Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 401–419 | Cite as

Disciplinary epistemologies, generic attributes and undergraduate academic writing in nursing and midwifery

  • Julio GimenezEmail author
Article

Abstract

Generic attributes such as ‘holding a critical stance’, ‘using evidence to support claims’, and ‘projecting an impersonal voice’ are central to disciplinary academic writing in higher education. These attributes, also referred to as ‘skills’, have for a long time been conceptualised as transferable in that once learnt students are able to use them in a variety of contexts and for a range of needs. Over the past few years, however, the conceptualisation of these attributes as transferable has come under close scrutiny as they have been identified to be highly context-sensitive rather than context-flexible as they were once thought to be. Drawing on data from a 2-year study on undergraduate academic writing in nursing and midwifery at a university in the UK, this paper critically examines the role of disciplinary epistemologies in the conceptualisation of these attributes in the two disciplines, and demonstrates how these beliefs help to shape academic writing at undergraduate level, thus contributing to debates on generic skills and attributes and specificity in disciplinary discourses. The paper concludes by highlighting the importance for writers to examine how knowledge is displayed, constructed and communicated in their disciplines, and the significance of analysing the relationship between disciplinary epistemologies, generic attributes and academic writing as a way of gaining access to and producing central discourses in their professional community.

Keywords

Epistemologies Disciplinary academic writing Criticality Evidence Impersonality Nursing Midwifery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to thank the students and lecturers who participated in this study. Without their participation, time and dedication this paper would have never been possible. I am also grateful to Chris Bewley for her feedback on earlier versions of the paper and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments which have made this a stronger paper. All other shortcomings remain my own.

References

  1. Beaven, Z., & Wright, R. (2006). Experience! Experience! Experience! Employer attitudes to arts & event management graduate employability. International Journal of Event Management Research, 2(1), 17–24.Google Scholar
  2. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berman, A., & Snyder, S. (2008). Kozier & Erb’s Fundamentals of nursing. Concepts, processes and practice (8th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Black, N. (2001). Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. British Medical Journal, 323(4), 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownlee, J., Walker, S., Lennox, S., Exley, B., & Pearce, S. (2009). The first year university experience: Using personal epistemology to understand effective learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 58(5), 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2003). Understanding nursing research. Philadelphia, US: Elsevier Health Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, J., Smith, D., & Brooker, R. (1998). From conception to performance: How undergraduate students conceptualise and construct essays. Higher Education, 36(4), 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlino, P. (2006). Escribir, leer y aprender en la universidad. Una introducción a la alfabetización académica. [Reading, writing and learning at university. An introduction to academic literacy] Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina.Google Scholar
  10. Carper, B. (1978).Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 1(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
  11. Chai, C. S., Khine, M. S., & Teo, T. (2006). Epistemological beliefs on teaching and learning: A survey among pre-service teachers in Singapore. Educational Media International, 43(4), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills. Developing effective analysis and argument. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Dearing, R. (1996). Review of qualifications for 16–19 year olds. Middlesex: School Curriculum Assessment Authority.Google Scholar
  15. Department for Education, Employment (DfEE). (1997). Qualifying for success, a consultation paper on the future of post-16 qualifications. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  16. Department of Health. (1996). Promoting clinical effectiveness: A framework for action in and through the NHS. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  17. Donnison, J. (2004). A history of the midwifery profession in the UK. In C. Henderson & S. Macdonald (Eds.), Mayes midwifery: A textbook for midwives. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Downe, S., & McCourt, C. (2004). From being to becoming: Reconstructing childbirth knowledges. In C. McCourt (Ed.), Normal childbirth. Evidence and debate (pp. 3–24) Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Fullbrook, P. (2004). Realizing advanced nursing practice through reflection. British Association of Critical Care Nurses, 9(6), 255–256.Google Scholar
  20. Gimenez, J. (2008). Beyond the academic essay: Discipline-specific writing in nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamill, C. (1999). Academic essay writing in the first person: A guide for undergraduates. Nursing Standard, 13(44), 38–40.Google Scholar
  22. Harvey, L., Drew, S., & Smith, M. (2006). The first year experience: A review of the literature for the higher education academy. York: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  23. Harwood, N. (2005). ‘I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact whatsoever’: Discussing methods in computing science using. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunter, L. P. (2008). A hermeneutic phenomenological analysis of midwives’ ways of knowing during childbirth. Midwifery, 24(4), 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(3), 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, A. (2009). Redisciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context in focus. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kennedy, H. (2000). A model of exemplary midwifery practice: Results of a Delphi study. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 45(1), 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, H. S. (2006). Toward an integrated epistemology in nursing. In S. C. Roy & D. A. Jones (Eds.), Nursing knowledge development and clinical practice (pp. 181–190). Opportunities and directions. New York, Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  32. Kim, H. S. (2010). The nature of theoretical thinking in nursing. New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  33. Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate. University of Southampton, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper Series. Available at http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/783/1/what_are_academic_disciplines.pdf, retrieved on 07.01.2011.
  34. Leveson, A. (2000). Disparities in perceptions of generic skills: Academics and employers. Industry and Higher Education, 14(3), 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 5–32.Google Scholar
  36. LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2006). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. Philadelphia, US: Elsevier Health Sciences.Google Scholar
  37. Lomas, J., Culyer T., McCutcheon, C., McAuley, L., & Law, S. (2005). Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Available on http://www.chsrf.ca/other_documents/pdf/evidence_e.pdf, accessed on 03.09.2010.
  38. Mander, R. (2001). Supportive care and midwifery. Oxford: Blackwell Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCourt, C. (2005). Research and theory for nursing and midwifery: Rethinking the nature of evidence. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2(2), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCune, V. (2004). Development of first-year students’ conceptions of essay writing. Higher Education, 47(2), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meleis, A. I. (2007). Theoretical nursing: Development and progress (4th ed.). Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  42. Metcalfe, A. S., & Fenwick, T. (2009). Knowledge for whose society? Knowledge production, higher education, and federal policy in Canada. Higher Education, 57(2), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Munhall, P. L. (2001). Nursing research: A qualitative perspective. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Barlett.Google Scholar
  44. Munhall, P. L. (2007). Epistemology in nursing. In P. L. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 71–98). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
  45. Nursing and Midwifery Council (2006). Nursing and Midwifery Council, Becoming a midwife in the UK. http://www.nmcuk.org/aArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2100 (2006) Retrieved 16 November, 2006.
  46. Pairman, S., Tracy, S., Thorogood, C., & Pincombe, J. (2010). Midwifery: Preparation for practice (2nd ed.). Chatswood, NSW: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  47. Parry, S. (1998). Disciplinary discourse in doctoral theses. Higher Education, 36(2), 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peck, J., & Coyle, M. (2005). Write it right. A handbook for students. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  49. Reed, P. G. (2006). The practice turn in nursing epistemology. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(1), 36–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rodgers, B. L. (2005). Developing nursing knowledge: Philosophical traditions and influences. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  51. Roy, S. C. (2006). Advances in nursing knowledge and the challenge for transforming practice. In S. C. Roy & D. A. Jones (Eds.), Nursing knowledge development and clinical practice (pp. 3–37). Opportunities and directions. New York, Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  52. Schultz, P. R., & Meleis, A. I. (1988). Nursing epistemology: Traditions, insights, questions. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 20(4), 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siddiqui, J. (2005).The role of knowledge in midwifery decision making. In M. Raynor, J. Marshall, & A. Sullivan (Eds.), Decision making in midwifery practice (pp. 23–36). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  54. Skills Portal for Oxford University Researchers (2010). http://www.skillsportal.ox.ac.uk/transferable_skills.php. Accessed on 03.09.2010.
  55. Strategic Policy Making Team (SPMT). (1999). Professional policy making for the twenty first century. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  56. Varney, H., Kriebs, J. M., & Gegor, C. L. (2004). Varney’s midwifery. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Vinson, J. A. (2000). Nursing’s epistemology revisited in relation to professional education competencies. Journal of Professional Nursing, 16(1), 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. World Health Organization (WHO) (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June – 22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for English Language Education, School of EducationUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations