I *do* recognize the need for nursing theory

Nursing Students Post Graduate

Published

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 Nursing Theory, Research and Research and Theory.

How are other programs compared to this one ?

Specializes in Medical.
... to sustain ourselves as a profession we need to examine what makes us nurses...what other profession does this??

OMG - so very :yeahthat: :yeahthat: I don't see how nursing theories make us anything like more professional. The established professions don't do it - there's no Theory of Law (or Theory of Lawyering), and certainly no attempt to create an overarching Theory of Medicine.

For an interesting take, see the late great Jef Raskin's article "Humbug: Nurisng Theory" - http://jef.raskincenter.org/published/NursingTheoryForSite.html He doesn't say Rogers had aphasia, but...

Ah, but many professions have developed a theory base. Consider education and psychology. We must remember that the nursing process itself and fundamental principles such as advocacy, to say nothing of ethics, must draw on some theoretical understanding of what nurses are and what they do.

I'll give just a brief example that has meaning for me: If I care for a demented, vegetative, or even brain-dead patient, it makes a big difference to me how I define the term human. In the long run, I have to deal with this.

Although I am a nursing instructor, I also work clinically. Certainly many of the physical problems patients have can be addressed without reference to theory, but once the problems become more involved, we are making decisions based on theoretical models, whether or not we realize it. I think it is better to be able to identify the theory base from which we are working.

My personal stance is that nursing theory is valuable, but that it is often poorly presented, and (here I agree with many of the posters) not relevant to actual clinical situations. I don't think the answer is to reject all theory, but rather to challenge the uncritical acceptance of some of the theories.

I love nursing.

Specializes in Critical Care.
Ah, but many professions have developed a theory base. Consider education and psychology. We must remember that the nursing process itself and fundamental principles such as advocacy, to say nothing of ethics, must draw on some theoretical understanding of what nurses are and what they do.

Ah, but what do education, psychology, and nursing have in common?

We are all completely undervalued as a profession. So the relevant question becomes: Are we, through our theories, holding ourselves back as profession?

I answer that as an unqualified: YES!

Given the choice of throwing in w/ the dissed professions or spreading our wings and flying like a real profession, I choose trying to be a real profession.

The current accepted 'theory' holds us back as a profession, not advances us.

I love nursing, too. That's WHY I'm so disdainful of the theories that hold us back.

~faith,

Timothy.

For an interesting take, see the late great Jef Raskin's article "Humbug: Nurisng Theory" - http://jef.raskincenter.org/published/NursingTheoryForSite.html He doesn't say Rogers had aphasia, but...

wow... great article...i can't believe i'm going to have to learn this crap :(

Specializes in home & public health, med-surg, hospice.
wow... great article...i can't believe i'm going to have to learn this crap :(

Yeah, but look you're already thinking magically! :chuckle

For an interesting take, see the late great Jef Raskin's article "Humbug: Nurisng Theory" - http://jef.raskincenter.org/published/NursingTheoryForSite.html He doesn't say Rogers had aphasia, but...

His article formed the nucleus of a presentation by myself and several other students at our school earlier this year. In the midst of his battle with cancer, Mr Raskin took the time to converse with us via email, answering several questions we had about his aritlce and Roger's theory in general. Nice guy....

Specializes in home & public health, med-surg, hospice.
His article formed the nucleus of a presentation by myself and several other students at our school earlier this year. In the midst of his battle with cancer, Mr Raskin took the time to converse with us via email, answering several questions we had about his aritlce and Roger's theory in general. Nice guy....

How was your presentation received from the faculty at your school?

I'll give just a brief example that has meaning for me: If I care for a demented, vegetative, or even brain-dead patient, it makes a big difference to me how I define the term human. In the long run, I have to deal with this.

I agree, in this clinical instance, which I (and I am sure others on this thread) have encountered too often, for you it is important to clarify your own personal values and determine how you define human (an other abstracts). How you define human is a cummulation of life experience, personal values, professional ethics and many many things. In this instance, though, how you define human really matters not. you are obligated to care and advocate for the client regardless of how you define human. What matters is how that patient and the family define human that will ultimately direct the course of care or compassion you provide.

I have been in this instance. I have also taken more than a few theory courses adn while I enjoy Orem's theory (it is actually moderately applicable to bedside nursing this day in age) I also feel an understanding of Kolcaba's middle range theory of comfort. And honestly neither of these theories helped me guide my care those days. Each patient/family/nurse dynamic is as unique as a fingerprint and to presume there is or will be one theory to govern each of those relationships is preposterous and unrealistic. To assume that we, as nurses, need an all powerful governing theory to make us important is just as prepostorous.

Moreover, like ALL theories, they are just theories. They are one person's perspective on the things important to her nursing practice. There is not one theory, that I am aware of, that has been proven beyond most doubt to be applicable in the majority of nursing. Each contributor to this thread has their own credo of nursing; one which we could each publish as our 'theory of nursing'--how would this serve to further 'define' nursing practice. My nursing practice and views (hence my 'theory of nursing') may or may not serve you well in your nursing practice.

I was overzealous in my previous posting to give the notion that theory should not be continued/studied/taught. However, I think it can be taught differently...i know, never pose a problem, unless you also offer a solution (and I have none). As I stated, i like Kolcaba's theory and her definitions (i personally find that it parallels a great many of my PERSONAL views on the whys and hows of nursing. That said, nurses should be exposed to theory to show that there are many many different perspectives as to how to go about nursing and that each of us is responsible--only to oneself--to find that 'thing' that is why we nurse. In this aspect I do feel nursing theory has a place.

WHEW time to step off my high horse!!!

I am enjoying this thread!

K

Mr. Raskin is not a nurse and his only apparent tie was that his wife was a nursing student. And while he does have a list of academic and professional, none qualifies him to address the problems that the nursing profession has, in reconciling abstract theory and concrete practice. His attack on Rogers fails to address many of her core assumptions and concepts. What he fails to realise, is that theory is meant to codify nursing actions and interactions and offer a theortical bases for nursing. Even the initial founder, Florence Nightingale offered theory as part of her definition, of nursing practice and education. While some many entertain his thoughts and explanations, as viable, his attack lacks even more then the theorist he is attacking.

Grannynurse:balloons:

The field of Education has theory.....and the vast majority of it is a lot of crap that is TOTALLY useless in the classroom ( I taught for 12 years ). So nursing ought to embrace theory in the same way as education? IT DOESN'T WORK FOR EDUCATION, why the heck would it work for nursing? It isn't going to make other professions automatically respect nursing if we have a base of theory. As another poster pointed out, Med students and law students don't sit around studying a base of theory. I think nursing is on the right track when using evidence to back up practice. That makes sense to me. If it works, use it. If not, don't use it. Any physician has to have evidence that his/her treatment is effective and must decide to continue or try something different based on solid evidence. Theory is not solid evidence.

This might be a bit off topic, but any profession that has a diagnosis "disturbed energy field" is not going to get the respect that it wants. What is the evidence that backs up that diagnosis?

Specializes in ICU, ER, HH, NICU, now FNP.

When I saw that NDX on the list of approved diagnosis - I hit the roof!!

GREAT!! Why don't we all become herbalists? It probably has more basis in science than a disturbed energy field. That single NDX alone does more to discredit the profession as respectable than all of the nursing theory put together. Where the heck is the evidence? What a load of ....

You can serve people on a holistic level without the magic mushrooms and chasing alice in wonderland down the rabbit hole. It doesn't matter that I am not islamic, if I have some cultural knowledge and the ability to connect with others, I can effectively care for with islamics. The same would be true for baptists, catholics, hindus and a the range of all others. In fact - one of the patients I had the best relationship with was a hindi who did not speak English - somehow it didn't seem to matter. I was lucky enough to have had a professor who took the time to really hone in on the cultural aspects of people, and more importantly - on how to connect with people as humans regardless of their culture, background, language, religion or origin.

When you look at so many of the theorists, they are very heavily biased towards a certain culture or experience. They can't help it. Someone with no exposure to anything other than the outback will relate all of his experiences in life to the outback...and we are back to the fish...how do I know what it is to be a fish if I have never experienced life as a fish? How can any theorist expect to realistically apply theory universally at any level above and beyond the connection between humans? And why do we need a hundred obscurely written theories to explain that connection?

Specializes in ICU, ER, HH, NICU, now FNP.

Oh and...when are we all getting together to get that "Disturbed Energy Field" removed from the list of NANDA approved Diagnosis?

Name the time and place, I'll be there with bells on!

http://www.nanda.org/html/diag_appeal.html

+ Add a Comment