"Though this be madness, there is method in't [sic]," said Polonious in Shakespeare's Hamlet (Shakespeare, n.d.). This commonly used phrase is today invoked to assure others that one's actions have a purpose, though they may seem ill-advised, especially when and if it is not convenient to fully explain a plan. Telling someone "there is a method in my madness," is like saying "trust me" and "be patient" for the outcome.

As scientists, we can ill afford to engage in "methods madness." Especially now, we cannot ask nor should we expect the consumers of research to trust our research results without fully explaining the methods by which those results were achieved. Good science, which has been conducted using strong and appropriate research designs with detailed attention to methods for data collection and analysis, has resulted in improved health and healthcare. On the other hand, when scientific methods are used inappropriately and with capricious application, the quality of the "knowledge" that is generated is severely compromised. What makes for appropriate methods should be fairly clear: The question asked should be important, the research design should be suited to answer the question, and the processes and procedures should be valid and reliable (Vakil, 2011).

This issue of Nursing Research provides an opportunity for leading nurse scientists to explain new, interesting, and innovative research methods. The topics of these articles cover many methodological aspects. For example, Parker et al. (2021) provide an analysis of measures and methods used in research about lactation outcomes for women who have delivered preterm. The provision of mother's own milk to vulnerable preterm infants is important to reduce prematurity-related morbidities and to support lactation success. However, existing measures of "success" limit advancement of research in this area. The authors' analysis reveals characteristics of greatest importance when considering lactation outcome measures and provides a lesson for researchers in all areas of science. That is, all measures need conceptual and methodological precision.

Also, in the area of data collection, Leite et al. (2021) present methodological aspects of photoelicitation interviews in qualitative data collection, with a particular focus on family research. They illustrate their discussion with an example of the use of photoelicitation in research with families of children and adolescents living with chronic illness. Although not all scientists will use this particular technique in their research, the article highlights the importance of using approaches to collect data in ways that are most likely to lead to answers to the research question.

Symptom science has been a primary focus for nurse scientists over the past several decades, and yet much of what nurses document about patients' symptom experiences has been "lost" in the electronic health record (EHR) or, at the very least, been extremely difficult to retrieve. Koleck et al. (2021) describe a method combining standardized vocabularies, clinical expertise, and natural language processing to identify symptom information in EHR notes. Using methods of natural language processing, the researchers were able to identify many more words synonymous with symptoms (including misspelled ones), expressions, abbreviations, and unique word combinations than was possible with more typically used methods. This work to more accurately and efficiently extract symptom information from the EHR should escalate symptom science work.

Recruiting participants to research can be challenging, particularly when target participants are very busy professionals. Social media can be useful to recruit samples in studies involving participants from many different demographic backgrounds. Bethel et al. (2021) provide insight on using social media to recruit nurses for participation in survey research. Using three studies as case examples, the authors identify specific strategies for effective recruitment, arguing that use of social media to recruit study participants may result in more representative samples and broader generalizability and translation of findings to practice.

Intervention research, which is critical to nursing science, is the focus of Hirschey et al. (2021), who provide information about how cognitive interviewing, typically an intervention itself, can be used to design a survey. In particular, the researchers used cognitive interviews to assess the clarity and effectiveness of survey items to assess intervention implementation for use in cancer research, supporting the development and implementation of nursing interventions. Santacroce and Kneipp (2021) provide further help for intervention development. In their article, the authors describe an innovative intervention mapping approach, providing a logical structure for designing, adapting, and implementing multilevel, theory-based interventions. Their approach incorporates community-engaged research principles to involve patients, clinicians, community members, and other stakeholders throughout the research process while, at the same time, ensuring the theoretical integrity of the interventions and improving the relevance of the research and confidence in its results. The process they describe, though developed for the instruction of nurse scientists, provides a useful framework for intervention research that can be used by many.

Ways to analyze data continue to evolve, challenging both novice and experienced researchers. In particular, the complexity of the human experience as it affects health and well-being requires different ways of thinking about research questions, data collection processes, and analyses. Zhu et al. (2021) provide a particularly informative discussion of the use of longitudinal moderated mediation analyses to examine intervention effects. Analyses like these are an efficient approach for understanding not only the effects of an intervention but also for explaining the underlying mechanisms of an intervention's effectiveness.

Many nurse scientists are very interested in ensuring that their work is relevant to clinical practice. Davis et al. (2021) provide explanation of effect size measures that help researchers and clinician colleagues evaluate the clinical relevance of research findings. Measures of magnitude, precision, and relevance as well as clinically relevant effects are described in the article, along with recommendations for reporting and evaluating these measures. The authors note that the failure to publish clinically relevant effects and confidence intervals may inhibit the inclusion of clinically relevant studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, thereby limiting the advancement of evidence-based practice.

Many researchers have struggled to start or complete their research over the last year when, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world largely shut down and clinical research sites were limited to only the most essential activities. Abshire et al. (2021) provide a thorough and inspiring example of ways in which one community of nurse scientists were able to "pivot" their research during the earlier months of the pandemic. The authors detail several strategies to overcome the challenges the pandemic posed for faculty research and scholarship, including manuscript preparation and submission. The strategies and examples may be useful for nurse scientists and their institutions for both the continuing crisis and in future crises.

Jairaith et al. (2021) specifically provide methodological guidance for qualitative researchers seeking to conduct "just-in-time" qualitative research about human experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using their own work, the authors identify six guidelines designed to quickly get research up and running while prioritizing participant needs for accessibility and preference. Although written to address research being conducted during the pandemic, these guidelines can usefully be applied during less stressful times as well.

These articles individually and collectively provide interesting and thought-provoking reading. Readers should find in them useful strategies and guidelines. As scientists, we develop expertise in both substance and method. Although we are exposed in our training to many different approaches to conducting research, it takes many years and many studies to become proficient in methodological skills. Occasionally with expertise comes rigidity or blindness to other methods that might be more effective than those with which we are specifically expert. Thus, it is my belief that, as scientists, it always behooves us to consider other methods and approaches to accomplishing our important work.

REFERENCES