Origen y desarrollo de los paradigmas cualitativos y cuantitativos

Trustworthiness was enhanced throughout this study by a number of means. In particular, data was taken from the same source (or participant body) by three different methods – that is, by survey, observation and interview. This enabled triangulation to occur. Other members of the community were also interviewed (educators/lecturers) for their perspectives. Overarching information was extracted via document analysis (relevant to the context and community studied) which also provided quantitative data and served as background and context.

There were greater numbers of the nursing community involved in the written survey (71 respondents) than in the observation phase (17 observations). All 71 respondents were registered nurses in clinical practice, with current annual practicing certificates. The targeted pool of recipients for the survey was registered nurses in active clinical practice. According to a survey published in by the Future Workforce Group (2006), the number of comprehensive, registered nurses that held an annual practicing certificate in New Zealand in the year 2004, was in the vicinity of 20,000 compared to a total of approximately 47,000 nurses in practice (with qualifications other than comprehensive nursing). There were still about 8,500 nurses that were registered, and still practicing in areas of single registration (limitations on their practice such as obstetric only or psychiatric only) with a further 17,000 general and obstetric nurses (limitation on their practice) who qualified under the old apprenticeship scheme (Future Workforce, 2006). Put more simply; 44% of the registered nurses in clinical practice in 2004 were comprehensively trained, with 56% having limitations on their practice. In New Zealand, the only way of entering the register is to have a degree and be comprehensively trained. The focus of this study was to investigate different practice and attempt to identify appropriate science curriculum for comprehensive training, even though it is understood that most of the current nurses in practice are not comprehensively trained. In 2004, 16.7% of nurses were practicing in primary health, 13.6% in aged care, 8.8% in mental health, and 43.5% in secondary and tertiary care. That is, 82.6% of nurses were in practice with the remainder being in administration or education. So, in terms of the first phase of the data collection (the survey), respondents were sought from the various areas of practice with appropriate portions to each area of practice (i.e., respondents from primary health, aged care, mental health and acute care). Limitations of this study therefore relate to the ability of the sample to represent the population as a whole (due to size and mix of participants).

The observation and interview phase involved nurses who had already participated in the survey phase of the study, and were available and able to commit to the observation and interview. Each observation and interview was transcribed and analysed soon after completion which also enabled the researcher

to continually examine the goal of the inquiry to discover how and what science is used in clinical practice. This is consistent with the constructivist nature of this study where theory is dynamic rather than static. Member checks were achieved by participant validation of transcripts after observation and interview and involved the participant inspection of written transcripts and participants writing of clarifications when appropriate. Dependability for this study was achieved by ensuring that all data was auditable, and by use of thick and detailed descriptions. The influence of the researcher on the participant was minimised by information provided before procedures took place and by the researcher conducting an objective, non judgemental observation of the nurse. As such, subtle messages, such as writing notes during an event may cause the nurse to feel anxious about what is being written and so great care was taken to ensure that the observation was as unobtrusive as possible. The nurse’s primary focus during the session is the patient and the researcher tried not to distract from that. Also, because of the nature of the study, that is, science, and because it is known (via the literature review) that many nursing students have concerns and anxieties over science and maths, it was made clear (in written and verbal form) that the nurse’s ability was not being assessed. It was also important that participants did not provide answers to questions (knowledge-based questions) or perform actions that they thought the researcher may like to hear or see because of the subject matter being science. It is possible that participants altered their practice due to the presence of a researcher and this is a possible limitation of the study. In order to attempt to avoid this, observation was done by prolonged engagement so that the participant was able to relax and engage in their work as usual, as well as use of non judgemental questions, including questions relating to if a particular action or way of conducting nursing care was usual, under all circumstances. There was also the possibility that the researcher was not able to identify all the significant events in practice and this too is a limitation of the study. The ability of the researcher to identify significant events during observation was enhanced by the creation of the nursing skills and science table (see Appendix D) which enabled the researcher to identify nursing actions that may have science knowledge or skill underpinning it.

Triangulation was achieved by comparisons with information taken from document analysis, survey information and with the data taken from the observational and interview studies to see how or if science knowledge was translated into practice. Methodological triangulation was addressed by using the same method on different occasions (observations) or different methods on the same person (survey and observation).