Systematic Problem Analysis: A Method with a Potential for Research-Design-Equivalent Rigor

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/152847
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Systematic Problem Analysis: A Method with a Potential for Research-Design-Equivalent Rigor
Abstract:
Systematic Problem Analysis: A Method with a Potential for Research-Design-Equivalent Rigor
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:1986
Author:Bircher, Andrea, PhD
P.I. Institution Name:
Title:
The general topic of this theoretical poster is inception of scientific inquiry.



The specific approach used is a synthesis of relevant aspects from the scientific-, clinical-, problem-solving-, and goal achieving processes. Sequential steps are delineated, purpose, principle and procedure indicated, and an example is cited.



The central thesis states that systematic problem analysis is a method with a potential for research-design equivalent rigor. That rigor leads from the notice of a manifest surface concern to the identification of the underlying conceptual-theoretical problems, through clarification and process-definition of concepts to reformulation of the problem. Such rigor also generates hypotheses with high probability of empirical validation.



Initiation of Inquiry: The most important aspect of scientific research is the initiation of inquiry since the problem statement propels the entire study (Howser, 1986; Kaplan, 1964, p. 382; Northrop, 1967, D '/8; Polit & Hungler, 1978, p. 40). With a false or superficial beginning, no rigor in later work can ever retrieve the situation (Northrop, 1967, p. 1).



Scientific work consists of propositions that are composed of words. Words derive their meaning from the ideas for which they stand. Ideas constitute the foundation, the very essence of Science. If basic ideas are vague, ambiguous or, confused, then the theories and methods built with them also lack firmness. Effective scientific work depends on the development of sound formulating concepts (Blalock, 1984 & 1982; Northrop, 1967, p. 11; Sartori, 1984; Wagner, 1984).



Systematic Problem Analysis: Systematic problem analysis Northrop's (1967) study-plan for purposeful, experience relevant research (Bircher, 1966, 1968 A & B, 1985, 1986). It delineates ten steps, the last four of which comprise standard research procedure:



1. The Manifest Concern. Purpose: observe and describe an indeterminate situation that is problematic. Principle: reduce the problem to a statement of relevant facts. Procedure: start with a felt difficulty, incongruence or contradiction in clinical practice and its suggested explanation. Autonomy Example: problems in nursing care of depressed patients.



2. Analysis of the Manifest Concern. Purpose: relevant facts. Principle: assemble all relevant facts and evidence. Procedure: inspect facts. 2.1 analysis of personal and professional experience. 2.2 analysis of professional literature in the immediate field/Nursing. 2.3 Identifying the formulating concepts. Autonomy Example: depression, anger, grief, helplessness, hopelessness, suicide, dependence, passive receptivity, oral fixation, trust, ego functions, developmental learning tasks, autonomy deficits.



3. Clarification of the Theoretical Source of the Problem. Purpose: identify formulating concepts. Principle: translating theoretical materials into terms of human experiences. Procedure: review literature. 3.1 Analysis and process-definitions of concepts. 3.2 Analysis of relevant theories. 3.3 Analysis of relevant research. 3.4 Summary-synthesis. Autonomy Example: process-definition of autonomy concept.



4. Selection and Statement of the Study Problem. Purpose: delineate a researchable problem. Principle: empirical validation. Procedure: statement of problem selected for empirical investigation. Autonomy Example: investigate whether or not depressed patients manifest critical attributes of autonomy in nurse-patient-relationship-therapy interactions.



5. Delineation of Simplest Illustrative Case. Purpose: list significant factors and relations. Principle: specific example of general case. Procedure: describe-the-simplest-case which exhibits all - factors involved. Autonomy Example: nurse-client interactions which exhibit autonomy attributes.



6. Generation of Hypotheses. Purpose: develop hypotheses likely to be confirmed. Principle: illustrative specific example of general case. Procedure: state basic assumptions, rationale, hypotheses and deduced consequences.



7. Empirical Testing of Deduced Consequences. Research Study.



8. Drawing of Conclusions. Purpose: seek the truth. Principle: reason from evidence. Procedure: accept/reject hypotheses.



9. Clarify Original Manifest Concern in Light of Findings.



10. Draw Implications for Immediate and for Other Fields.



Conclusions: Systematic problem-analysis and synthesis of factors identified allow the development of an in-depth, holistic view of an indeterminate situation that is problematic in personal or professional experience. Success of this approach depends on the investigator's understanding, and voluntary self-submission to the basic principles of problem analysis, empirical validation, cognitive-rationality and scholarship. Given these conditions the systematic problem analysis approach to the inception of inquiry provides a means with high potential for gaining maximum dividends from antecedent scientific and epistemological work in the development of new research methods. Such research and methods also tend to be adequate to, do not destroy, over simplify, nor distort the complex, fragile and holistic phenomena of human experiences, responses, coping and interaction patterns that are the basic concerns of nursing practice.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleSystematic Problem Analysis: A Method with a Potential for Research-Design-Equivalent Rigoren_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/152847-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Systematic Problem Analysis: A Method with a Potential for Research-Design-Equivalent Rigor</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">1986</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Bircher, Andrea, PhD</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value"> </td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value"> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">The general topic of this theoretical poster is inception of scientific inquiry.<br/><br/><br/><br/>The specific approach used is a synthesis of relevant aspects from the scientific-, clinical-, problem-solving-, and goal achieving processes. Sequential steps are delineated, purpose, principle and procedure indicated, and an example is cited.<br/><br/><br/><br/>The central thesis states that systematic problem analysis is a method with a potential for research-design equivalent rigor. That rigor leads from the notice of a manifest surface concern to the identification of the underlying conceptual-theoretical problems, through clarification and process-definition of concepts to reformulation of the problem. Such rigor also generates hypotheses with high probability of empirical validation.<br/><br/><br/><br/>Initiation of Inquiry: The most important aspect of scientific research is the initiation of inquiry since the problem statement propels the entire study (Howser, 1986; Kaplan, 1964, p. 382; Northrop, 1967, D '/8; Polit &amp; Hungler, 1978, p. 40). With a false or superficial beginning, no rigor in later work can ever retrieve the situation (Northrop, 1967, p. 1).<br/><br/><br/><br/>Scientific work consists of propositions that are composed of words. Words derive their meaning from the ideas for which they stand. Ideas constitute the foundation, the very essence of Science. If basic ideas are vague, ambiguous or, confused, then the theories and methods built with them also lack firmness. Effective scientific work depends on the development of sound formulating concepts (Blalock, 1984 &amp; 1982; Northrop, 1967, p. 11; Sartori, 1984; Wagner, 1984).<br/><br/><br/><br/>Systematic Problem Analysis: Systematic problem analysis Northrop's (1967) study-plan for purposeful, experience relevant research (Bircher, 1966, 1968 A &amp; B, 1985, 1986). It delineates ten steps, the last four of which comprise standard research procedure:<br/><br/><br/><br/>1. The Manifest Concern. Purpose: observe and describe an indeterminate situation that is problematic. Principle: reduce the problem to a statement of relevant facts. Procedure: start with a felt difficulty, incongruence or contradiction in clinical practice and its suggested explanation. Autonomy Example: problems in nursing care of depressed patients.<br/><br/><br/><br/>2. Analysis of the Manifest Concern. Purpose: relevant facts. Principle: assemble all relevant facts and evidence. Procedure: inspect facts. 2.1 analysis of personal and professional experience. 2.2 analysis of professional literature in the immediate field/Nursing. 2.3 Identifying the formulating concepts. Autonomy Example: depression, anger, grief, helplessness, hopelessness, suicide, dependence, passive receptivity, oral fixation, trust, ego functions, developmental learning tasks, autonomy deficits.<br/><br/><br/><br/>3. Clarification of the Theoretical Source of the Problem. Purpose: identify formulating concepts. Principle: translating theoretical materials into terms of human experiences. Procedure: review literature. 3.1 Analysis and process-definitions of concepts. 3.2 Analysis of relevant theories. 3.3 Analysis of relevant research. 3.4 Summary-synthesis. Autonomy Example: process-definition of autonomy concept.<br/><br/><br/><br/>4. Selection and Statement of the Study Problem. Purpose: delineate a researchable problem. Principle: empirical validation. Procedure: statement of problem selected for empirical investigation. Autonomy Example: investigate whether or not depressed patients manifest critical attributes of autonomy in nurse-patient-relationship-therapy interactions.<br/><br/><br/><br/>5. Delineation of Simplest Illustrative Case. Purpose: list significant factors and relations. Principle: specific example of general case. Procedure: describe-the-simplest-case which exhibits all - factors involved. Autonomy Example: nurse-client interactions which exhibit autonomy attributes.<br/><br/><br/><br/>6. Generation of Hypotheses. Purpose: develop hypotheses likely to be confirmed. Principle: illustrative specific example of general case. Procedure: state basic assumptions, rationale, hypotheses and deduced consequences.<br/><br/><br/><br/>7. Empirical Testing of Deduced Consequences. Research Study.<br/><br/><br/><br/>8. Drawing of Conclusions. Purpose: seek the truth. Principle: reason from evidence. Procedure: accept/reject hypotheses.<br/><br/><br/><br/>9. Clarify Original Manifest Concern in Light of Findings.<br/><br/><br/><br/>10. Draw Implications for Immediate and for Other Fields.<br/><br/><br/><br/>Conclusions: Systematic problem-analysis and synthesis of factors identified allow the development of an in-depth, holistic view of an indeterminate situation that is problematic in personal or professional experience. Success of this approach depends on the investigator's understanding, and voluntary self-submission to the basic principles of problem analysis, empirical validation, cognitive-rationality and scholarship. Given these conditions the systematic problem analysis approach to the inception of inquiry provides a means with high potential for gaining maximum dividends from antecedent scientific and epistemological work in the development of new research methods. Such research and methods also tend to be adequate to, do not destroy, over simplify, nor distort the complex, fragile and holistic phenomena of human experiences, responses, coping and interaction patterns that are the basic concerns of nursing practice.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T11:52:14Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T11:52:14Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.