| Course | NURS 8002 Foundations and Essentials for the Doctor of Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two peer replies |
| Length | About 520 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 8002 Week 4
Week 4 Discussion: Initial Post
Scholarship Once It Is Made Public: Testing Boyer Against a Home Health Agency's Wound Documentation Problem
My position is that practice scholarship is scholarship, provided it is made public and open to critique by peers. Work that improves care in one place and stays in a binder is good practice; work that is documented, shared and judged against standards becomes scholarship.
Boyer (1990) argued that the academy had narrowed scholarship to discovery and proposed four overlapping forms: discovery, the search for new knowledge; integration, connecting findings across fields; application, using knowledge to address real problems; and teaching. Most DNP work sits in application and integration. I would not claim it never touches discovery, since a well-designed project can produce findings no one has reported before, but discovery is not its purpose. Glassick (2000) later offered six tests that any form of scholarship can be held to, running from whether its goals were clear and its methods fit, through whether its results mattered and were well presented, to whether its author reflected critically on the work. Those standards, not the form, are what make work scholarly.
Consider a composite home health agency where wound measurements are recorded inconsistently: some nurses measure length and width, some add depth, some describe the wound in words only, and the agency cannot tell whether wounds are healing. A nurse leader who reviews the literature on wound assessment, adapts a standardized measurement approach, trains staff, audits charts before and after and changes the documentation template has done valuable work. Whether it is scholarship depends on the next step: if she writes it up with its methods and results and submits it for peer review or presents it where others can critique it, it meets Glassick's standards; if it stays inside the agency, it is excellent practice but not yet scholarship. That distinction matters for the DNP, because the degree's claim to be doctoral rests partly on the public, critiqued nature of its work (Melnyk, 2013).
Question: should a DNP project that is never disseminated beyond the program still count as scholarship?
Reply to Beth
Beth, you argued that making work public is a publication requirement, not a scholarship requirement, and that much valuable nursing knowledge is shared informally between colleagues. I agree that informal sharing spreads practice, and I did not mean to dismiss it. Still, critical reflection is one of the standards Glassick (2000) sets out, and informal sharing rarely exposes work to critique from people who might disagree. A presentation at a regional wound care meeting, where colleagues can question the measurement approach, would meet the standard without a journal article. Would that satisfy your concern?
Reply to Tomas
Tomas, you asked whether my home health example is really integration rather than application, since the nurse leader combined wound care literature with documentation standards and informatics. That is a fair reading, and it supports the point that the forms overlap (Boyer, 1990). The project applies knowledge to a problem but also connects fields that do not usually speak to each other. I think the overlap strengthens the case that DNP work can be scholarly in more than one way.
References
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Glassick, C. E. (2000). Boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic Medicine, 75(9), 877-880. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200009000-00007
Melnyk, B. M. (2013). Distinguishing the preparation and roles of doctor of philosophy and doctor of nursing practice graduates: National implications for academic curricula and health care systems. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(8), 442-448. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130719-01
The Walden NURS 8002 Week 4 instructions
The Week 4 thread usually asks whether the work DNP-prepared nurses produce counts as scholarship, often using Boyer's framework. Plan on a focused post that takes a position, cites Boyer and at least one other source, and then replies that test classmates' positions. State your position first, with any condition attached. Describe Boyer's forms accurately and place DNP work within them honestly. Use criteria for judging scholarship, such as Glassick's, rather than relying on the forms alone. Test your position against a concrete practice example, described modestly enough to be believable. Finish by asking peers whether an undisseminated project still counts.
How this NURS 8002 Week 4 example is built
Paragraph one states the conditional position. Paragraph two describes Boyer's four forms, places DNP work in application and integration and cites Glassick's standards for judging scholarship. Paragraph three tests the position against a composite home health agency's wound documentation problem and, in a highlighted passage, draws the line at making the work public; it cites Melnyk on the practice doctorate. A question to the thread closes the post. The reply to Beth grants the value of informal sharing and proposes a regional presentation as a way to meet the critique standard. The reply to Tomas accepts that the example also shows integration. The home health case is modest on purpose, so the argument stays on the principle.
NURS 8002 Week 4 rubric: what earns full marks
Scholarship debates are typically graded on a clear, defended position, accurate use of the framework, a concrete test case and engagement with peers. A position with a stated condition often earns more than a blanket claim because it can be defended. Boyer's forms should be described accurately, with care not to overclaim discovery. Using criteria to judge scholarship shows depth. The test case earns credit when it is modest and specific. Replies are scored on how well they engage objections and refine the argument. Scholarly tone, APA citations and timely posting complete the usual rubric. Faculty also notice whether the writer's own practice is reflected in the example chosen. Instructors also reward writers who state what would change their mind, since that is part of critique.
NURS 8002 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Scholarship posts lose credit when they summarize Boyer without taking a position. Another common loss is claiming that every DNP project is discovery research, which faculty tend to challenge. Some posts use a dramatic example that invites argument about the example instead of the principle. Replies that simply agree add nothing. Commit to a position with a condition, describe the forms accurately, apply criteria for judging scholarship, test the position on a modest case and use replies to refine rather than repeat. The desk can draft a post using the readings your section assigns. Describe any workplace example without identifying the agency. Say what evidence would change your position.
Get a NURS 8002 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Drop in the scholarship discussion prompt and its rubric, and mention whether your section requires a specific reading on Boyer, and a thread post meeting those terms is prepared. The first one is free and is ready in 24 to 48 hours. Any reply to an actual classmate stays your own work; the example's replies answer a post written only for this page.
More NURS 8002 papers and DNP samples
- NURS 8002 Week 1: DNP introduction post
- NURS 8002 Week 2: Practice doctorate history post
- NURS 8002 Week 3: DNP essentials gap map
- NURS 8002 Week 5: DNP problem statement
- NURS 8002 Week 6: Problem significance thread
- NURS 8002 Week 7: DNP systems leadership analysis
- NURS 8002 Week 8: Translation evidence summary
- NURS 8002 Week 9: DNP change agent post
- NURS 8002 Week 10: DNP practice problem synthesis
- NURS 8002 Week 11: DNP identity reflection
- DNRS 6800 Week 4: Behavior log analysis
- NURS 8100 Week 4: Policy Analysis
- DNRS 6630 Week 4: Drug class comparison
- DNRS 6211 Week 4: Variance analysis
NURS 8002 Week 4 questions, answered
Does the post have to agree that DNP work is scholarship?
No position is required, only a defended one. The example argues yes, under a stated condition, because a conditional claim is easier to defend than a blanket one. A post arguing that most practice projects fall short of scholarship can earn equal credit if it uses Boyer's model precisely and offers a practice case showing where the shortfall lies.
Is Boyer the only framework expected here?
He is the most common anchor for this discussion in nursing programs, and the example relies on him for that reason. Some sections pair Boyer with nursing readings about practice scholarship, and your assigned readings show which. Drawing on the course's own readings alongside Boyer usually satisfies the rubric's expectation for scholarly sources more reliably than outside material does.
Where does the home health agency come from?
Nowhere real. It was put together so the post could test its position against a problem modest enough to be credible, since documentation variation is common and uncontroversial. Your own case works best when it comes from practice you know, described without identifying the organization, because a classmate's hardest questions are the ones a borrowed case cannot answer.
Where can I find a free NURS 8002 Week 4 sample paper?
The initial post on practice scholarship and both replies can be read in full here with no fee. A post using your section's assigned readings can be requested.
When does the NURS 8002 Week 4 post say practice work becomes scholarship?
When it is made public and open to critique, for example written up with its methods and results or presented where peers can question it.