From the preceding, it is evident that there are broadly differing perspectives that can and have been taken with esteem to the inquiry “To what end is evidence sought?” and to the associated inquiry, “What is the nature of evidence?” Following logically from the last cited is yet another question: “Are there some types of information, and not other ones, that correctly can be termed evidence?” Recently, the [Canadian Nurses Association 1998] handed out a principle declaration on evidence-based decision producing and nursing practice. In it, evidence was defined as “information founded on chronicled or technical evaluation of a practice ” and kinds of evidence were held to encompass “experimental, non-experimental, professional attitude, and chronicled or experiential evidence” (p. 1). These definitions suggest that effectively all types of information should to be advised evidence for evidence-based decision producing supplied that they have been exposed to historic or technical evaluation.
Values inherent in the call for evidence-based practice
“Values are those claims or declarations that persons make through their demeanour, phrases, or activities that define what they believe is important” ([Curtin and Flaherty 1982], p. 8). Inherent in the call for evidence-based practice are convictions that deem certain types of information as better to others. For example, the [National Forum on Health 1997] purports that evidence should be “relevant, accessible, timely, and of good value for operational needs” (p. 12). Other values imbedded in this definition of evidence-based practice include those associated to quantification, proposition and command, and estimation of outcomes. These values are echoed apparently in the pursuit of nomothetic or law-like generalizations as the cornerstone for conclusion producing in nursing practice. Tensions, although, originate when values for example these are glimpsed as being in confrontation with or incongruent with other values, for example ...