Concept analysis is widely applied in nursing research, in the analysis of theconcept. It is a very handy concept for research in nursing sciences. This research paper purposes to examine and analyze two research articles, which contain similar concepts. The first research article is “Rethinking concept analysis” by Risjord (2009). The second article is by Tofthagen and Fagerstrom (2010).

The two articles show a difference in the way in which they define the concept they are dedicated to. The two articles have described concept analysis in nursing research. Tofthagen and Fagerstrom’s article is mainly about concept analysis as it was developed by Rodgers and it describes Rodgers concepts through the article. It encourages the adoption of concept analysis as a method of developing concepts in research. These authors adopt an approach of positive criticism of Rodger’s concept analysis, and show how good it is for developing new knowledge in nursing sciences. On the contrary, this approach adopted by Risjord brings out concept analysis as a confusing concept. Risjord postulates that the concept analysis has mixed interpretations in nursing sciences. Risjord argues with the comments of Rodgers; that concept analysis has no basis of clarity. This author thus wonders how such a concept, which has attracted different interpretations from different scholars, can lead to the development of a theoretical basis. The author agrees that there is confusion in trying to understand the contribution of concept analysis in nursing sciences. Overall, the approach taken by Risjord in explaining concept analysis is an evaluation of criticisms concerning Rodger’s concept analysis. This differs with Tofthagen and Fagerstrom article’s definition that views concept analysis as a very good method of developing knowledge in research.

The differences included in the definitions are very important, in the definition of concept analysis. Considering Tofthagen and Fagerstrom’s article, the manner in which they present concept analysis and argue for it, is very vital for scholars in nursing research. Many a times, researchers in nursing sciences have been faced with the problem of identifying a good scientific method to use in their research. By adopting the explanations of Rodgers, as clarified by Tofthagen and Fagerstrom (2010), they have a solution to such a problem. These two authors argue that the concept analysis is an analysis method that ensures validity. Validity is one aspect that is greatly sought after in a scientific research method. By convincing and proving that this method will ensure validity, it will be very beneficial in developing new knowledge in nursing. Tofthagen and Fagerstrom (2010) argue that the other advantage of concept analysis is being systematic, from the step of data collection to the stage of data analysis. The strength of this is seen in describing, explaining, as well as, clarifying concepts that are chosen while conducting research.

On the other hand, the fact that Risjord (2009) differs with Tofthagen and Fagerstrom’s article (2010) concerning concept analysis, is also important. The right to question a method concerning clarity and theoretical basis is the prerogative of the author. It is beneficial in presenting a deeper understanding of the application of concept analysis. A theoretical basis in research and any field is very valuable in developing new knowledge. In view of this, research method should provide a theoretical basis for it to contribute fully in the development of new knowledge in research (Chinn & Kramer, 2011). Going by the argument presented by Risjord (2009), concept analysis lacks such. It may not thus contribute in adding value to existing knowledge in the nursing profession.

The appropriateness and soundness of the definitions in the two articles is justifiable. Looking at the Tofthagen and Fagerstrom’s article, there was a very comprehensive review of literature on papers done between the years 1999 and 2009. A span of ten years is an appropriate span to analyze the effectiveness of a method that is already in use. When analyzing these materials, Tofthagen and Fagerstrom (2010) considered concept analysis in terms of validity, evolutionary process, and the ability of the method to participate in the development of knowledge. The authors came up with conclusions only after careful analysis of the research done by other scholars, and their own critical analysis. Having in mind that they made these considerations, it is justifiable to argue that the concept analysis’ definition by these two authors is sound, and appropriate.

The definition brought forward by Risjord (2009) is also justifiable. Rsisjord brings forward his conceptual interpretation of concept analysis as a postulation of independent concurring research of different authors. He also puts forward his own thoughts based on scholarly critique. For example, Risjord (2009) quotes the works of Walker and Avant (2005), Morse (1995), Paley (1996), and many others. The author gives clear postulation that was made by every article he has quoted before he arrives at his conclusion. The author also provides a scientific basis of taking such a stand concerning concept analysis. In consideration of these facts, it is justifiable to conclude that the concept analysis’ definition put forward by Risjord is sound and appropriate.

References

Chinn, P. L. & Kramer, M.K. (2011).Integrated theory and knowledge development in nursing (8^th ed). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

Risjord, M. (2009). Rethinking concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(3), 684-691. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04903.

Tofthagen, R., & Fagerstrøm, L. M. (2010). Rodgers’ evolutionary concept analysis – a valid method for developing knowledge in nursing science. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24, 21-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00845.x