31st December 2019
With any research, there is at least one, and sometimes more, philosophical frameworks acting as the eco-systems and environments within which it is conceived, nurtured, grows, flourishes and evolves.
For the particular First Person Action Research method being conceived here, based on my knowledge and experiences to date relating to the subjects of spirituality, health, research and philosophy; I am applying a blended triad of philosophies. I’m doing so, as after decades of exposure to, study and reflections of spirituality, health research and philosophy, this triad approach seems to be the most likely to enable me to achieve: dynamic reliable models for spiritual health and spiritual health promotion.
Testing my experiences as they relate to spirituality, health, nursing, care, personal and observed Christian practices from a range of denominations, I realise that spirituality in certain situations, has the both the potential and ability to promote health. Not only that, but health also in certain situations seems to ha both potential and ability to promote spirituality. The details of which aspects of spirituality and health each symbiotically are able to promote both, is emerging in some of the related research. However, spirituality and health can also interact in such ways that are negative to either spirituality or health, or both.
From the above realisation, and formed from my own experiences thus far, I propose the following as a simple definition for spiritual health:
The symbiosis of spirituality and health to be able to promote both health and spirituality. Whilst, simultaneously, not interacting in such ways that the negative to either spirituality or health, or both outweigh the benefits of the symbiosis of spirituality and health to promote spiritual health.
We are now faced with the dilemma of: what do the experiences of the spiritual health and spiritual health promotion actually mean? We can test this and the definition simultaneously through the undertaking of a research exercise.
The research exercise requires a suitable methodology to answer the question we are now posing it. The philosophical framework the research methodology exists in, needs to be conducive to resolving this question. I opt therefore, for a synthesis X-Quad from the philosophical frameworks for Complexity Theories, Complexity Theories, Heuristic and Reflective Theories. I do so, in the wider context of uncertainty, represented by the X factor – not knowing what we don’t know, nor knowing just how reliable what we think we know actually is. Gary Rolfe (2000) a nurse researcher with an interest in truth as relates to research and authority, also adopts a similar position. His being one of involving postmodernism and positivism, whereby he neither accepts or rejects the either extremes of postmodernism (truth be extremely relative), or positivism (there is only one truth and the only way to find it is through a rigid application of a specific scientific method). Rolfe (2000. p.4) resolves this for himself through the ironist position:
“…which recognizes the futility of attempting to uncover a single truth, but which nevertheless argues that it is possible to commit oneself to a moral and epistemological stance with integrity and good faith.”
I have adapted Rolfe’s (2000) ironist position, with the inclusion of Complexity Theories, Critical Theory, Heuristics and Reflective Theories; all in the context of the X factor. Committing myself thus, to a moral and epistemological stance with integrity and good faith.
The temptation now now descend rapidly into a defence of my adopted position through the use of a whole host of philosophical works, is all too tempting but one I must avoid if I am to progress much further with the details here of this First Person Action Research Method.
Why the above approach and not the more popular and well trod and accepted paths of science? There are plenty of good publications about science I’ve read. I only choose to offer a handful of recommendations here, merely as a representative sample of what’s informed my thinking and reflections. I found Martin Curd & J A Cover’s (1998) work ‘Philosophy of Science. The Central Issues’, very informative, as it gave individual chapters summarising some of the fundamental issues relating to science itself. The expanded second edition of Lawrence Cahoone’s (2003) ‘From Modernism to Postmodernism. An Anthology’, was also very enlightening, as it took me through a whistle-stop tour is the major philosophical developments and transformations, over the years. With chapters in fundamental issues, where I found were extremely helpful.
I opt to advance using my work on philosophical frameworks from my experiences of significant impact it had when applied to my Master of Arts Research thesis in the field of community health development and a local community initiative I was heavily involved with at the time: M Greenford (2002). A Reality Check – Discourse Analysis of a Creche. This involved reflection on action and the initial application of the practices of power as generally espoused by Critical Theory, especially emancipatory, liberation and Marxist theories in forms of Community Development and Action Research. Applying reflections heavily informed using a Foucauldian Discourse Analysis.
References
Cahoone L. Ed. 2003. 2nd Ed. From Modernism to Postmodernism. An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Padstow.
Curd M. & Cover J. A. 1998. Philosophy of Science. The Central Issues. W.W. Norton & Company. USA.
Greenford M. 2002. A Reality Check – Discourse Analysis of a Creche. M. A. Degree; Nursing Studies – Dissertation. Unpublished. University of Brighton.
Rolfe G. 2000. Research, Truth and Authority. Postmodern Perspectives on Nursing. MacMillan Press Ltd. Basingstoke.
Inspire Spiritual Health 
You must be logged in to post a comment.