JAN FORUM
Commentary on: Draper P. (2014) Editorial: a critique of concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 70, 1207–1208.
Given the centrality of conceptual clarity to the advance of
ing, refining, and further developing concepts take full advan-
knowledge and practice, we were perplexed by the tone and
tage of the increasingly sophisticated array methods available
content of Draper’s editorial arguing ‘there is no place for con-
for knowledge synthesis.
cept analysis in the scholarship of modern nursing’. Our objec-
of scholarly endeavours; and (2) the limited view of concept
Kathleen A. Knafl PhD FAAN Frances Hill Fox Distinguished Professor & Associate Dean for Research
analysis it presents. Conceptual analysis and clarification is the
School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel
tions to the editorial stem from: (1) its failure to recognize the importance of foundational conceptual work for a wide array
starting point for many scholarly endeavours. Guidelines for
Hill, North Carolina, USA
theory construction (Jaccard & Jacoby 2010), instrument
E-mail: [email protected]
development (DeVellis 2012) and research synthesis (Cooper
as a crucial early step. Draper argues there is no evidence for
Janet A. Deatrick PhD RN FAAN Shearer Endowed Term Chair in Health Community Practices
even a potential influence of concept analysis on practice. We
School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
are not sure what compelling evidence he is seeking, but would
Pennsylvania, USA
2010) typically point to the importance of defining concepts of interest and delimiting the conceptual boundaries of the project
point out that since conceptual work often is the starting point for further work, it may not be included in publications that report the results of intervention testing or instrument development. However, it is difficult to imagine, for example, how developing interventions aimed at improving family resilience or measures of caregiver coping could proceed without first defining the concept of interest. Draper’s editorial fails to situate concept analysis in the broader field of synthesis research or to acknowledge the multiple approaches to concept analysis, citing only the first edition of Walker and Avant’s (2010) text (now in its 5th edition). Other approaches to concept analysis (e.g. Rodgers 2000, Penrod & Hupcey 2005) are not referenced in the editorial, and the application of contemporary knowledge synthesis methods to concept analysis is not addressed. Systematic reviews often focus on the analysis of concepts and, when done well, make important contributions to knowledge (see for example Chinn’s 2011 review of health literacy). Rather than supporting a ban on concept analysis, we urge investigators interested in clarify-
2968
References Chinn D. (2011) Critical health literacy: a review and critical analysis. Social Science and Medicine 73, 60–67. Cooper H. (2010) Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Stepby-Step Approach, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. DeVellis R. (2012) Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Jaccard J. & Jacoby J. (2010) Theory Construction and Modeltesting: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. The Guilford Press, New York. Penrod J. & Hupcey J. (2005) Concept advancement: extending science through concept-driven research. Research and Theory in Nursing Practice 19, 231–241. Rodgers B.L. (2000) Concept analysis: an evolutionary view. In Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications, 2nd edn (Rodgers B.L. & Knafl K.A., eds), W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 77–102. Walker L. & Avant K. (2010) Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.
Commentary on: Draper P. (2014) Editorial: a critique of concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 70, 1207–1208.
Given the centrality of conceptual clarity to the advance of
ing, refining, and further developing concepts take full advan-
knowledge and practice, we were perplexed by the tone and
tage of the increasingly sophisticated array methods available
content of Draper’s editorial arguing ‘there is no place for con-
for knowledge synthesis.
cept analysis in the scholarship of modern nursing’. Our objec-
of scholarly endeavours; and (2) the limited view of concept
Kathleen A. Knafl PhD FAAN Frances Hill Fox Distinguished Professor & Associate Dean for Research
analysis it presents. Conceptual analysis and clarification is the
School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel
tions to the editorial stem from: (1) its failure to recognize the importance of foundational conceptual work for a wide array
starting point for many scholarly endeavours. Guidelines for
Hill, North Carolina, USA
theory construction (Jaccard & Jacoby 2010), instrument
E-mail: [email protected]
development (DeVellis 2012) and research synthesis (Cooper
as a crucial early step. Draper argues there is no evidence for
Janet A. Deatrick PhD RN FAAN Shearer Endowed Term Chair in Health Community Practices
even a potential influence of concept analysis on practice. We
School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
are not sure what compelling evidence he is seeking, but would
Pennsylvania, USA
2010) typically point to the importance of defining concepts of interest and delimiting the conceptual boundaries of the project
point out that since conceptual work often is the starting point for further work, it may not be included in publications that report the results of intervention testing or instrument development. However, it is difficult to imagine, for example, how developing interventions aimed at improving family resilience or measures of caregiver coping could proceed without first defining the concept of interest. Draper’s editorial fails to situate concept analysis in the broader field of synthesis research or to acknowledge the multiple approaches to concept analysis, citing only the first edition of Walker and Avant’s (2010) text (now in its 5th edition). Other approaches to concept analysis (e.g. Rodgers 2000, Penrod & Hupcey 2005) are not referenced in the editorial, and the application of contemporary knowledge synthesis methods to concept analysis is not addressed. Systematic reviews often focus on the analysis of concepts and, when done well, make important contributions to knowledge (see for example Chinn’s 2011 review of health literacy). Rather than supporting a ban on concept analysis, we urge investigators interested in clarify-
2968
References Chinn D. (2011) Critical health literacy: a review and critical analysis. Social Science and Medicine 73, 60–67. Cooper H. (2010) Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Stepby-Step Approach, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. DeVellis R. (2012) Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Jaccard J. & Jacoby J. (2010) Theory Construction and Modeltesting: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. The Guilford Press, New York. Penrod J. & Hupcey J. (2005) Concept advancement: extending science through concept-driven research. Research and Theory in Nursing Practice 19, 231–241. Rodgers B.L. (2000) Concept analysis: an evolutionary view. In Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications, 2nd edn (Rodgers B.L. & Knafl K.A., eds), W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 77–102. Walker L. & Avant K. (2010) Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.
