Search the Community

I am taking a class in my 3rd year of university called research methodology. the first lecture discussed nursing research, the role it has within the profession and in healthcare. A large part of the research was about types of research and the main paradigms that researchers subscribe to. There is the positivist paradigm and the naturalist paradigm. Each camp has its own views about reality. Positivists are empirical and objective, believing " . . . that there is reality out there that can be studied and known . . . objective reality exists independent of human observation." (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). They are called determinists as they believe that phenomena not random but have antecedent causes and they use an approach that involves realiance on orderly, rigorous procedures with tight control over situations to test predictions about the nature of phenomena and they relationships among them. (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). Positivisists use quantitative research methods, meaning they find ways to measure phenomena so that they can use statistics to analyze data. Naturalists are presented as a countermovement to positivism. The naturalistic researchers, reality is not a "fixed entity" but rather a construction of the individuals participating in the research ( (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). They are relativist thinkers who posit "if there are always multiple interpretations of the reality that exists in people's minds, then there is no process by which the ultimate truth or falsity of the contractions can be determined." They believe that knowledge is maximized when the researchers and the participants are close to one another. They listen to voices and interpretations of those under study because they think that subjective interactions are key to understanding phenomena (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). These researchers use QUALITATIVE methods. My professor revealed her bias toward Qualitative research methods throughout the lecture. Her tone and word choice are what lead me to believe she had a bias. When speaking about QUALitative research methods she words like: we, us, our patients. When she spoke about QUANTitative research she used words like they and them. She said something like, "they think all people are the same, they treat people like numbers and not unique individuals". Two other professors, with whom I have discussed the possibility of performing and publishing research as an undergraduate, have leaned heavily toward the naturalist worldview. They seem to discourage quantitative methods. My analysis of the situation: Qualitative research has a place in any social research area. It is often used to simply explore groups and populations of people gain insight as to what phenomena may exist. Which sets the stage for people who do actual science to produce credible information about our world. For some reason qualitative research is presented as an equal methodology. If we are seek to be intellectually honest we should simply describe it as what it is. A method in which a researcher gathers subjective information from a very small group people or even a single person, then presents a subjective interpretation of that information. I think the undue respect given to qualitative research is largely the fact that it is an easy way for a Professor to appear productive. Math takes to much effort. Why would a person (a person as Hobbes sees people) put in the effort and time to publish quantitative research when they can produce qualitative papers 4 times as fast? Publishing Quantitative research requires the use of math/statistics while qualitative research can be as easy as writing a glorified blog post. The pay is the same for either way. Nursing is also dominated by women who constantly seek to validate their profession. They want to be seen as professionally equal to physicians and even express feelings of moral superiority claiming they love and truly care for their patients. Yes, it is important that patients feel like their healthcare providers actually care about them because it fosters a belief in ones ability to overcome disease. It is also simply nice for patients to be around kind people, but flattery, warm feelings, and bad acting don't cut the cancer from their bellies or prevent micro-organisms from overwhelming their systems. To do that you need to draw from 100's of years of truth (that which is rational consistent and empirically verifiable). So now that I have had my rant. Do you think the naturalist paradigm (qualitative research) should be considered truth?

I've been researching ways to avoid Obamacare lately, and I have stumbled upon Liberty HealthShare. From what I gather it's an insurance-like scheme, that lets you avoid the Obamacare regulation and penalties. I wrote up a short presentation:https://hackounting.info/content/2/