You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Expanding the Praxis Debate: Contributions to Clinical Inquiry

Lutz, Kristin F. RN, MS, ANP, WHCNP; Jones, Kim Dupree RNC, MN, FNP; Kendall, Judy RN, PhD

Advances in Nursing Science:
Methods of Clinical Inquiry
Abstract

Nursing science continues to debate the adequacy of various philosophic paradigms for their ability to forward the discipline.Nursing must embrace multiple paradigms, methodologies, and their philosophic assumptions to adequately address the complex and multifaceted human phenomena that is the focus of clinical inquiry in nursing. This article examines the differences in interpretive and critical approaches to clinical inquiry relative to praxis, expanding how praxis can be used to inform nursing practice. Differences in the nature of knowledge, goals of inquiry, and claims to praxis between the interpretive and critical traditions are discussed. Praxis, realized through clinical inquiry in both the interpretive and the critical paradigms, may contribute important pieces of the puzzle to improve the human condition. Expanding the praxis debate challenges nurses to consider the emancipatory possibilities of clinical inquiry within both interpretive and critical paradigms.

Author Information

Doctoral Student (Lutz).

Doctoral Student (Jones).

Associate Professor; School of Nursing; Oregon Health Sciences University; Portland, Oregon (Kendall).

The authors thank and acknowledge Drs. Christine Tanner and Judith Clare for their critical review and helpful comments.

Manuscript preparation was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Research Service Award T32 NR07061 from the National Institute of Nursing Research.

Copyright © 1997 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.