• To understand how doctoral nursing students should move beyond simple descriptions of their inductive or deductive positions and research design to help develop trust and confidence in their work
• To determine how best to demonstrate the iterative relationships between the elements in your conceptual framework as a central factor in the research process
• To help demonstrate the transparency of your research and related academic rigour
Background Conceptual frameworks are central to doctoral nursing theses; they include the pragmatic and philosophical elements of the research design and their interrelationships. While the research process may seem to stem in a straightforward, linear manner from the research question, it is a more complex iterative enterprise.
Aim To build on Durham et al (2015) by reviewing the ostensibly static nature of research design and associated philosophical elements of the conceptual framework, reconsidering these in relation to the iterative nature of the research process, and translating these into implications for presenting the final draft of a doctoral nursing thesis.
Discussion All doctoral nursing theses will have limitations and experience difficulties. They do not follow a rigid, sequential process with a defined start and end, but progress tentatively, with the relationship between the elements of the research design and philosophical assumptions following an iterative process.
Conclusion The research design element of the conceptual framework of doctoral nursing theses should reflect the iterative reality of the process and the associated interrelationships that occur.
Implications for practice The absence in doctoral nursing theses of a full description of the philosophical and iterative processes of the research architecture and conceptual framework weakens the transparency of the research. Therefore, doctoral nursing students need to move beyond simple description of their inductive or deductive position and research design to help develop trust and confidence in their research.
Nurse Researcher. 28, 3, 10-15. doi: 10.7748/nr.2020.e1683
Correspondence Peer reviewThis article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software
Conflict of interestNone declared
PermissionTo reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com
Write for usFor information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com
For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/write-for-nurse-researcher
Keywords :
or
Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more