DNP Role Development for Doctoral Advanced Nursing Practice, Second Edition

(Nandana) #1

42 ■ I: HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR ROLE DELINEATION



  1. The nursing profession appears to have abandoned the idea of clinical doctorate as an alter-
    native to the PhD and has embraced the title “practice doctorate” to describe the DNP. Dis-
    cuss whether you think the profession needs a research doctorate (PhD), a practice doctorate
    (DNP), and a clinical doctorate?

  2. Why do you think the EdD in nursing education degree model at Teachers College is sud-
    denly being replicated after decades (since its founding) passed by in which it was never
    replicated?

  3. What can be done to combat the aging nursing workforce, which faces imminent retirements
    that will not be replaced by the current pool of those entering the profession at all levels?

  4. Debate the following: “Resolved, nursing is a profession.”

  5. The ND degree and now the DNP were partly modeled after the MD degree. What are your
    thoughts about this?

  6. Discuss whether you think 1,000 total clinical hours should be required for the DNP degree,
    including practice and clinical executive tracks.

  7. Discuss whether original research ought to be part of the formal DNP curriculum.

  8. Do you agree that the DNP degree might offer something the PhD degree cannot? Provide
    your rationale.

  9. Discuss why you have chosen the particular DNP program you are currently matriculating in.


■ NOTES



  1. To be completely historically accurate, we can add two nurse anesthesia-oriented doctorates
    developed: the increasingly popular Doctor of Nurse Anesthesia Practice (DNAP degree) and the
    Doctor of Management Practice of Nurse Anesthesia (DMPNA degree) at Marshall University.
    Furthermore, because degree initials “DNP” and “DrNP” are both Doctor of Nursing Practice
    degrees, for simplification (and because the only two DrNP programs at Columbia University and
    Drexel University ultimately changed to the “DNP” initials), the initials “DNP” will be used in
    most cases in this chapter and text except when the difference between the two is noted.

  2. CRNPs, CNMs, CRNAs, and CNSs.

  3. Because “professional doctorate” and “practice doctorate” are nearly synonymous, for simplicity,
    we use the term “practice doctorate” to include both. Where the nuance between each is indeed
    important, we will use the terms separately and indicate why.

  4. Why did some university faculties not allow the PhD in nursing? Certainly, for many the issue
    was prejudice against nursing as a discipline as Meleis and Dracup (2005) affirm. Senior faculty
    (who often predominate in conservative university faculty senates), were often the elected mem-
    bers who viewed nursing despairingly as a scientific discipline. In other cases, like Widener Uni-
    versity, the university charter did not permit the awarding of any PhD, so an alternate doctorate
    was offered. Many of those charter restrictions have been modified over the years, and almost all
    programs that awarded the DNSc, DNS, or DSN, retroactively converting those degrees to the
    PhD (as Widener and University of Alabama–Birmingham did for instance).

  5. This author has always thought that PhD programs that emphasize the nurse scientist model should
    be titled PhD in nursing science, and other PhD programs that emphasize the teaching or other mis-
    sion in nursing should be titled PhD in nursing. The PhD in nursing education seems redundant and
    unnecessary, with the EdD in nursing education historically more consistent with the discipline.

  6. Two examples of the kinds of research projects that were funded by this new field research di-
    vision was a study that examined pre–post knowledge of diabetic patients after teaching and
    another that looked at classifying patients and distributing nursing staff according to patients’
    nursing needs ( American Journal of Nursing , 1965).

  7. Examples of his critique of institutionalized medicine among the 155 graduate and 12 postgradu-
    ate medical schools in the United States and Canada, he claimed to have visited included findings
    of equipment at one school “dirty and disorderly beyond description” (Flexner, 1910, p. 190) and
    another institution had “in place of laboratories, laboratory signs” (p. 165). Additionally, Flexner
    was actually criticized for being too critical and his methods of his data collection came under
    heavy fire (Hiatt, 1999).

Free download pdf