Resisting the Robotic – Moving Fluidly Towards Soulful Qualitative Analysis

Abstract

Qualitative inquiry is known for the generation of knowledge that is expressive, subjective, rich, and comprehensive. While there are prospects for qualitative research to inform and improve praxis, thin engagement with qualitative analysis threatens the meaningfulness of the produced findings. Novice and emerging researchers may long for the aid of a technical guide outlining procedural steps as they learn to become qualitative scholars. However, prescriptive and mechanical processing of data confines the researcher’s capacity to extend and leverage their creativity. Rather, it is through the researcher’s intuition and being “present” that one can begin to interact with data in a fluid and reflexive manner. Drawing on nursing practice, although relevant to other disciplines, this article challenges the robotic ways of analyzing qualitative data. We offer a discussion on robotic care versus Lanoix’s “thickly embodied and relational” care, nursing presence, and how one may apply patient-centred care to the analytical processes in qualitative research, not limited to nursing or healthcare research. By engaging in an embodied manner with analysis, possibilities are opened up for producing knowledge that is profound, compelling, and impactful. Using arts-based research approaches, we share an artistic-informed reflection on embracing uncertainty and finding strength in vulnerability while interacting with the art piece as a strategy for being reflexive. The art piece uses painting, fluid art specifically, to highlight the need for creativity and reflexivity in qualitative analysis. Through the embodied art experience with immersing oneself in creative space, we make the connection with enabling researchers to move fluidly, without restraint, towards soulful qualitative analysis.

Introduction

“Why do we need nurses to do this? We can send in robots, and plug and play. Now, that’s true innovation!” This was the remark heard by the first author at a project meeting some time ago. In that moment, she was unable to react – motionless and numb – shock constricting her breath. Her heartbeat accelerated. This scene has since replayed repeatedly in her mind, each time filled with a range of emotions and imaginations of alternate reactions in lieu of her original inaction. As she pauses and reflects, and engages in self-examination about her interpretation of that remark, she is compelled to question how her philosophical assumptions and positionality have affected her approach to contend with that series of statements. How does her nursing practice, admiration for the profession, commitment to patient-centred quality improvement, and the intersections of her identity influence the interpretation of the remark?

In this particular space and place, and at this particular time, how does this specific scenario apply to the work and reflections of a researcher? – one who strives to engage in research in a meaningful manner? This remark is intriguing. To clarify, the first author’s initial shock stemmed not from opposing or being averse to technology in healthcare; there are tremendous opportunities for improving care via the use of digital health assets. The virtualization of healthcare has inevitably become a norm in nursing and other disciplines (Chung-Lee et al., 2021). However, her thinking is shaped by a series of questions. How can technology be leveraged without losing the humanness in care? How can digital technology be used purposefully towards illness and recovery? How can artificial intelligence and “bots” for optimizing care be embraced while maintaining human touch as an important component of holistic approaches that support patient wellbeing? Likewise, how can intentional and thoughtful safeguards be put in place to ensure that qualitative analysis contributes meaningfully to practice and to the lives of patients, communities, and populations? Through reflection and discussion, we became intrigued by this analogy between the humanness (or inhumanness) of patient care and embodied and soulful approach to qualitative analysis (or the robotic).

The purpose of this article is to offer a critical discussion on resisting robotic qualitative analysis. We argue that health and social science researchers, as well as qualitative researchers from other disciplines must resist thin engagement with qualitative data analysis, so that they avoid the mechanical and lifeless production of research findings and rather move towards soulful interpretation and analysis. This article draws on the connection we see between direct patient care (in traditional clinical bedside settings and beyond), and qualitative data analysis, which we hope researchers from various disciplines can transfer into their respective fields. To pursue the parallel between embodied praxis and research, we begin with a dialogue about superficiality in qualitative inquiry and analysis, followed by a juxtaposed discussion on robotic care versus “thickly embodied” care (Lanoix, 2013), and nursing presence (or the sincere connection and sharing of the human experience between any professional and a patient, client, student, or user). To better appreciate soulful analysis, we underscore the reason for engaging in research and remind healthcare scholars to (re-)shift their centre back onto the patients, families, and communities; likewise, non-healthcare colleagues may draw on the clients, users, and communities they collaborate with to drive their research endeavours. Intentionally, metaphorical language is employed throughout this dialogue as a way to demonstrate how soulfulness may emanate softly yet powerfully. Finally, we offer an arts-based reflection, and call on qualitative researchers to subvert from the robotic, and breathe life into qualitative analysis.

Lamenting and Moving Proactively over Superficiality

To commence this critical discussion, we touch on a message that many qualitative researchers already acknowledge: the risks and limitations of superficial qualitative data analysis, and the implications on the quality of the inquiry process. Although this caveat is acknowledged by researchers, moving towards a complex and in-depth analysis is difficult.

Some have argued that qualitative research has remained stagnant and stale, with the pool of generated knowledge adding little value (Eakin & Gladstone, 2020). “Bare-bones” engagement presents as technical findings with an absence of analytic thought or interpretation, characterized by a mere outline of themes (Mykhalovskiy et al., 2018). Cataloguing and organizing data purely based on the obvious, without any effort to plunge deeper or to reach boundlessly farther, are insufficient (Eakin & Gladstone, 2020). When one rigidly configures the data into categories and labels, there is a restraint and limit on what can be discovered, attributed to fragmentation and omission of appreciating the gestalt (Eakin & Gladstone, 2020). Analysis becomes robotic like an act of ticking off checkboxes, coding for the sake of coding, where analysis is closed prematurely since motions are based solely on adhering to procedure rather than cognition (i.e., deep and thoughtful thinking). There is a two-fold pitfall. Coding may be initiated prematurely, or analysis may be closed prematurely, hindering the researcher’s thoughts from alternative ideas beyond the pre-set concepts (Thorne et al., 2004). This type of analysis, conducted in an inattentive manner, results in under-developed themes and ideas, consequently sedating the potential to tell rich stories that represent the complexities and nuances of people’s lives and experiences, and phenomena under study, and to advance health and social outcomes (Connelly & Peltzer, 2016). This type of thin analysis produces thin findings, and presents a perilous state with little clinical meaning or prospects for improving praxis.

Following Sandelowski’s (2000) encouragement to use qualitative description as a valuable method in qualitative methodology, health and nursing research saw an eruption of “qualitative descriptive” studies; yet in reviewing these studies, Sandelowski observed that there was much misapplication and a glaring omission to do any form of analysis beyond simple descriptive summaries (Sandelowski, 2010). Sandelowksi (2010) lamented the lack of interpretive depth in the analytic processes that had claimed to follow a “qualitative descriptive” approach, and clarified with affirmation that interpretative activities must still be undertaken even if qualitative description is more “data-near” and less transformed than in other traditions. Qualitative description must not be utilized as a veil for disguising lackadaisical analysis. The researcher cannot abdicate from their responsibilities and duties to analyze and interpret the data.

Similarly, in sharing their considerations about the state of qualitative analysis using thematic analysis, Braun and Clarke (2019) shared their surprise in the volume of research studies that have violated the underpinnings of and misused the method of thematic analysis as outlined by them. Although claiming to use the Braun and Clarke (2006) approach to thematic analysis, many of these studies were incongruent with the values and assumptions as described by Braun and Clarke (2019). Their method was later renamed to “reflexive thematic analysis”, which more fully recognizes the role of the researcher, and the influence of their philosophical assumptions and positionality on analysis. Reflexive thematic analysis underscores the highly contextual nature of qualitative analysis. The fluidity, flexibility, and iterative motions enable the revisiting of codes and themes, by purposefully examining one’s own assumptions and how these assumptions have sculpted the coding and theming (Braun & Clarke, 2019). In addition, being reflexive amid analysis requires researchers to acknowledge and clearly articulate in the reporting their assumptions within data interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

While perusing the literature on reflexive thematic analysis, we are thoughtful of the cyclical refinements and continuous improvements that the researcher moves through. This immersive encounter with the data and mindful acknowledgement of the researcher’s positionality are far from superficial. We are thus drawn to wrestle with the why – why was there such volume of (mis)interpretation (which ironically produced findings deficient in interpretative depth) of the articles by Sandelowski and Braun and Clarke (and likely other authors who have produced seminal work on qualitative analysis)? Novice qualitative researchers have faced some degree of unease and worry about “doing it wrong”, and long for guidance and resources to help learn how to analyze. Yet, could it be that there is a misperceived need for an elusive instructional booklet? This tendency to finding a “baking recipe that must be followed precisely” is problematic (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 589). The inclination to bind to technical steps and procedural outlines can severely undermine the skill-development for researchers (Polkinghorne, 2006). Furthermore, and problematically, this approach rooted in quantitative methods grievously hinders experiential learning and reflective opportunities, which are crucial for interpretive analytical thinking in qualitative inquiry (Lapum & Hume, 2015).

Beyond unpacking the why and more importantly, we must ask: now what? Theming must not be perceived as the climax and conclusion in the qualitative analysis storyline; rather, theming should be considered only the commencement (Eakin & Gladstone, 2020; Thorne, 2020). When theming is viewed as the beginning and an important part of the journey as opposed to the endpoint, possibilities are opened up to extend and expand, and to explore new discoveries. The hike up is still ahead, and one can leverage their senses – listening for sounds and possibly attending to sounds that one does not hear, or are distant or near; watching the surroundings mindful of what is there and not there or are far away; smelling fragrant plants and soils or the twirling of scents, or aromas that are absent; feeling with hands and feet, and noticing the atmosphere on the skin; tasting what is there or not there – this embodied experience is what enables movement deep into the muddled, gliding through the thickness of the unknown, and consciously gathering the widest sense of understanding. When researchers defy accepting that themes are the final product or the apex of analysis, embodied experience strengthens the ability to build a beautiful and compelling storyline about the phenomenon under study. As Braun and Clarke (2019) articulated so beautifully, “We are journeying, not arriving!” (p. 592).

Importantly, Collins and Stockton (2018) encouraged appropriate use of theory in research, noting that efforts are needed to balance methods and theory. They proposed a quadrant model to map out the push-pull relations between theory and method, illustrating how an imbalance (where one dominates over the other) can undermine the creation of research findings. Rather, when there is harmony between the theory and method, rich knowledge can be generated (Collins & Stockton, 2018). We draw on this notion of purposeful pursuit for balance as a parallel for step-by-step procedures while embracing reflective practice and reflexivity. While methodically and systematically going through the motions of analysis, challenge oneself to resist being mechanical. We lean on this flow of tension and harmony as a parallel for our contention between the methodical “process” (series of analytic steps) and the opportunity to balance it with an infusion of deep contemplative juggling of ideas, which may bring the implicit to life.

The Robotic Versus “Thickly Embodied” Care

In The Careless Society, Müller (2019) shared the story about Rachel’s care work. Although the topic of The Careless Society is on devaluation of care work in capitalist societies, which is not the focus of this discussion article, Rachel’s story offers insight about a care worker’s awareness of the care they provide. Rachel recognizes the complexities involved in the care she provides to her patient Jeff; beyond the medical procedure that Rachel is scheduled to perform, Rachel is aware that quality of care is a culmination of responsiveness, attentiveness, and social components. Rachel has a desire to connect with her patient beyond the routinized technical care. Thinly embodied care situates and reduces the care recipient to an “object” with which the care provider performs mechanical tasks in a robotic and pre-set manner (Müller, 2019) – analogous to the mechanical approaches to qualitative analysis. Further to this, Lanoix (2013) referred to these tasks as “preprogrammed”, which are scheduled and performed at a material level. In sharing the story of Lanoix’s husband and his care, the caregivers are described as “robots” at times. For example, even if a robot is digitally programmed to deliver comforting and reassuring words to the patient during a physical transfer from the bed to a chair, robotic care is still the bare minimum.

In contrast, the notion of “thickly embodied and relational” care differs dramatically from robotic care (Lanoix, 2013, p. 93). “Thickly embodied” care encapsulates more than that physical move; it involves the bodily touch, warmth of the skin, facial expressions, the smells and sensations, dialogue between the carer and the cared, and emotions, tenderness and respect (Lanoix, 2013). It evokes an imagery of a care recipient being in the accompaniment of a care giver, who are sincerely present in this moment and in this care environment together.

Nursing Presence

The phenomenon of nursing presence has long been documented in the literature (Doona et al., 1999), and is something that can be applied to any carer or health-related professional who has interactions with patients. Nursing presence is “an intersubjective encounter” (Doona et al., 1997, p. 12) comprising six features, including recognizing uniqueness, making connections with patients’ experiences, sensing, extending further from scientific data, knowing what works and when to act, and being with the patient (Doona et al., 1999). Being present with an individual informs and enriches nursing judgement, allowing the nurse to gain a sense of the whole. Doona et al. (1999) discussed how nurses in their study were authentically present with patients. Although they incorporated objective scientific data, the nurses indicated there was a need to:

Transcend that data and build a holistic picture of the patient’s situation. Because they were immersed in their patients’ situations and ready and willing to spend themselves for their patients, they were able to sense the patients’ situations, to know what was going to work, and to know when to act ... Nursing presence was an immersion in the whole situation and seeing beyond the immediate moment of the transition point to the possibilities inherent in the situation. Because nurses were immersed in the situation, they were sensitive to the patterns that formed (Doona, 1999, p. 66–67).

This excerpt is powerful. It elucidates nursing presence as encompassing attributes including: pushing beyond the peripheries of traditional bio-medical data, holding faith in nursing intuition and discoveries, reaching over the perimeters, enabling the self to be engrossed in the whole, and extending further and penetrating deeper. There is an unhurried nature to this description of nursing presence; time is taken to make connections and to be attentive to the granular details as well as expanding beyond.

As we ponder on the divergence of robotic care and “thickly embodied” care, we argue that robotic and thin care lacks nursing presence or the full, attentive and embodied care of the healthcare professional. As the authors, we recognize our positionality as nurses; we are also enamoured by searching for any analogous concept of “presence” in other disciplines and fields. Turpin (2014) pointed to the concepts of teaching presence, therapist presence and leadership presence to have likeness to the attributes of nursing presence. In design-thinking, designers grasp with the notion of empathy for the user (Butler & Roberto, 2018). In education, particularly with the advances in technology availability and online learning, educators are challenged to excel in teaching presence to centre on the learner and for achievement of outcomes (Li, 2022).

We take this opportunity to posit that robotic and disembodied qualitative analysis lacks researcher presence. While the researcher performing robotic analysis (and following a procedure) may occupy a physical space to assess qualitative data, the analysis is restrictive. The researcher may not be able to stretch and exercise the researcher’s judgement and intellectual capabilities. As Thorne (2020) pled, solely outlining the counts of categories and themes to readers “is hopelessly insufficient” and inadequately generates any value (p. 2). Researcher presence, which facilitates employing the researcher’s intellectual and reflective judgement, may (re-)instill hope back into qualitative analysis – hope to produce findings that are profound and impactful.

Re-centering: Patients, Families, Communities at the Core

To pursue how one may begin to glide freely without the restraints from the step-by-step, checkbox-by-checkbox procedural mechanisms, we invite the reader back to contemplate the why. Why does one engage in research to begin with? Some may believe this to be naïve, however, we hold sincere hope and optimism that researchers are driven by a calling to help advance knowledge, to make meaningful contributions, and to make a genuine difference somewhere in the realm that they practice in. There has been increased attention in patient-centredness extending beyond clinical care into research; parallel to this increased awareness, are the efforts made to explore how patient stories may facilitate patient-centred research and improved analysis (Novak et al., 2020). Patient-centred care is at the forefront of understanding patient experiences and the building of high-quality healthcare systems (Institute of Medicine, 2001). Efforts are continually needed to promote a patient-centric culture (Cuddihy et al., 2021). We posit that the conduct of health-related research must relate back to the patients, families, communities and populations. Engaging in qualitative data analysis, therefore, must be underpinned by valuing the patients, families, communities and populations at the core – this is what should drive analysis. It is through reminding ourselves of this patient-centredness and collaboratively promoting a culture of patient-centred research that one can begin resisting mechanical and lifeless routines to qualitative analysis. In a similar fashion, researchers in other disciplines and sectors, whether in architecture, education, history, political science or beyond, could apply this principle to root their engagement in research back to the users, clients, customers, patrons, students, or whomever they work with.

The Nursing Intuition, Wisdom, and Judgement: Connections with Interpretive Depth

Qualitative analysis is an intellectual process that is highly experiential (Thorne et al., 2004). Discoveries and appreciation for complexities cannot happen with mechanical, repetitive, and prescriptive analysis since qualitative analysis requires the full immersion to “penetrate” the data (Eakin & Gladstone, 2020). Birnbaum (2022) analogized the gaining of interpretive depth with the development of nursing expertise, which is nurtured with time, practice, feedback provision and receipt, and dedication of educators to enable experiential learning in their pedagogical approaches. In their introduction of “value-adding analysis”, Eakin and Gladstone (2020) offered a multitude of practical advice for researchers to avoid superficial analysis, such as leveraging informal “devices” including searching for “invisible” or inaudible data, or being alert to anomalies (p.5). Likewise, Thorne (2020) encouraged researchers to move beyond what can be noticed to being very aware of what is not being detected. Insights can be gained from the researcher’s “creative presence”, which should not be seen as a threat to analysis, but as a form of value-added (Eakin & Gladstone, 2020, p. 4). All these reflective and interpretive thoughts should be recorded as part of the analytic process (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Nurses and other healthcare professionals could readily relate to the need for documentation and apply this clinical requirement to analysis.

Leaning on nursing (and professional) intuition, creativity, and clinical judgement frees health and social science researchers from mimicking robots in repetitive motions, reporting merely repeated patterns based on pre-determined algorithms. Through the intellectual process and through making of critical decisions that recognize clinical relevance and significance, interpretive activities can enable researchers to find new connections and make meaning – something compelling and profound – not superficial.

The Fluid Art Experience: Opening up to Creativity and Reflexivity for Analysis

We leverage the first author’s experiences engaging in artwork to “end” this article – not as the conclusion – but as the beginning of this embodied journey as researchers. In recent years, the first author has been captivated by a particular type of fluid art, which involves the blending of ink on various media to create unique pieces of art. Without describing the intricate details, we emphasize that each piece is unique. The art is created with a human touch, affected by the mood of the doer, the breadth of the doer, the temperature and humidity in the surroundings, among other factors. While some may be convinced that these pieces can be reproduced by using the same number of drops of ink and volume of solution, and using the same force to blow the ink around, the first author is assured that no piece is the same. The art is not a piece waiting to be painted; as the artist is immersed, mindfully placing drops of ink down and twirling the ink with a blending solution, the flow of the fluid and the intensity of the colours themselves all influence the artist’s next step. There is a co-influence – a synergy – between the artist and the ink. It is far from robotic, mechanical, and routinized. Admittedly, many attempts have been made in her past paintings to “control” the ink and the path it takes; she learned gradually to respect the ink and admire the uncertainty. Abstraction of the painting requires the artist to be patient. The artist must continually pause, examine, think, and feel – turning the in-progress painting, tilting one’s head, observing from different angles, moving the art in different lighting, and asking oneself a multitude of questions. Pauses may lapse over minutes or days, and upon revisiting to continue the painting, there are often questions about the thought process that took place previously. The first author has asked herself self-examining questions such as: what effect was I trying to achieve? Was the eggplant colour this purple yesterday – why did I see less purple yesterday? What am I not seeing – if I turn this upside down, what do I see now? Who said this has to be the right side up? How did the wispiness end up in this direction? How did my thoughts affect my perception of the composition? Engaging in this fluid art has now become an avenue for the first author to be reflexive, a tenet and skill to extend into qualitative analysis.

Parallel to Lanoix’s (2013) “thickly embodied and relational” care (p.93), there is a responsiveness and sense of respect for the ink on the part of the artist. In the first author’s art journey, she has observed that the painting comes alive with the humanness of the artist and the fluid nature of the surrounding environment. Each piece using the same technique has subtle differences in the feeling and mood that the art represents and conveys; no machine-produced replica can emanate the textures, depth or layers of emotions – nor the soulfulness.

If the art may be used as an analogy to qualitative analysis, one can be thoughtful of how this type of art is never truly “finished”. Unless sealed (of which the technicalities of sealing we will not discuss), the ink on each piece can be reactivated by the blending solution to produce a dramatically evolved painting. Figure 1 presents a sample of the first author’s fluid art piece with side-by-side display of the initial art in-progress and the next iteration.

Figure 1.

Evolved fluid art painting (from left to right).

This fluidity, both literally and metaphorically, along with the complexity of layers of ink, and the openness to journeying on the art medium are representative of the reflexive nature of “thickly embodied” soulful qualitative analysis. This fluidity defies prescriptive activities, and bravely embraces inquisitiveness. We challenge readers to engage with and analyze this painting – how would one proceed to “be with” the painting, and discover meaning and interpret the findings? Look at portions of the painting or the whole as a way to “see” it and “feel” it differently. Consider it in the context of your own discipline and work. We encourage readers to allow their minds to wander with the painting, as this active wrestling with ideas is what we believe can facilitate the seeing and feeling of the unrevealed and camouflaged. In the process of this deep pondering, researchers can be courageous and intentional in recognizing what factors may influence the analytical process.

Recommendations for Future Qualitative Analysis

For years, we have been told that cultivating the creative ability of the researcher can heighten the quality of the qualitative research (Morse, 1989). Leveraging the arts and creativity can create space for soulfulness within qualitative analysis. In doing so, they create courageous analytical spaces that nurture aesthetic engagement and perpetual curiosity (Lapum et al., 2011). As we learn together to engage in and advance qualitative analysis and interpretation, we recommend intentionally embracing the arts, such as painting, to aid in amplifying intuition and creativity within the research processes. An arts-based learning-teaching approach stimulates critical thought, elevates curiosity, and inspires creativity to thinking like a qualitative scholar (Lapum & Hume, 2015). As a starting point, we mimic the act of painting, where we pause and turn the piece of art “upside down” and “sideways”, in varying angles, under natural lighting or assorted gradients of brightness – and sit in stillness until the eyes glide along the path of the ink again, and then reflect. As Braun and Clarke (2019) noted, “we do not reach a point where we have nothing more to learn” (p. 592). It is a fluid and dynamic journey.

As we move with and through this fluid and dynamic journey, we recommend that qualitative researchers critically reflect on how they can infuse their analytical process with soulfulness. The ability for humans to be moved and experience what a structural building has to offer, is what Cruz (2019) argued as architecture versus mere buildings. Likewise, hospitals and healthcare facilities should not merely be a sterile space where medical and health procedures are performed; rather, they should be a place of healing and wellbeing. Correspondingly, this is the difference between superficial “doing” versus mindful engagement in analysis. Whether in healthcare research, social research, or research in other disciplinary fields, soulful and “thickly embodied” analysis can allow us to see what may be hidden in the data at first sight and bolster what findings can be found. To practice “thickly embodied” and soulful analysis, we leverage ideas posed by design-thinking researchers to search for the “unexpected” (Butler & Roberto, 2018). It may be atypical and non-routine for some practitioners to contend with feeling, and even for practitioners to be uncomfortable with and avoid “feeling”; yet the role of “feeling” should be consciously embraced (Lindgaard & Wesselius, 2017).

As nurses, we recognize the crucial roles that clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and procedures have in establishing care standards; these documents are imperative for integrating evidence into practice and for achieving optimal patient care (Institute of Medicine, 2011). And like all researchers in healthcare or other disciplines, we recognize the importance of methodological approaches and procedures in qualitative analysis. To clarify, we are not critiquing the need for standardized processes and procedures. Rather, we recommend that researchers reflect on how to follow steps that align with one’s selected qualitative methods while doing so in a “thickly embodied” and soulful way. In fact, we suggest that infusing the arts is potentially just one way to engage in soulful analysis and researchers may want to begin considering and experimenting with other approaches. This experimenting may be enhanced by engaging in intentional interdisciplinary qualitative research in which one learns with and from a myriad of disciplinary knowledges.

Finally, we recommend researchers critically engage with and reflect on how other qualitative researchers have “breathed life” into analysis. For example, Lee (2022) integrated first-person stories and humanities to explore the experiences of disability. Another example is the work of Wiens et al. (2020) who highlight how to dwell in an embodied approach to analysis and materialize data in ways that it becomes a form of activism in the context of feminist digital humanities. Although the reader may feel disrupted when beginning to read the work of White (2022), the dialogical approach quickly sweeps the reader into moving forward and backwards, and inwards and outwards. Lapum et al. (2015) also displayed engagement with “thickly embodied” and soulful analysis while using an artistic-informed and yet systematic approach to analysis. Using narrative maps, their use of arts-based analysis acted in ways that brought the research alive. They referred to Maxine Greene’s work about becoming more awake in the analytical endeavour as a result of the aesthetic elements of narrative maps (as cited in Lapum et al., 2015).

Conclusion (Although only an Intermission)

As we circle around back to the remark on replacing nurses with robots as innovation, we reiterate that our intent was not an invocation to enlarging the dichotomy between technology and humans. The ubiquitous digitization of the ways of living and caring requires that one recognizes the liminal space between person-centred care and technology (Lapum et al., 2012). Nurses can embrace their own and the patients’ humanness, and bring together the technological and human aspects of caring. Giving thoughtful recognition to and realization of this relational flux, and blending of the two allows one to practice reflexivity and to have heightened awareness (Lapum et al., 2012). Our pondering on the remark and the writing of this critical discussion were not about urging researchers to just choose one or the other: technology or humanness. Rather, the discussion was a reminder for the humans (the researchers) not to become robotic in nature and behaviour.

Robotic analysis (where one merely holds fast to procedures) binds someone strictly and tightly, restricting one’s movement to pre-determined limits and severely disrupts the ability to creatively interact with the data. Researchers are encouraged to embrace uncertainty, and appreciate the mystery, for these are what motivate them to see the “invisible” and hear what is not said. Drawing on a commitment to make meaningful contributions with patients, families, communities and populations (or whomever one works with) at the locus, qualitative researchers can invest in researcher presence and feel compelled to engage in “thickly embodied” analysis and interpretation. May one feel inspired and unrestrained as they move towards soulful qualitative analysis.