Abstract: Argues that a nursing paradigm identifies and differentiates the nursing perspective on health, and reinterprets practical expertise. Posits that nurse researchers present their findings as practice wisdom. Suggests that the significance of nursing lies in its knowledgeable practitioners and that the nursing voice is a collective one. Emphasises the need for a distinctly nursing perspective on health in NZ.

Abstract: Aims to identify the cognitive skills required of surgical nurses to rescue the deteriorating patient, and to elicit insight into the potential errors in decision-making inexperienced nurses commonly make in the same situation. Conducts three sequential in-depth interviews with six experienced surgical nurses to identify five cognitive demands required of nurses to ascertain deterioration and the cognitive skills necessary to respond to these cognitive demands: the task diagram interview, the knowledge audit interview and the simulation interview.

Abstract: The researchers conducted a study to compare self-reported changes in both frequency and quality of performance of nursing behaviours in a cohort of recently graduated nurses undertaking a one year entry to practice programme. Thirty-three nurses were surveyed, seven weeks after beginning the programme and again seven months later, using a modified version of Schwirian's (1978) Six-Dimension Scale of Nursing Performance (6-DSNP). Over the study period participants reported significant increases in frequency of performance for the domains of leadership, critical care, teaching/collaboration, and planning/evaluation. Significant increases in the quality of nurse behaviours in the domains of critical care, planning/evaluation and interpersonal relations/communication were also reported. The modified Schwirian 6-DSNP was found to be a useful instrument for measuring nurses' self reporting of performance during periods of transition.

Abstract: The author critiques the claim that mixed method research is a third methodology, and the implied belief that the mixing of qualitative and quantitative methods will produce the 'best of both worlds'. The author suggests that this assumption, combined with inherent promises of inclusiveness, takes on a reality and certainty in research findings that serves well the powerful nexus of economic restraint and evidence-based practice. The author argues that the use of the terms 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' as normative descriptors reinforces their binary positioning, effectively marginalising the methodological diversity within them. Ideologically, mixed methods covers for the continuing hegemony of positivism, albeit in its more moderate, postpositivist form. If naively interpreted, mixed methods could become the preferred approach in the teaching and doing of research. The author concludes that rather than the promotion of more co-operative and complex designs for increasingly complex social and health issues, economic and administrative pressures may lead to demands for the 'quick fix' that mixed methods appears to offer.