This paper offers a critical reaction to Kenneth Cody's 2003 article "Nursing Theory as a Guide to Practice," published in Nursing Science Quarterly. The response examines several key claims made by Cody, including his provocative characterization of "hijacking" within nursing science, his treatment of gender dynamics in nursing scholarship, his philosophical tangents regarding the future of nursing as a discipline, and his closing question about the relationship between nursing theory and clinical practice. The author evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of Cody's arguments, questioning the appropriateness of certain rhetorical choices while acknowledging legitimate concerns about the integrity and direction of nursing science research.
This paper offers a reaction to a 2003 journal article by K. Cody on nursing theory and its role as a guide to real-world practice. The discussion that follows provides critique, analysis, and a personal response to the key arguments Cody advances throughout his article.
A quick initial scan of the article yielded one word that immediately caught the eye: the heading on page 228 that includes the word "hijacking." In this case, Cody is referring to the "hijacking" of nursing science — a fairly strident and blunt choice of words for a scholarly journal article, possibly a peer-reviewed one.
However, Cody makes clear, just a few paragraphs into that section, that his concern is with roughly ten percent of studies conducted on non-nursing subjects under the general heading of nursing science, or those studies being conducted by people with little to no connection to the nursing field or its scholarly sphere. If that is indeed the case, it is a legitimate cause for concern, as non-medical professionals should refrain from conducting studies in fields that are clearly outside their specialty. That said, the way the topic was introduced was perhaps a little too brash. The point could have been made just as effectively using more neutral language.
Cody's discussion about the scarcity of men among renowned nursing science scholars is also worthy of attention. Women have certainly been disadvantaged in many professional arenas, and nursing is a notable example: the field is dominated largely by women, both among nursing science theorists and among practitioners. However, consideration might also be given to the lack of male representation in nursing scholarship, as well as the general disdain — both societal and, at times, scholarly — that men who enter nursing often face.
This is not to suggest that women-dominated fields receive the respect and deference they deserve, nor to minimize the very real barriers women face when attempting to enter fields such as computer science and engineering, where men occupy most positions of power. Nevertheless, the principle of equality should cut both ways. Wisdom and significant contributions ought to be honored and recognized regardless of the field or the gender of the contributor.
"Assessment of Cody's philosophical tangents and tone"
"Debate over philosophy's role in clinical nursing practice"
In the end, Cody seems to have a good heart, but he also appears to have had his head in the clouds — perhaps taking himself entirely too seriously at the time he wrote this journal article. The legitimate concerns he raises about the direction of nursing science are undercut somewhat by rhetorical excess and an overly self-congratulatory tone. Perhaps he has gained a more measured perspective in the years since the article was published.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.