...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Nursing philosophy: an international journal for healthcare professionals >Reading concept analysis: Why Draper has a point
【24h】

Reading concept analysis: Why Draper has a point

机译：阅读概念分析：为什么德珀有一个点

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract Peter Draper has offered a critique of concept analysis in nursing, suggesting that many concept analysis studies can be regarded as low‐grade literature reviews. Although I will argue en passant that he was right, defending Draper is not my main concern in this paper. Instead, I undertake a close reading of a single study, and identify a series of puzzles about what it says. The puzzles pertain to the distinction between concept and phenomenon; the function of definition; discriminating between the concept of interest and other concepts; how defining attributes are derived; in what sense concept analysis clarifies the concept; whether concept analysis can adjudicate current debates; the role of model cases. The point is to show how a precise and detailed interrogation of this kind sets an agenda of questions which can be asked about other examples of the same genre. The approach gives rise to concerns about the politics of reading in the current academic environment, and I refer to these concerns briefly at the end.
机译：摘要彼得·德珀在护理方面提供了对概念分析的批判，这表明许多概念分析研究可以被视为低级文学评论。虽然我会争辩者，但他是对的，卫冕德国不是我对本文的主要关注点。相反，我对一项研究进行了密切阅读，并识别关于它所说的一系列谜题。谜题与概念和现象之间的区别有关;定义的函数;歧视兴趣概念和其他概念;如何派生定义属性;在什么意义上概念分析阐明了概念;概念分析是否可以裁决当前辩论;模型案例的作用。重点是展示这种类型的精确和详细询问如何设置问题的议程，这可以询问同一类型的其他示例。该方法引起了对当前学术环境中阅读政治的担忧，我在最后简要地提到这些问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号