Nursing research has been hampered by the erroneous view, propounded by several eminent writers (e.g. Burns & Grove 1987), that researchers, particularly those operating within a qualitative framework, can maintain an open mind and start from an atheoretical basis. This is not the case, as all research is set within a theoretical or conceptual context, whether the researcher acknowledges this or not. No research is ever value-free (Janesick 1994, Mason 1991), and the whole process, from initial conceptualisation, through choice of methods, data collection and analysis, reflect deliberately or unconsciously the researcher's world view (Mason 1989, Merriam 1988). Interpretive qualitative research in particular requires the framework to be explicated, to assist the reader, and potential user, in judging the study's utility.
The terms 'conceptual' and 'theoretical' are often either not clearly delineated, or are used interchangeably. Burns & Grove's (1987:156) general term, "frame of reference", will be used here, as it is more appropriate for this type of study, interlinking as it does several concepts.
This case study is set within a tripartite framework of reference, i.e.
postmodern/post-structuralist philosophy, multiple paradigm research in
nursing, and Fairclough's (1992) social theory of discourse. While the
three strands are separate, they also have many commonalities and congruities;
the following sections provide a brief outline, indicating how their commonalities
coalesce in the frame of reference.
While important differences exist between postmodernism and post-structuralism (Sarup 1993), it is not within the scope of this study to examine such issues in depth; the two terms will be taken to be sufficiently complementary to be interchangeable.
Postmodernism and post-structuralism form the philosophical strand of this study's frame of reference. They question the existence of universal, timeless truths, with one single meaning that sufficient effort can eventually determine (Denzin & Lincoln 1994). They use "the analysis of language, power and knowledge to identify social organization and the construction" of self (Daiski 1994). Language has a crucial role, not in the reflection of fixed meanings, but in the social construction of reality and the self (Burman & Parker 1993, Daiski 1994, Fowler 1985). Any single "correct" approach to knowledge or research (Dzurec 1989), or interpretation, is not possible within post-structuralism, as meanings "are tied to the time and space in which they are elaborated" (Parker & Burman 1993:167). I therefore make no claim that the findings of this study can necessarily be applied to other instances of CMC.
The applicability of such a philosophical approach to DA is best expressed by Burman & Parker (1993:7), who say that when:
the post-structuralist twist to discourse analytic research is added, particularly in the use of Foucault's...work, then we are able to look not only at how objects are constructed in discourse...but also at how subjects are constructed (how we experience ourselves when we speak, when we hear others speak about us)The implications of this philosophical approach for nursing are slowly being recognised. Henderson (1994) has examined issues relating to Foucaultian analyses of nursing practice, Doering (1992) discusses nursing knowledge from a post-structuralist viewpoint, and Lister (1991) uses a postmodern perspective to challenge assumptions within nursing models. As Dzurec (1989:76) has stated:
poststructuralist thought encourages us to look beyond what we know to focus on the forces that limit what we can know...it encourages nurse researchers to focus not only on the content of the questions asked...but on the metaphysical and political assumptions - specifically, those regarding language and power - that structure and limit the content of nursing.
Congruent with a postmodern/post-structuralist philosophical approach, nurses are beginning to recognise the problems inherent in trying to develop a single, universal theory or definition of nursing (Mandelbaum 1991), and in attempting to adopt a single approach to nursing research. From the 1950's until recently, quantitative and logical positivist approaches to research dominated nursing, and were viewed as the best or only way to advance nursing knowledge (Cull-Wilby & Pepin 1987). Other approaches were viewed as non-scientific, less rigorous and incapable of producing generalisable findings (Dzurec 1989, Dzurec & Abraham 1993). The change from a dominant positivist paradigm to consideration of other paradigms, that occurred in the 1960s and 70s in other fields (Hammersley 1992), occurred, as have so many other developments, later in nursing.
There is currently a danger that the widespread shift towards qualitative
approaches (Lowenberg 1993), could signal the emergence of a new dominant
paradigm, which would be equally as restrictive to nursing as reliance
on positivist approaches. This case study is undertaken within the view
that it is essential, for the future development of nursing knowledge and
practice, that a co-existence of research approaches and methods develops.
Cull-Wilby & Pepin (1987) and Dzurec (1989) see evidence of paradigmatic
shifts in nursing research and view the acceptance of multiple paradigms
as essential to the growth of nursing research. Nagle & Mitchell (1991:24)
believe that "blanket acceptance of one approach smothers creativity, scholarly
inquiry, and growth", while Cull-Wilby & Pepin (1987:520) warn that
nurses must "recognise that anything that values exclusively one standard
as superior...restricts [nursing's] ability to progress beyond the boundaries
it self-imposes".
From this brief overview, one can see the many congruities within the three strands of the frame of reference, not least in their convergence on a view of reality as context-bound, open to multiple interpretations, and constructed within language use. Before proceeding to consider selected literature dealing with CMC, the next chapter provides a brief introduction to the communication medium studied, the Internet.
Copyright: Peter J. Murray 1996, 1997, 2000
Click here to return to différance, Peter Murray's Home page
Created and maintained by: Peter Murray
E-mail: peter@nursing-informatics.net
Last updated 23 June 2000 (contact email address changed; previous address
on longer valid; previous job affiliation deleted)
Previous update: 21 June 1997 (design only changed; substantive text unaltered)