Erratum: Postpositivism in health professions education scholarship (Academic Medicine (2020) 95 (695-699) DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003089);Postpositivism in Health Professions Education Scholarship

Academic Medicine

Volumn 95, Issue 5, 2020, Pages 695-699

  Young, Meredith E ^a   Ryan, Anna ^b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL PROFESSION; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCH;

HEALTH OCCUPATIONS; HUMANS; RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85084151855     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: 1938808X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003539     Document Type: Erratum

References (24)

1. Phillips DC, Burbules NC,. Postpositivism and Educational Research. 2000. New York, NY; Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
2. Ladyman J,. Understanding Philosophy of Science. 2002. New York, NY: Routledge.
3. Park YS, Konge L, Artino T,. The positivism paradigm of research. Acad Med. 2020; 95: 690-694.
4. Popper K,. Conjectures and Refutations. 1963. New York, NY: Routledge.
5. Lincoln YS, Guba EG,. Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6. Crotty M,. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. 1998. London, UK: Sage Publications.
7. Ryan AB,. Antonesa M,. Post-positivist approaches to research. In: Researching and Writing Your Thesis: A Guide for Postgraduate Students. 2006. Maynooth, Ireland: National University of Ireland, Maynooth.
8. Gortner SR,. Nursing's syntax revisited: A critique of philosophies said to influence nursing theories. Int J Nurs Stud. 1993; 30: 477-488.
9. Cleland J,. Cleland J, Durning S,. Exploring versus measuring: Considering the fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative research. In: Researching Medical Education. 2015. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
10. Letourneau N, Allen M,. Post-positivistic critical multiplism: A beginning dialogue. J Adv Nurs. 1999; 30: 623-630.
11. Varpio L, Paradis E, Uijtdehaage S, Young ME,. The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework [published online ahead of print November 12, 2019]. Acad Med. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003075.
12. Cruickshank J,. Positioning positivism, critical realism and social constructionism in the health sciences: A philosophical orientation. Nurs Inq. 2012; 19: 71-82.
13. Pusic MV, Boutis K, McGaghie WC,. Role of scientific theory in simulation education research. Simul Healthc. 2018; 13 (3 suppl 1): S7-S14.
14. Weaver K, Olson JK,. Understanding paradigms used for nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2006; 53: 459-469.
15. Firestein S,. Ignorance: How It Drives Science. 2012. 1st ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16. Popper K,. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 2005. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
17. Kuhn TS,. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2012. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
18. Morse JM, Filed P,. Quantitative Research for Health Professionals. 1995. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Shumaker KL, Gorner SR,. (Mis)conceptions and reconceptions about traditional science. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1992; 14: 1-11.
20. Bryman A,. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. 1998. New York, NY: Routledge.
21. Lakatos I,. Worrall J, Currie G,. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. 1978. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. ASCH SE,. Forming impressions of personality. J Abnorm Psychol. 1946; 41: 258-290.
23. Pearson A,. Nursing: From Whence to Where? 1990. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
24. Pajares JM, Gisbert JP,. Helicobacter pylori: Its discovery and relevance for medicine. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2006; 98: 770-785.