Watson's Caring Science as Sacred Science

Artisa · Dec 3, 2005

No, I have not. Has anyone applied Jean Watson's Human Caring theory in clinical practice? If so how did you accomphish this? :confused:

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 3, 2005

There's a whole big thread on Jean Watson.

I'm sure her work is relevant to something.

But not nursing.

~faith,

Timothy.

bookwormom · Dec 4, 2005

I read most of the book Caring Science as Sacred Science, and then saw Jean Watson speaking at the most recent AHNA conference. The book is dense, and in my opinion, not as clearly presented as it might be. Still, it's full of interesting idas. In person, Jean Watson is engaging and not so difficult to understand.

Can this all be used in practice? I think so. My area of research is in spirituality, which is pretty important in Jean Watson's writing. Without having references at hand for specifics, I'd say that her theory affirms the spirituality of both the nurse and the patient. In addition, her emphasis on the act of caring, per se, as an aspect of human interaction, should be relevant to all nurses.

I think her theory is more valuable as a stimulus for examining what it means to actually nurse and to care, than as a framework for decision making, in most cases. Even though her written work is hard to follow at times, occasionally I find an idea that strikes home.

I think her theory is valuable. Nursing is such hard work, physically and emotionally, that I think we must look at deeper issues to maintain our commitment.

VickyRN, MSN, DNP, RN · Dec 4, 2005

I read most of the book Caring Science as Sacred Science, and then saw Jean Watson speaking at the most recent AHNA conference. The book is dense, and in my opinion, not as clearly presented as it might be. Still, it's full of interesting idas. In person, Jean Watson is engaging and not so difficult to understand.
Can this all be used in practice? I think so. My area of research is in spirituality, which is pretty important in Jean Watson's writing. Without having references at hand for specifics, I'd say that her theory affirms the spirituality of both the nurse and the patient. In addition, her emphasis on the act of caring, per se, as an aspect of human interaction, should be relevant to all nurses.
I think her theory is more valuable as a stimulus for examining what it means to actually nurse and to care, than as a framework for decision making, in most cases. Even though her written work is hard to follow at times, occasionally I find an idea that strikes home.
I think her theory is valuable. Nursing is such hard work, physically and emotionally, that I think we must look at deeper issues to maintain our commitment.

Excellent post. ITA. Watson (2002) has stated:

Caring, once glimpsed through empirical measures, whether they be qualitative or quntitative, may help us to see what has been long hidden from our public consciousness as well as our science. More specifically, the purposes for the use of formal measurement tools in nursing research on caring include:
Continuous improvement of caring by using outcomes to improve practices through more mindful interventions
Benchmarking structures and settings whereby caring is more manifest
Tracking levels and models of caring in care settings against routine care practices
Evaluating consequences of caring vs. noncaring for both nurses and patients
Creating a "report card" model of a unit or an institution in a critical area of practice
Identifying areas of weakness and strength in caring processes and interventions in order to stimulate self-correction and models of excellence in practice
Increasing our knowledge and understanding between caring relationships and health and healing
Empirically validating extant caring theories, as well as generating new theories of caring, caring relationships, and health practices
Stimulating new directions for nursing, caring, and health sciences, including interdisciplinary/ transdisiplinary research

(pp. 6-7).

Watson, J. (2002). Assessing and measuring caring in nursing and health science. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Dec 4, 2005

I think her theory is more valuable as a stimulus for examining what it means to actually nurse and to care, than as a framework for decision making, in most cases. Even though her written work is hard to follow at times, occasionally I find an idea that strikes home.
I think her theory is valuable. Nursing is such hard work, physically and emotionally, that I think we must look at deeper issues to maintain our commitment.

You weren't looking to debate, only asking about a book, so Timothy's comment wasn't appropriate to the discussion, but I'm all about freedom in posting. I must say that this is an excellent response I agree. I take what I need and leave the rest. For some "the rest" is a lot, but there's usually something I can use. (Not that I go about reading this stuff often. LOL)

llg, PhD, RN · Dec 4, 2005

I think her theory is more valuable as a stimulus for examining what it means to actually nurse and to care, than as a framework for decision making, in most cases. Even though her written work is hard to follow at times, occasionally I find an idea that strikes home.
I think her theory is valuable. Nursing is such hard work, physically and emotionally, that I think we must look at deeper issues to maintain our commitment.

Great post from a newbie who has actually read the book, heard Jean speak, and given it some serious thought. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.

Welcome to allnurses,

llg

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 4, 2005

You weren't looking to debate, only asking about a book, so Timothy's comment wasn't appropriate to the discussion, but I'm all about freedom in posting. I must say that this is an excellent response I agree. I take what I need and leave the rest. For some "the rest" is a lot, but there's usually something I can use. (Not that I go about reading this stuff often. LOL)

For me, the rest is ALL OF IT.

And I'm a better nurse because of it.

(and tweety, I think my comments were totally appropriate. If you ask people what they think about a book, part of the concept is a review of the author. I have an opinion about the author's writings in general and therefore it is completely appropriate for me to give my opinion. It was, in fact, asked for. And the 2nd poster asked a followup question which was even more in line w/ my very brief comments. I didn't want to start a debate, just give my concise opinion. The OP was thinking about ordering a book by J. Watson and wanted to know if we thought it was worth it. It was appropriate to the thread for me to opine - NO. It's a waste of money.)

~faith,

Timothy.

grannynurse FNP student · Dec 4, 2005

The issue of theory, regardless of the discipline, is often steeped in the rhetoric of the theorist. And there are those who would discount theory, saying it is irrelevant because it does not conform to their standards. That it has little or nothing to do with their standard of practice. It appears that some do not really understand the meaning and necessity of theory. Theory is the explaination of phenomenon. It is abstract by necessity, which makes it difficult for those who are steeped in the concrete reality of their world, to understand. Rather then accept the abstractness and the lack of concreteness, they attack the formulators of a theory, citing its lack of relevance. One needs to understand the abstractness, accept it and move on.

Grannynurse:balloons:

Tweety, BSN, RN · Dec 4, 2005

For me, the rest is ALL OF IT.
And I'm a better nurse because of it.
(and tweety, I think my comments were totally appropriate. If you ask people what they think about a book, part of the concept is a review of the author. I have an opinion about the author's writings in general and therefore it is completely appropriate for me to give my opinion. It was, in fact, asked for. And the 2nd poster asked a followup question which was even more in line w/ my very brief comments. I didn't want to start a debate, just give my concise opinion. The OP was thinking about ordering a book by J. Watson and wanted to know if we thought it was worth it. It was appropriate to the thread for me to opine - NO. It's a waste of money.)
~faith,
Timothy.

My apoliges then. You have an aroundthebout way of thinking that throws me off sometimes.:chuckle

Since the op read her other books and was looking for specifics about this particular book, I took it she wasn't asking for opinions about the writer but the book or the value of theory in general.

(And for some reason I did miss the 2nd posters question when I flamed you. Thanks for pointing that out. People usually quote the one their talking to when they aren't speaking to the op.)

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Dec 4, 2005

Since the op read her other books and was looking for specifics about this particular book, I took it she wasn't asking for opinions about the writer but the book or the value of theory in general.

When I consider a book, the author is normally very relevant to me. I will buy books from authors I like just because they wrote it. And while I don't find all such books to have been worth it on their individual merit, I consider it iimportant to understand that author's full body of work for the next great book they write.

To that extent, the OP wouldn't need any other opinion but her own.

If she was seeking further input, I took that to mean that she was asking if anybody else either shared or didn't share her opinion.

There are other threads ongoing right now about theory and I've been more detailed there, as always. I WAS trying to be concise here because I didn't want to start a debate, but just give my opinion to the question at hand.

(But tweety, we're cool. I respect your opinion on most things, whether I agree w/ them or not.)

~faith,

Timothy.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Dec 4, 2005

(But tweety, we're cool. I respect your opinion on most things, whether I agree w/ them or not.)
~faith,
Timothy.

I still think she/he was asking about one book and whether or not people have read it and not soliciting opinions about the author. But I understand how a negative opinion by someone who hasn't read the book would be appropriate.......in a roundabout way. We're cool as always Tim, and we disagree 90% of the time, but I'm right and you're wrong as always. j/k :rotfl: