It is widely accepted that scientific merit and research ethics are closely related. And yet, while the ethical principles that guide research are uncontested, the meaning of scientific merit is open to interpretation based on one’s philosophical perspective and research tradition. When adherents of the natural science tradition use the criteria of that tradition to evaluate research situated in the human science tradition, misunderstanding and misjudgment will result. This unfortunate situation has negative implications for the flourishing of human science nursing and, ultimately, may deprive society of opportunities to benefit from humanistic practice aimed at enhancing the quality of life for recipients of healthcare. In such circumstances, it behooves nurses committed to human science nursing to continue to vigorously articulate and pursue their values and ethics concerning nursing research and healthcare.
Beck, C. T. (1993). Qualitative research: The evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(2), 263-266.
2.
Burns, N. (1989). Standards for qualitative research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 2, 44-52.
3.
Canadian Nurses Association . (1991). Code of ethics for nursing. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
4.
Canadian Nurses Association . (1994). Ethical guidelines for nurses in research involving human participants (2nd rev. ed.). Ottawa, Canada: Author.
5.
Cody, W. K. , & Mitchell, G. J. (2002). Nursing knowledge and human science revisited: Practical and political considerations. Nursing Science Quarterly, 15, 4-13.
6.
Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
International Consortium of Parse Scholars . (1999). A nursing position on global healthcare: Our commitment to humankind. Nursing Science Quarterly, 12, 347.
8.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Kuzel, A. J. , & Like, R. C. (1991). Standards of trustworthiness for qualitative studies in primary care. In P. G. Norton, M. Stewart, F. Tudiver, M. J. Bass, & E. V. Dunn (Eds.), Primary care research: Traditional and innovative approaches (pp. 138-158). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Malinski, V. M. (2002). Nursing research and the human sciences. Nursing Science Quarterly, 15, 14-20.
11.
Meslin, E. M. (1996). Guidebook for submission of protocols to the research ethics board. Toronto, Canada: Sunnybrook Health Science Centre. (Original work prepared 1992)
12.
Mitchell, G. J. (1994). Discipline-specific inquiry: Exploring the hermeneutics of theory-guided nursing research. Nursing Outlook, 5(42), 224-228.
13.
Mitchell, G. J. , & Cody, W. K. (1992). Nursing knowledge and human science: Ontological and epistemological considerations. Nursing Science Quarterly, 5, 54-61.
14.
Parse, R. R. (2001a). The lived experience of contentment: A study using the Parse research method. Nursing Science Quarterly, 14, 330-338.
15.
Parse, R. R. (2001b). Qualitative inquiry: The path of sciencing. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
16.
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 27-37.
17.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1-8.
18.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 179-183.
19.
Smith, J. (1990). Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 167-187). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
