|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Intuition and expertise: Comments on the Benner debate|
|Citation:||Paley J (1996) Intuition and expertise: Comments on the Benner debate, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23 (4), pp. 665-671.|
|Abstract:||The rift between 'science' and 'phenomenology' in current nursing theory is explored through an examination of two recent evaluations of the work of Patricia Benner, who has proposed a model of skill acquisition, latterly within a Heideggerian framework. English offers a critique of Benner's ideas from the perspective of cognitive psychology; while Darbyshire defends them against what he describes as a 'positivist' attack. No attempt is made, in this paper, to evaluate Benner's work directly, but Darbyshire's response to the 'critique' is analysed; and it is noted that, in making his defence, he invokes a network of concepts which he ascribes to a 'traditional notion of objective science', and accuses English of subscribing to it. It is suggested that this 'Cartesian' worldview is an outmoded myth, superseded by the philosophy of science during the last 30 years, and based on the rhetoric rather than the reality of scientific practice, Nursing is not, therefore, obliged to choose between 'positivism' and a philosophy whose chief virtue is that it represents a 'challenge' to positivism. It could instead build a scientific basis for research and theory by drawing, not on mid-century thinking, but on a more contemporary understanding of the nature of science.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Paley_1996_Intuition_and_expertise.pdf||735.91 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Permanent Embargo Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.