Letter to the Editor

Article Outline

• Reference
• Copyright

To the editor

On behalf of the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties (NONPF), I am writing to clarify an inaccurate statement that appears in the article “Reflections on the Doctor of Nursing Practice” by Dracup et al in the July issue of Nursing Outlook.¹ This article incorrectly attributes a 2005 resolution to adopt a position acknowledging parity between the PhD and the practice doctorate in nursing to NONPF. Our organization did not have such a resolution introduced this year during our annual business meeting, nor have we ever had a resolution addressed on this issue by the membership.

We wish to note, as well, that the NONPF Board has not issued any statements that have stated there is parity between the research doctorate and the practice doctorate. In fact, our statements have promoted the ongoing distinction between the two academic degrees. We have contended that the practice doctorate helps to preserve the integrity of the PhD by ensuring that it remains a true research degree available to support a related career trajectory. The practice doctorate, on the other hand, should be available to provide the highest, terminal degree to the clinician. The only time that our organization has addressed parity in our statements is in suggesting that the practice doctorate may offer parity with other health disciplines that offer a terminal, practice-focused degree.

Back to Article Outline

Reference 

1. Dracup A , Cronenwett L , Meleis AI , Benner PE . Reflections on the doctorate of nursing practice . Nurs Outlook . 2005;53:177–182
   • View In Article
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (88 KB)
   • CrossRef