Undergraduates of health related A new framework for critiquing health-related research studies therefore have to consider health research in its is presented in this article. More commonly used existing broadest sense. While frameworks for A common method of assessing understanding both of critiquing qualitative research exist, they are often the subject area and the research methodologies utilized complex and more suited to the needs of students within that subject area is the presentation of a detailed engaged in advanced levels of study.
Translate this page from English Print Page Change Text Size: T T T Ethics Without Indoctrination Abstract In this revised paper, originally published in Educational LeadershipRichard Paul argues that ethics ought to be taught in school, but only in conjunction with critical thinking.
Without critical thinking at the heart of ethical instruction, indoctrination rather than ethical insight results. Moral principles do not apply themselves, they require a thinking mind to assess facts and interpret situations.
Moral agents inevitably bring their perspectives into play in making moral judgments and this, together with the natural tendency of the human mind to self-deception when its interests are involved, is the fundamental impediment to the right use of ethical principles.
Paul spells out the implications of this view for the teaching of ethics in literature, science, history, and civics. He provides a taxonomy of moral reasoning skills and describes an appropriate long term staff development strategy to foster ethics across the curriculum.
The Problem of Indoctrination Early everyone recognizes that even young children have moral feelings and ideas, make moral inferences and judgments, and develop an outlook on life which has moral significance for good or ill. Nearly everyone also gives at least lip service to a universal common core of general ethical principles — for example, that it is morally wrong to cheat, deceive, exploit, abuse, harm, or steal from others, that everyone has a moral responsibility to respect the rights of others, including their freedom and well-being, to help those most in need of help, to seek the common good and not merely their own self-interest and egocentric pleasures, to strive in some way to make this world more just and humane.
Unfortunately, mere verbal agreement on general moral principles alone will not accomplish important moral ends nor change the world for the better. Moral principles mean something only when manifested in behavior.
They have force only when embodied in action.
Yet to put them into action requires some analysis and insight into the real character of everyday situations. The world does not present itself to us in morally transparent terms. The moral thing to do is often a matter of disagreement even among people of good will.
One and the same act is often morally praised by some, condemned by others. Furthermore, even when we do not face the morally conflicting claims of others, we often have our own inner conflicts as to what, morally speaking, we should do in some particular situation.
Considered another way, ethical persons, however strongly motivated to do what is morally right, can do so only if they know what that is. And this they cannot do if they systematically confuse their sense of what is morally right with their self-interest, personal desires, or what is commonly believed in their peer group or community.
Because of complexities such as these, ethically motivated persons must learn the art of self-critique, of moral self-examination, to become attuned to the pervasive everyday pitfalls of moral judgment: These human foibles cause pseudo-morality, the systematic misuse of moral terms and principles in the guise of moral action and righteousness.
Unfortunately few have thought much about the complexity of everyday moral issues, can identify their own moral contradictions, or clearly distinguish their self-interest and egocentric desires from what is genuinely moral.
Few have thought deeply about their own moral feelings and judgments, have tied these judgments together into a coherent moral perspective, or have mastered the complexities of moral reasoning.
As a result, everyday moral judgments are often a subtle mixture of pseudo and genuine morality, moral insight and moral prejudice, moral truth and moral hypocrisy. Herein lies the danger of setting up ill-thought-out public school programs in moral education. Without scrupulous care, we merely pass on to students our own moral blindness, moral distortions, and close-mindedness.
Certainly many who trumpet most loudly for ethics and morality in the schools merely want students to adopt their ethical beliefs and their ethical perspectives, regardless of the fusion of insight and prejudice those beliefs and perspectives doubtless represent.
They take themselves to have the Truth in their pockets. They take their perspective to be exemplary of all morality rightly conceived. Now, if truth be told, all of these fears are justified. People, except in the most rare and exceptional cases, do have a strong tendency to confuse what they believe with the truth.
It is always the others who do evil, who are deceived, self-interested, close-minded never us. Given this universal blind spot in human nature, the only safe and justified basis for ethical education in the public schools is one precisely designed to rule out bias in favor of the substantive beliefs and conclusions of any particular group, whether religious, political, communal, or national.
Indeed since one of our most fundamental responsibilities as educators is to educate rather than indoctrinate our students to help them cultivate skills, insights, knowledge, and traits of mind and character that transcend narrow party and religious affiliations and help them to think beyond biased representations of the world we must put special safeguards into moral education that prevent indoctrination.Developing a framework for critiquing health research BSc, PhD, RN, RNT, PGCHE, ILTM, Head of the Institute of Nursing and Midwifery, School of Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University.
A new framework for critiquing health-related research is presented in this article. More commonly used existing frameworks tend to have been formulated within the quantitative research paradigm.
Developing A Framework For Critiquing Health Research Nursing Essay. Print Reference It would also seem that this transferability is strongly enhanced by the relationship between the conceptual framework of their research and the data collection and analysis (Marshall and Rossman, ).
student’s personalised plans from the. A new framework for critiquing health-related research is presented in this article. More commonly used existing frameworks tend to have been formulated within the quantitative research paradigm. Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and regardbouddhiste.com a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex.
Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods. Both males and females can exhibit masculine traits and behavior.
Frameworks for critiquing quantitative research The framework presented by Sandwich () provides a useful checklist covering points that are appropriate for critiquing quantitative research relevant to nursing and health care students and provides an explanation and rationale for critique.