Editorial

Scientific methods are the onlycredible way forward for nursingresearch

What is the place of scientific methodsin nursing research? It is very hard toimagine that anyone could argue againstthem or that anyone could argue exclu-sively for another approach to investi-gation in any field. Science rests uponthe ability to measure. Measurement isthe antidote to subjectivity: it settlesarguments and suggests specific, newlines of inquiry. Subjectivity lies at theheart of non-scientific methods, andsubjectivity is what scientific methodsexpressly aim to avoid.

By scientific methods I mean, essen-tially, anything that involves measure-ment, objectivity and rigour, includingrandomized controlled trials (RCTs),surveys, taxonomies, systematic reviewsand so on. Anything where the methodused can be clearly explained, repeatedand potentially, replicated. If these threefeatures – explicability, repeatability andthe potential for replication – are missingfrom a research approach, then thatapproach is not scientific; and thatapproach, I contend, has little, if any,place in nursing research. Therefore, allforms of research involving subjectivity –such as phenomenology, grounded the-ory and ethnography – are not scientific.

To explain something means to tellsomeone else precisely how you didsomething. Scientific and non-scientificresearch can both pass this test. Expli-cability is crucial in science in order thatthe next feature may be apparent, rep-eatability: that is, the ability of someoneelse, based on your explanation, to doexactly the same as you did. Scientificresearch passes this test; non-scientificresearch does not. Only if something canbe repeated is there any chance that thefindings might be replicated or, indeed,refuted. A further feature of scientificresearch is that another investigator canmake changes to what you did in orderto improve upon what you did, deliber-

ately, to find out something new. Non-scientific methods – which I’ll come tolater – can be explained but are imposs-ible to repeat since they rely upon, evenglorify themselves in, subjectivity. Thechances of replication are negligible. Asfor refutation, I am not sure that it hasever happened in non-scientific research.Qualitative findings appear to be accep-ted without question; used to build asubsequent study; and a whole field of‘knowledge’ builds up without everbeing challenged.

Measurement is only appropriate if itis reliable and valid. In scientific terms,validity is predicated upon reliability: ifyou are not measuring the same thingeach time you make a measurement,then what you are using to measurewhat you are purporting to measuresimply cannot be valid. However, thosewith a predilection for non-scientificmethods make vague claims about reli-ability and validity – and even get themthe wrong way round. For instance, Ihave heard qualitative researchers saythat it is possible to have validity inqualitative research, without havingreliability. This is simply not possible.If a method is not reliable it cannot beused by two people, or on two differentoccasions by the same person, to pro-duce the same results. Surely this shouldapply to qualitative methods every bit asmuch as it applies to scientific methods?If the method or measurement does notproduce the same result for you and me,then how can the result mean the samething to you and me? How can theresults be valid? Subjectivity is accept-able up to a point: it stimulates debateand leads to new lines of enquiry.However, why dress up a method inquasi-scientific terms if it does not pro-duce the same result for two people?

Explanations aside, it strikes me moreand more that, in non-scientific re-search, reliability means ‘I think thesame thing on two separate occasions’and something is valid simply because ‘Ithink it’. Such an approach to research,

which is totally internally valid, hasabsolutely no external validity, andexternal validity should be the goldstandard for all research. Without exter-nal validity and the hope of generaliz-ability – even to a limited group ofsubjects, as with the RCT – there seemslittle point to the research.

What are the alternatives to scientificmethods? A whole range of qualitativemethods are on offer: phenomenology,ethnography, postmodernism, discourseanalysis, grounded theory, and all therest. But, really, they’re all the same inthe sense that they are all subjective:they start with loaded dice. There isnothing more dangerous than your ownopinion in research, especially when it isuntamed by objective, reliable and validmethods. The most extreme examplesare qualitative research methods takingan ideological label. For example, whendid a Marxist researcher not come to theconclusion that their research demon-strated class oppression? and likewise,when did a feminist researcher not cometo the conclusion that patriarchaloppression was not at work? Those ofus adhering to scientific methods areaccused of ‘positivism’ and ‘reduction-ism’. It is a fact, however, that scientificmethods have not been tried and foundwanting in nursing research: instead,they have been found difficult and nottried.

There is yet another criticism to beparried: that of decontextualization.Those of us using scientific methodsnot only take an unpopular stance, weapparently ‘decontextualise’ by follow-ing the scientific method. Canresearch be carried out any other way?The postmodernist-phenomeno-Marx-ist-feminstic-discourse analyst rightlytries to contextualize everything – nota criticism in itself – but claims thatresearch cannot be decontextualized:there is nothing to be learned aboutthe whole that cannot be learned fromthe whole and not from the parts – weare more than just the sum of our parts.

� 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 219

This is like going to a football matchand trying to work out the result byinvestigating how happy the spectatorsare. I daresay a great deal could belearned, but why not just measure thenumber of goals scored by each side andadd them up? Give or take a few visuallychallenged referees and linesmen, it’s afairly reliable test of who won, and it’sutterly valid once the referee has blownthe final whistle. Making such a meas-urement tells us the result in an instant;it cuts through spurious and subjectiveopinion; and it reaches a conclusionlong before the non-scientist has arrivedat the Nirvana of ‘saturation’.

I admit that non-science may have itsuses. For example, non-science can tell

us what suffering is like; however, onlyscience can tell us how to alleviate it.Science has cured diseases, while non-science can only look for new ways todeconstruct the experience. Science hastaken us to the moon, and back, whilenon-science can only dream of what themoon might look like. If nursing is tomake progress then we must decide ifwe wish to head for the moon or look atit from a distance. What applies toother fields of investigation involvinghuman subjects – medicine, psychologyand sociology, where the scientificmethod has served us well – appliesequally well to nursing. We must not setourselves aside, we must compete forour place at the high table of credibility

and the only way in which to do that isto carry out nursing research usingscientific methods.

Roger Watson BSc PhD RGN CBiol FIBiol

ILTMFRSA

Professor of Nursing, School ofNursing, Social Work and AppliedHealth Studies, University of Hull, UK

This editorial is based on the author’s

contribution to the debate on the motion

that ‘Scientific method is the only credible

way forward for nursing research’ held at

during the Royal College of Nursing of the

United Kingdom Research Conference at

University of Manchester Institute of Science

and Technology, Manchester, UK on 10

April 2003.

Editorial

220 � 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(3), 219–220