Can Someone Be a Nurse Without Jean Watson??

Nurses General Nursing

Published

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?

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by llg

I am new to this list and want to begin by saying, "Thank you" to all who have contributed to this thread. I have found it very interesting.

Welcome llg, and thank you for participating. Also, thank you for the citations on Swanson. ;)

We have come to believe that theory can help the novice nurse organize her assessments, documentation, thoughts, etc. by providing a structure (or framework or scaffolding) to help that novice manage all the information and all the different aspects of a situation.

I agree! Excellent point.

It's important to distinguish between philosophical theories and scientific theories. A lot of the work of nursing theorists is really philosphical, not scientific. Philosophy and science are 2 totally different fields of endeavor. Therefore, it is inappropriate to evaluate philosophy using scientific criteria.

Perhaps in the truest sense of the word you are correct, except that nursing I think, in particular Watson and Rogers, try to "scientify" (I know, not a word) their philosophical base theories, perhaps partially to gain acceptance in the academic community and perhaps partially to gain respect in the scientific community. In either case, I feel it makes us look bad.

One controversial point in his essay that I agree with: Most nursing programs are not nearly rigorous enough academically. Throughout history, there has been an "anti-intellectualism" in nursing that has always kept us down. If we want to be accepted as equals to the other professions, we must raise our standards.

Most definitely!

My post is gone! OMG, I typed and typed and it just didn't work! FRUST.

So short version now.

Linda, no sweat, I know what you mean,, especially the part with tylenol and coffee.

I am having a hard time to make it interesting for my students, a bit easier for me is the fact that I teach history too, so I can explain the thoughts and doings of these "old" (I know, not allof them) ladies a bit better, comparing their theories with the time they lived in.

Susy, question: do you learn something about the European theories too? like Juchli, Krohwinkel and Käppeli?

Are you into the nursing-phenomenens and stuff like that?

Take care, Renee

Specializes in Community Health Nurse.

Susy........we are both right in our own world of thinking. You think one way......I think in a totally different way.......this is good......so.......as I stated before.......good luck in your endeavors to arrive at whatever goals you strive for in your life. :kiss :nurse:

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.
Originally posted by Susy K

Perhaps in the truest sense of the word you are correct, except that nursing I think, in particular Watson and Rogers, try to "scientify" (I know, not a word) their philosophical base theories, perhaps partially to gain acceptance in the academic community and perhaps partially to gain respect in the scientific community. In either case, I feel it makes us look bad.

I agree completely. Because so many people think that the scientific method is the best and only legitimate way of developing knowledge, it is tempting to "scientify" any point you wish to make. I think we would be better off to acknowledge that other ways of knowing are legitimate and then not try to fit square pegs into round holes.

llg

Specializes in LDRP; Education.

But isn't it hard to gain respect from the scientific community by NOT being scientific?

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

Yes. The scientific community can be very closed-minded about anything that does not fit the scientific paradigm. However, that doesn't mean that we should limit ourselves to the practice of science only. We should continue to engage in scientific research -- but also look beyond science to further our understanding.

By the way ... philosophy, mathematics, history, and art are all considered by many scholars to be outside the scientific realm. And yet, few question whether they are legitimate fields of inquiry -- or suggest that their methods are bogus because they are not based on the scientific method. If we truly believe that nursing is both an art and a science, then we should not limit ourselves to only the study of science. And we should not be embarrassed about that or be afraid to label our work as something other than science.

llg (who has to go home now and will get back on the computer tomorrow)

I should first confess to never having heard of any of these theorists in 30 years of nursing, apart from Virginia Henderson, and Peplau. The debate is fascinating. I posted this in another thread, but it seems appropriate right here, for the sting in the tail;

" I firmly believe that if Registration (of nurses) were to pass, it would lead nurses to consider themselves belonging to what is called a "Profession." The tendency would be to think themselves more the colleagues of Doctors, instead of simply carriers-out of the orders of Doctors.

In fact they would be a sort of pseudo-scientific person"

The Chairman of The London Hospital, Sydney Holland, in evidence to a Parliamentary Committee on nurse registration in 1904!

Things may not have changed so much as we think.

Specializes in Community Health Nurse.

Don......nurses here in America ARE Registered Nurses? :confused:

Or, do you mean becoming REGISTERED in some other way????

Also......I...PERSONALLY SPEAKING...have ALWAYS thought of myself as a "Profession Registered Nurse" AND a "colleague of doctors".....and nothing LESS!!! :kiss :nurse:

This man was speaking against the setting up of the UK nursing register in 1904! It happened anyway. I'm a RN, I was not seeking to reopen the "are we a profession" debate, but pointed to his comment about pseudo-scientists, relating it to Susy K's question on gaining respect from the scientific community, which I do not believe we yet have done. (excuse the awful grammar!)

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by semstr

Susy, question: do you learn something about the European theories too? like Juchli, Krohwinkel and Käppeli?

Are you into the nursing-phenomenens and stuff like that?

Take care, Renee

No, I don't think so. Do you have any info?

Perhaps instead of it being nursing theory it should be nursing philosophy. The two ends of nursing should be split, scientific and philosophy. I agree with suzy, to attempt to base a philosophical theory off as science only downgrades nursing, and I personally find it embarrassing some of the things floated out there. I always have been interested in holistic nursing, which is not to say the "alternative" treatments ends of it. I mean the treating of mind, body and spirit. Some of that would require theory, though it should be presented as a philosophical theroy not science, unless it can meet the requirments of scientific theory. I don't know if I made much sense on that, but I hope so.

To me at least Kant makes sense though not an easy read. And stargazer you cracked me up. Personally I'll take throwing the aura in the dryer, I don't have time to provide any other form of fluffing!

From what I know about Jean Watson's research, she did not intend for it to be viewed as a hard science/natural science research method. Her work is described as a philosophy and a theory. Nursing considers it a theory because nursing theories are used to explain why we do what we do in practice. In her research she sought to explore the difference between "taking care of" and "caring about" patients. She wanted to describe the similarities and differences between what nurses consider care and what patients consider care, and to generate a testable hypothesis around the concept of nursing care. Watson believes that "caring" is a nursing term, which she believes represents the factors that nurses use to deliver health care to patients. The way that I understand it is that she sees caring (as opposed to curing) one of the things that makes nursing unique and deliniates nursing from medicine. That's not to say that nurses arent educated in medicine or that we dont practice medicine (we do), but we also have other qualities, which is why nursing is described as both a science and an art. I think she wanted to delve into the "art" aspect of nursing.

Linda

+ Add a Comment