Research and Theory for Nursing Practice: An Intemationai Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2005
Concept Analysis:Examining the State of the Science
Judith E. Hupcey, EdD, CRNPThe Pennsylvania State University
Hershey, PA
Janice Penrod, PhD, RNThe Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
As methods for analyzing concepts have proliferated in nursing, a critical method-ological issue has arisen. Analytic techniques for examining conceptual meaning haveincorporated varied strategies for advancing the concept under the rubric of conceptanalysis, concept development, and theory building. The authors argue that this evo-lution has created methodological confusion. Following a discussion of a conceptu-alization of concepts and concept-theory-truth linkages, methods of concept analysisare critiqued in terms ofthe purpose and the nature ofthe fmdings produced by analy-ses using both traditional and emergent methods. The authors argue that conceptanalysis is a process of strategic examination ofthe scientific literature that resultsin an integrated perspective ofthe state ofthe science, or what is known about theconcept. In contrast, concept advancement refers to techniques that emphasize thesynthesis of new or deeper knowledge that is relevant to the discipline. The authorsconclude that disentangling concept analysis from techniques for concept advance-ment is critical to enhancing the utility of concept-based research in nursing.
Keywords: concept analysis; concept development; concept advancement; stateof science; concepts; theory development
Over the past several decades, multiple methods of concept analysis havebeen developed and applied in nursing. These techniques have providednursing researchers with much needed analytic processes to examine the
conceptual understanding of phenomena of interest to nursing science. Such con-ceptual understanding guides translational research that in turn directs the devel-opment of evidence-based practice. Thus, phenomena-concepts-practice are inherentlylinked in the science of nursing.
The proliferation of methods of concept analysis has resulted in a critical method-ological issue: Is concept analysis synonymous with concept advancement? In thisarticle we review the commonly employed techniques of concept analysis and the
products of such analyses to set the scene for a deeper discussion of concept advance-ment techniques. We conclude that concept analysis is ideally employed to deter-mine the state of tbe science; the point from wbicb the concept may be strategicallyadvanced toward a higher level of scientific utility.
TYPES OF CONCEPTS
what are concepts? Before launching a discussion of analytic techniques, it is usefulto describe a conceptualization of concepts. Concepts are mental abstractions orunits of meaning derived to represent some aspect or element ofthe human expe-rience (Chinn & Kramer, 1995; King, 1988). It is important to keep in mind that con-cepts are manifested in phenomena but that they never assume a concrete form; aconcept is a mentalimage, not the thing or behavior itself (Walker & Avant, 1995).For example, the classic exercise of asking students to play word games involvinga thing (e.g.. What is a table?) attempts to draw their thinking into abstraction todemonstrate how tbe concept is a unit of meaning rather than a material entity thatappears before them.
Concepts are second order expressions; they package complex sensible or pre-cognitive meaning with cognitive processing into some form of categorical meaning(Merleau-Ponty, 1998). Concepts are brought forth through language; they areembedded in discourse (see Merleau-Ponty, 1998; Rodgers, 2000a; or Walker & Avant,1995). Concepts are not purely a scientific endeavor; rather concept formation is anatural human process that occurs through being in the world with others.
But there is an important differentiation of concepts that is critical to this discus-sion. Ordinary or everyday concepts are not the same as scientific concepts (for thisdiscussion, see Mitcham, 1999; Morse, 2000; Rodgers, 2000a). Ordinary conceptsare those used by people in everyday life. They have a common meaning, which maybe implicit but is understandable within that cultural unit. Ordinary definitions of con-cepts are found in tbe dictionary. They change over time to reflect common usage,for example, "soccer mom" or "globalization" now carry conceptual meanings thathave evolved through usage. Twenty or 30 years ago, these concepts would havebeen meaningless.
Scientific concepts are a different entity in that a degree of precision is requiredin order for the conceptual label to encompass a unit of meaning that is used con-sistently within a scientific discipline. These concepts require a more specific ornarrow definition so that those using the conceptual unit in scientific endeavors areclearly using it in tbe same way, with tbe same meaning, so that findings are mean-ingfully understood (Morse, 2000). Tbe concern of science with specification of con-cept usage is reflected in the issues of construct validity. Conceptual clarity is necessaryfor solid theoretical integration (Knafl & Deatrick, 2000). Therefore, scientific con-cepts are more precise meaning units that when linked together propositionally forma theoretical representation of reality.
This difference in types of concepts (ordinary vs. scientific) is important to conceptanalysis techniques. Scientific endeavors rely on more precisely defined concepts(Mitcham, 1999; Morse, 2000). When ordinary or implied meanings of concepts are
Concept Analysis 199
used to build theory in scientific enterprises, the waters are muddied (e.g., seeHupcey, Penrod, Morse, & Mitcham, 2001). For example, when considering trust innurse-patient relationships, is my conceptualization of trust the same as the nextreader's? Is trust different from reliance? If so, how? It is important for conceptualunits of scientific theory to be explicit in their representation of a precise meaningof an element of human experience. In this article, we assert that the scientific under-standing of a concept is tbe concern of concept analysis, not ordinary conceptualmeaning. This is not to say that ordinary meaning has no merit in scientific work,rather this form of data is relevant to concept advancement techniques, not conceptanalysis.
CONCEPTS-THEORY LINKAGES
Often, as scientific units of meaning, concepts are described as building blocks oftheory (Fawcett, 1978), triggering images of a brick and mortar wall. Using thisanalogy, theory is built block by block as a process of stacking and securing con-cepts together. This view is problematic in that the linkages between concepts arepresented as linear, a rather simplistic approach. For example, a "block" (concept) onthe first course ofthe "wall" (theory) may be integrally linked with a "block" on thethird course—^yet the two don't touch or link in any way except to support the "wall"(theory). Thus, this representation is inadequate in illustrating the complex integra-tion of concepts important to nursing and other sciences concemed with human expe-riences or behaviors.
Hemple (1966) offers a different concept-theory analogy in his work in natural sci-ence, describing concepts as the "knots in a network of systematic interrelation-ships" (p. 94). Extending this analogy, theory could be represented as a tapestry ofinterwoven, knotted conceptual threads (Penrod & Hupcey, 2005). Thus, no singlestrand (i.e., concept) in the tapestry (i.e., theory) stands apart from the others in ameaningful way. To pull one conceptual thread from tbe tapestry produces a pieceof string or thread (i.e., the concept) that no longer reveals its accent or color withinthe larger pattern (i.e., conceptual meaning).
The tapestry analogy is useful to emphasize tbe importance of strong, well-integrated concepts for supporting theory. However, there is a deeper implication inthis analogy that warrants some consideration: concepts are assigned meaning throughplacement within the context of theory. If we were to examine only red threads pulledfrom different tapestries, we could analyze the characteristics of threads themselves;however, the contribution of these threads to each tapestry lies in tbe contrast andintricacies developed when the red thread is knotted and woven with other strandsin the larger work. That is, concepts cannot be analyzed irrespective of their theo-retical frame. Paley (1996) has argued that concepts must be examined within theniches created in specific theories integrating those concepts. He asserts that the mostmeaningful way to clarify concepts is to examine the theories in which the con-cepts are embedded. We agree with Paley and have further asserted that the powerof concept analysis (and subsequently, methods of advancing the concept) is to iden-tify the existing theoretical strands and, ultimately, to tie and retie the conceptual
200 Hupcey arul Penrod
knots to form a stronger, more coherent tapestry of nursing theory (Penrod & Hupcey,2005).
Concepts that are of concern to the caring sciences, including nursing, areembedded in complex tapestries of behavioral, cognitive and emotive meaning(e.g., theories). It is difficult, if not impossible, to untangle the discrete thread of aconcept from this tapestry of meaning. Therefore, attempts to isolate a concept inthe process of analysis become an artificial endeavor. We cannot isolate conceptsthat are inherently linked in abstract meaning without in some way limiting the util-ity of analysis for understanding complex human experiences. From a practical per-spective, this means that the scientific literature that precisely orders or interpretsordinary conceptual meaning, must be analyzed for explicit and implicit meaningduring the analytic process. Implicit meaning may be derived through an analysisofthe positioning of concepts in a theoretical frame or by linguistic cues. We assertthat scientific concepts cannot be critically analyzed if pulled from or isolated fromthe broader theoretical landscape without seriously compromising the value oftheanalytic product. In other words, processes of concept analysis must examine mul-tiple theoretical frames to derive insights regarding conceptual meaning that tran-scend specific theoretical bounds and ring true to the human construction of meaningwith the degree of precision required in scientific endeavors.
Far too often, manuscripts related to concept analyses describe the literature sur-rounding a word label without ever addressing the scientific meaning of the con-cept in any depth. In these papers, there is an obvious lack of conceptual thinking asthe author processes mounds of literature from a narrow and restricted perspective.Available methods of concept analysis may be easily misconstrued to permit suchsuperficial analysis, especially those that prescribe the concoction of contrived casesto support the analysis. Often, these model cases suffer an obvious lack of depthand the derived conceptualization is unable to capture the meanings inherent to com-plex human experiences (for further discussion, see Hupcey, Morse, Lenz, & Tason,1996). Such endeavors fall short of truly determining scientific meaning in a waythat permits an understanding ofthe state ofthe science surrounding the concept.
CONCEPT-TRUTH LINKAGES
We believe that the power of concept analysis lies in identifying how a conceptworks within existing theories in order to derive a theoretical definition ofthe mean-ing ascribed to that concept. This definition of meaning derived from the contex-tual basis ofthe science (that is, theories) represents the "state ofthe science." Thisassertion is rooted in our metaphysical perspectives of truth or reality, primarilyontology. On one hand, truth could be conceived as an absolute value that can bediscovered through precise scientific endeavors. On the other hand, truth can be con-ceived as a construction of those who experience a given phenomenon at a givenpoint in time. Somewhere between these two endpoints of a continuum, there is amiddle ground—a stance that accepts the power ofthe human experience in formu-lating conceptual meaning that is subsequently clarified through language expound-ing that meaning within a specific theoretical context for scientific use.
Concept Analysis 201
Kikucbi's (2003) interpretation of moderate realism embraces a quest for under-standing reality focusing on probable truth rather than absolute truth. Concepts areabstracted through a cognitive process that is based on percepts (formed throughperceptions along with memory and imagination). Concepts are, therefore, "groundedin reality or empirically derived" (p. 12). Context becomes critical as the individualis situated in a set of circumstances that influences percepts and tbe abstraction ofconcepts. Yet the convergence of what is known through a rigorous examinationof these multiple contextually based conceptions reveals the probable truth that isembraced by moderate realists. Moderate realism asserts, "reality exists independentofthe human mind" (p. 12), supporting a notion that probable truth transcends indi-vidual experience.
Using the tapestry analogy, concept analysis centers on following and pullingselected conceptual threads in multiple tapestries of meaning. The insights gleanedthrough each examination (now new threads of meaning) are then rewoven orreknotted and tie into a new tapestry of meaning for that concept. The theoreticaltapestry represents the probable truth revealed through an examination of multiple,and often, divergent contextual conceptualizations of concepts grounded inempirical, human experiences.
This is tbe position that we adopt in this series of papers. Through techniquesof concept analysis, conceptual insights are isolated and examined. These insightsare then integrated into a summative view of tbe state of the science surroundingtbe concept of interest. Since concepts are the backbone of theory/npracOce (thatis, concepts help nurses to organize meaning to understand complex human expe-riences and behaviors in ways that influence the practice of nursing) such work isa critically important scientific endeavor.
Given this perspective, we propose that it is time to clarify methodologicalapproaches to concept analysis and concept advancement. Concept analysis is ameans for identifying scholars' best efforts at establishing the probable truth asreflected in the scientific literature. In this case, the label "scientific literature" refersto scholarly works pertaining to the concept of interest, including empirical, theo-retical, and philosophical writings. The goal of concept analysis is to establish tbestate ofthe science. As such, concept analysis has the potential to serve as an essen-tial method of inquiry in a progressive nursing science, not merely as an academicexercise. We believe that the findings of a critical concept analysis provide evidencefor determining the most appropriate means for subsequently advancing the con-cept. In essence, concept advancement techniques progressively build the conceptby explicating implicit meaning into more abstract theoretical formulations thattranscend contextual conceptions. Such a clarification of methods supports an evo-lutionary turn toward praxis by uniting nursing research, theory, and practice in away that, we believe, could advance the science of nursing significantly.
TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO CONCEPT ANALYSIS
A number of approaches are used to guide the process of "concept analysis" in nurs-ing. It is important to note, however, that tbe terms describing the overarching
202 Hupcey and Penrod
analytic processes, purposes for using such techniques, and the nature of the find-ings produced by each method differ. Ultimately these factors affect the criticalexamination ofthe concept, and may result in anal34ic findings that do not truly reflectthe state ofthe science. Others have critiqued common techniques of concept analy-sis (for example, see Hupcey, Morse, Lenz, & Tason, 1996). For clarity, we provide abrief overview ofthe approaches described by: Wilson (1963), Walker and Avant(1995), Chinn and Kramer (1995), Rodgers (2000b), and Schwartz-Barcott and Kim(2000) (further delineated by Schwartz-Barcott, Patterson, Lusardi, & Farmer, 2002).Our focus in this review centers on the purpose, process, and products of thesemethods.
Wilson (1963) introduced a method of examining concepts that involved discus-sion of 11 considerations: questions of concept; 'right answers'; model cases; con-trary cases; related cases; borderline cases; invented cases; social context; underlyinganxiety (ofthe researcher); practical results; and results in language. This ambitiousdiscourse endures as a classic reference in concept analysis literature. While Wilson'sintent was not to delineate a method of concept analysis, this analytic process servesas the basis for many methods of concept analysis in nursing.
Although Wilson (1963) described the purpose of his work as, "set [ting] forth aframework through which one can build understanding ofthe essential meaning ofa concept in varied contexts" (p. 93), he also stated that "the analysis of concepts isessentially an imaginative process; certainly it is more of an art than a science"(p. 33). This emphasis on process or the art of exploring concepts overshadows thenotion of a product. A Wilsonian analysis enhances critical thinking processes, butdoes not necessarily produce documentation of a scientific examination of a con-cept (i.e., a product). Herein arises the difficulty in applying this method to scien-tific endeavors; while the art ofthe imagination contributes to the derivation ofthescientific conceptualization, the influence of imaginative processes often precludesthe "evidence" found in the literature that reflects the essential meaning ofthe con-cept within a scientific context (especially complex behavioral concepts, like trust oruncertainty). The difflculty with Wilson's text is that, while insightful and very com-prehensive, it fails to prepare one to embark on a methodological analysis of thestate ofthe concept in the science (reflected soundly in the literature).
Walker and Avant (1983, 1988, 1995) describe concept analysis as a technique ofconcept development that is used when the concept is unclear, outmoded, or unhelp-ful. This method adapts Wilson's work into an eight-step process: select a concept;determine aims or purposes of analysis; identify uses; determine defining attributes;construct a model case; construct borderline/related/contrary/invented/and illegit-imate cases; identify antecedents and consequences; and deflne empirical referents.Both qualitative and quantitative techniques are prescribed within this process. Thepurpose of this technique is described as theory development. The products oftheprocess include clear and precise theoretical and operational deflnitions for use inresearch (1995, p. 46), thus supporting the achievement ofthe purpose. Conceptsare deflned as evolving ("change over time," 1995, p. 37) within a constructivist per-spective. "The best one can hope for from a concept analysis is to capture the crit-ical elements of it at the current moment in time" (1995, p. 37). While this approachto concept analysis is perhaps, in our experience, the most commonly used in nursing.
Concept Analysis 203
this method often fails to produce an analysis ofthe concept that reaches the degreeof insight implied by the authors. Of primary concern, how does the researchercome to know that the concept is unclear, outmoded, or unhelpful without a full ana-lytic review of the state of the science?
Chinn and Kramer's (1991, 1995; Chinn & Jacobs, 1983, 1987) approach to con-cept analysis is an adaptation of the work of Wilson and Walker and Avant. Theyassert that the primary purpose of concept analysis is the development of theory.Their technique focuses on flve steps: select a concept; clarify the purpose; identifydata sources; explore context and values; and formulate criteria. It is interesting tonote their emphasis on constructed exemplary cases and the inclusion of diversedata sources including popular literature, visual images, and people. The purposeofthe analytic process described by these scholars is to identify, clarify, and exam-ine the word label, the phenomenon represented by the label, and the values, feel-ings, and attitudes that are associated with both the symbol and the phenomenon.The product of this process is considered to be tentative in nature and subject to alter-ation and change as new evidence becomes available. This method extends analy-sis beyond the state ofthe science into the personal and societal realms. While weagree that such conceptualizations (the personal and the societal) are critical toadvancing a concept to capture the empirical essence ofthe human experience, wedo not believe that these realms of meaning are appropriate to discerning theprobable truth exposed in the scientiflc literature.
Rodgers (1993,2000b) described an 'Evolutionary View' of concept analysis thatis embedded in the cycle of concept development. The purpose of concept analysisis "clarification ofthe concept and its current use, and uncovering the attributes ofthe concept as a basis for further development" (2000b, p. 83). In this method, Rodgersattempted to move beyond the essential features of a concept to capture "the dynamicnature of concepts, changing with both time and context" (2000b, p. 99). The processin this form of concept analysis was designed around the dynamic (not static) per-spective of a concept: identifying the concept; choosing the setting and sample (lit-erature); collecting and managing the data; analyzing the data; identifying a modelcase; interpreting the results; and identifying implications. The product of analysis(or results) is described as a heuristic device to provide "the clarity necessary tocreate a foundation for further inquiry and development" (2000b, p. 84). Emphasizingthe cyclic nature of concept development even further, Rodgers (1993) said,
I do not consider the attributes of a concept to be a fixed set of necessary and sufficientconditions, or an essence. Consequently,... this cluster of attributes may change, byconvention or by purposeful redefinition, over time to maintain a useful, applicable,and effective concept, (p. 75)
The evolutionary approach challenges an essentialist position on concepts. Thismethod of concept analysis is based in a complex, intellectually rigorous integra-tion of more contemporary philosophical positions. Such complexity makes it diffl-cult to disentangle the process of concept analysis as separate and discrete fromconcept development. Application of this method has been more limited than moretraditional forms of concept analysis (e.g.. Walker & Avant), perhaps because it chal-lenges our philosophical interpretation of concepts or perhaps because it depicts
204 Hupcey and Penrod
concepts as such dynamic entities that are difficult to grasp for scientific examina-tion and use.
Schwartz-Barcott and Kim (1986, 1993, 2000) described their "Hybrid Model,"which was originally developed in a doctoral course to merge philosophy of science,sociology, and field research into a three-phase approach to concept analysis: the-oretical work (based in the literature); fleld work (based on empirical data); andanalytical work (integrating the final product). Schwartz-Barcott and Kim (2000)described this process in terms of concept development and analysis with the implicitpurpose of fortifying the "building blocks of a theory" (2000, p. 130) for ultimateintegration. This method moves concept analysis from an academic mental exerciseinto the realm of clinically based fleldwork, thus making an important contributionmethodologically. However, the basis of the fleldwork (i.e., the theoretical work)remains underdeveloped. The method does not formulate a strong analysis of thestate of the science from which to launch appropriate and well-focused fleldwork.Recently, Schwartz-Barcott and colleagues (2002) clarifled their fleldwork strate-gies into three distinct pathways for clarifying and establishing theoretical congru-ence between a concept and clinical settings: theoretical selectivity; theoreticalintegration; and theory creation. The resultant products of the procedural applica-tion ofthe reflned pathways are yet to be seen.
EMERGENT PERSPECTIVES ON CONCEPT ANALYSIS
Despite the fact that the aforementioned methods of concept analysis were avail-able and used in nursing, their application to phenomena of concern to nursing hadvarying degrees of success (Morse, Hupcey, Mitcham, & Lenz, 1996). In critical responseto these methods, a series of papers on concept analysis published by Morse andcolleagues (Hupcey et al., 1996; Morse, 1995; Morse, Hupcey, et al., 1996; Morse,Mitcham, Hupcey, & Tason, 1996) presented new perspectives on concept analy-sis. One ofthe insightful notions regarding concept analysis was the need to estab-lish "criteria for the evaluation ofthe level of maturity of concepts" (Morse, Mitcham,et al., p. 387). Maturity was deflned as a concept which "is well-deflned, has clearlydescribed characteristics, delineated boundaries, and documented preconditionsand outcomes" (Morse, Mitcham, et al., 1996, p. 387). The evaluation of conceptualmaturity was based on four broad philosophical principles, epistemological, prag-matic, linguistic, and logical (Morse, Hupcey, et al., 1996). The epistemological prin-ciple sets criteria for conceptual deflnitions and differentiation. The pragmatic principleaddresses criteria surrounding utility and flt of conceptualizations. The linguisticprinciple centers on consistency and appropriateness of use. And flnally, the logi-cal principle develops criteria for examination of theoretical integration with otherconcepts. Thus, this series of papers provides an analytic lens through which thetruth-value of current conceptualizations maybe examined.
We believe that the principles described by Morse and colleagues (Hupcey et al.,1996; Morse, 1995; Morse, Hupcey, et al., 1996; Morse, Mitcham, et al., 1996) revealsthe best estimate of probable truth evident in the scientiflc literature. The applica-tion of these analytic criteria has the potential to produce a principle-based exam-
Concept Analysis 205
ination ofthe concept as it appears in the scientiflc literature; however, use to datehas been limited. From our experience, we have come to discover that the entan-glement of analysis and advancement techniques muddles analytic processes, result-ing in novice analysts wallowing in data and wondering when, or if, they will everbe flnished with the project. Further, in order to address operational difflculties, wehave clarifled strategies for applying these principles in a concept analysis (Penrod& Hupcey, 2005). Yet, one thing is clear: principle-based concept analysis is a com-plex method and demands that the researcher analyzes scientiflc meaning (noteveryday notions) and thinks critically (not imaginatively).
DISCUSSION
Given these diverse approaches to concept analysis, it is not surprising that thepotential contribution of concept analyses on the evolution of nursing science hasbeen constrained. We believe that some ofthe limitations in the utility ofthe prod-uct of concept analyses are related to how nurse researchers and educators thinkabout concept analysis. For example, while all ofthe approaches discussed aboveare somehow related (and taught) under the rubric of concept analysis, analyticterms are confused and entangled within broader concept-based research tech-niques, including concept development, creating conceptual meaning, and theorybuilding. Data collection/fleld work appears to be premature in some approaches:how can the researcher proceed with fleldwork strategically until a thorough under-standing of the state of the science is fully established? Therefore, clarif3nng theprinciples underlying concept analysis is a logical flrst step in addressing thesemethodological limitations.
First, we assert that the purpose of concept analysis is to determine the state ofthe science (or best estimate of probable truth) surrounding a concept of interest.Thus, concept analyses are concerned with scientiflc literature, not creative imagi-nation, art forms, flction, interview data, or any other form of representation. Second,the process of concept analysis is primarily at the level of integration, not sjmthesis.The researcher must engage in a thorough and thoughtful analysis of what is knownby examining the implicit and explicit assumptions cited in the scientiflc literature(i.e., scholarly works pertaining to the concept of interest, including empirical,theoretical, and philosophical writings). Concept analysis is more than an organiza-tion of flndings; the integrated perspective produces a higher level understanding ofthe concept of interest. In other words, when theoretical frameworks are exam-ined for meaning and contextual boundaries are transcended, the evidence of prob-able truth is revealed. Therefore, the product of concept analysis is some form of asummary ofthe state ofthe science that reveals the scientiflc community's best esti-mate of probable truth, given the evidence portrayed in the extant literature. Whilethis product certainly contributes to the science of nursing, it is not a form of conceptadvancement; it is an analysis of what is known.
In our view, principle-based concept analysis (Penrod & Hupcey, 2005) providesa useful and meaningful framework for determining the global state of the sci-ence (or probable truth) surrounding a concept. However, the real value of this
•206 Hupcey and Penrod
emergent method lies in the evidence culled to support the summative conclusions(truth-value) related to each principle rather than on an assigned word label thatdenotes the degree of maturity (e.g., immature vs. partially mature). The notion ofconceptual maturity is a significant contribution to understanding concepts, but thelabel that connotes level of maturity is insufficient for determining the most appro-priate techniques for concept advancement.
This is an important methodological distinction. Concept analysis is an integra-tion of what is known, not an evaluation of quality or maturity ofthe concept. Conceptadvancement is not driven by the label denoting level of maturity; rather, gaps inunderstanding identified through comprehensive principle-based concept analysisare the most significant findings that direct subsequent concept-based inquiries.
Principle-based concept analysis requires the researcher to focus on evidence foundin the scientific literature, not constructed cases, imaginative exploration, or hypo-thetical exemplars. Through the integration of insights derived from a principle-based examination ofthe scientific literature, the researcher should be able to derivea summative paragraph (or theoretical definition) on what is known in order to exposegaps or inconsistencies in current thinking. This enables the researcher to strate-gically progress toward a deeper examination of divergent views to advance a bet-ter explication of probable truth.
Principle-based concept analysis appears to provide the most comprehensiveexamination of the concept within theoretical frames of reference documented inthe scientific literature. By applying the overarching principles based in the philos-ophy of science, the analyst is forced to take a much broader stance in an examina-tion of theory, research, and philosophy papers; but most importantly, the analysisis based in the scientific literature (not lay literature or other forms of representa-tion). This analysis reveals the state ofthe science, and must be based in the litera-ture of the selected disciplines.
Yet, even the application of such a comprehensive analytic technique will onlyprovide us with a perspective ofthe state ofthe science, that is, the baseline under-standing that enables the researcher to determine how to strategically advance theconcept of interest by addressing identified gaps or inconsistencies. Concept analy-sis is the initial step in concept advancement; analysis must precede efforts at advance-ment. Analysis of a concept clarifies what is known ofthe concept at that time. Assuch, concept analysis can be used to estimate the probable truth revealed in the sci-entific literature as a first step in enhancing the knowledge base of the discipline.Such delimitation of analytic processes focuses the researcher on scientific perspec-tives of reality that can then be further developed through processes of conceptadvancement.
REFERENCES
chinn, P. L, &Jacobs, M. K. (1983). Theory and nursing: A systematic approach. St. Louis: Mosby.Chinn, P. L, &Jacobs, M. K. (1987). Theory and nursing: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). St.
Louis: Mosby.
Concept Analysis 207
Chinn, P. L., & Kramer, M. K. (1991). Theory and nursing: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). St.Louis: Mosby.
Chinn, P. L, &Kramer, M. K. (1995). Theory and nursing: A systematic approach (4th ed.). St.Louis: Mosby.
Fawcett, J. (1978). The relationship between theory and research: A double helix. Advances inNursing Science, i (1), 49-62.
Hemple, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Hupcey, J. E., Morse, J. M., Lenz, E., & Tason, M. C. (1996). Wilsonian methods of concept
analysis: A critique. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice, 10, 185-210.Hupcey, J. E., Penrod, J., Morse, J. M., & Mitcham, C. (2001). An exploration and advancement
of the concept of trust. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36, 282-293.Kikuchi, J. (2003). Nursing knowledge and the problem of worldviews. Research and Theory
for Nursing Practice: An Intemational Joumai, i 7( 1), 7-17.King, 1. M. (1988). Concepts: Essential elements of theories. Nursing Science Quarterly, 7(1),
22-25.Knafl, K. A., & Deatrick, J. A. (2000). Knowledge synthesis and concept development in nurs-
ing. In B. L. Rodgers & K. A. KnaO (Eds.), Concept development in nursing: Foundations,techniques, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 39-54). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1998). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). New York: Routledge.(Original work published 1962)
Mitcham, C. (1999, February). Concepts of concepts: Philosophical perspectives. InJ. M. Morse(Chair), Issues in concept and theory development. Symposium conducted at the Advancesin Qualitative Methodology Conference, Edmonton, Canada.
Morse, J. M. (1995). Exploring the theoretical basis of nursing using advanced techniques ofconcept analysis. Advances in Nursing Science, 17(3) ,31-46.
Morse, J. M. (2000). Exploring pragmatic utility: Concept analysis by critically appraising theliterature. In B. L. Rodgers & K. A. Knafl (Eds.), Concept development in nursing: Foundations,techniques, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 333-352). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Morse, J. M., Hupcey,J., Mitcham, C, &Lenz, E. (1996). Concept analysis in nursing research:A critical appraisal. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice, 10, 257-281.
Morse, J. M., Mitcham, C, Hupcey, J. E., & Tason, M. C. (1996). Criteria for concept evalua-tion. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 385-390.
Paley, J. (1996). How not to clarify concepts in nursing./ouma/ of Advanced Nursing, 24,572-577.Penrod, J., & Hupcey, J. E. (2005). Enhancing methodological clarity: Principle-based concept
analysis. Joumai of Advanced Nursing, 50(4), 403-409.Rodgers, B. L. (1993). Concept analysis: An evolutionary view. In B. L. Rodgers & K. A. Knafl
(Eds.), Concept development in nursing: Foundations, techniques, and applications (2nded., pp. 73-92). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Rodgers, B. L. (2000a). Philosophical foundations of concept development. In B. L. Rodgers& K. A. KnaO (Eds.), Concept development in nursing: Foundations, techniques, and appli-cations (2nd ed., pp. 7-38). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Rodgers, B. L. (2000b). Concept analysis: An evolutionary view. In B. L. Rodgers & K. A. Knafl(Eds.), Concept development in nursing: Foundations, techniques, and applications (2nded., pp. 77-102). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Schwartz-Barcott, D., & Kim, H. S. (1986). A hybrid model for concept development. In P. L.Chinn [Ed.), Nursing research methodology: Issues and implementation (2nd ed., pp. 91-101).Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Schwartz-Barcott, D., & Kim, H. S. (1993). An expansion and elaboration ofthe hybrid modelof concept development. In B. L. Rodgers & K. A. Knafl (Eds.), Concept development in nurs-ing: Foundations, techniques, and applications (pp. 107-133). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
208 Hupcey and Penrod
Schwartz-Barcott, D., & Kim, H. S. (2000). An expansion and elaboration ofthe hybrid modelof concept development. In B. L. Rodgers & K. A. Knafl (Eds.), Concept development innursing: Foundations, techniques, and appiicatians (2nd ed., pp. 129-160). Philadelphia:W. B. Saunders.
Schwartz-Barcott, D., Patterson, B. J., Lusardi, P., & Farmer, B. C. (2002). From practice to the-ory: Tightening the link via three fieldv^^ork strategies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 39,281-289.
Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (1983). Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Norwalk, CT:Appleton Century-Crofts.
Walker, L C , & Avant, K. C. (1988). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (2nd ed.).Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.
Walker, L. 0., & Avant, K. C. (1995). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (3rd ed.).Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.
Wilson, J. (1963). Thinking with concepts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Offprints. Requests for offprints should be directed to Judith E. Hupcey, EdD, CRNP, Schoolof Nursing, The Pennsylvannia State University, 600 Centerview Drive, Hershey, PA 17033.E-mail: [email protected]
