Declaring that "dogs are cute" is unlikely to cause an argument. At face value, this statement can be said to fall into the realm of general knowledge. If you wrote an article in the Journal of Neuroscience Nursing (JNN), you could include the sentence "We brought dogs into patient rooms because dogs are cute" and you would probably not need a citation. Humans generally agree that dogs are cute. But, why are dogs cute?
Dogs come in lots of shapes and sizes, and although most of us would agree that dogs are cute, we might not agree on why. Some people would argue that dogs' ears, floppy or pointed, make dogs cute. Others would argue that it is the way they tilt their head to one side when they are confused. Because of the varied opinions on attributes of cute, an astute writer would benefit from defining their argument so as to provide the reader context. For example, one could formulate a hypothesis that because dogs seem to express empathy and mimic human emotions, they appear cute and that gives rise to the beneficial effects of pet therapy. Alternatively, it would be possible to do a comparative study of the influence of a dog's facial expression versus another animal with less humanlike facial expressions to develop the Why Dogs Are Cute scale.
By now, some of you have already begun to formulate arguments. Dogs are not as cute as cats. Puppies are cuter than dogs. Some dogs are mean. This signals that, despite our statement being true, it was too broad. We left too much room for interpretation. Although we knew that our statement "dogs are cute" was not meant to imply that dogs are cuter than cats, by not defining the parameters of our argument, we opened the door to misinterpretation. Professional journals benefit from precise writing.
Nursing care is important. Nursing care impacts patient outcomes. Neuroscience nurses change patient outcomes. I would hope that all JNN readers would agree that neuroscience nursing has a high value. I would hope that nobody disagrees with the face value of these statements. However, the statements are still too broad. There is too much room for interpretation. What we need is a more well-defined argument.
In every issue of JNN, you will read articles that are highly defined. Among the many articles JNN published last year, there were some very specific topics including: how to reduce stroke risk for adult brain tumor survivors,1 a Korean stroke-specific quality of life questionnaire,2 and how Magnet certification is associated with patient safety for persons hospitalized with Parkinson disease.3 These are super specific, highly defined topics. As you read JNN this year, try to pick apart the writers' arguments. See if you can find the gap, and then write about that gap.
Our journal benefits from the collective wisdom of the writers, the reviewers, and the readers. There are no perfect articles (including this one). Challenge yourself this year to take the time to write a letter to the editor in response to an article. Nurses have strong opinions, important opinions, valuable insight, and the wisdom that comes from professional practice. In 2022, use your voice, even if it is just to help us understand why dogs are cute.
D.M.O. declares that he is the Editor of the Journal of Neuroscience Nursing.
A.O. declares no conflicts of interest.
References