The author’s main claims relating to the review question
Two studies under consideration differ in the main claims made by the authors, methodology used, and their findings. Chesser-Smyth’s study supports the idea that first clinical placement often changes the students’ views on the world (Levett-Jones and Bourgeois 2007; Gray and Smith 2000); the second one, performed by Corlett, Palfreyman, Staines, and Marr is dedicated to the one of the most debatable issues in nursing, the theory-practice gap (Kenney 2002; Basford and Slevin 2003; Carey 2000). Since the research questions of two studies are different, the main claims made also differ. Chesser-Smyth (2005) claims that clinical placement can be stressful and challenging for nursing students (Levett-Jones and Bourgeois 2007; Jeffreys 2004). Corlett et al. (2003), in their turn, claim that there is much difference between the theoretical and practical aspects of nursing (Rafferty and Traynor 2001) and that three factors may affect these aspects.
Moreover, these two studies differ in methodology. Chesser-Smyth’s uses a suiting method for her study, descriptive phenomenology, which is believed to be “particularly important in qualitative inquiry because of the intensely personal nature of the data collection and analysis experience” (Loiselle, Profetto-McGrath, Polit and Beck 2010, p. 178), while Corlett et al. (2003) chose experimental research, one of the most common methods of research in quantitative studies (Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen 2009). The second study, however, was more successful in the use of data collection tools. The first study used only personal interviews as a method of data collection, while the second one used a variety of tools including a multiple choice item test that is one of the most objective assessment methods (Morrison, Ross, Kemp and Kelman 2009), discussions, and an observation schedule; the latter tool, however, if often regarded as highly subjective (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007)
In terms of the findings, both the articles mostly achieved the desirable, but only the first researcher reached the desired conclusions. Thus, Chesser-Smyth (2005) has discovered that most of the students have positive emotions with regards to their first clinical placing and that these emotions are further sustained by the favorable clinical learning environment (Spouse 2001; Chan 2001; Randle 2003).
Evaluation of the authors’ main claims relating to the review question
Evaluating these two studies, it is necessary to discuss their fitness for purpose, strengths, limitations, and the convincingness of their main claims. In terms of fitness for purpose, Chesser-Smyth’s study can be called exemplary. The author has clearly identified the purposes of her paper and then addressed them one-by-one. She also greatly supported her findings by the excerpts from the interviews, which made the study more realistic, as it is always the case with narratives (Holloway and Freshwater 2007; Rosiek and Atkinson 2007; Frid, Ohlen and Bergbom 2000). In contrast, the second group of researchers does not state the exact purpose of the study, even though they clearly identify what they are going to research. This is why it is hardly possible to define this study’s fitness for purpose. Generally, it can be identified that their purpose was to prove that certain factors (three factors) affect students’ knowledge and practical skills acquisition and the influence of these factors can bridge the theory-practice gap. If this was indeed their purpose, then their study did not achieve it because it focused more on testing the students’ theoretical knowledge and practical skills barely touching upon the factors under consideration. It is also worth mentioning that testing the students’ knowledge and skills is not discussed in the introduction of the article, which means that this cannot be the purpose of the researchers.
Evaluating the strengths of the studies, it should be noted that Chesser-Smyth’s research is quite strong in its content because it integrates findings, narratives, critical comments to them, and discussion creating a rich story that encompasses the nature of the phenomenon that the author is exploring. Findings presentation and discussion of the results in Corlett et al.’s study is also quite substantial, but methodology still remains the main strength of their research. Another strength of Corlett et al.’s study is that their quantitative research is a continuation of a qualitative study carried out earlier, which accounts for the authors’ constant referring to it. This creates a feeling that the issue in question has been thoroughly researched. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the strength of Chesser-Smyth’s study is in her using narrative, which could also have been done by Corlett et al. (because they used discussions as one of the methods of data collection) but was ignored by them. Chesser-Smyth’s article, however, has its weaknesses as well. The researcher conducted interviews with the participants, but she never describes how these interviews were recorded and whether or not the names of the participants have been changed (or at least whether anyone expressed a desire to remain anonymous). The study deals with the participants’ emotions this is why discussing confidentiality issues seems to be necessary in it. The last weakness for both the studies is that none of them discusses whether the information was coded during the interviews (in Chesser-Smyth’s study) and discussions (in Corlett et al’s study). Coding is applicable to both the studies, though one of them is qualitative and the other is quantitative. This aspect needed to be highlighted by the researchers because it is vital to show how exactly the data was categorized.
With regards to limitations, only Chesser-Smyth’s study properly accounts for them. Reporting about limitations is more than desirable in such studies (Katz 2009; Marschan-Piekkari and Welch 2004). The author mentions that the data that she has obtained have a rather limited capacity for representation because they have been collected only at one nurse education institution. Though Corlett et al. do not recognize this as a limitation, their study also took place at one institution only, which was explained by the authors by rather short time they had at disposal. Nevertheless, this does not justify their failure to report about limitations to their study. At this, however, the authors admit that they have not always been successful when researching the issue and answering the posed questions (Corlett et al. 2003).
Lastly, in terms of convincingness of the main claims, both the authors were quite successful, but Chesser-Smyth was more logical in developing and supporting her claims. For instance, she begins with turning attention to the fact that clinical placement affects the students’ emotional state, which has a direct influence on their attitude towards the studies and, consequently, towards the profession as such (Stuart 2003; Harrison 2002; Hinchliff and Hinchliff 2009). Besides, her article is properly structured, which only increases the comprehension of her claims, which is not true of Corlett at al.’s study. These authors were less logical in presenting their claims, which makes these claims less convincing. They never explore the three factors they sort out separately paying more attention to the description of their methodology and data collection. This makes their research difficult to comprehend. Moreover, their claims are not backed up by reasons and, though this does not mean that the claims are untruthful (Wallace and Wray 2006), this makes them lose a great part of their convincingness. In this way, Corlett et al.’s claims can be regarded less convincing than those proposed by Chesser-Smyth.
References
Ary, D, Jacobs, LC and Razavieh, A 2009, Introduction to research in education, Cengage learning, London.
Basford, L and Slevin, O 2003, Theory and practice of nursing: an integrated approach to caring practice, Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham.
Carey, L 2000, Practice nursing, Elsevier Health Sciences, London.
Chan D, 2001, ‘Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in assessing hospital learning environments,’ International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 38, pp. 447.
Chesser-Smyth, P (2005), ‘The lived experiences of general student nurses on their first clinical placement: a phenomenological study,’ Nurse Education in Practice, vol. 5, pp. 320-327.
Cohen, L, Manion, L and Morrison, KRB 2007, Research methods in education, Routledge, New York.
Corlett, J, Palfreyman, JW, Staines, HJ and Marr, H 2003, ‘Factors influencing theoretical knowledge and practical skill acquisition in student nurses: an empirical experiment,’ Nurse Education Today, vol. 23, pp. 183-190.
Frid, I, Ohlen, J and Bergbom, I 2000, ‘On the use of narratives in nursing research,’ Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 695-703.
Gray, MA and Smith, LN 2000, ‘The qualities of an effective mentor from the student nurses’ perspective: findings from a longitudinal qualitative study,’ Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 32, no.6, pp. 1542–1549.
Jeffreys, MR 2004, Nursing student retention: understanding the process and making a difference, Springer Publishing Company, London.
Harrison, R 2002, Supporting Lifelong Learning: Perspectives on learning, Routledge, London.
Hinchliff SM and Hinchliff S 2009, The practitioner as teacher, Elsevier Health Sciences, London.
Holloway, I and Freshwater, D 2007, Narrative research in nursing, Wiley-Blackwell, New York.
Katz, MJ 2009, from research to manuscript: a guide to scientific writing, Springer, London.
Kenney, JW 2002, Philosophical and theoretical perspectives for advanced nursing practice, Jones & Bartlett Learning, London.
Levett-Jones, T and Bourgeois, S 2007, The clinical placement: an essential guide for nursing students, Elsevier Australia, Sydney.
Loiselle, CG, Profetto-McGrath, J, Polit, DF and Beck, CT 2010, Canadian essentials of nursing research, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, London.
Marschan-Piekkari, R and Welch, C 2004, Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business, Edward Elgar Publishing, Amsterdam.
Morrison, GR, Ross, SM, Kemp, JE and Kelman, H 2009, Designing effective instruction, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Rafferty, AM and Traynor, M 2001, Exemplary research for nursing and midwifery, Routledge, London.
Randle, J 2003, ‘Changes in self-esteem during a 3-year preregistration Diploma in Higher Education (Nursing) programme,’ Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 12, pp. 142–143.
Rosiek, J and Atkinson, B 2007, ‘The Inevitability and Importance of Genres in Narrative Research on Teaching Practice,’ Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 499-521.
Spouse, J 2001, ‘Workplace learning; pre-registration nursing students’ perspectives,’ Nurse Education Today, vol. 1, pp. 149–156.
Stuart, CC 2003, Assessment, supervision, and support in clinical practice: a guide for nurses, midwives, and other health professionals, Elsevier Health Sciences, London.
Wallace, M and Wray, A 2006, Critical reading and writing for postgraduates, SAGE Publications Ltd., London.