The existent, a nurse labeled researcher, in the health world brings a
disquiet that has to be understood and endured. Necessities for
scientific study in the nurse's world of the nursing event or situation
are wonderment, concern, and responsibility. Open adherence to such
qualities frequently startles others into speculating about the
researcher. She, herself, becomes an oddity. Persons ponder the
possibility of her study's having a hidden agenda that involves them.
Over time these persons generally accept or reject the searcher's
efforts. If rejected the searcher is often labeled a worthless nosey
troublemaker. Subtly it is conveyed among those involved that she is to
be interfered with often by mechanisms of ignoring or forgetting or
righteously setting "patient's needs" above conforming to the study
plan. For instance, how often have research nurses met with responses
from staff at the time of their planned arrival on a unit to work with a
patient, "Oh, he seemed to need activity, he was restless, I forgot you
were coming, I sent him to the gym," or "Oh, (surprise) did you want to
give the patient his morning care? That was done a while ago; we give
care early." If accepted the searcher is often labeled an interested,
interesting person whose efforts are to be fostered because her findings
will enhance situation nursing. The distinction frequently is based in
staffs' responses to the searcher's personality more than in the value
of the issues of the investigation.
Significant to negative staff responses toward a nurse searcher is the
necessity for her to withhold information. This withholding may be
necessary to protect the study results. For example, it is necessary
when a special type of patient care is being tested against usual
patient care or when confidentiality is an issue. Confidentiality
requires a nurse, searcher or not, to censor communications when
personal knowledge of individuals make them identifiable. The need for
confidentiality can be determined by the nurse's considering the
knowledge gained in view of whether it will or will not influence the
over-all treatment plan. If it will affect the plan, there is reason to
reveal it; then it must be related in a manner that insures the
patient's continued protection and, if possible, with his permission. If
over-all treatment is not influenced, one must censor the knowledge
gained to check one's own free communications. Would the patient want it
revealed; is it knowledge of a quality that brings ridicule, is looked
at negatively or nonacceptably in our particular culture generally? Is
it of a sensitive nature and therefore knowledge we do not just reveal
to anyone?
Other patient care givers may sense this withholding by the nurse
searcher. They may reasonably accept it or unreasonably not accept it.
The researcher may or may not be aware of or concern herself with her
colleagues' sensitivity. This would depend on the searcher's usual modus
operandi and on the importance she associates with her colleagues' sway
in her investigation. The latter can be much greater than is obvious.
{54}