Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 48 no. 1 (2025)

Frowned On: Raising an Eyebrow in Research Participation of Nurses

Ed Raphael Espinoza | Modesto Noble

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Not all nurses are averse to participating in a study. The primary purpose of this novel type of study is grounded in the two themes that emerged from this study on why nurses are reluctant to participate in studies. The themes are the following: opinions and reasons why nurses do not want to participate in a study, and motivating factors that might convince them to join the study. The study employed a qualitative research method, utilizing unstructured interviews grounded in Prospect Theory and Incentive Theory. Purposive and Convenience sampling were used to identify participants who used Facebook as a means of communication. The study included 10 participants from the provinces of La Union and Pangasinan, all of whom were nurses working in various fields and met the criteria to be research subjects. Their responses were analyzed through a Sartrean phenomenological-existential lens. The study revealed that there are various reasons why nurses would not like to become participants in studies such as lack of time, lack of benefits, concerns for privacy, ethics, confidentiality, improper explanation of the study's goals and how researchers should improve their ways in convincing would-be participants to join their study such as explaining the study's purpose, maintaining confidentiality and compensation. This study recommends further expansion of the research in the local context to explore other aspects of why participating in research is not a pressing matter for others.



References:

  1. Albert, N. (2016). Building and sustaining a hospital-based nursing research program.: New York, New York: Springer Publishing Company.
  2. Avidan, M. S., Ioannidis, J. P., & Mashour, G. A. (2019). Independent discussion sections for improving inferential reproducibility in published research. British journal of anaesthesia, 122(4), 413-420.
  3. Bahadori M, Raadabadi M, Ravangard R, et al. (2016) The barriers to the application of the research findings from the nurses’ perspective: A case study in a teaching hospital. J Educ Health Promot; 5.
  4. Benevides, RFC, & Boris, GDJB (2020). The lived experience of women in contemporary conjugality: A phenomenological-existential perspective. Phenomenological Studies - Journal of the Gestalt Approach, 26(1), 13-25. https://doi:/10.18065/RAG.2020.v26n1.2
  5. Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon.
  6. Boruch, R. F., & Cecil, J. S. (2016). Assuring the confidentiality of social research data. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  7. Bosha E., Cilliers L., Flowerday S. (2017) Incentive theory for a participatory crowdsourcing project in a developing country SA J Inf Manag., 19, p. 739, https://doi:/10.4102/sajim.v19i1.739  
  8. Brown CE, Wickline MA, Ecoff L, et al. (2009) Nursing practice, knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers to evidence-based practice at an academic medical center. J Adv Nurs; 65: 371–381.
  9. Cable, M., Watts, T., Reagon, C., & Kelly, D. (2022). Experiences of early‐career nurses working in specialist adolescent/young adult cancer units: A narrative inquiry. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(8), 2871–2885. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15488
  10. Chalmers I., Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence Lancet, 374 (2009), pp. 86-89
  11. Chen, Q., Sun, M., Tang, S. & Castro, A., 2019, ‘Research capacity in nursing: A concept analysis based on a scoping review’, British Medical Journal Open 9(11), e032356. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032356
  12. Elias, R., Sawatsky, A. & Ratelle, J. Protected Time for Research Among Academic Hospitalists: a Qualitative Study of Hospitalist Group Leaders. J GEN INTERN MED 39, 723–730 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08525-5
  13. Ellingsen T., Johannesson M. Pride and prejudice: The human side of incentive theory The American Economic Review, 98 (2008), pp. 990-1008, https://doi:/10.1257/AER.98.3.990
  14. Feijoo, AMLC, & Mattar, CM (2014). Phenomenology as a Research Method in the Philosophies of Existence and in Psychology. Psychology: Theory and Research, 30(4), 441-447. Retrieved from http://scielo.br/pdf/ptp/v30n4/v30n4a09.pdf
  15. Fu C, Ren Y, Wang G, Shi X, Cao F. Fear of future workplace violence and its influencing factors among nurses in Shandong, China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00644-w
  16. Hagan, J. and M. Walden, Development and Evaluation of the Barriers to Nurses’ Participation in Research Questionnaire at a Large Academic Pediatric Hospital. Clin Nurs Res, 2017. 26(2): p. 157-175.
  17. Hattie J., Hodis F.A., Kang S.H.K. Theories of motivation: Integration and ways forward Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 (2020), Article 101865, https://doi:/10.1016/J.CEDPSYCH.2020.101865
  18. Kerr, L., Russo, P., 2022, Barriers and Facilitators to Nurses Research Involvement: A brief online survey exploring factors relating to nursing involvement in conducting research. Cabrini Monash University Department of Nursing Research, Cabrini Research. https://www.cabrini.com.au/app/uploads/Nursing-Research-Barriers-Report.pdf
  19. Killeen P.R. Incentive theory Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 29 (1982), pp. 169-216 H.T. Vi, V.T.N. Thuy
  20. Lee C. Research enterprise in Urology: a message to the urology leadership. J Urol 2003;170:189–91.
  21. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
  22. Lode, K., Sorensen, E., Salmela, S. & Holm, A., 2015, ‘Clinical Nurses’ research capacity building in practice-a systematic review’, Open Journal of Nursing 5(7), 664–677. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2015.57070
  23. Luke Gelinas, Ph.D., Emily A. Largent, J.D., Ph.D., R.N., I. Glenn Cohen, J.D., Susan Kornetsky, M.P.H., Barbara E. Bierer, M.D., and Holly Fernandez Lynch, J.D. (2018) A Framework for Ethical Payment to Research Participants. The New England Journal of Medicine. VOL. 378 NO. 8. https://doi:/10.1056/NEJMsb1710591   
  24. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1990). In-depth Interviewing: Researching people. Hong Kong: Longman Cheshire Pty Limited.
  25. Morrison, L., B. Johnston, and M. Cooper, Mixed methods systematic review: Factors influencing research activity among nurses in clinical practice. J Clin Nurs, 2021.
  26. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  27. Punch, K.F. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  28. Sammut, R., Griscti, O., & Norman, I. J. (2021). Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 123, 104058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Ijnurstu.2021.104058 
  29. Sartre, J.-P. (2004). What is literature? (CF Moisés, Trans.). São Paulo: Ática. (Work originally published in 1947
  30. Sartre, J.-P. (2008). The Imagination (P. Neves, Trans.). Porto Alegre: L&PM. (Original work published in 1936)
  31. Sartre, J.-P. (2013). Outline for a theory of emotions (P. Neves, Trans.). Porto Alegre: L&P. (Original work published in 1939)
  32. Sartre, J.-P. (2015). Being and Nothingness: Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (P. Perdigão, Trans.). Petropolis: Vozes. (Original work published in 1943)
  33. Scala, E., C. Price, and J. Day, An Integrative Review of Engaging Clinical Nurses in Nursing Research: Engaging Clinical Nurses in Research. Journal of nursing scholarship, 2016. 48(4): p. 423- 430.
  34. Spiggle S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1086/209413
  35. Time orientation on avoiding advertising based on incentive theory of motivation: A literature review and conceptual framework International Journal of Management, 11 (2020), pp. 1018-1027, https://doi:/10.1016/0030-5073
  36. Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel, via California State University Fullerton, Psychology Department. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 5, 1992, pp. 297–323.
  37. Vainio, A. (2013). Beyond research ethics: Anonymity as ‘ontology’, ‘analysis’ and ‘independence’. Qualitative Research, 13(6), 685-698

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic