I *do* recognize the need for nursing theory - page 10

but I am a bit appalled by the theory and research classes requird for my NP program while we covered the entire cardiovascular system in 1.2 hours of Patho. Why is that ?????????????????? We have... Read More

  1. by   bookwormom
    I hope this doesn't change the focus too much:

    Chinn and Kramer was one of the first books I read when I started in my doctoral program at the University of South Africa, (recommended by my advisor). I thought it was a pretty good discussion of nursing knowledge and theory, after not being too involved with theory for about 25 years. Some of it must have stuck, because I have changed from a theory hater to a theory embracer. Chinn and Krammer has the advantage of being clear and well written.

    (APA Manual is tedious but has the advantage of giving a format for absolutely everything. )
  2. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from 1Tulip
    Oh, by the way... I thought the comments about the ANA were interesting. This is another area about which I am very conflicted. I'm going to introduce a thread on it in the General Nursing Discussion Group.
    OH it's been done.

    All the regulars on this site will just roll their eyes. LOL.

    And inside of 10 posts, all the BSNs will be calling the ADN/ASNs underqualified or mere 'technicians' to their 'professional' status, and all the ADNs/ASNs will call the BSNs arrogant and not particularly better prepared (ala ADN programs contain more clinicals, etc.)

    It's not a topic that is normally debated rationally.

    Even if you bring it up as an ANA issue, it will become a BSN vs. ADN thread.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from bookwormom
    I hope this doesn't change the focus too much:

    Chinn and Kramer was one of the first books I read when I started in my doctoral program at the University of South Africa, (recommended by my advisor). I thought it was a pretty good discussion of nursing knowledge and theory, after not being too involved with theory for about 25 years. Some of it must have stuck, because I have changed from a theory hater to a theory embracer. Chinn and Krammer has the advantage of being clear and well written.

    (APA Manual is tedious but has the advantage of giving a format for absolutely everything. )
    But here's the rub: If you were a good nurse for 25 yrs BEFORE you embraced theory, then how can it be argued that theory is in any way 'foundational' to nursing?

    You're the very proof that it is not.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  4. by   bookwormom
    What an interesting question, Timothy,

    I like to hope I was a good nurse. Now, even though I didn't feel happy at all about a lot of nursing theories, I certainly did have a theoretical approach to nursing care (and nursing education.) You'd have to call it a homemade theory. I evolved from considering the patient (and student) as consumer and fellow human in the existential wasteland, to seeing, to a certain extent, the patient ( and student) as the reflection of God, precious, valuable, made in his own image. (This parallels changes in my own perspective on life).When I decided to pursue doctoral education, I knew I couldn't do research unless I felt passionate about it. I saw my passion mirrored in some of the theorists I read. I have to say that O'Brien's work, while not strictly theory, has been marvelously inspiring. I have some issues with Watson, but her affirmation of spirituality is valuable and has provided some direction.
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from bookwormom
    What an interesting question, Timothy,

    I like to hope I was a good nurse. Now, even though I didn't feel happy at all about a lot of nursing theories, I certainly did have a theoretical approach to nursing care (and nursing education.) You'd have to call it a homemade theory. I evolved from considering the patient (and student) as consumer and fellow human in the existential wasteland, to seeing, to a certain extent, the patient ( and student) as the reflection of God, precious, valuable, made in his own image. (This parallels changes in my own perspective on life).
    Exactly why theory is of little value. I posted this earlier in this thread:

    "In truth, it is impossible to qualify a standard equation that describes the spiritual contributions of even a fraction of nurses. We are all individuals and bring our own individual spirituality to the job."

    There is an argument that theory is so encompassing that you can pick and choose the elements that appeal to you to become a better nurse.

    But why should that be limited to nursing theory? I do pick the spiritual elements that apply to my life and in turn to my practice. I just don't use nursing theory as my primary or even as a substantial source. My spiritual contributions to nursing are based on my whole range of experiences. To the extent that nursing theory coincides with my beliefs, it is because they are repetitions of concepts I've found and learned elsewhere.

    That being the case, what is so special about nursing theory? Many if not the majority of nurses that are very good nurses discovered the same things that nursing theory can provide OUTSIDE of nursing theory. Therefore, nursing theory is neither foundational nor especially unique to the development of the spiritual tools that can allow someone to become a good nurse.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Dec 7, '05
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    And so the real questions become:

    If the vast majority of nurses can arm themselves with the spiritual tools to become good nurses INDEPENDENT of nursing theory, then what is the purpose of spending so much time and energy trying to develop a rationale of care that only principally duplicates such efforts?

    Why don't we instead focus on a base of knowledge that integrates us as true professionals in the health care process?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

    (Now, before I take a nap, let me apologize for monopolizing this thread all morning. Last night was the last night of my work 'string'. Since I don't have to go back to work tonight, I didn't go straight to bed. LOL. Of course, that probably means that I'll monopolize it again this evening when I'm up and awake and not at work . . .So my apologies in advance for that, too.)
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Dec 7, '05
  7. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Let me just say this:

    IHI and the 100,000 lives campaign. The thrust of the IHI is to use EBP to implement proven strategies nationwide.

    Evidence based practice is NOT going away and it is exactly the interlaced knowledge base that will allow us to interface as professionals w/ our professional peers.

    That's a kind of nursing theory I can relate to.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    In your estimation. Funny, Rogers and her theory has been around since the 60s. You may dismiss her theory but it does have its proponents, in nursing circles. And has been accepted by many. EBP is, as I have stated, the newest buzz word, with its proponents, who are trying to pass it off as a nursing theory. Kind of reminds me of the Darwin vs creationists theory.

    Grannynurse
  8. by   gauge14iv
    I just want to make the distinction between "theory" and "basis for nursing practice"

    I think a lot of the debate centers on whether or not theory should form the BASIS for practice, not whether or not it should be considered at all. (Although we have seen both sides of that too)

    I'm not sayiing theory is worthless altogether - I'm just advocating for NOT having it be THE thing on which all practice is based. When we choose to approach it from a "consideration" of practice, rather than trying to force people to believe it is the underlying mesh of all practice - then it can be considered for what it is. Theoretical...

    The better thing to BASE practice on is evidence. Why? Because we have proof that it is effective in getting the end result we want - and there is not a lick of buzz lingo in that.
  9. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from krisssy
    I am new to this and have found this discussion so interesting. What does EBP and IHI stand for? I just ordered my books for my first graduate theory course. I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting on your opinions of these books please.

    1. Integrated Knowledge Development in Nursing- Chinn

    2. Nursing Theories- George

    3. American Psychological Association-Publication Manual

    I know I am a bit off topic, but I would appreciate your opinions as I start out learning about this topic which I find extremely interesting to say the least. Thanks Krissy
    You may also wish to purchase A Meleis, Theoretical Nursing: Development & Progress. It gives the history of the development of theory; our discipline, scholarship, epistemology, evaluation of theories, and 11 theorists. Several nursing theorists have published books, outlining their theory, as well as research articles that have been published. Lenienger is one.

    Grannynurse
  10. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from bookwormom
    I hope this doesn't change the focus too much:

    Chinn and Kramer was one of the first books I read when I started in my doctoral program at the University of South Africa, (recommended by my advisor). I thought it was a pretty good discussion of nursing knowledge and theory, after not being too involved with theory for about 25 years. Some of it must have stuck, because I have changed from a theory hater to a theory embracer. Chinn and Krammer has the advantage of being clear and well written.

    (APA Manual is tedious but has the advantage of giving a format for absolutely everything. )
    I agree, Chinn and Krammer were required texts for my graduate nursing theory course. Also Afaf Meleis: Theoretical Nursing: Development and Progress. I also have one of Watson anf Lenienger's textbook, which go into depth concerning their theory and it's impact on nursing knowledge. I will admit, initially I kept a dictionary handy because of some of the vocabulary but I no longer do.

    Grannynurse
  11. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    OH it's been done.

    All the regulars on this site will just roll their eyes. LOL.

    And inside of 10 posts, all the BSNs will be calling the ADN/ASNs underqualified or mere 'technicians' to their 'professional' status, and all the ADNs/ASNs will call the BSNs arrogant and not particularly better prepared (ala ADN programs contain more clinicals, etc.)

    It's not a topic that is normally debated rationally.

    Even if you bring it up as an ANA issue, it will become a BSN vs. ADN thread.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Excuse me but I have not called any ADN a technician or underqualified. And I take exception to the broad brush painting of all BSNs. :angryfire I have an AAD, a BSN, a MS and am working on a MSN. I have always supported a BSN, as the only entry level for RNs, including the days I spent in my diploma program back in 1964.

    Grannynurse
  12. by   gauge14iv
    Granny nurse - that post was not directed at you - nor was it personal. He was responding to Tulip


    It is *MY* and a number of others experience that anytime you mention the ANA on this board it turns into an ADN vs. BSN thread. THATS what he was referring to - it had nothing to do with you so you have no reason to be offended.
  13. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from gauge14iv
    Granny nurse - that post was not directed at you - nor was it personal. He was responding to Tulip


    It is *MY* and a number of others experience that anytime you mention the ANA on this board it turns into an ADN vs. BSN thread. THATS what he was referring to - it had nothing to do with you so you have no reason to be offended.
    Sorry but it was painted with a board brush. And I am known to support only one entry level, something that is definitely not popular, on this board. I am a member of the ANA. I am not a member of the FNA, it is a useless group and has been, since the early 80s, in my opinion

    This goes off the subject but several years ago, the University Of South Florida wanted to expand its RN to BSN as well as generic program. Here in Florida, the number of slots that can be offered, is set by the Department of Education. All of the two year programs, of which there are five in the area, lobbied against it. USF was not allowed to expand its programs. There seems to be a mind set, that anyone who has a BSN, looks down on ADN graduates. Nothing could be further from the truth. But this is a topic for another thread.

    There will always be those who see little value in attempting to define theories of a given discipline. I don't. And I have attempted to direct this discussion towards the various nursing theories and their impact on nursing education and practice. One does not have to accept the theorist I do. But keep an open mind and be willing to discussion their theorist and that impact on practice.

    Sorry got to go granddaughter needs help with math homework.

    Grannynurse

close