Essentials of Scholarship for the DNP: Are We Clear Yet?

Abstract

During a recent session of the theory course for the Ph.D. program in at the University of Michigan, the students and I were discussing an editorial by Dr. Ann Whall (2005) . In the editorial, Whall was commenting on a comparison of practice-focused and research-focused doctoral in reported in a document of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). In the current version of this document, the AACN (2006) states that ... practice-focused understandably place greater emphasis on practice, and less emphasis on theory, meta-theory, research methodology, and statistics than is apparent in research-focused programs (p. 3). Whall was warning of the dangers to our practice that could spring from inattention to the philosophical (arguably metatheoretical) basis of our field. The students were stunned to learn that the national organization for higher education in in the United States would de-emphasize in any doctoral program, whether practice- or research-focused, what they saw as both an essential basis for intelligent and informed practice and critical information for any effort at knowledge development for our field. One went so far as to reason that the lack of such knowledge and appreciation for it among registered nurses in general was a source of the power imbalance between and other health professions in interdisciplinary contexts and to argue that such content actually be introduced and emphasized in baccalaureate (Hear, hear!). I was heartened by the students' passion and commitment to our disciplinary ideals, focus, and tools, and my hope for a better future for our profession and discipline rose significantly. Nonetheless, the discussion prompted me to take another look at what the AACN Essentials of Doctoral Education for Advanced Nursing Practice document espoused as to the nature of within such programs. In laying out Essential III: Clinical Scholarship and Analytical Methods for Evidence-Based Practice, the document relies on a distinction between Boyer's (1990) of discovery and of integration, deemed by the AACN as relevant to a research-focused doctorate, and his of application, seen as a frame for the practice-focused doctorate. While this is a tidy way to distinguish the scholarly focus within these two degree options, it is not an argument that supports a de-emphasis of our theoretical, metatheoretical, methodological, or statistical foundations in a practice doctorate. If the of application for our practice is not grounded in the same philosophical traditions as the of discovery and integration, what then is at its base? And, if its base is truly different than that of the of discovery and integration, could the scholars of application rationally draw upon the theories and findings of their counterparts in the vein of discovery to apply them? Further, in light of the complexities of the of application, rapidly coming to be known as translational science, a strong connection to our foundations would seem critical for emerging a scholarship of practice in nursing (p.11), as the Essentials document terms it, in order that such is grounded in the historical perspective, ontology, and epistemology of our field. Anyone doubting that metatheoretical issues abound in translational science is just not reading! (see Rycroft-Malone, 2007 and related articles in Nursing Research , 56(4S).) Clearly, scholars seeking to advance translational science are grappling with these matters in a very real and considered way. Would we want and expect those best educated in the of practice in to be any less prepared to handle these questions? Looking further at the Essentials document, practice is broadly defined and appropriately so. Great latitude is given to pursue any in the full range of specializations and to select across the span of roles from direct patient care to policy making. …