male nursing student experience
A Critique of Male Nursing Students Education Experience
A Critique of Male Nursing Students Education Experience In this paper, the article titled “Men Student Nurses: The Nursing Education Experience” will be critiqued. This paper will discuss the purpose of the article including the purpose of the study, the research question, and the central concepts. It will also discuss the research methods and design, the sample which includes the procedure for selecting the sample, inclusions and exclusions of the sample and if there was any selection bias. Research ethics and concerns will also be explained. Data collection method and rigor, as well as methods for data analysis will be discussed. Main findings, interpretation of the results, limitations and strengths and relevance to nursing practice will also be examined in this paper. The purpose of this paper is to explain how the above stated study was conducted and give specific details that pertain to the study in a critiquing manner.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of male nursing students who were completing the collaborative baccalaureate degree program in Canada. The research question developed by the researchers was “Tell me what is your experience of being a male student in a baccalaureate nursing program?” (Meadus & Twomey, 2011). The central concepts of this study were to explore barriers involving sexual stereotypes, such as all men who are nurses are gay and their masculinity is doubted, as well as gender biases in nursing texts, language, images, in school and in the hospital setting (Meadus & Twomey, 2011).
Research Method The research approach for this study was qualitative. Qualitative research has a goal of attaining an in-depth understanding of life in a natural setting without using any manipulation. The goal of qualitative research is to gain people’s experiences and perceptions to build a general portrait of
A Critique of Male Nursing Students Education Experience In this paper, the article titled “Men Student Nurses: The Nursing Education Experience” will be critiqued. This paper will discuss the purpose of the article including the purpose of the study, the research question, and the central concepts. It will also discuss the research methods and design, the sample which includes the procedure for selecting the sample, inclusions and exclusions of the sample and if there was any selection bias. Research ethics and concerns will also be explained. Data collection method and rigor, as well as methods for data analysis will be discussed. Main findings, interpretation of the results, limitations and strengths and relevance to nursing practice will also be examined in this paper. The purpose of this paper is to explain how the above stated study was conducted and give specific details that pertain to the study in a critiquing manner.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of male nursing students who were completing the collaborative baccalaureate degree program in Canada. The research question developed by the researchers was “Tell me what is your experience of being a male student in a baccalaureate nursing program?” (Meadus & Twomey, 2011). The central concepts of this study were to explore barriers involving sexual stereotypes, such as all men who are nurses are gay and their masculinity is doubted, as well as gender biases in nursing texts, language, images, in school and in the hospital setting (Meadus & Twomey, 2011).
Research Method The research approach for this study was qualitative. Qualitative research has a goal of attaining an in-depth understanding of life in a natural setting without using any manipulation. The goal of qualitative research is to gain people’s experiences and perceptions to build a general portrait of
References: Meadus, R. J., & Twomey, J. C. (2011). Men student nurses: the nursing education experience. Nursing Forum, 46(4), 269-279. Davies, B., & Logan, J. (2012). Reading research: A user-friendly guide for health professionals. (5 ed., pp. 9-14). Toronto, ON: Elsevier Canada.