Phronesis, a popular Aristotelian concept that emphasizes deliberation and moral action, should replace the phrase 'research-based practice' as the guiding light for nursing practice. Knowledge from research is still essential, of course, but is insufficient by itself for practice. In this paper, the author describes assumptions behind the apparent superiority of research-based knowledge, and offers a critique of this position. One critique is that by automatically accepting the superiority of researchbased knowledge other types of knowledge (e.g. intuitive, ethical, personal) are devalued. A second critique is that undeliberated, indiscriminate use of research findings may lead to inappropriate nursing practice. Phronesis is then described, and its application to nursing. For example, phronesis requires that the context of the situation be considered very carefully before acting. Aristotle stated that the goal of personal phronesis is to reach eudaimonia, or genuine happiness or 'human flourishing'. Infusing nursing practice with phronesis means that an anthropomorphized discipline's eudaimonia would be the eudaimonia of patients. That is, nursing practice would be guided by a desire for patients' genuine happiness or human flourishing. The final section of the paper offers rebuttals to potential criticisms.

Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault enjoy a privileged status in nursing academia as two thinkers who influence both nursing research and philosophical explorations of nursing practice. Most nurse authors, however, focus only on the earlier works of these two philosophers and, for example, base qualitative research methodologies on Foucault's genealogy and Ricoeur's hermeneutics. In their later years, both these writers talk more explicitly about being an ethical self. Ideas from their earlier writing is evident in their writing on ethics and both writers could not discuss ethics without also exploring their ideas of the self and the other. I suggest that some of their thoughts on ethics connect with or complement each other quite well. I will first give an overview of Foucault's ethics, self and the other, and then do the same with Ricoeur's thought. In the third part of the paper I will describe how Foucault and Ricoeur complement each other, and conclude the paper by briefly suggesting how these writers influence my own practice as a nurse educator.

By understanding the constructions of knowledge we currently label nursing theories as nursing ontologies, nurses can perceive these conceptualizations differently. Paul Ricoeur and Stephen White offer a conceptualization of ontology that differs from traditional, realist perspectives because they assume that a person's experience of a phenomenon (e.g., nursing) will change, but also maintain some stability. Discussing nursing ontologies, rather than nursing theories, might increase philosophy's status in nursing and may also more accurately reflect the experience of being a nurse.

In any research study, researchers situate themselves, either explicitly or implicitly, within a variety of frameworks when studying phenomena. From a research perspective, the study will be more robust if these frameworks and the accompanying assumptions are compatible with each other; otherwise, the project may lack coherence. Ricoeur offers a methodological perspective-that is, an interpretive theory as reflected in mimesis, which is congruent with his ontological theory of self identity (ipse-and idem-identity).To illustrate Ricoeur's frameworks when researching the self identities, I use examples from a research study in which I asked senior nursing students to explore their experience of becoming a nurse. I do not intend for this article to be a comprehensive research report, but I present it as an exemplar of how Ricoeur's ideas can guide other researchers studying self identity. I labelled my study a narrative research project and assumed that becoming a nurse means developing a self identity as a nurse. While self identity is often framed in psychological terms, Ricoeur uses a philosophical perspective when exploring this concept. I conclude the paper by suggesting (a) that Ricoeur can guide any project in which researchers ask participants to describe ''becoming'' a person with illness, sickness or disease, and (b) that educators of healthcare professional students can improve the educative experience by purposefully considering how a student's ontological self affects that student's practice.A s a nurse educator, I am always interested in exploring a nursing student's experience of becoming a nurse. Other people agree and have used sociological concepts-for example, professional socialisation and role socialisation-to explore nursing students quantitatively.

Using the ethnoscientific method, a taxonomy depicting types of suffering experienced by patients was developed Nurses were asked to describe patients' suffering and, from this data, the differing types were identified The four major domains identified were ‘to bear it’, ‘to stay in control’, ‘to protect’, and ‘to strengthen’ Under these broad domains, nurses identified 24 different types of suffering, such as peaceful, meaningful, self‐absorbed, silent, stoic, flaunted, martyr‐like, ‘in limbo’, and hopeless Implications for nurses are that (a) patients expend much energy in their suffering and this should be considered when giving care, (b) nurses' personal evaluation of patient suffering should not preclude individualized care, (c) patients need personal space periodically, (d) some patients do not want their suffering alleviated, and (e) hidden reasons for patient behaviour are likely to exist