Editors’ commentary: Is nursing research at risk of becoming everyone's responsibility – and no one's discipline?

This special collection brings together three contributions on the state of nursing research in the Nordic countries: Denmark, ¹ Sweden ² and Norway. ³ Each paper offers a national perspective on the development, current state and future challenges of nursing research.

Last year, the editors of the Nordic Journal of Nursing Research (NJNR) invited nurse researchers and educators across the Nordic countries to contribute to this collection, following the journal's transition to open access. Contributors were asked to address three themes: (i) a brief historical overview of nursing research in their country; (ii) the current state of nursing research, including key challenges and possible solutions; and (iii) reflections on the increasing integration of nursing and nursing science into broader academic fields such as health sciences. We successfully engaged three author duos from Denmark, Sweden and Norway. However, we were unable to secure contributions from Finland and Iceland. With this introductory editorial, we therefore extend an open call for a Finnish and an Icelandic duo to contribute to this collection on the same themes. Interested authors are welcome to contact us at sagenjnr@sagepub.co.uk.

In this editorial, we offer our analysis of the messages emerging across the three published contributions. Our analysis draws on these papers as empirical illustrations of a broader structural development. Read together, they point to a shared and more concerning pattern: across these countries, nursing research has reached a level of academic maturity and societal relevance yet increasingly lacks a clear and stable institutional home. The most serious challenge facing Nordic nursing research today is not a lack of competence, productivity or relevance. Rather, it is a structural problem. Responsibility for nursing research is increasingly dispersed across broader health science systems, where no single discipline or institutional unit retains clear ownership of its long-term development. ⁴

The Danish contribution shows a research field that has expanded in capacity, postgraduate education and clinical engagement. At the same time, much of this development has taken place within structures governed by medical and broader health science priorities. As a result, research agendas, definitions of quality and methodological expectations are often shaped by other disciplines rather than by nursing itself.^5,6 Denmark thus illustrates a central paradox: productivity without full disciplinary ownership.

The Swedish contribution describes a discipline that has achieved strong academic legitimacy. Nursing research is embedded within universities, supported by national funding structures and aligned with policy ambitions for evidence-based healthcare.^7,8 However, this stability also masks structural vulnerabilities. Leadership succession remains uncertain, career pathways are fragile and the translation of research into clinical practice continues to face persistent barriers. Sweden shows that recognition alone does not guarantee long-term sustainability.

The Norwegian contribution provides the most explicit warning. It documents how independent nursing science environments have been dismantled or absorbed into broader health science structures. In the Norwegian case, this is no longer a future risk but a current reality. Such restructuring fragments research environments and weakens the continuity required for cumulative knowledge development.^9,10

Taken together, these three contributions reveal a shared trajectory. Nursing research is not only expanding, contributing and increasingly visible, but also becoming structurally diluted. Integration into broader health sciences is often presented as both inevitable and desirable. ¹¹ However, integration is not neutral. It shapes which questions are asked, which methods are prioritized and what is ultimately recognized as legitimate knowledge. When nursing research is embedded in systems where other disciplines define standards of quality and relevance, nursing risks losing control over its own research agenda. ⁴ This has direct implications for the kinds of knowledge that are developed. Core nursing concerns – such as relational care, coordination, patient experience and the practical organization of care – risk becoming marginal when they must be aligned with externally defined research priorities. ⁷ This shift rarely occurs through explicit conflict. Rather, it unfolds gradually through decisions about funding, organizational placement, evaluation criteria and leadership structures. ⁹

A particularly concerning development across the three contributions is the growing notion that nursing research is now embedded everywhere. Although this may appear to signal success, it also creates ambiguity regarding responsibility. When no academic unit is clearly accountable for the development of nursing science, long-term research programmes become fragile, leadership pathways uncertain and the implementation of knowledge increasingly optional. ⁸

When everyone owns nursing research, no one is responsible for it

Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for addressing complex healthcare challenges, and nursing must be an active contributor to such efforts. ¹¹ However, collaboration requires strong disciplines. When a discipline lacks control over its own infrastructure, research agenda and career pathways, interdisciplinarity risks becoming unequal collaboration, where some disciplines define the terms and others adapt to them. ⁴ The three contributions in this issue suggest the need for a structural principle that may be described as integrated autonomy. Nursing research must remain closely connected to healthcare systems, at the same time as retaining a clear disciplinary structure, including responsibility for its own research questions, methodological development and academic leadership. Removing any of these element's risks destabilizing the discipline's capacity to produce sustainable knowledge. This has clear implications for multiple stakeholders. Universities must recognize that disciplines require institutional homes to develop cumulatively over time. Research funders must treat dedicated funding for nursing research as essential infrastructure rather than as a special interest. Healthcare organizations must ensure that evidence-based nursing is supported by resources, roles and structures that enable both knowledge production and implementation.^7,8 Finally, the nursing profession itself must articulate the value of its science. Professional silence is not neutral; if nursing does not define its contribution, others will.

The contributions in this issue demonstrate that nursing research in Denmark, Sweden and Norway is not struggling to establish its relevance. It is struggling to secure the structural conditions required for that relevance to endure. These patterns are unlikely to be unique to the Nordic context and may reflect broader developments in nursing research internationally. Nordic nursing research now stands at a crossroads. It can continue to develop as a distinct discipline with the capacity to define its own knowledge base and contribute on equal terms within interdisciplinary research. Alternatively, it risks becoming a distributed function within broader health sciences, without clear ownership, direction or responsibility.

Editorials can challenge, provoke or persuade. This one does something else: it warns!

Language editing

ChatGPT (OpenAI) was used to assist with language revision and proofreading. The authors takes full responsibility for the content, interpretations and conclusions.