The Nature of Scientific Theory: Always Provisional

We have already implied that the quality of a theory is determined by the state of development of the particular discipline. The early stages of a science must be dominated by empirical work, that is, the accumulation and classification of data. This is why, as we shall see, much of educational research is descriptive.

Only as a discipline matures can an adequate body of theory be developed. Too premature a formulation of theory before the necessary empirical spadework has been done can lead to a slowing down of progress. Mouly optimistically suggests that someday a single theoretical system, un known to us at the present time, will be used to explain the behavior of molecules, animals and people.

Conclusion: The Tools of Scientific Inquiry

In referring to theory and models, we have begun to touch upon the tools used by scientists in their work. We look now in more detail at two such tools which play a crucial role in science—the concept and the hypothesis.

https://nurseseducator.com/high-fidelity-simulation-use-in-nursing-education/

First NCLEX Exam Center In Pakistan From Lahore (Mall of Lahore) to the Global Nursing

Categories of Journals: W, X, Y and Z Category Journal In Nursing Education

AI in Healthcare Content Creation: A Double-Edged Sword and Scary

Social Links:

https://www.facebook.com/nurseseducator/

https://www.instagram.com/nurseseducator/

https://www.pinterest.com/NursesEducator/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nurseseducator/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Afza-Lal-Din

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=F0XY9vQAAAAJ

https://youtube.com/@nurseslyceum2358