To our readers: the Nursology.net blog exists to prompt thoughtful discussion of critical issues related to the development of nursing knowledge. We welcome your thoughts, challenges, alternative points of view, and critical questions! Do not hesitate to comment on this or any other post at any time! You are our “peer reviewers” and your perspectives contribute to all in our nursology.net community!
I am often asked (as are many of my colleagues): What makes a theory or model a nursing theory or model? This question is close to the challenge that I addressed in my keynote address in March at the Case Western Reserve Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing Theory conference. This question deserves serious reflection and discussion, because how each of us responds to this question is at the heart of what we envision for our discipline moving forward. In my keynote, I noted that various definitions of nursing as a discipline point to two essential matters: 1) knowledge of the human health experience, and 2) knowledge of nursing healing [well-becoming] actions. Here I explore the issue of nursing theories and models, and propose that like the definitions, nursing theories and models are characterized by a focus on these same two essential characteristics.
One reason that questions concerning the nature of nursing theory keep surfacing is the fact that so many nurses who embarked on activities related to the development of nursology (nursing science) were educated to be scholars (researchers, theory developers) in fields outside of, but related to nursing. There are contemporary nurses who opt to pursue their preparation for scholarship in other disciplines, influenced by the appeal of certain lines of inquiry that are already well developed in another discipline, and recognizing the significant connection between nursing’s interests and the interests of other lines of thought. When I say “related” what I mean is that the gaze of these other disciplines is certainly pertinent to what concerns nursing, but the central concern of nursology is not actually “at the center.” When a nurse scholar’s central focus is on the periphery, it is likely to be better placed within the scope of another discipline.
Sally Thorne (2014) has addressed this tension often in her work, most specifically in her chapter that appears in the text “Philosophies and Practices of Emancipatory Nursing.” In this chapter titled “A Case for Emancipatory Disciplinary Theorizing” (pages 79-90), Dr. Thorne pointed to the habits of “false dichotomizing” and the allure of borrowing theories from other disciplines, both of which lead to valorizing constructions from other disciplines, while neglecting the distinct focus of nursing. False dichotomizing, in the the case of social justice concerns, is the tendency to pigeon-hole a theory as either being focused on “the individual” or on “the community” (social justice), failing to recognize that from the earliest days of theorizing in nursing, scholars have explicitly embraced both the individual and the community and the social injustices that require nursing action. Likewise, immersion in and borrowing from the theoretical traditions of other disciplines can lead to neglect of the complex social mandate that is central to the discipline of nursing. Unlike other disciplines, many of which focus on building knowledge as an end in itself, nursing’s mandate to act shifts the disciplinary focus so that knowledge related to a phenomena must include a focus, or point the way to “right” or “good” nursing action. I have addressed the challenge in nursing of developing theory with this extremely complex perspective as one of the reasons for turning to theory in other disciplines, where the focus is more limited, and this complexity is typically unacknowledged and undeveloped or underdeveloped. (see “Thoughts About Advancement of the Discipline: Dark Clouds and Bright Lights”)
From my perspective, regardless of the theorist’s background, or the origin of methodological approaches, what defines a theoretical construction as nursing arises from a clear orientation to the values and priorities of the discipline – the direction in which nursologists focus their “gaze.” The focus of nursing must include the two elements that centrally define our discipline: knowledge of the human health experience, and knowledge of nursing actions leading to health and well-becoming.
Every discipline has the right and the responsibility to define and to conceptualize its own knowledge, domain, practice – the field which it covers. Of course people from other disciplines, and the public, have a responsibility to challenge the discipline in any way that is needed – a process that contributes to the ongoing development of the discipline. This process was prominent during the early phases of feminist thought in which feminist scholars from all disciplines developed a “gaze” focused on the rights and well-being of women, challenged the parameters, assumptions and practices of their own, and other disciplines as well. This led to vast changes for the better in all of the sciences and the humanities.
Where nursing is concerned, or more specifically nursology, disciplinary knowledge must derive from those who have been immersed in the history, philosophy, theory, and the practices of the discipline – something that is required for any discipline. Even though, for example, I do know a lot about the field of educational psychology where I earned my PhD degree and where I completed many courses in psychology and educational psychology, I do not have the background and experience to even begin to claim that I could contribute to the knowledge base of that discipline. I have used theories and insights from other disciplines in my own work contributing to the discipline of nursing, but that is quite a different kind of scholarship than would be required to contribute to the discipline of psychology (or sociology, or anthropology, etc.). My own theorizing in nursing reflects my educational psychology background, particularly the work of Brazilian educator Paulo Friere. While the very relevant focus of Friere’s work is on human liberation from oppressive conditions, in my work the focus shifts to the health experience involved in group interactions, conditions which influence, perhaps even threaten human health and well-being. Health-promoting group interactions in my work draw on the methods of Friere’s liberation theory, but are specifically directed toward creating group actions and interactions that are life-affirming, nurturing, and support human well-becoming.
I do not think it is helpful to dwell on the simple fact of whether or not a person contributing to the knowledge of the discipline is a nurse — not all nurses are prepared to contribute to the knowledge base of the discipline, nor should they be expected to. And there are certainly nurses whose “gaze” is directed primarily on phenomena that are rooted in other disciplines. The key to me is where a theory or model focuses the gaze – what phenomena are central, and are those central ideas consistent with the defining focus of the discipline. I find it difficult to imagine how someone could contribute to nursing knowledge without a nursing background, or without experience in nursing healing/ well-becoming actions, as well as a background in the history and foundational knowledge of the discipline. Beyond this essential background from which the theoretical ideas emerge, nursing theories and models are defined by the substantive focus on the phenomena of the experience of human health and well-being, and the dynamics that contribute to nursing healing and well-becoming practices. As we have demonstrated in gathering together for this website information about the theories and models we do have, there are many more than many nurses have as yet imagined! But the task of clearing our mental images to more fully appreciate the possibilities in the development of the knowledge of our discipline is a huge challenge, and further focusing our gaze on these possibilities and priorities is at the heart of what matters for our own discipline.