Edwards, Benner and Wrubel on caring

Horrocks, Stephen

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02338.x

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conducting phenomenological research is challenging, due in part to the difficulties posed by its complex underpinning philosophy and the subsequent methodological options that exist (Crotty, 1998;Caelli, 2001;Converse, 2012). As previously discussed in this chapter, it has been suggested that the misreading of the foundational philosophical texts by nurse phenomenologists undermines the credibility of findings and exposes serious weaknesses (Paley, 1996b(Paley, , 1996aHorrocks, 2002). This can result in poor quality research according to Caelli (2001) and Paley (1997;.…”

Section: Criticisms Of Ipamentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Pinholes in my arms’: the vicious cycle of vascular access

Kelly

Snowden

2021

Br J Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Vascular access devices (VADs) are essential for delivery of intravenous therapies. There are notable gaps in the literature regarding a focus on patient experience and meaning-making related to living with a VAD, specifically a central venous access device (CVAD). Aims: To explore how patients make sense of living with a CVAD. Methods: This study followed an interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach. Purposive sampling was used to identify 11 cancer patients who had a CVAD in situ. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were performed. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed by the lead author. Findings: Four superordinate themes were identified: the self under attack; being rescued/being robbed; protection of others/protection of self; bewilderment and dismay at lack of staff competence. Conclusion: Having a CVAD affects the psychological, social, and personal self and impacts on self-esteem and self-image. Despite this, CVADs are accepted by patients and are eventually ‘embodied’ by them.

show abstract

Section: Criticisms Of Ipamentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Pinholes in my arms’: the vicious cycle of vascular access

Kelly

Snowden

2021

Br J Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early American phenomenological studies were a focus of Crotty's () well‐known book (see also Barkway, ). More recently, Edwards () and Horrocks () suggested further clarifications of Benner's use of Heideggerian ontology. But the most prolific, persistent, and incisive criticism of phenomenological nursing research comes from John Paley.…”

Section: Nursing Phenomenology: a Story Of Misreadingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there nursing phenomenology after Paley? Essay on rigorous reading

Petrovskaya

2013

Nursing Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the bedside, nurses are expected to be precise when they read indications on screens and on the bodies of patients and decide on the meaning of words framed by the context of acute care. In academia, although there is no incident report to fill when we misread or misrepresent complex philosophical ideas, the consequences of inaccurate reading include misplaced epistemological claims and poor scholarship. A long and broad convention of nursing phenomenological research, in its various forms, claims a philosophical grounding in the ideas of Husserl, Heidegger, and other thinkers. But for nearly two decades, nurse phenomenologists' knowledge claims have been challenged by well-informed criticisms, most notably by John Paley. At the heart of criticism lies an observation that Continental phenomenological thought is misrepresented in many nursing sources and that nursing phenomenology, both descriptive and interpretive, cannot appeal to the authority of either Husserl or Heidegger. Taking these criticisms seriously, I am asking, Is phenomenology after Paley possible? If misreading seems to be an issue, how can - or should - we read rigorously? My thinking through these questions is influenced by the ideas of Jacques Derrida. Under a condition of a play of language, of Derridian différance, when meaning is never self-identical and never fully arrives, I suggest that one has to negotiate meanings through reading for differences. I develop this idea in relation to the methodological conventions of phenomenological nursing research and argue for a careful rereading of the whole field of phenomenological nursing research. Such rereading presupposes and necessitates interdisciplinary engagement between nursing and the humanities and interpretive social sciences. Greater familiarity with research practices of those disciplines that stress theoretical and writing rigour might make visible the limits of nursing research approaches and their quality criteria. An understanding of philosophical and theoretical works - a condition of quality scholarship - depends on our reading of both originary texts and contemporary literature from the humanities and the social sciences. This understanding, far from obliging researchers to always trace (often erroneously) their work to its philosophical roots, opens other, often more sound, methodological possibilities.

show abstract

“…In their criticism of my paper (Horrocks, 2002) Benner and Wrubel (hereafter B&W) argue that I add ‘new misinterpretations of Heidegger that render his paper incoherent’ (Benner & Wrubel, 2002, p. 45). I am going to argue that their interpretation does not follow what Heidegger himself says, and also it does not follow the interpretation of several highly regarded Heideggerian scholars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%