Can Someone Be a Nurse Without Jean Watson?? - page 4

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

    Can Someone Be a Nurse Without Jean Watson??
    Since I have never even heard of her, I would have to say yes.

  2. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by oramar
    Suzy, thank you for posting this question, I love this intellectual stuff. Also, I love to be introduced to some ideas I have not heard before.
    DITTO !!
  3. by   Love-A-Nurse
    our first exam included the nursing theories. we did not focus in on watson's but it is possible and i believe true to suggest one can be competent without being a caring person just as we know each person is not spiritual and or believer part of roy's adaptation model which states, "persons and the earth are one; (especially this: they are in god) and of god."

    i like newman's system model, especially in her nursing phase of her systems model which emphasies (stress) "a unique profession in that it is concerned with all of the variables affecting an individual's response to stressors, which arre intra-inter-, and extrapersonal in nature. the concern of nursing is to prevent stress invasion, or, following stress invasion, to protect the client's basic structure and obtain or maintain a maximum level of wellness."

    great thread.

  4. by   James Huffman
    I am not terribly familiar with Watson's theory, but here is an interesting essay (by a non-nurse) on nursing theory in general. There's a lot I don't agree with, but I found it thought-provoking:

    (He briefly mention's Orem's self-care deficit theory, which I find useful as a unifying theory in nursing practice).

    Jim Huffman, RN
  5. by   live4today
    Originally posted by ITSJUSTMEZOE
    Have used the" Zoe Theory" for many years now and it seems to work just well.
    Everyone gets the same care regardless of who they are, what they have, and who they might be , prince or pauper the standards of care never change. I give 110% to each and every patient.
    Hi Zoe

    I'm with you on this. I use what I call the "Renee Theory", and that theory mimics yours to a "T". :kiss
  6. by   NRSKarenRN
    Thsnks for the interesting article Jim.
  7. by   Stargazer
    That was a fascinating article, James. I bookmarked that one for future reference. At first I was ready to call "foul" when he referred to "cult indoctrination" but then he got to the part about precognition and clairvoyance and then I slid under my desk in humiliation for my entire profession.

    Some of the more interesting bits:
    These theorists have a vested interest in not having their work questioned. Additionally, because Ph.D. nursing theorists occupy many of the higher positions in academic settings, they control who obtains Ph.Ds, and they exclude any skeptical students who would challenge their hegemony. It is a closed system, which can, to its own satisfaction, reject any attack from outside by pointing out that the critics do not have Ph.Ds. in nursing, and therefore do not properly understand nursing theory. The situation is such that many nurses do not go forward to a Ph.D. in nursing because they would have had to publicly subscribe to the absurd tenets of the theory
    Nursing theory, as we have seen, is built on undefined jargon and unfalsifyable hypotheses, it is a structure of self-perpetuating myths taken on faith by its practitioners. Nursing theory has become a home for new-age fallacies, "alternative medicine", and hyperbole. Unlike science, nursing theory has no built-in mechanisms for rejecting falsehoods, tautologies, and irrelevancies.
    I think he makes a valid point. After providing a very good overview of what nurses actually do, Raskin points out that nursing incorporates so many different scienctific disciplines that it would be impossible to find or invent a single theory that would explain it all.

    And while nobody can say with certainty that "energy fields" or precognition or what-have-you do NOT exist, they have no place in nursing theory and only serve to make us look like pseudoscientists, rather than actual ones. It's time to find another direction.
  8. by   James Huffman
    As I said, I certainly don't agree with Raskin on everything, but found it thought-provoking. This is for another thread, but I think we could use having more non-nurses critique us: at least on the theoretical issues. I remember talking with a nurse who specialized in pain management (and had written a textbook on the issue) and she complained that some of the theoretical groups were like a teen girl's slumber party: no one would seriously criticize another's work. Everyone just played a game of patty-cake, not wanting someone else to criticize them.

    As far as the theories Raskin speaks about, I have a certain weakness for oddball theories, as my wife and children will testify to. I only ask that the theories be backed up by sound research, and some of those he mentions -- especially therapeutic touch -- are not backed up by much of anything.

    Jim Huffman, RN
  9. by   WashYaHands
    I've never fully understood Martha Rogers theory, which is probably why I can't relate to it. I do know nurses who are much more knowledgable than I about it. These nurses are strong advocates for phenomenon such as therapuetic touch, reiki <sp>, yoga, aroma therapy, etc. If they want to use the theory to define, explain, and conduct research as to how these interventions help patients, more power to them and more power to the patient.

    Last edit by WashYaHands on Sep 12, '02
  10. by   oramar
    As long as the people who come up with these theories do it because they want to start a dialog it is fine with me. However, if they have one ridgid idea that they want to force on everyone, well that puts me off. Sound theories tend to stay around because they work in the real world. Reguardless of whether an idea is good or bad it needs to be out there, it needs to be discussed.
  11. by   Stargazer
    Originally posted by WashYaHands
    If they want to use the theory to define, explain, and conduct research as to how these interventions help patients, more power to them and more power to the patient.
    That, for me, is the key. In order for any theory to have scientific validity, it needs to be measurable, testable, and reproduceable.

    In a field where so much of what we do IS measurable, as Raskin points out--infection control, wound healing--there's really no reason why we can't be proving sound science-based theories with concrete outcomes. And given that fact, pie-in-the-sky models with no practical applications are just self-indulgent academic wankathons.
  12. by   Nurse Ratched
    Oooooooooooh - makin' my head hurt.....
  13. by   cactus wren
    Whoa !!! WAYYYYYy over my head here......I`m on the same wave length as Zoe...Nancy`s therory is the same, and works for me....Now, where`s my Tylenol ????:imbar