Book Reviews and New Media
Book Reviews and New Media
复制标题
书评和新媒体
DOI：
10.1177/0894318404266330
复制
发表时间：
2004
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
C. Jonas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Jonas
佩吉钦恩和梅奥娜克雷默已经产生了一个新的版本，他们的开创性工作的知识发展，在护理现在的标题，综合知识发展护理。三位护士学者对这个新版本进行了审查：霍华德·布彻、伊索尔德·戴斯基和琳达·穆迪。所有的评论者都同意，我也同意，这是一个重要的开创性文本护士和护理学生，因为它提供了基本的内容，许多有用的指导方针，和图表都在一个易于阅读。然而，所有的评论者都指出了如果列入的话，这本书将得到加强的领域。除其他外，我特别同意布彻指出的一个领域，即缺乏对护理概念框架的重视。布彻在这里争辩说，“护理概念框架是认识的方式，指导个人，经验，美学，道德和任何其他方式的认识，是特定的或从特定的概念框架演变。”对我来说，这是定义和发展独特护理知识的关键。此外，通过护理理论指导的探究方法，在知识发展方面取得了相当大的进展。例如，在过去的5年里，人类成为学者通过艺术对知识发展做出了重大贡献（Baumann，1999; Jonas-Simpson，2001; Kruse，1999; Mitchell，2004; Parse，1999），但这些，沿着其他评论家指出的作品，没有被提及。虽然新的内容，在领域确定的评论家将加强这本书，我想强调需要更新的信息，护理理论，因为许多护理学生可能只收到这个简短的介绍。即使有局限性，我会推荐这本书作为一个必不可少的资源，但不是唯一的资源，护士和护理学生学习，思考和反思护理的认识方式以及框架，发展护理知识。
Peggy Chinn and Maeona Kramer have produced a new edition of their seminal work on knowledge development in nursing now titled, Integrated Knowledge Development in Nursing. Three nurse scholars reviewed this new edition: Howard Butcher, Isolde Daiski, and Linda Moody. All reviewers agreed, and I concur, that this is an important seminal text for nurses and nursing students as it provides essential content, many helpful guidelines, and diagrams all amid an ease of readability. All reviewers, however, identified areas where, if included, the book would be strengthened. Among others, I agree in particular with an area Butcher noted regarding the lack of emphasis on nursing conceptual frameworks. Butcher contends here that “nursing conceptual frameworks are ways of knowing guiding personal, empirical, aesthetic, ethical, and any other ways of knowing that are specific to or evolve from the specific conceptual framework.” This, to me, is key to defining and developing unique nursing knowledge. Furthermore, considerable ground has been made in knowledge development through methods of inquiry guided by nursing theory. For example, human becoming scholars have contributed significantly to knowledge development through the arts over the past 5 years (Baumann, 1999; Jonas-Simpson, 2001; Kruse, 1999; Mitchell, 2004; Parse, 1999) and yet these, along with other works noted by the reviewers, were not mentioned. While new content in the areas identified by reviewers would strengthen this book, I would like to emphasize the need for updated information about the nursing theories, as many nursing students may only receive this brief introduction. Even with the limitations, I would recommend this book as an essential resource but not the sole resource for nurses and nursing students to learn, contemplate, and reflect upon nursing ways of knowing as well as a framework for developing nursing knowledge.