Can Someone Be a Nurse Without Jean Watson?? - page 26

Ok now, as I delve back INTO nursing philosophy and theories, I come across, again, the theories of Jean Watson that have been hailed as the greatest thing since polyurethane IV bags - The Caring... Read More

  1. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Tweety
    It is very difficult though to state the rationale for the BSN as the entry level for RN status without alienating the ADN nurses. Because how can you say "to be considered a professional, you must have a BSN" "to gain the respect of other professions the entry level must be a BSN" and not step on toes, or get ADNs, like myself and yourself all riled up.
    But that's just it: it's NOT about needing an BSN to be considered professional. I'm a professional now. And most of the people we're so trying to impress don't have the slightest idea the difference.

    The goal of BSN-entry might be to codify 'professionalism' to others, but it's not about attaining it in any real sense. It's about perceptions, not realities.

    And I don't object to the concept of improving the 'perception' of nurses with a BSN entry.

    I object to BSNs, brainwashed in their programs to believe that they are superior, looking down their noses at ADNs and actually believing and exposing that it's about the 'reality' that professionalism improves with a degree.

    I object to being told that I 'diminish' THEIR profession. That's garbage.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  2. by   Tweety
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    But that's just it: it's NOT about needing an BSN to be considered professional. I'm a professional now. And most of the people we're so trying to impress don't have the slightest idea the difference.

    The goal of BSN-entry might be to codify 'professionalism' to others, but it's not about attaining it in any real sense. It's about perceptions, not realities.

    And I don't object to the concept of improving the 'perception' of nurses with a BSN entry.

    I object to BSNs, brainwashed in their programs to believe that they are superior, looking down their noses at ADNs and actually believing and exposing that it's about the 'reality' that professionalism improves with a degree.

    I object to being told that I 'diminish' THEIR profession. That's garbage.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

    Obviously you don't buy into the accepted definition of a "profession".

    I'm not sure I do either.

    Try not to generalize and stereotype BSNs though. I certainly didn't feel brainwashed into feeling I was superior when in my BSN course I studied the argument for BSN as the entry level for RN status, and definition of a "profession". I've only encourted one that looked down their nose at ADNs with superiority in real life. Now on this website it's another story, but that's because the topic comes up from time to time. And most of the time it's not them sticking their nose down at us, but stating their opinion that they feel their education is superior. But it's hard to do without arrogance.

    Sometimes I wish the issue would go away, because it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. My issue is safe RN to patient ratio, be that an ADN or a BSN. :stone
  3. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    anymore thoughts on WATSON?

    we have LOTS of BSN versus ADN debates already. No one wins 'em. And the arguments never seem to change.
  4. by   mattsmom81
    I didn't read all the pages of this...I am just answering the OP's question. She asked if someone can be a nurse without Jean Watson, and since I don't know who this is, I have proven one can..(of course I'm a verrry old nurse...hehe) LOL!
  5. by   UM Review RN
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    anymore thoughts on WATSON?

    we have LOTS of BSN versus ADN debates already. No one wins 'em. And the arguments never seem to change.

    This does bear repeating a few times, doesn't it? :chuckle
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Tweety
    Obviously you don't buy into the accepted definition of a "profession".

    I'm not sure I do either.
    I've read the supposed 'definition' of a profession. The problem is that the same people that want us to adopt their 'body of knowledge' as the accepted definition of our 'profession' are the same wackos that brought us care plans and diagnoses that have no practical application to nursing practice. Oh and I believe I said earlier that it was the same Ivory tower elitists that brought us BSN-entry, which is what started this side track anyway.

    I have no idea who Jean Watson is, but I guess (looking at this thread) she was deeply involved with 'care theory'. Hogwash if you ask me. I'm very good at what I do because of my professional abilities, technical skills and knowledge. Does that mean that I'm not caring? Of course not, but as long as we dismiss our usefulness as 'intangibles' the longer our 'tangible' assets will be ignored.

    If we want to improve nursing as a profession, instead of fighting over BSN-entry requirement, which will never happen, we should spend our energy debunking that nursing means caring and focusing on the fact that nursing means a phenomenal amount of skill and knowledge. Caring is PART of my job and a necessary job requirement, but caring isn't my job: being a high tech, high skilled bedside monitor, interventioner, and clinician is my job.

    I think the recent BSN sidetrack was part of the Jean Watson debate: can you be a nurse without the unfounded disconnected ramblings of ivory towered nurses who haven't been nurses in so long that they aren't nurses anymore? Of course, and we'd be better for it.

    We wouldn't have useless care plans, useless diagnoses and useless BSN-entry debates.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 31, '06
  7. by   ZASHAGALKA
    And tweety, I keep quoting you to take off from your comments and expound upon them - not to be confrontational.

    We are much more in agreement than disagreement.

    I CAN see some merit to the BSN thingy and mostly along the lines that you address.

    I understand that it's hard to address the issue without seeming to 'put down' ADN nurses. I guess I'm just not willing to be 'put down' in order to advance the issue.

    I just don't want you to think that I'm being argumentative with you. I'm not.
    I'm not really even disagreeing with you.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  8. by   chadash
    "Caring is PART of my job and a necessary job requirement, but caring isn't my job: being a high tech, high skilled bedside monitor, interventioner, and clinician is my job. "

    This is the kind of person I want if someone in my family is sick.
  9. by   cdngirl2005
    Quote from Mattigan
    I haven't even thought of "nursing theory" since grad school ( went thru BSN in the olden days and didn't have to worry about nursing theories). They make my head hurt.
    Make your head hurt!! I am currently taking a masters course at U of Pheonix and am in a theory class. Try analysing many theorist! Anyway my reason for coming to this web site is to find out what nurses really think about Watson's theory
  10. by   Mommy2Katiebaby
    Quote from Q.
    Ok now, as I delve back INTO nursing philosophy and theories, I come across, again, the theories of Jean Watson that have been hailed as the greatest thing since polyurethane IV bags - The Caring Theory of Nursing.

    Personally, I have never been a fan of Watson, only because I feel that she OVERemphasized the caring aspect, and, in my opinion, dumbified nursing - hence, the ad campaign in the late 80's "If Caring Were Enough, Anyone Could Be a Nurse." Watson threw a fit when she saw this.

    As nursing evolves to a more technically challenging field, requiring more acute assessment skills, and as the
    "How Women Know" movement which has shaped nursing education for the last decade or so has become archaic, wondering what your thoughts are on if someone can be a nurse and NOT subscribe to the caring theory. Can one be a competent nurse and NOT care about her patients any more deeply than simply getting the job done?

    Watson's theory goes a bit deeper than simply "caring" - more so than "caring" about any other job. But "caring" as far as honestly caring about the patient as you would your mom or dad.

    Do you think someone CAN be an effective nurse WITHOUT having so much an emphasis on loving her patients?
    She was the dean at the nursing school I went to. "Dean Jean the Caring Queen," we called her. Most of my class liked her theories, but thought that practically speaking the lady was moderately nuts. I mean yes it's very important to care for your patients, but the fact is that at some point you're going to get someone you can't STAND to take care of and if your desire to love everyone conflicts with the reality that thus and such a patient is a real scumbag (I am thinking here of a convicted rapist I took care of once) you are going to burn out fast. Most of us simply cannot throw our whole being and all of our emotional investment into our patients - you need to save those resources for the rest of your life.
  11. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Quote from KPrice
    She was the dean at the nursing school I went to. "Dean Jean the Caring Queen," we called her. Most of my class liked her theories, but thought that practically speaking the lady was moderately nuts. I mean yes it's very important to care for your patients, but the fact is that at some point you're going to get someone you can't STAND to take care of and if your desire to love everyone conflicts with the reality that thus and such a patient is a real scumbag (I am thinking here of a convicted rapist I took care of once) you are going to burn out fast. Most of us simply cannot throw our whole being and all of our emotional investment into our patients - you need to save those resources for the rest of your life.
    I agree. Good points.
  12. by   llg
    Quote from KPrice
    Most of us simply cannot throw our whole being and all of our emotional investment into our patients - you need to save those resources for the rest of your life.
    I did some of my graduate work at UCHSC and actually took a class from Jean Watson and worked with some of her teaching & research assistants. I agree with what you said above.

    However, what I find frustrating is the number of nurses (including many faculty members) who don't understand the nature of nursing theory or its proper place in nursing. Most nurses that I have encountered have such a simplistic view of nursing theory (and nursing theories) that they handle it badly and ruin it. I have come to believe that this is one realm of nursing in which it is true that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

    For example: some people think that in order for a theory to be "good" or "right," it must be able to be applied directly to every given nursing situation. If they can think of a situation for which the theory is not well suited, then it must be a bad theory. That's not true. A theory might help a nurse gain valuable insight into certain types of situations and therefore be a great asset to nursing -- and yet not be very useful in another situation.

    In the quote above, KPrice pointed out (correctly, I believe) that we can't give "all" of ourselves to our patients ... and we are not going to "care" about them all in the same way. I don't believe Jean Watson ever said that we should do those things. Anyone who is teaching that Watson's caring theory "says" we need to give all to our patients and/or that we care about everyone in the same way is teaching the theory wrong. In fact, that was a significant topic of discussion in the class I took with Dr. Watson. We talked about how we don't "care" for everyone in the same way and may not even "like" our patients.

    I'm not a specialist in caring theory by any stretch of the imagination. But I know enough to know that people who do engage in theorizing about the nature of caring are, for the most part, realistic enough to know that we will feel differently about our families, friends, etc. than we do about the relative strangers who come to us for "nursing care." Their work is an attempt to understand what "nursing care" IS and what it IS NOT and to help nursing sort out the complex issues we face as we interact with our patients and provide them with "care" -- whatever "care" is.

    Similar things can be said about most of the major theoretical and philosophical work in any discipline. Each line of inquiry takes a look at one aspect of the profession and tries to understand it throughly. It is hoped that a greater understanding will help people solve problems -- but sometimes, the application of a theory to a concrete situation is more complicated than many people realize.

    It reminds me of my 3-year-old nephew making a gingerbread man last year. When told to ue the "Lifesaver" candies for buttons, he took the whole package still in the wrapper and slapped in on his gingerbread man. His 7-year-old sister knew enough to take the candies out of the wrapper and use them to make a row of buttons down the center of the body. He tried to use the Lifesavers, but just didn't have the sophistication to use them properly. (though, I admit, my whole family enjoyed his crazy gingerbread man the most!)

    Sorry, I rambled.

    llg
    Last edit by llg on Aug 18, '05
  13. by   SmilingBluEyes
    I guess, the bottom line is, there is and always should be, room for many "theories" and "theorists" in nursing.....that attempting to describe the essense of nursing is not really possible---or captured---by any ONE theory or person. Heck, we can't even agree if it's an art or a science, or BOTH.

close