An Explorative Study of Australian Nursing Scholars and Contemporary Scholarship

Scholarly practice in healthcare professions: findings from a scoping review

Scholarly practitioners are broadly defined as healthcare professionals that address critical practice problems using theory, scientific evidence, and practice-based knowledge. Though scholarly practice is included in most competency frameworks, it is unclear what scholarly practice is, how it develops and how it is operationalized in clinical practice. The aim of this review was to determine what is known about scholarly practice in healthcare professionals. We conducted a scoping review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from inception to May 2020. We included papers that explored, described, or defined scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in healthcare professionals. We included a total of 90 papers. Thirty percent of papers contained an explicit definition of scholarly practice. Conceptualizations of scholarly practice were organized into three themes: the interdependent relationship between scholarship and practice; advancing the profession's field; and core to being a healthcare practitioner. Attributes of scholarly practitioners clustered around five themes: commitment to excellence in practice; collaborative nature; presence of virtuous characteristics; effective communication skills; and adaptive change ethos. No single unified definition of scholarly practice exists within the literature. The variability in terms used to describe scholarly practice suggests that it is an overarching concept rather than a definable entity. There are similarities between scholarly practitioners and knowledge brokers regarding attributes and how scholarly practice is operationalized. Individuals engaged in the teaching, research and/or assessment of scholarly practice should make explicit their definitions and expectations for healthcare professionals.

Research career development: the importance of establishing a solid track record in nursing academia

Academic status and achievement is increasingly influenced by research income and outputs with nursing academics experiencing considerable pressure to perform in these areas. As a result funding and career opportunities are becoming more competitive. Establishing expertise and a sound track record is crucial for success at both the individual and organisational level. However, despite their importance, methods to effectively establish a track record have received limited attention in the literature. The aim of this paper is to articulate the need for and provide advice for achieving a strategic approach to develop a solid and competitive track record. Practical tips are provided to facilitate the development of productive research teams with clear and logical contributions from each member, having a dissemination plan to maximise research outputs, and remaining focused on specific areas of content expertise. It is intended that these tips will assist individuals and academic units with to develop a stronger track record that may increase the likelihood of success in obtaining competitive funding.

Defining and assessing the scholarship of teaching in nursing

Scholarship of teaching is inquiry about learning and teaching-asking questions about what works best and why and seeking answers through a systematic approach. This article provides a broad view of the scholarship of teaching in nursing, which captures the richness and breadth of our scholarship as nurse educators. The article suggests strategies for transforming teaching into scholarship and products of the scholarship of teaching for performance assessment.

Practicing nurses perspectives of clinical scholarship: a qualitative study

Background

There is a scarcity of research published on clinical scholarship. Much of the conceptualisation has been conducted in the academy. Nurse academics espouse that the practice of nursing must be built within a framework of clinical scholarship. A key concept of clinical scholarship emerging from discussions in the literature is that it is an essential component of enabling evidence–based nursing and the development of best practice standards to provide for the needs of patients/clients. However, there is no comprehensive definition of clinical scholarship from the practicing nurses. The aim of this study was to contribute to this definitional discussion on the nature of clinical scholarship in nursing.

Methods

Naturalistic inquiry informed the method. Using an interpretative approach 18 practicing nurses from Australia, Canada and England were interviewed using a semi-structured format. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and the text coded for emerging themes. The themes were sorted into categories and the components of clinical scholarship described by the participants compared to the scholarship framework of Boyer [JHEOE 7:5-18, 2010].

Results

Clinical scholarship is difficult to conceptualise. Two of the essential elements of clinical scholarship are vision and passion. The other components of clinical scholarship were building and disseminating nursing knowledge, sharing knowledge, linking academic research to practice and doing practice-based research.

Conclusion

Academic scholarship dominated the discourse in nursing. However, in order for nursing to develop and to impact on health care, clinical scholarship needs to be explored and theorised. Nurse educators, hospital-based researchers and health organisations need to work together with academics to achieve this goal.

Frameworks of scholarship conceptualised by nurse academics are reflected in the findings of this study with their emphasis on reading and doing research and translating it into nursing practice. This needs to be done in a nonthreatening environment.

Marking out the clinical expert/clinical leader/clinical scholar: perspectives from nurses in the clinical arena

BACKGROUND

Clinical scholarship has been conceptualised and theorised in the nursing literature for over 30 years but no research has captured nurses' clinicians' views on how it differs or is the same as clinical expertise and clinical leadership. The aim of this study was to determine clinical nurses' understanding of the differences and similarities between the clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar.

METHODS

A descriptive interpretative qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews with 18 practising nurses from Australia, Canada and England. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and the text coded for emerging themes. The themes were sorted into categories of clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholarship as described by the participants. These themes were then compared and contrasted and the essential elements that characterise the nursing roles of the clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar were identified.

RESULTS

Clinical experts were seen as linking knowledge to practice with some displaying clinical leadership and scholarship. Clinical leadership is seen as a positional construct with a management emphasis. For the clinical scholar they linked theory and practice and encouraged research and dissemination of knowledge.

CONCLUSION

There are distinct markers for the roles of clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar. Nurses working in one or more of these roles need to work together to improve patient care. An 'ideal nurse' may be a blending of all three constructs. As nursing is a practice discipline its scholarship should be predominantly based on clinical scholarship. Nurses need to be encouraged to go beyond their roles as clinical leaders and experts to use their position to challenge and change through the propagation of knowledge to their community.

Scholarship reconsidered: implications for reward and recognition of academic staff in schools of nursing and beyond

AIMS

This paper discusses the issues facing the nursing academic workforce and the development of a project at the University of Wollongong in Australia which attempts to address this problem.

BACKGROUND

The project draws on Boyer's work around 'scholarship reconsidered' to enable new ways of thinking about the nature of 'research' and how the work of a diversifying workforce can be recognized and rewarded within institutions.

METHODS

We conducted a series of interviews with senior university staff to identify key issues around academic promotion processes. Feedback from these interviews, along with extensive internal and external consultation and benchmarking, will be used to redraft promotion documentation that includes discipline-specific performance expectations.

RESULTS

Interviews revealed a number of perceived and actual barriers to promotion of academic staff who did not conform to a 'traditional' view of research expectations. It was widely felt that unspoken expectations about research performance were being used to judge applications for promotion, and that this disadvantaged people from practice or professional backgrounds, or people who had heavy administrative or clinical roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Internal university processes need to reflect the reality of a diversified workforce. Practice and professional disciplines have responsibilities beyond meeting traditional research output measurements. More flexible and transparent expectation guidelines and career development pathways are needed to build holistic schools and faculty and enable maximum staff productivity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

By redefining scholarship, schools and faculties are able to meet the multiple demands of the government, the institution, individual staff, students and the profession. Not everyone can do traditional research all the time, and staff involved in other scholarly work should be able to rewarded and promoted. By taking the lead in this issue, nursing as a discipline can set its own agenda, and pave the way for other disciplines. It can also go a long way to solving issues around the dwindling academic workforce.