I do recognize the need for nursing theory

1Tulip · Dec 9, 2005

GrannyNurseFNP wrote:

But in the quest to validate a scientific approach, an old, outdated scientific method is used as a model. By this I mean the use of one approach that espouses reductionism, quantifiability, objectivity and operationalization. For this reason, certain other aspects of nursing theory are judged to be non-scientific and therefore not worthy of study because they cannot be reduced, quantified or objectified. While this may be justified to those who strictly subscribe to the scientific method, it deprives nursing theory of the richness of description and understanding. Not all discplines bow down before the scientific principle. There are those that embrace the art of their discipline. Does that make their theory or ours less? Only if you believe in the scientific method when posulating and study theory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You use the terms "reductionism, quantifiablility, and objectivity" as if they are dirty words. Or maybe trivial ones.

But I agree with you: You cannot apply the scientific method to much of what we know as Nsg Theory. That is: You can't use these theories to create a hypothesis which can then be tested. In order to reject the null hypothesis, you'd have to have something you could measure, and to which you could apply statistical analysis. So... I agree, I guess. These are theories, they may provide a poiint of reference around which we can assemble thoughts about nursing. But they are not science.

As I've said before. That's not a bad thing. (Unless, of course you're in a classroom as a student and your prof is trying to convince you that they are.)

Here's the issue that I think we (you and I, anyone who cares about the scholarly credibility of nursing) should worry about. Within the University community, there are many hard sciences. They are very important to nursing. They are defining how neural networks reorganize themselves when animals/people learn. They are discovering how sensory neurons undergo changes in phenotype such that acute pain becomes chronic pain even though injured tissues have healed. They are finding new ways to prevent dementia with aging, uncovering reasons for premature labor and on and on and on...

As scholars, we need to be able to interact with peers from all kinds of departments... including those in these hard sciences. It ought to be an every day event when a doctoral dissertation in nursing is defended before a committee that has physiologists and biochemists as members. Just as some doctoral committees ought to have members who are educators or sociologists.

In order to be interactive and interdisciplinary in our scholarship, we have got to be comfortable with using the scientific method. We have to equip our students to be able to read all kinds of scholarly materials, help them critique statistical tests that authors are using, teach them to look at data and weigh conclusions.

None of that precludes embracing nursing theory. I see Nsg theory as a means of explaining the scope of nurisng, the meaning of nursing, the place nursing has as a social force.

We are a renaissance profession (I've said this a lot, apologies to those I'm boring now...) and as such we have to span the gap between all the hard sciences and the soft ones as well as reach out to the College of Arts and Letters. It's a very demanding major. Nsg. Theory is good if it helps us do all that. If it causes us to disdain or denigrate the hard sciences, then it damages us professionally, diminishes our credibility in the Academy, so to speak.

Am I making senses?

Gennaver, MSN · Dec 9, 2005

EBP Is not theory - you are correct about that.
I take issue with being told that our foundations are theoretical, and that what we are basing the concept of nursing as a profession on, is debatably shaky ground.
...

Hi Gauge14iv,

I am glad that I was not saying that foundations are theoretical, foundations are foundations and like practice are strongly influenced by the theory in which practitioners ascribe to, (right word?) While I understand that this medium and this topic both lend to communication blocks, my intent is not in any way to insult you or make you feel as though you need to take issue. I respect that you may though and can back off, this is an electronic forum and if my communications are muddy in this, I can ease up readily.

Gen

p.s. haven't read the rest yet, and hope its okay to shoot out this reply :)

Gennaver, MSN · Dec 9, 2005

As you have stated, you are new to nursing. Roy's theory is applicable to many areas of nursing, not just psych and peds. Diabetics, sroke, cardiac, surgical patients, to name a few, all use adaptation to deal with their illness. And nursing staff also use Roy's theory, in their daily practice but some are unwilling to admit to this. And a nurse's use of Roy's theory, applied incorrectly, happens as well.
Grannynurse

Hello,

Yes, I appreciate your post. I appreciate that Roy's theory can be stretched tight enough and made to fit other areas outside of children and psychiatric, where it fits very well.

I feel that if I compared it-in a most black and white, (and very inappropriate manner but, just for oversimplification) her theory is very applicable but, in the black and white broad stroke, it also resembles simple black box theory.

This is of course not what it in any way is intended to but, to oversimplify it for this example, it is to nursing as black box theory was to psychology. That you put something in or stimulate and you get a response, without accounting for all the many factors outside of that stimulus and without accounting for all the many nuances that may factor in for the response.

I respect Sister Callista Roy and spoke with her on the phone while trying to arrange a phone interview-which she so graciously granted me, I highly regard her. Please try not to take my crude example as literal.

Gen

p.s. trying to keep it simple for simplicity's sake

p.s.s.edited to add: We had to postpone our phone interview though, and will reschedule later...I am grateful to her for her generosity

Gennaver, MSN · Dec 9, 2005

GrannyNurseFNP wrote:
....We are a renaissance profession (I've said this a lot, apologies to those I'm boring now...) and as such we have to span the gap between all the hard sciences and the soft ones as well as reach out to the College of Arts and Letters. It's a very demanding major. Nsg. Theory is good if it helps us do all that. If it causes us to disdain or denigrate the hard sciences, then it damages us professionally, diminishes our credibility in the Academy, so to speak.
Am I making senses?

Hi GrannynurseFNP,

Yes, I think you are making sense.

Gen

1Tulip · Dec 9, 2005

Hi Gen,

the section of the post you clipped was mine and maybe GrannyNurse would not agree that I'm making sense. I think I'm probably confusing people when I cut and paste parts of other posts into mine. I'm sorry about that.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 9, 2005

I worked my tail off last night - and without saying something anti-HIPPA, let me say this:

I am thankful that my "On The Job" experiences have prepared me for the science I used last night. All night.

It was the answer to a prayer I often say, "As I have chance and wit, let ME be YOUR miracle in somebody's life tonight. . ."

And I didn't learn the skills I put to use last night in nursing school or in nursing theory. Theory has its place, but when it takes the place of the skills and critical thinking that I use everyday on my job, it makes me wonder what they're smoking in the ivory tower these days . . .

I'm not nearly as anti-theory as I am opposed to NOT teaching what theory obliterates. You want a basis for knowledge not EBP and not a 'hoaky 60's drug culture Timothy Leary pseudo-sophisticated religion' - how about this:

What if we focus on 'critical thinking' as the basis of our profession? With a basis like that, we could interface EBP when it's relevant, and on equal footing with philosophical theory.

~faith,

Timothy.

Gennaver, MSN · Dec 11, 2005

Hi Gen,
the section of the post you clipped was mine and maybe GrannyNurse would not agree that I'm making sense. I think I'm probably confusing people when I cut and paste parts of other posts into mine. I'm sorry about that.

Hello 1Tulip,

No worries, I am also trying to do my best to avoid adding any confusion. :)

Gen

spaniel · Dec 15, 2005

Hello folks- Having not read the entire debate, I half fear getting clobbered. Everyone talks of nursing borrowing from other disciplines. Ah, but truly-isn't nursing one of the "oldest professions" if one looks from an anthropological perspective. Our cave-man brother/sisters surely "nursed" before they became "clerics"... or certainly lawyers, psychologists, or physicians. The problem as I see it is that the nurturing role has been taken for granted, and hence not documented and "owned" by nursing. In the early days of nursing, the nurse was discouraged from writing as it would take away from her duties.

(You might even want to look at old emplyment rules.)

My wish is that nursing theorists would "clean up" their lingo and write for the general public, rather than have theories published in obscure textbooks and nursing journals unavailable to the public. But then again- this is an entirely different topic, n'est pas?

1Tulip · Dec 15, 2005

An excellent observation, Spaniel. I have a sister-in-law who is a brand new nurse and I was perusing Amazon for books about nursing... anything readable and informative, fun or provocative. The choices were very limited. Seemed odd to me. There are lots of nurses. They stand as (at the least) observers if not participants in human drama.

Are there no poets among us? No humorists, essayists?

And academics are sometimes the worst writers in the world. Second only to students.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 15, 2005

An excellent observation, Spaniel. I have a sister-in-law who is a brand new nurse and I was perusing Amazon for books about nursing... anything readable and informative, fun or provocative. The choices were very limited. Seemed odd to me. There are lots of nurses. They stand as (at the least) observers if not participants in human drama.
Are there no poets among us? No humorists, essayists?
And academics are sometimes the worst writers in the world. Second only to students.

If I wrote what I know, I'd be banned for life.

But you have a point. Maybe I'll start to write a book. But, you get no royalties. Ha!

~faith,

Timothy.

krisssy · Dec 15, 2005

An excellent observation, Spaniel. I have a sister-in-law who is a brand new nurse and I was perusing Amazon for books about nursing... anything readable and informative, fun or provocative. The choices were very limited. Seemed odd to me. There are lots of nurses. They stand as (at the least) observers if not participants in human drama.
Are there no poets among us? No humorists, essayists?
And academics are sometimes the worst writers in the world. Second only to students.

If you have read or heard about these books written by nurses, I am curious about what you think: What is your opinion of the Echo Heron books? I have read Intensive Care , and I am now reading Condition Critical. What is your opinion of Walking Like A Duck by Patricial Halloran. I am enjoying reading your posts on this debate. Actually sometimes, you are really funny. Keep posting. I have started from the beginning of this debate, looking up the words I am not familiar with and preparing for my Theory course in Jan. Thank you Tulip1 and everyone else. You have made me interested in taking this theory course, so I can form my own opinion lol Krisssy RN MA

Kelly_the_Great · Dec 15, 2005

My wish is that nursing theorists would "clean up" their lingo and write for the general public, rather than have theories published in obscure textbooks and nursing journals unavailable to the public. But then again- this is an entirely different topic, n'est pas?

How about write them in a manner that nurses (particularly the nurse generalists) themselves can understand, appreciate and apply them?

I *do* recognize the need for nursing theory

I do recognize the need for nursing theory