Building the science of health promotion practice from a human science perspective

Abstract

While health promotion is widely acknowledged as a practice field where multidisciplinary teamwork is important, within nursing's discipline‐specific literature, a strong argument can be discerned regarding the profession's belief that it has a clear and unique role to play in that field. Yet rarely is this unique role, how it arises, and specifically how its effects are to be demarcated, attended to within the discipline‐specific literature. Two philosophical perspectives on science are presented and we demonstrate the extent to which these two perspectives influence nursing scholarship, including nursing practice within the field of health promotion. We then go on to argue that, for nurses to sustain their claim to a unique and important contribution within health promotion, clear articulation of the philosophical premises underpinning practice methodologies is warranted. Specifically we argue the importance of such clarity within the context of an analysis of the discourse of multidisciplinary practice as a strategy for avoiding confronting the ways in which bio‐medical authority has already significantly demarcated how health promotion practice can proceed.

A qualitative study exploring the relationship between nursing and health promotion language, theory and practice

“…This would fall in line with Whitehead's (2003) call for nurses to adopt a structured and systematic approach to health promotion. This can be partially achieved by Burke and Smith's (2000) audit tool but if nursing wants to make a full contribution to health promotion the philosophy and organisational structures underpinning practice (Robinson and Hill, 1998;Northrup and Purkis, 2001) and concomitant curricula (Rush, 1997) must also be clearly articulated.…”

The relational core of nursing practice as partnership

“…In so doing, nurses would be joining with patients in a process of collaboratively seeking meaning in their complex and often chaotic health circumstances. This participatory stance, however, calls for a radical shift in thinking about practice, a call recognized by Northrup and Purkis (2001, p. 68) who called for ‘a form of practice that requires an openness to change that transcends the familiar’. Thus, nurses’ allegiance would be returned to patients.…”

Nursing based evidence: moving beyond evidence‐based practice in mental health nursing

“…It is unclear therefore, why following EBP will result in a different outcome. Equally troubling, is why nursing cannot develop an internally consistent set of ideas from research and theorizing within the discipline (long term and changing although this will be) thereby identifying as Northrup & Purkis (2001) put it, ‘its distinct contribution and legitimacy’ amongst the various health care disciplines.…”

“…If EBP suits medicine, it cannot equally suit nursing – not in its present form. Northrup & Purkis (2001, p. 62) note the differences between medicine and nursing and call for nursing to establish its legitimacy by articulating its ‘ distinct contribution’ to people's health care. This contribution is unlikely to be found by following a movement whose foundation resides in the bio‐sciences and whose orientation is toward quantitative research/outcomes.…”

“…In nursing, Northrup & Purkis (2001) argue, people's health care includes inter‐subjective and irreducible experiences and often complex and unsolvable/unresolvable issues. Moreover, nursing's experiential concern is relationships – not problems (Crawford et al .…”