NURSING THEORY AND CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT OR ANALYSIS

Enhancing methodological clarity: principle-based concept analysis

Janice Penrod PhD RN

Assistant Professor, College of Health and Human Development; and Assistant Professor, College of Medicine, Pennsylvania

State University, Pennsylvania, USA

Judith E. Hupcey EdD CRNP

Assistant Professor, College of Health and Human Development; and Assistant Professor, College of Medicine, Pennsylvania

State University, Pennsylvania, USA

Accepted for publication 3 September 2004

Correspondence:

Janice Penrod,

College of Health and Human Development,

Pennsylvania State University,

203 HHDE University Park,

PA 16802,

USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

PENROD J. & HUPCEY J.E . (2005)PENROD J. & HUPCEY J.E . (2005) Journal of Advanced Nursing 50(4), 403–409

Enhancing methodological clarity: principle-based concept analysis

Aims. The aim of this paper is to operationalize the principle-based method of

concept analysis.

Background. While nursing has embraced the use of concept analysis as a valid and

significant entrée into an area of research, methodological development has created

strategies of inquiry that vary in purpose and in the nature of their findings.

Discussion. We propose that, as the primary utility of concept analysis is to

determine the existing state of the science so that further work may be strategically

and appropriately planned, the method described as principle-based concept ana-

lysis is superior in providing evidence to support subsequent inquiry into the concept

of interest.

Three problematic issues are discussed in an effort to clarify and procedurally

explicate the strategies employed in this approach: selecting disciplinary literatures

for inclusion in the analysis; conceptually-driven sampling issues; and within- and

across-discipline analytic techniques.

Conclusion. In this form of concept analysis, each principle contributes to an

understanding of the strengths and limitations of the present state of the concept in

the scientific literature. We believe that this perspective will enable nursing to begin

to harness the power of concept analysis for advancing science rather than simply

imagining what a concept could be or constructing what we believe it should be.

Keywords: concept analysis, principle-based concept analysis

Introduction

Nursing has traditionally valued processes of concept analysis

for the identification of concepts suitable for subsequent

research and as a means to determine the appropriate

methodologies for investigating the concept of interest. For

example, it is commonly asserted that concepts that are not

well defined or integrated in theoretical formulations are best

suited to qualitative studies, while clearly defined and

operationalized concepts are more amenable to quantitative

study (Morse & Field 1995). Although multiple methods of

concept analysis are available, all methods are not equal in

producing analytic results that serve researchers in processing

subsequent methodological decisions for research that

extends the science of nursing.

The purpose of this paper is to operationalize the principle-

based method for concept analysis using criteria put forward

by Morse and colleagues (Morse 1995, Hupcey et al. 1996,

Morse et al. 1996a, 1996b) to produce findings that are

useful in determining subsequent methods for advancing a

concept. In addition, problematic issues discovered through

use of this principle-based method in our own work,

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 403

supervision of doctoral students, and peer review of manu-

scripts describing the application of this method are

addressed. We conclude that the evaluation of findings

derived through a thoughtful application of a principle-based

analysis provides insights into appropriate pathways for

advancement of a concept and, therefore, towards greater

utility in nursing science and practice.

Understanding concepts

We will present a brief summary to orient readers to our

understanding of concepts as empirically-based abstractions

of reality or truth. We believe that truth transcends the

contextual experience of human existence, and that the

collective exposition of that truth reveals our best estimate of

probable truth. Thus, probable truth (as revealed in the

scientific literature) is the foundation of concept analysis.

Concepts may be described as ordinary or everyday

(meaning a cognitive formation that results through natural

human processes that occur through being in the world with

others) or scientific (meaning abstractions that are developed

into more precise meaning units that, when linked together,

propositionally form a theoretical representation of empi-

rically-experienced reality). We assert that while the every-

day meaning of concepts may contribute to scientific

understanding, ordinary concepts (with implicit meaning)

are inadequate for scientific inquiry. In turn, analytic

techniques used in scientific endeavours must focus on

scientific concepts. Should the scientific concept not capture

the everyday notion of the concept (termed an inconsistency

or gap in understanding), further development of the

concept is indicated. This is done through scientific inquiry

into the empirical derivation of the concept, not carte

blanche acceptance and integration of contextual everyday

meaning.

Nursing science is concerned with complex human beha-

viour within a continually changing trajectory of health. The

concepts of interest to nursing are multifaceted, highly

integrated, and at times manifest differently at different

points along the health trajectory. Thus, a tapestry analogy

(developed with reference to Hemple 1966) aptly captures

our perspectives of the complexity of concept–theory linkages

in nursing science. In this analogy, theory is represented as a

tapestry of interwoven, knotted conceptual threads. This

analogy reinforces the importance of theoretical context in

processes of concept analysis. We assert that the power of

concept analysis is to identify the existing theoretical strands

that define a concept of interest and ultimately to tie and

re-tie the conceptual knots to form a stronger, more coherent

tapestry of theory. Theory (i.e. the tapestry) is strengthened

as the individual strands (i.e. concepts) are clarified and

developed.

Thus, as the state of a concept is first fully understood and

subsequently advanced, so is the science advanced (Penrod

1999, September). We propose that well-developed concepts

advance the discipline of nursing beyond the realm of purely

theoretical science. Clearly-developed, empirically-based con-

cepts are the basis of useful theory in nursing. Well-developed

theory has the potential to guide clinical practice to new

levels of human interaction that promote health and well-

being. We believe that such praxis theory (that is, theory that

produces thoughtful action) demands the primary attention

of nurse scholars.

Morse et al. (1996b) and colleagues have proposed the

term ‘maturity’ to label a concept’s level of development.

What can a label of the level of maturity tell us about the

state of the science surrounding a developing concept? Level

of maturity ranges on a continuum from immature to mature,

yet few descriptive labels are available to describe the

variations among these levels. In addition, assignment of an

evaluative label of maturity does little to inform scientists of

gaps or limitations in understanding. Rather than relying on a

label of maturity, we assert that careful evaluation of the state

of the science represents scholars’ best estimates of probable

truth surrounding the concept at that point in time. The

caveat to this statement is the evolutionary nature of science –

as science evolves, so does the evidence available to support

the criteria-based evaluation of a concept. Therefore, concept

analysis is not a static product.

The evolutionary path of the advancement of science may

be more accurately illustrated by Kuhn’s (1962, 1970) work.

Contrary to the received view of science as accumulation of

knowledge, Kuhn emphasizes paradigm shifts or revolutions

during which the path of normal science takes a radical turn.

The maturity of a discipline is reflected in the shared

paradigms of the scientific community. Similarly, a well-

developed concept reflects the state of the science and, as

such, can only be as advanced as the science itself. Therefore,

conceptual evolution is a process of change over time as the

science develops new methods or perspectives of puzzle-

solving. A scientific concept is not a static entity – it is

dynamic, with the state of the science representing the most

current state of scientific understanding.

Within this philosophical perspective of science, a threat to

concept development is the use of shared examples. As the

discipline derives exemplars and uses these to teach young

scientists models for puzzle-solving, we run the risk of

creating conceptual dogma; that is, attributes or aspects of

the concept are carried forward without further investigation

or consideration of the changing context of the science or

J. Penrod and J.E. Hupcey

404 � 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(4), 403–409

practice. As a result, we teach students how to think ‘within

the box’ of the discipline rather than to analyse critically the

conceptual roots of the discipline. Such institutionalized

thinking is difficult to re-direct, according to Kuhn’s (1962,

1970) perspective of the revolutionary nature of scientific

advancement. However, conceptual dogma can be revealed

through systematic analysis and advancement of scientific

concepts.

Methods of concept analysis

Concept analysis methods might focus on quantitative

techniques, qualitative techniques, or a mix of these tech-

niques. For example, a concept could be analysed using

quantitative meta-analysis or psychometric testing of meas-

urement tools. Conversely, purely qualitative methods, such

as Morse and colleagues’ methods of advanced concept

analysis might be used (Morse 1995, Hupcey et al. 1996,

Morse et al. 1996a, 1996b). Or, per Walker and Avant

(1995), different strategies (qualitative and quantitative)

might be used at different points in the analysis within one

over-arching procedural method.

It is important to note, however, that the purposes for

using such techniques differ, and that the nature of the

findings that each method produces will contribute differently

to the advancement of a concept. For example, the types of

quantitative projects described above aim to explore derived

associations or measurement of attributes across a body of

scientific literature. These methods may be appropriately

used when a concept is adequately developed. If, however, a

concept is poorly developed, such studies face serious threats

to validity. Thus, it is desirable to have some form of

principle-based analysis that assists in determining the most

appropriate methods of concept advancement according to

the current state of the science.

We use the term principle-based concept analysis to refer to

the application of the philosophical principles as cited by

Morse and colleagues in a series of papers (Morse 1995,

Hupcey et al. 1996, Morse et al. 1996a, 1996b). Discussion

of this method of concept analysis represents an expanded

interpretation of the evolving methods derived through our

research (Hupcey 1998, Penrod 1999, 2001a, 2001b, Penrod

et al. 2000, Hupcey et al. 2001). We hope to extend the

utility of this method by detailing operational concerns that

we have experienced in our own work, our supervision of

doctoral students, and our peer review of manuscripts on

concept analysis. To achieve this goal, we first provide an

overview of the principle-based method of concept analysis.

We then focus on operational issues that we have identified in

relation to this method. We conclude that processes of

concept analysis must be dis-entangled from those of concept

advancement in order to clarify the progressive nature of this

type of inquiry.

Principle-based concept analysis

The basis of this method is the analysis of a concept

according to four broad principles – epistemological, prag-

matic, linguistic and logical – in order to determine and

evaluate the state of the science surrounding the concept (for

further discussion of the principles, see Morse et al. 1996a,

1996b). In this paper, we operationalize the method through

a discussion of issues that have arisen during implementation.

Overview of principle-based method of concept analysis

As in most forms, the first phase of principle-based concept

analysis is to determine the concept of interest and to collect

the scientific literature from disciplines that are considered

applicable to the inquiry. Then, this literature is treated as

data that are assessed according to the criteria espoused by

the epistemological, pragmatic, linguistic and logical princi-

ples, discussed below. Finally, these assessments are integra-

ted into a unified perspective on the current state of the

scientific literature. The questions in the following sections

are derived from the work of Morse et al. (1996a).

Epistemological principle: is the concept clearly defined and

well differentiated from other concepts?

Epistemology refers to the nature of knowledge. The related

analytic criterion is rooted the rationalists’ reliance on reason

as a source of knowledge. When applied to concept analysis,

the epistemological principle focuses on the discipline’s dis-

tinction of a concept within the knowledge base. A concept

that is epistemologically mature is well-defined, well-differ-

entiated from other concepts through that definition, and is

clearly positioned in the body of literature (Penrod 2001b).

Pragmatic principle: is the concept applicable and useful

within the scientific realm of inquiry? Has it been

operationalized?

Focusing on pragmatics, that is, on the concept’s applica-

bility in explaining or describing phenomena encountered

within the discipline, the data are analysed from the per-

spective of usefulness. For a concept to be pragmatically

mature, members of the discipline should be able to

recognize manifestations of the concept; it should ring true

with experience. Operationalization is a high level of

pragmatic development, reserved for rather mature con-

cepts (Penrod 2001b).

Nursing theory and concept development or analysis Principle-based concept analysis

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(4), 403–409 405

Linguistic principle: is the concept used consistently and

appropriately within context?

Linguistics refers to human speech and language and, when

applied to concept analysis, this principle evaluates the

appropriate use of the concept. In this assessment, consis-

tency in use and meaning are considered. There is also a more

oblique consideration of context, examining the fit of the

concept within context (Penrod 2001b). Concepts should be

appropriate to their use in context; however, in this sense,

context is a more complicated issue than merely the setting.

Concepts may be context-bound (that is, limited to a pre-

scribed setting or theoretical use) or stripped of context

(stripped of contextual ties, of broader scope, more abstract).

Logical principle: does the concept hold its boundaries

through theoretical integration with other concepts?

Derived through the philosophical perspectives of logic, that

is, focused on correct and incorrect reasoning, this principle

refers to the integration of the concept with related concepts.

Focusing on conceptual boundaries, the data are analysed to

determine if the concept becomes blurred when positioned

theoretically with other concepts. Ideally, a concept ‘holds its

boundaries’, meaning that it remains clear or tight, and per-

mits the derivation of systematic interrelationships without

getting lost in the theory (Penrod 2001b).

Issues in applying principle-based concept analysis

Earlier discussion of the analytic criteria on which this

method is based has focused on structural features of a

concept (Morse et al. 1996b). After using this method it has

become apparent to us that focusing on structural features is

a very limited use of the principles (Hupcey 1998, Penrod

1999, 2001a, 2001b, Penrod et al. 2000, Hupcey et al. 2001).

Persistent issues surrounding principle-based concept analysis

must be addressed in order to maximize the utility of the

method. Recall that our purpose for concept analysis is to

produce evidence that reveals scholars’ best estimate of

‘probable truth’ in the scientific literature. In this method of

concept analysis, findings are summarized as a theoretical

definition that integrates an evaluative summary of each of

the criteria posed by the four over-arching principles. Careful

consideration of three methodological issues contributes to

the utility of the method: selection of disciplinary literatures

for review, sampling techniques and analytic techniques.

Selection of disciplinary literatures

One of the most important preliminary decisions that

researchers must make is a determination of which literatures

may contribute to the analytic perspectives of the concept. A

multidisciplinary perspective is especially important in nur-

sing because other related disciplines can add to nursing’s

understanding of the concept of interest. For example, in a

study of trust employing this analytic technique (Hupcey

et al. 2001), discipline-specific literatures from sociology,

medicine, psychology, and, initially, business were analysed

because each of these disciplines was believed to contribute a

unique perspective to our understanding of trust. For

example, sociology could inform the research regarding

how interaction within the society might yield feelings of

trust. Herein lies an important distinction from the work of

Morse (2000), in which she describes a search strategy

focused on shared conceptual attributes. In her discussion,

disciplinary perspectives are not broached until the researcher

is engaged in processes of exploring pragmatic utility, which

we would call a technique for concept advancement not

concept analysis.

Literature selection must be processed as an analytic

decision. Which disciplines may contribute to a deeper

understanding of the concept? What theoretical perspectives

may be useful in extending the utility of the concept? In

another concept analysis employing this method, uncertainty

was studied (Penrod 2001a, 2001b). In this example,

anthropology (with a focus on culturally based patterns of

human behaviour) was examined to reveal different mani-

festations of the concept of interest. Sociology was thought to

contribute an understanding of group-level interpretations of

the concept, in contrast to an intra-individual perspective

offered in psychology literature. Medicine and nursing were

explored to provide deeper interpretation of patient states

and the professional experience of uncertainty. These analytic

decisions were not based in a consideration of shared

conceptual attributes but in varied disciplinary perspectives

of the concept of interest.

At other times, the multidisciplinary literatures may be so

broad that their scope exceeds researchers’ purpose or

resources. Morse (2000) emphasizes that full articles (not

abstracts) must be retrieved, and details methods for tracking

a ‘large’ literature base (p. 338). This presents a special

concern for novices and independent or solo researchers. The

final data sets in the studies of uncertainty and trust were

modest for the scope of those projects (uncertainty included

83 articles, while trust examined 107 articles). These data sets

were derived from a preliminary review of literature that

included hundreds of papers. Given researcher constraints, an

analytic decision to limit the breadth of the review may be

made legitimately; however, as the analysis proceeds, this

limitation must be respected to avoid threats of over-

generalization of the analytic findings. This is an especially

J. Penrod and J.E. Hupcey

406 � 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(4), 403–409

salient caution to educators and students who undertake

concept analyses as part of graduate education.

Decisions about which disciplinary literatures should be

included in the analysis are guided by an initial, broad

literature search and review that informs researchers about

the more global state of the shared science surrounding the

concept. Selection of disciplinary literatures should be based

on the potential for contribution to the understanding of the

concept, not a rote listing of inter-related disciplines, nor

conceptual attributes per se. If the potential for a disciplin-

ary literature’s contribution is questionable, it is recommen-

ded that the discipline be included in the initial review and,

later, deleted if fruitless. Thus, selection of disciplinary

literatures for inclusion in a concept analysis is a preliminary

analytic decision that critically affects the product of the

analysis.

Conceptually driven sampling

The second issue in principle-based concept analysis work

concerns obtaining the sample of literature to be included in

the review. As the literature is being used as data in the

concept analysis, adequacy and appropriateness of the

derived sample are important evaluative criteria (Morse &

Field 1995, Morse 2000). Adequacy addresses the volume of

data available to support the research endeavour, while

appropriateness has to do with the degree to which the data

informs the research. In concept analysis work, adequacy is

particularly related to deriving the sample of literature to be

included in the analysis, especially when a large volume of

literature is available. Appropriateness of the derived sample

of literature is assessed both in the initial literature search

procedures and in the preliminary review of the data.

Researchers initiating a concept analysis are sometimes

faced with huge bodies of literature that would require

resources that greatly exceed those available. Random

selection of the initial sample of literature is clearly not an

acceptable technique for delimiting the sample because the

most appropriate pieces of the literature may be omitted. As

in any other research endeavour, constraints must be realis-

tically assessed and then methodologically addressed in ways

that do not threaten the validity of the conclusions. Literature

selection must be conceptually driven, not statistically driven.

Thus, the evaluative criterion that must be considered when

facing exceptionally large data sets is appropriateness of the

derived sample.

Conversely, researchers may be faced by a paucity of

literature on the concept of interest. Remember that the point

of concept analysis is to determine the state of the science

surrounding the concept; therefore, a small sample does not

invalidate the method. Adequacy of the sample is not violated

by a small data set if that data set is an accurate represen-

tation of the state of the science. However, appropriateness of

the derived sample may be an issue, or, in other words, is the

sampling technique capturing the literature that best informs

the research? This requires the researcher to further evaluate

the conceptual label being searched. Is the most suitable term

being used in the keyword search? Are there other forms of

the conceptual term that may produce more useful results? In