01381nam 2200361Ia 450 991039055100332120230801232745.0(CKB)3460000000134946(MH)013615041-1(EXLCZ)99346000000013494620130214d2012 uy 0engGeometric structures on 2-orbifolds exploration of discrete symmetry /Suhyoung Choi[electronic resource]Tokyo, Japan Mathematical Society of Japan20121 online resource (xii, 171 p )ill. ;MSJ memoirs ;v. 274-931469-68-X Includes bibliographical references (p. 163-167) and index.MSJ memoirs ;v. 27.Geometry, DifferentialOrbifoldsSymmetry (Mathematics)Geometry, Differential.Orbifolds.Symmetry (Mathematics)Choi Suhyoung893898CLSCLSBOOK9910390551003321Geometric structures on 2-orbifolds1996781UNINAThis Record contains information from the Harvard Library Bibliographic Dataset, which is provided by the Harvard Library under its Bibliographic Dataset Use Terms and includes data made available by, among others the Library of Congress03105nam 2200505 450 991082339860332120210730193056.01-351-81269-61-315-21144-01-351-81270-X(CKB)4100000008737306(MiAaPQ)EBC5834844(EXLCZ)99410000000873730620190812d2020 uy 0engurcnu||||||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierNursing literature reviews[electronic resource] a reflection /Martin LipscombLondon ;New York, New York :Routledge,2020.1 online resource (185 pages)0-415-79270-3 Introductory harrumphing -- Two types of question -- Conceptual muddle: an ordinary search (part I) -- Beliefs and values: an ordinary search (part II) -- Nursing and non-nursing sources: an ordinary search (part III) -- Reviewing quantitative research -- Reviewing qualitative research -- The final curtain -- References -- Index.Literature reviews are undertaken by students, researchers, clinicians and educationalists – that is, almost all nurses.Despite much excellent work, exploring the assumptions and practices that constitute searching for and reviewing literature has merit, and prompting those who undertake these activities to think critically about what it is that they are doing should be encouraged. Widely adopted approaches to structuring reviews (the "standard model") can detrimentally limit the scope or range of literature that is accessed and appraised. It is further proposed that a lack of professional ambition or confidence invests aspects of the way some nurses engage with the sources that are available to them. Across the book, parochialism is challenged. The crucial roles that values and judgement play in reviews are highlighted. It is argued that humanities and arts texts deserve, potentially, a bigger or more assured place in reviews undertaken by nurses. Difficulties in appraising quantitative and qualitative research reports are identified, and benefits linked with taking a contemplative line through the review process are considered. This book contributes to debates around evidence-based practice and literature reviews more generally. It will appeal to anyone with an interest in professional issues, research, and the philosophy and sociology of nursing.NursingResearchNursingMedical WritingEvidence-Based PracticeEvidence-Based NursingNurses InstructionNursingResearch.Nursing.Medical Writing.Evidence-Based PracticeEvidence-Based Nursing.610.73072Lipscomb Martin869468MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910823398603321Nursing literature reviews3927167UNINA