Research methods traditionally taught to nursing undergraduates rarely require actual knowledge generation (Duggleby, 1998; Porter & Mansour, 2003; McCurry & Martins, 2010; O’Brien & Hathaway, 2018; Pierce & Reuille, 2018); as such, nursing lags behind other disciplines, and research education for clinical nursing concentrations, such as nurse anesthesia and nurse practitioner programs, is often cursory given program demands. Doctorates in nursing practice (DNP) programs often have no designated research methods courses, or have a standalone evidence-based practice course; either instances are counterintuitive to preparing DNPs as expert translators and applicators of best evidence. Nursing PhD programs’ rigor and efficacy in teaching research can vary widely among schools of nursing (SON) as well.
Background: A clinically-focused SON created a specific faculty lane for nursing research in 2015, after which the professor hired into it reviewed credentialing bodies’ essentials of baccalaureate and graduate preparation to determine highest optimal levels at which students should be prepared in research and scholarship. Previous methods of teaching research were discarded and all research methods courses were redesigned and structured based on the American Psychological Association (APA) Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS; APA, 2008).
Regardless of level, all nursing students in research methods courses were then required to choose a topic of study and follow, weekly, JARS elements in executing an institutionally-approved research project and writing a comprehensive manuscript. This was dual-purposed: students learned how research is performed, as each week’s lecture corresponded to that element of JARS requirements (e.g. review of literature, theoretical framework, measurement precision, analyses, etc.), and students learned to read and critique other research, as they innately absorbed crucial elements of ethical research, and scientific standards for reporting and dissemination. For undergraduate students, faculty performed statistical analyses and led interpretation; for graduate students, faculty assisted with statistical analyses and interpretation. All students were required to create a research poster and culminating manuscript; extra credit was awarded for conference abstract submission.
Methods: After instituting curricular changes, two years of quantitative and qualitative data were collected from student narratives, quantitative course evaluations, and outcome frequency data to evaluate success of these pedagogical shifts in nursing research education. Anecdotal faculty comments to course faculty and the SON director were also documented for analysis. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, then triangulated with quantitative ratings of instruction and descriptive outcome data.
Results: Undergraduate students were demonstrably accepting of course workload and positive in their view of faculty instruction. Graduate students’ experiences varied between clinical concentration, with specific groups being notably more enthusiastic and willing to work toward project completion. Despite qualitative negativity from some graduate students, their quantitative ratings of the course and instruction were strong overall. Faculty comments indicated being conflicted about changes to teaching research in the SON; opinions were mainly demarcated along generational assignment and faculty's own educational preparation in research science.
Student outcomes were encouraging: the first year after changes saw an 86% increase in nursing students’ participation in institutional research events, whereas the second year saw a 99% increase. After those changes, in 2017, one undergraduate presented on Capitol Hill in Washington DC; two undergraduate projects were accepted for Sigma presentation in Ireland with one Rising Star awarded, in 2018, three graduate and one undergraduate projects were presented at Sigma in Australia, with one graduate student receiving a Sigma Leadership Education Grant.
Effects on students’ intent to seek graduate educational attainment were slow but promising. One BSN student applied for PhD programs but opted to wait to matriculate; another BSN student applied for an MSN NP program and cited research class as a catalyst. One MSN student decided she “actually liked research” during her nurse practitioner program, and applied for PhD admissions during the research course; she was accepted after graduating.
Conclusion: Nursing is quite possibly the only clinical discipline not requiring research generation at respective levels of educational preparation; nursing graduate and practice doctorate programs have decreased mandatory research production to nearly nil. The only avenue now remaining in nursing science for students to focus on research is the PhD, which less than half of one percent of nurses obtain. Fostering students’ senses of inquiry is the first step to alleviating the dearth of nurse scientists in the academy. Reaching students at the undergraduate level by challenging them to choose and execute a research topic of importance to them leads to engagement, excitement, and interest in nursing science.
Academic nursing needs to seriously consider undergraduate and graduate research projects as prerequisites for graduation, as without those initiatives, we may inadvertently be creating generations of clinicians without an appreciation for or commitment to scholarship and knowledge generation. Simple restructuring of research courses and a bit more effort on the part of faculty was shown in this instance to dramatically change students’ perceptions of nursing science and research generation and drastically changed their exposure to scholarship and dissemination.