Three colleagues are discussing Mrs Sarah Johnson, a 68-year-old woman

Three colleagues are discussing Mrs Sarah Johnson, a 68-year-old woman with diabetes who keeps missing her medication doses despite repeated education sessions: Dr Emma Jones (Consultant): "We need to look at the data. What's her average blood sugar for the different parts of the day over 6 months? How many doses has she missed? Let's compare her results with other similar patients and see if there's a pattern we can measure and manage." Nurse Ahmed (Diabetes Specialist): "I think we need to really understand her daily life. What's it like for her managing multiple medications? What are her fears about diabetes? What does taking medication mean to her? Every patient's situation is unique." Pharmacist James: "Both perspectives matter. We should measure her medication adherence AND understand her personal experience. Then we can design a care plan that addresses the real-world challenges while tracking if it actually works." All three colleagues care about Mrs Johnson, but they're approaching the problem in fundamentally different ways that would lead to different types of solutions and different types of evidence. 1. Recognising Different Problem-Solving Approaches - I'd like the group to think about these three approaches to understanding Mrs Johnson's situation. Which approach feels most natural to your clinical practice, and why? Can you share examples from your own work where you've seen colleagues approach the same clinical problem in these different ways? As we discuss this, I want you to consider: what does each approach assume about the nature of Mrs Johnson's problem – is it something that exists the same way for all patients, or is it unique to her individual circumstances? 2. What We Believe About Problems and Knowledge – Let's explore the difference between Dr Jones's focus on measuring and comparing versus Nurse Ahmed's focus on understanding individual experience. What does each approach assume about how we can best understand and solve clinical problems? Dr Jones seems to believe that measuring patterns will reveal the 'real' solution – what does this tell us about her beliefs about knowledge and how we discover truth? Nurse Ahmed believes we need to understand individual meaning – what does this suggest about his beliefs about how knowledge is created? 3. Your Worldview and Research Preferences - Please reflect on your own clinical practice and deeper beliefs. When you encounter a problem, do you believe the solution exists 'out there' waiting to be measured and discovered, or do you believe each patient creates a unique meaning that we need to understand? How do your personal and professional values about what constitutes good patient care influence which type of evidence you find most convincing? There's no right answer – these are what researchers call your 'ontological' and 'epistemological' positions, which simply means your beliefs about reality and how we can know about it. 4. Values and Evidence Preferences – Looking at Mrs Johnson's case, let's consider how our values influence evidence preferences. If you value efficiency and standardised care, what type of research evidence appeals to

This is a rich reflective exercise in research philosophy applied to clinical practice. Let me work through all four questions thoroughly.

Mrs Sarah Johnson's Case: Exploring Research Paradigms in Clinical Practice

1. Recognising Different Problem-Solving Approaches

The three colleagues represent three distinct research paradigms that map directly onto how clinicians conceptualise problems:

Dr Emma Jones — Positivist / Quantitative Approach She treats Mrs Johnson's non-adherence as an objective, measurable phenomenon that exists independently of any individual's interpretation. The assumption is that patterns in data (HbA1c trends, missed doses, comparison cohorts) reveal a truth that is the same regardless of who is observing it. The problem is assumed to be essentially the same across similar patients — a generalizable phenomenon that can be benchmarked and managed with standardised interventions.

Clinical example: A cardiologist reviewing 90-day readmission rates after heart failure discharge. The assumption is that readmission is a definable, countable event, and that identifying risk factors from large datasets will reveal a solution applicable to future patients.

Nurse Ahmed — Interpretivist / Qualitative Approach He treats Mrs Johnson's situation as a subjectively constructed experience — unique to her biography, values, fears, and social context. The assumption is that non-adherence is not a fixed "thing" waiting to be measured, but a lived phenomenon shaped by meaning, and that Mrs Johnson's version of it differs from every other patient's. There is no universal truth about why patients miss doses; only individual narratives.

Clinical example: A mental health nurse doing life-story interviews with patients who disengage from antipsychotic medication, finding that each patient's reasons — stigma, side-effect experiences, family dynamics — are irreducibly personal.

Pharmacist James — Pragmatist / Mixed-Methods Approach He recognises that the problem has both an objective dimension (measurable adherence rates, outcomes) and a subjective dimension (personal meaning, barriers). His approach assumes neither perspective captures the whole picture alone. The problem is partially generalizable and partially unique — there may be common patterns AND individual variation that both matter for intervention design.

Clinical example: A medicines optimisation team combining prescription refill data with patient interviews to redesign a blister-pack dispensing service, ensuring the redesign is both evidence-based and patient-centred.

What does each approach assume about the nature of the problem?

	Dr Jones	Nurse Ahmed	Pharmacist James
Nature of the problem	Objective, exists independently, measurable	Subjective, constructed, unique	Both — layered reality
Same for all patients?	Yes — generalizable patterns	No — individually constructed	Partially both
Solution discovered how?	Through measurement and comparison	Through dialogue and interpretation	Through triangulation

2. What We Believe About Problems and Knowledge — Ontology and Epistemology

This question strikes at the heart of research philosophy. The two key concepts are:

Ontology — What is the nature of reality? Does Mrs Johnson's non-adherence exist as a fixed, definable state, or is it a shifting, context-dependent experience?

Epistemology — How do we come to know about that reality? Can we measure it from the outside, or must we understand it from the inside?

Dr Jones's position:

Ontology: Realist — she believes non-adherence is a real, stable phenomenon that exists independently of observer or patient interpretation. Blood glucose is 12.4 mmol/L whether or not Mrs Johnson feels well. Missed doses are countable facts.
Epistemology: Objectivist — knowledge is discovered through systematic measurement, free from bias, reproducible across contexts. The role of the clinician/researcher is to observe without distorting the data. She believes there is a single correct answer about what is happening with Mrs Johnson, and that rigorous data will reveal it.

Implication: She will trust RCT evidence, meta-analyses, and population-level audits. She will design interventions that are protocol-driven and measurable.

Nurse Ahmed's position:

Ontology: Relativist — he believes that non-adherence does not exist as a single fixed reality. What "missing a dose" means to Mrs Johnson — guilt, resistance, confusion, cultural belief, fear of side effects — is her constructed experience and cannot be reduced to a number.
Epistemology: Subjectivist / Constructivist — knowledge is created through relationship and dialogue between the clinician and the patient. You cannot know Mrs Johnson's reality without engaging with it on its own terms. Understanding is co-produced, not extracted.

Implication: He will trust phenomenological interviews, narrative inquiry, and patient experience reports. He will design interventions that are personalised, conversational, and flexible.

Why this matters clinically:

Both positions are intellectually coherent. The danger arises when either position becomes invisible — when a clinician assumes their approach is simply "how we do things" rather than recognising it as one philosophical stance among several. Dr Jones may dismiss Ahmed's concerns as "anecdotal." Ahmed may dismiss Jones's data as "missing the point." Neither can be universally right for every clinical question.

3. Your Worldview and Research Preferences — Ontological and Epistemological Positioning

This is an invitation to reflexivity — the habit of examining your own assumptions rather than treating them as neutral.

Two contrasting positions to reflect on:

"The solution exists out there, waiting to be discovered" This is a realist-objectivist worldview. It underpins most of Western biomedical research. It holds that if we measure precisely enough, control for confounders rigorously enough, and replicate findings often enough, we will converge on truth. Its strengths: rigour, reproducibility, generalizability, the basis for clinical guidelines. Its limits: it can flatten individual variation, ignore social context, and create guidelines that work for the average patient but not for this patient.

"Each patient creates a unique meaning that we need to understand" This is a relativist-constructivist worldview. It underpins qualitative and person-centred research traditions. It holds that Mrs Johnson's experience of her illness is irreducibly hers, and that understanding it requires empathy, curiosity, and time — not just data. Its strengths: depth, patient-centredness, uncovering hidden barriers. Its limits: findings may not be transferable, it can be resource-intensive, and it may not satisfy commissioners or guideline bodies who need scalable evidence.

The reflective challenge:

Most clinicians were trained predominantly in the realist tradition (medical school, evidence-based medicine, guideline adherence), which can make the objectivist position feel like "just good practice" rather than a philosophical choice. Recognising it as a choice — not the only valid approach — is itself a professional development milestone. Nurse Ahmed's approach is not less rigorous; it operates under a different but equally legitimate conception of rigour (trustworthiness, reflexivity, transferability in qualitative terms).

How values shape evidence preferences:

A clinician who values equity and consistency may be drawn to standardised, measurable approaches — everyone gets the same protocol, outcomes are tracked, variance is addressed. A clinician who values dignity and individuality may be drawn to narrative approaches — each person is met where they are. Neither is wrong; the question is which type of problem each serves best.

4. Values and Evidence Preferences

If you value efficiency and standardised care:

You will favour:

Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews
Adherence metrics, audit data, benchmarking
Algorithmic decision support tools
Interventions with clear, measurable, reproducible outcomes

Risk: You may design a perfectly evidence-based intervention that Mrs Johnson still does not engage with, because the intervention addressed the population average rather than her.

If you value patient autonomy and individualised care:

You will favour:

Qualitative studies, patient narratives, lived-experience research
Shared decision-making conversations
Co-designed care plans
Outcome measures that include patient-reported experience measures (PREMs)

Risk: Without measuring outcomes, you cannot know whether your patient-centred approach is producing clinical benefit. Compassionate care that does not improve blood glucose control is still incomplete care.

Pharmacist James's pragmatist synthesis — and why it is often most useful in practice:

In Mrs Johnson's case, a genuinely effective care plan would:

Measure — track adherence rates, HbA1c trends, missed doses (Dr Jones's contribution)
Understand — explore what medication means to her, what her day actually looks like, what her fears are (Nurse Ahmed's contribution)
Design and evaluate — co-produce a realistic plan, then test whether it works using both quantitative outcomes and patient experience (James's integration)

This maps onto the mixed-methods research paradigm, which is increasingly recognised as appropriate for complex health behaviour questions where neither measurement alone nor understanding alone is sufficient.

Summary Table: The Three Paradigms

Dimension	Dr Jones (Positivist)	Nurse Ahmed (Interpretivist)	Pharmacist James (Pragmatist)
Ontology	Realist	Relativist	Pluralist
Epistemology	Objectivist	Subjectivist	Pragmatic
Method	Quantitative	Qualitative	Mixed
Evidence trusted	RCTs, audits, statistics	Interviews, narratives	Both, triangulated
View of Mrs Johnson	One case in a pattern	A unique individual	Both simultaneously
Strength	Generalizability	Depth and meaning	Breadth and applicability
Risk	Missing the individual	Missing the pattern	Complexity of execution

Closing Reflection

There is no "correct" paradigm — only paradigms that are more or less suited to specific questions. The most important professional habit is recognising which paradigm you are operating in, so you can consciously choose it rather than defaulting to it, and so you can genuinely hear colleagues who approach problems differently. In Mrs Johnson's case, the three colleagues are not in conflict — they are describing three different but complementary layers of the same clinical reality. The best outcome for her almost certainly requires all three.

This appears to be a focused version of the earlier discussion, covering only questions 1 and 2. Here is a detailed response suitable for a group learning session or reflective discussion.

Mrs Sarah Johnson: Exploring Clinical Problem-Solving Approaches

Question 1 — Recognising Different Problem-Solving Approaches

The Three Approaches at a Glance

Before asking which feels most natural, it is worth naming what each approach actually is, so the group can locate themselves honestly.

Dr Jones is working within a positivist framework. She assumes that non-adherence is an objective, measurable phenomenon — something that exists as a definable clinical problem regardless of who is observing it or experiencing it. Her instinct is to quantify, compare, and identify patterns that hold across patients. The individual case (Mrs Johnson) is valuable primarily as a data point within a larger picture.

Nurse Ahmed is working within an interpretivist framework. He assumes that Mrs Johnson's experience of non-adherence is uniquely hers — shaped by her history, her fears, her daily circumstances, and the meaning she attaches to illness and medication. For him, the "real" problem cannot be read off a dataset; it has to be uncovered through conversation and genuine curiosity about her world.

Pharmacist James is working within a pragmatist framework. He refuses to choose between the two, arguing that a complete understanding of the problem requires both lenses. He is less interested in philosophical purity and more interested in what combination of approaches will actually work for Mrs Johnson in practice.

Which Feels Most Natural — and Why?

This is a genuinely reflective question, and the honest answer varies by professional background, training culture, and personal values.

Clinicians trained in hospital medicine, clinical pharmacology, or data-driven specialties (endocrinology, cardiology, intensive care) often find Dr Jones's approach most instinctive. Their training has rewarded measurement, pattern recognition, and protocol-based decision-making. Audit cycles, quality improvement dashboards, and guideline adherence reinforce this daily.

Clinicians trained in community nursing, mental health, palliative care, or allied health professions often find Nurse Ahmed's approach more natural. Their practice involves building therapeutic relationships over time and navigating the complexity of patients' lives, not just their bodies.

Neither instinct is superior — but recognising your instinct is the beginning of professional wisdom. If you find yourself immediately reaching for the glucometer data before asking Mrs Johnson a single open question, that instinct is worth examining. Equally, if you find yourself so absorbed in understanding her experience that you cannot tell the team whether her HbA1c has moved in six months, that is also worth examining.

Clinical Examples of the Same Problem, Different Approaches

Consider a ward or department reflecting on rising rates of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers.

The Dr Jones response: Pull the data. Which wards? Which patient risk scores? How often were repositioning charts completed? Run a statistical comparison between high-performing and low-performing wards. Identify the measurable gap and close it with a protocol.
The Nurse Ahmed response: Sit with the nurses on the busiest shift. Ask what it is actually like to reposition a patient at 3am when you are the only person on the bay. Understand what "doing a turn" means to staff who are exhausted, understaffed, and sometimes managing patients in pain who resist being moved. The human story behind the data.
The Pharmacist James response: Do both. Use the data to identify where the problem is worst. Use conversations to understand why it is worst in those places. Then design an intervention that is measurable AND grounded in the real working conditions of staff.

In each case, the same clinical problem produces three genuinely different investigations — and potentially three very different solutions.

What Does Each Approach Assume About the Nature of the Problem?

This is the philosophically important question beneath the surface of the scenario.

Dr Jones assumes the problem is ontologically stable — non-adherence in Mrs Johnson is the same kind of thing as non-adherence in any other diabetic patient of similar age, complexity, and social profile. It is a fixed, definable phenomenon that can be compared across people and across time. The problem exists independently of Mrs Johnson's inner life.

Nurse Ahmed assumes the problem is ontologically particular — Mrs Johnson's non-adherence is not interchangeable with anyone else's. It is constituted by her specific biography, her relationship with her body, her cultural background, her family dynamics, her fear (or absence of fear) about what diabetes means. Two patients with identical medication records and identical blood sugars may be missing doses for entirely different reasons that demand entirely different responses.

Pharmacist James assumes the problem has multiple layers of reality — there is a measurable, objective dimension (doses missed, glucose levels, refill rates) AND a subjective, constructed dimension (what it means to Mrs Johnson). Neither layer is an illusion; both are real, and a solution that addresses only one layer is incomplete.

This distinction — whether a clinical problem is the same across patients or unique to each one — is not merely academic. It determines:

What questions you ask
What evidence you collect
What interventions you design
What counts as success

Question 2 — What We Believe About Problems and Knowledge

The Philosophical Foundations (Made Practical)

The discussion here moves into what researchers call ontology (beliefs about the nature of reality) and epistemology (beliefs about how we can come to know that reality). These are not abstract academic concepts — they are the hidden architecture underneath every clinical decision.

Dr Jones's Beliefs About Knowledge

Dr Jones's approach embodies a realist ontology and an objectivist epistemology.

Realist ontology: She believes that Mrs Johnson's blood sugar, her missed doses, and her clinical trajectory are real facts that exist independently of anyone's perspective. They are there to be discovered, not constructed.

Objectivist epistemology: She believes the best way to know about those facts is through systematic measurement — data that is consistent, reproducible, and free from the distorting influence of individual interpretation. A blood glucose of 14.2 mmol/L is 14.2 mmol/L whether Dr Jones, Nurse Ahmed, or Mrs Johnson is looking at it. The role of the clinician-researcher is to observe accurately and analyse rigorously, minimising subjectivity.

What this tells us about her beliefs about truth:

Dr Jones implicitly holds that there is a single correct answer to the question "Why is Mrs Johnson not taking her medication?" — and that the right analytical tools will converge on it. She trusts population-level patterns because she believes individual variation is mostly noise around a discoverable signal. This is the epistemological foundation of randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines: the assumption that if you study enough patients carefully enough, you will find a truth that applies broadly.

The strength of this position: It produces generalisable knowledge. A pattern found in 10,000 patients has predictive power for the next patient. Clinical guidelines built on this foundation save lives at scale.

The limitation: It can obscure individual experience. When Mrs Johnson deviates from the population pattern, a purely positivist framework may classify her as an "outlier" or a problem of implementation, rather than recognising that her deviation contains important information about what is actually happening in her life.

Nurse Ahmed's Beliefs About Knowledge

Nurse Ahmed's approach embodies a relativist ontology and a subjectivist or constructivist epistemology.

Relativist ontology: He believes that what "non-adherence" actually is for Mrs Johnson depends entirely on her perspective, her context, and the meaning she gives it. There is no single, context-free version of the problem sitting out there waiting to be measured. The problem is, in a real sense, constituted by how she experiences and interprets it.

Constructivist epistemology: He believes that knowledge about Mrs Johnson's situation is not discovered by observing her from a neutral distance — it is created through the relationship between the clinician and the patient. When he sits down and asks her about her fears, he is not extracting data that was already there; he is creating a space in which she can articulate something that previously existed only as lived experience, not yet as expressible knowledge.

What this suggests about how knowledge is created:

For Nurse Ahmed, knowledge is relational and dialogic — it emerges from genuine engagement rather than neutral observation. Mrs Johnson's account of what it is like to manage five medications when you live alone, struggle with arthritic hands, and secretly fear that your tablets are slowly damaging your kidneys is not a data point. It is a unique contribution to understanding that cannot be replicated in any other patient and cannot be captured by any scale or metric.

This tradition has deep roots in nursing, social work, and phenomenological medicine. It holds that the clinician who positions themselves as a detached measurer is not neutral — they are actively excluding the most important dimension of the patient's reality.

The strength of this position: It produces depth, humanity, and specificity. Interventions designed from this perspective are more likely to address the actual barriers a particular patient faces, rather than the average barriers a hypothetical patient faces.

The limitation: Findings are not automatically generalisable. What Nurse Ahmed learns from listening to Mrs Johnson helps Mrs Johnson. Whether it helps the next patient depends on whether that patient's experience is similar — which cannot be assumed without further investigation.

The Core Tension — and Why It Matters for Clinical Practice

The difference between Dr Jones and Nurse Ahmed is not simply a preference for numbers versus stories. It is a deeper disagreement about the nature of reality and the nature of knowledge:

	Dr Jones	Nurse Ahmed
What kind of thing is the problem?	A fixed, measurable phenomenon	A constructed, individual experience
Where does truth live?	In patterns across populations	In the meaning within individual lives
How is knowledge produced?	Through measurement and analysis	Through dialogue and interpretation
What counts as rigour?	Reproducibility, statistical validity	Trustworthiness, depth, authenticity
Risk of their position	Missing the individual	Missing the pattern

Neither position is simply right or wrong. They answer different questions:

"How many patients like Mrs Johnson miss their doses?" — Dr Jones's approach
"Why does this Mrs Johnson miss her doses?" — Nurse Ahmed's approach
"How do we design something that helps her and can be evaluated?" — Pharmacist James's approach

The most important practical takeaway:

Neither approach is optional in complex cases like Mrs Johnson's. A care team that only measures will design a better protocol that she still does not follow. A care team that only listens will understand her deeply but struggle to demonstrate whether any change has occurred. The goal is not to choose a paradigm — it is to know which paradigm is answering which question, and to be honest about the limits of each.

Summary for Group Discussion

Three questions to take into your reflective discussion:

Think of a patient you found frustrating — someone who "wouldn't engage" or "kept failing to improve." Which of the three approaches did your team primarily use to understand what was happening? What might the other approaches have revealed?
When you read a piece of research evidence, do you find yourself instinctively trusting large-scale quantitative studies more than qualitative accounts — or vice versa? What does that preference reveal about your own epistemological position?
Pharmacist James says "both perspectives matter." Is that always achievable in clinical practice, or are there resource, time, and system constraints that make it difficult? What would need to change to make the mixed approach routine?

This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.