Contributor: Daniel J Pesut

In his book, “Models of Innovation: The History of an Idea”, Benoit  Godin (2017; 2008; n.d.) examines the emergence and diffusion of the three most important conceptual models of innovation from the early twentieth century to the late 1980s: stage models, linear models, and systems or holistic models.

What are your current conceptions about the science of innovation? And what more can you learn about innovations in science to support your innovation  work? Exploring and understanding the history and  science of innovation increases nursing knowledge and  accelerates developments in nursing practice, education, research, and policy. Nurse theorist Jean Watson (2024) calls for nurses to become more conscious of the metaphysics and science  of nursing and attend to intentional ontological design that advances  a unitary caring science. Such intentional ontological design requires knowledge, skills, and abilities related to creativity,  foresight, and innovation ( Pesut, 2013; 2019).

Stage Models view innovation as a process that occurs in distinct stages. Each stage represents a different phase of the innovation process, such as idea generation, development, and implementation. The progression from one stage to the next is often seen as linear, but feedback loops may exist. Linear Models are the most influential models in science, technology, and innovation (STI) studies. The linear model views innovation as a sequential process that starts with basic research, followed by applied research and development, and finally production and diffusion. This model has been criticized for oversimplifying the innovation process and ignoring the complex, interactive nature of innovation. Holistic or Systems  Models  recognize the complexity and interactivity of the innovation process. They view innovation as a system that involves multiple actors and interactions. These models consider the broader context in which innovation occurs, including social, economic, and political factors. Models  generate new perspectives, support scientific credibility, facilitate communication among scholars and policymakers, help make complex concepts more understandable and serve as tools for analysis. Models help analyze the concept of innovation, facilitate dissemination of ideas, and stimulate dialogue, research, and debate. While there is a rich history about the science of innovation, contemporary attention needs to attend to innovations in science.

Innovations in Science

Ken Wilber’s (2000, 2001), integral theory is an all-inclusive,  framework  within which  human knowledge can be organized. “Integral” means comprehensive, inclusive, balanced, not leaving anything out. Integral theory is represented by  a  four-quadrant perspective, which delineates an  interior and exterior dimension and perspectives, of the individual, cultural, scientific and systems perspectives. The quadrants convey different ontological and epistemological assumptions about the nature of reality and how we come to “know” when we view the world from different quadrants and from different levels among the quadrants ( Esbjorn-Hargens, 2006). Sean- Esborn Hargens  (n.d.) suggests integral theory is an all-inclusive framework for the 21st century.

Barbara Dossey ( 2008) builds on the foundations of Wilber’s integral model and created an Integral Theory of Nursing  that supports innovations in science. The Theory of Integral Nursing incorporates concepts from the philosophies and fields of chaos, spiral dynamics, spirituality, complexity, systems, holistic nursing theories, and others. It is based on an integral philosophy and worldview. Integral is defined as a comprehensive way to organize multiple phenomenon of human experience and reality in four areas: the individual interior (personal/ intentional), individual exterior (physiology/behavioral), collective interior (shared/cultural), and collective exterior (systems/structures). An Integral perspective  views the world and nursing practice from different perspectives that include individual self and consciousness, culture and worldview,  brain and organism, and social systems and environment.  A comparative analysis of Dossey’s theory with that of Ken Wilber is offered by  Shea and Frisch  (2016).  An integral worldview requires  a  holistic examination of  values, beliefs, assumptions, and judgments that are embedded in  different ways of knowing ( Beck,  Dossey, & Rushton, 2011). An integral perspective opens up possibilities to innovate scientific inquiry and innovations in science in terms of  inquiry and methodological pluralism.

Sean Esborn-Hargens ( 2006) details eight zones and eight methodologies to support  inquiry and innovation in science. See the figure below. The eight zones are  Phenomenology (inside of I), Structuralism ( the outside of I) ; Hermeneutics (inside of we),  Ethnomethodology ( outside of we); Autopoiesis ( inside of it), Empiricism ( outside of it); Social Autopoiesis (inside of its) and Systems theory  ( outside of its). Additionally, integral theory activates new insights and understanding about different kinds of innovation impacts.

The Meta-Impact model developed by Sean Esbjorn Hargens ( figure below)  identifies ten types of capital ( knowledge, psychological, spiritual, health, human, manufactured, financial, natural, cultural, and social). Innovation in science requires attention to  three types of data for each of the ten capitals. Attention to Integral Data involves a  mixed methods approach to investigate  four types of impact  1) deep,2) clear, 3) high, and 4) wide. Deep impact relates to a change in stakeholder experiences. Clear impact is about changes in stakeholder performance. Wide impact is about a change in stakeholder relationships, and high impact is about changes in stakeholder systems. The Meta-Impact framework  (n.d.) supports  the science of innovation and innovations in science to  provide nurses and encourage imagery about  different types of data to support evidence-based practice, and practice-based evidence with different types of impact in mind.

Future Influence

How might attention to a theory of integral nursing,  and integral methodological pluralism expand nurses  understanding, insights, and actions related to  current and future work in nursing innovation, practice, research and policy? Check out some of the references and resources to get a sense of the science of innovation and how innovations in science and nursing science support inquiry and actions to create  the future of nursing and health care.

References

Beck, D. M., Dossey, B. M., & Rushton, C. H. (2011). Integral Nursing and the Nightingale Initiative for Global Health Florence Nightingale’s Integral Legacy for the 21st Century. Journal of Integral Theory & Practice, 6(4).

Dossey, B. M. (2008). Theory of integral nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 31(1), E52-E73. https://nursology.net/nurse-theories/theory-of-integral-nursing/

Esbjorn-Hargens, S. (n.d.). An overview of integral theory: An all-inclusive framework for the 21st century. https://integralwithoutborders.org/sites/default/files/resources/Intro_Integral_Theory.pdf   

Esbjorn-Hargens, S. (2006). Integral research: A multi-method approach to investigating phenomena. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 11(1), 79-107.

Godin, B. (2017). Models of innovation: The history of an idea. MIT press.             

Godin, B. (2008). Innovation: the History of a Category. https://espace.inrs.ca/id/eprint/10023/1/Godin_2008.pdf . Retrieved August 25, 2024.

Godin, B (n.d.) The history of and politics of Innovation Interview with Benoît Godin · The history and politics of innovation (tatup.de)    Retrieved August 25, 2024

Meta Integral Be Impact (n.d.) https://www.metaintegral.com/  Retrieved Aust 25, 2024.

Pesut, D. J. (2019). Anticipating Disruptive Innovations with Foresight Leadership. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 196-204.

Pesut, D. (2013). Creativity and innovation: Thought and action. Creative Nursing, 19 (3), 114-121

Shea, L., & Frisch, N. (2016). Wilber’s Integral Theory and Dossey’s Theory of Integral Nursing: An examination of two integral approaches in nursing scholarship. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 34(3), 244-252.

Watson, J. (Ed.). (2024). Metaphysics of Watson Unitary Caring Science: A Cosmology of Love. Springer Publishing Company.

Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2001). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambhala

About Daniel Pesut

Daniel J. Pesut, PhD RN FAAN is an Emeritus Professor of Nursing at the University of Minnesota and Indiana University School of Nursing. He served on the Board of Directors of the Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International for eight years. He was President Elect from 2001-2003 and President of the Society from 2003-2005. The Daniel J Pesut Spirit of Renewal Award was established by Sigma to honor his legacy and contributions to the nursing profession. In 2023 he received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the University of Michigan School of Nursing Alumni Society. He is a champion for the development of creativity, innovation and foresight leadership in nursing.