In my March/April editorial (Patterson, 2020), I reiterated the importance of publishing robust, high-quality research and innovations that challenge and expand our teaching practices. But what constitutes quality research and innovations? What do they look like? And how do we get there? We hear the word quality a lot, in many different contexts. We think we know what it is and argue that we need it to advance the science of nursing education, but the quality and rigor of research in nursing education have been challenged by some nurse leaders (Morton, 2017).
Certainly, the belief that we should be basing our teaching practice on empirical evidence is well accepted. What is at issue is what constitutes robust quality research to guide our teaching practice, whether in the classroom, online, or in the clinical setting. The word "quality" is a multidimensional concept. Most equate quality with excellence, high standards, or superior attributes. Aksnes and colleagues (2019) offer three alternative quality dimensions we should consider: solidity/plausibility, originality, and societal value. Solidity and plausibility include the virtues that the research is "well-founded, based on scientific principles, and produce[s] convincing results" (p. 9). Originality refers to producing new knowledge, and societal value includes "any kind of extra-scientific relevance" such as to education, health, and the environment (p. 10).
Aksnes and colleagues question bibliometrics and citation indicators (such as journal impact factors and the h-index), noting that highly cited publications may not equate to research quality nor to the impact and usefulness of the findings. For nurse educators, societal value and relevance are important considerations as we examine the impact of our teaching strategies and educational policies on students. Although societal value may be difficult to assess and measure, we must include it in our critique of research quality and impact. Undoubtedly, our research needs scientific value as we look to the importance of robust quality research to guide future research.
The proposed quality dimensions offered by Aksnes and colleagues are worth considering as we attempt to identify quality research beyond indicators such as peer review. Traditionally, peer review was considered a gold standard for assessing research quality. Yet, as long as three decades ago, Faye Abdellah (1990) voiced concerns about the peer review system and the erosion of confidence in the process. The peer review system in publishing is now receiving close scrutiny as research quality and integrity continue to come into question.
Why do we need to focus on generating and translating robust quality research? As faculty, we are challenged to base our teaching practices on evidence. We are expected to exhibit excellence in our teaching and generate evidence to support our practice. However, evidence suggests that it is not research productivity (the number of publications) but rather research quality, or the impact of research output, that is positively related to teaching quality (Cadez et al., 2017). Thus, focusing only on the number of publications may be shortsighted and not reflective of quality scholarship. We must consider the quality of the research, the evidence, and its impact on practice.
We must continue to ask, How do we achieve quality research that truly guides our teaching practice? The process of achieving quality in research is complex and multifaceted. Given how difficult it is to define quality, perhaps researchers should strive to produce evidence based on robust methods. Moreover, researchers should be tackling the "dirty" problems educators confront on a daily basis, in the classroom and clinical contexts. We must move beyond descriptive correlational studies. My colleagues and I have argued (Patterson et al., 2018) that there needs to be a preference for multisite, replication, and global collaboration studies. These types of studies are difficult to conduct alone and require a team effort, but these are the studies that advance the science. Likewise, measurement of concepts remains a major concern, so instrument development needs to be a priority. Although certainly not last, we must mentor students and colleagues in providing strong peer reviews of manuscripts to help increase the rigor of what is disseminated.
Nurse educators are poised to be leaders in research in nursing education as well as generating and translating teaching evidence. Our team of editors will endeavor to publish robust quality research and innovation strategies. As we do so, we ask you, our readers, to be cognizant of gaps you address with your research, as well as the importance of addressing these gaps.
REFERENCES