What is Real Nursing and Who are Real Nurses? Perspectives from Japan

Thank you to the graduate students and faculty
from St. Mary’s College, Kurume, Japan, who

contributed to this blog!

Hayes (2018) published a thought-provoking article, “Is OR Nursing Real Nursing,” in the September 2018 issue of the Massachusetts Report on Nursing. Her article was the catalyst for my invitation to students enrolled in the Fall 2018 University of Massachusetts Boston PhD Nursing Program course, NURS 750, Contemporary Nursing Knowledge, to join me in sharing our perspectives about “real nursing.” The result was published in the October 2019 issue of Nursing Science Quarterly (Fawcett et al., 2019).

Photo of the Misericordia Bell, The bell, which hangs In the tower of the St. Mary’s College Library, is a symbol of Misericordia et Caritus, which is the founding philosophy of St Mary’s College. Retrieved from http://st-mary-ac.sblo.jp/

This blog has provided an opportunity for six graduate students and three faculty members at St. Mary’s College Graduate School of Nursing, in Kurume, Japan to share their perspectives about “real nursing.” My invitation to them was given as part of a January 2019 video conference lecture I gave in my position as a visiting professor at St. Mary’s College. I am grateful to Eric Fortin, a St. Mary’s College School of Nursing faculty member, for his translation of the students’ and faculty’s contributions from Japanese to English.  Noteworthy is that St. Mary’s College School of Nursing is the first to include nursology as part of the name for their research center–the Roy Academia Nursology Research Center

Graduate Students’ Perspectives

Junko Fukuya: Throughout my nursing career, I have always used a nursing conceptual model to guide care of hospitalized patients from admission to discharge. I would like to become a better nursologist, a “real nurse,” who allows nursing knowledge to permeate my mind and impresses its importance on other nurses.

Akemi Kumashiro: Nursing is practiced in many settings, including clinical agencies and local communities, with people who are well and those who are ill. Real nursing occurs when the nurse continually gains the knowledge and experience required to help people to adapt to a new life style when changes in environment occur.

Takako Shoji: Patients are persons who are important to and loved by someone. By recognizing patients as people with life experiences and families, I do not merely provide knowledge and technology, instead, as a real nurse, I work to establish a relationship with each patient that respects the values he or she has formed through life experiences.

Chizuko Takeishi: The real nurse endeavors to meet the universal needs of individuals, families, groups, and communities of all ages. Real nursing is directed to helping people to make decisions directed toward maintenance and promotion of wellness, prevention of illness, recovery from illness, relief from pain, maintenance of dignity, and promotion of happiness.

Tomomi Yamashita: As a real nurse, I know that patients are waiting for me and support me in establishing mutual and warm relationships. Real nursing involves actions, thoughts, and words that affect patients’ lives. It is a process of talking with patients about their perceived needs and anticipating those needs they have not yet identified.

Yuko Yonezawa: Real nursing involves seeing human beings as holistic beings consisting of body, mind, and spirit, who are deserving of respect and compassion from the very first moment of their existence to the end. Real nursing also involves knowledgeably helping people to help themselves to live their lives how they want.

Faculty Members’ Perspectives

Tsuyako Hidaka, Ikuko Miyabayashi, and Satsuki Obama: As a real nurse, the nursologist interacts with patients while providing daily care and obtains a lot of quantitative and qualitative data as he or she builds therapeutic relationships with patients. These data are the basis for what may be considered “invisible mixed methods nursing research” (Fawcett, 2015). Real nursing is a very noble profession in which real nurses learn “Life and Love” from patients as human beings and can thus grow as human beings themselves.

Jacqueline Fawcett: My position is that all nursologists (that is, all nurses) are real nurses who are engaged in real nursing. However, various perspective of what real nursing is (or is not) exist, as Hayes (2018) had indicated.

I am grateful to the graduate students and faculty at St. Mary’s College Graduate School of Nursing for sharing their perspectives about “real nursing” with the readers of this blog. I now invite students and faculty worldwide to send their perspectives about “real nursing” to me (jacqueline.fawcett@umb.edu) for inclusion in future nursology.net blogs. As we gather worldwide perspectives, we will be able to identify and describe what Leininger (2006) called universalities and diversities in who we are, what we do, and why and how we do what we do.


Fawcett, J. (2015). Invisible nursing research: Thoughts about mixed methods research and nursing practice. Nursing Science Quarterly, 28, 167-168.

Fawcett, J., Derboghossian, G., Flike, K., Gómez, E., Han, H.P., Kalandjian, N., Pletcher, J. E., & Tapayan, S. (2019). Thoughts about real nursing. Nursing Science Quarterly, 32, 331-332.

Hayes, C. (2018). Is OR nursing real nursing? Massachusetts Report on Nursing, September, 11.

Leininger, M. M. (2006). Culture care diversity and universality theory and evolution of the ethnonursing method. In M. M. Leininger & M. R. McFarland, Culture care diversity and universality: A worldwide nursing theory (2nd ed., pp. 1-41). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

Are We Ready to Utilize Concept Analyses To Advance Nursology? Could This Be a Way Forward?

Rosemary, we found a recent citation of your research”, is a message I receive from ResearchGate whenever there is a new citation to my work! One message was another citation to one of my early papers (Eustace & Ilagan, 2010), which was the report of a concept analysis of HIV disclosure, published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing. Noteworthy is that this message was a report of the 50th citation to that paper. In the world of knowledge generation, this was particularly exciting news because I realized the impact the paper had for other scholars.  What I didn’t realize was the magnitude of influence the paper had in advancing nursing knowledge. This led me to some random thoughts on who exactly are these authors who cited my work and what was the context of their citations of my paper? A brief review of the citations and literature about the topic indicated that majority were from papers published in non-nursing journals and authored by non-nursing scholars. In addition, I found that some publications from nursing that examined closely related concepts did not cite my work. This surprised me but increased my curiosity about what all of this meant to me as a nursology scholar.

During a recent search of literature, I found an inspiring article by Rodgers et al. (2018) about the limitations of concept analysis. They underscored the importance of “moving knowledge development beyond the level of ‘concept analysis’ to developing a clear linkage to the resolution of problems in the discipline” (p. 451).  I asked myself, how can we do that? Do we have the theoretical and methodological knowledge to do that?  If we do, why are we still “stuck” on concept analysis per se?

These questions prompted me to reflect on my concept analysis of HIV disclosure (Eustace & Ilagan, 2010). I asked myself, what has been done to move beyond the concept analysis of HIV disclosure during the intervening years? A search for the citations using the Semantic Scholar impact search engine (https://www.semanticscholar.org) revealed that one replication of my concept analysis has been published (Kanyamura, Ncube, Mhlanga, & Zvinavashe 2016). Surprisingly, although the impact of the publication indicated was highly influential to others work, especially for background data, the impact of the analysis findings was very limited (see Figure 1). What this meant to me was that there was no indication of linkage of the concept analysis results with knowledge development. Inasmuch as this finding is consistent with Rodgers et al.’s (2018) concern that concept analyses are not being extended to resolve disciplinary problems, how, can we help nurse scholars advance science in this area? Is there a way?

Figure 1: Semantic Scholar Impact Output for the concept of HIV Disclosure by Eustace and Ilagan (2010)

One way forward is to develop clear guiding structures for nursing knowledge development as an essential step in closing the gaps between theory, research, and practice (Marrs & Lowry (2006). To help find a solution, I turned to the well-known approach of Conceptual-Theoretical-Empirical (CTE) structures in nursing that have been advocated for many years by Dr Jacqueline Fawcett (e.g. Fawcett, 1988; Fawcett, 2012). So, where do we start? I propose that nurse scholars consider the following 3 critical steps:

Step 1: Nurse Scholars need to examine where a nursing concept of interest is derived from within our nursing models/theories. For example, the case of the concept of HIV disclosure can be situated within the nursing model of HIV Disclosure developed by Bairan et al. (2007) (i.e. relationship model). It is important for the nurse scholar to indicate the purpose of the concept analysis: is there a need for clarification, development, or refinement or is there little or no literature about the concept? These queries will guide the scholar to the appropriate concept analyses methods. The selection of HIV disclosure, in my case was the lack of a clear definition and a broader perspective of the HIV disclosure process in both the Bairan et al. (2007) model and in other HIV disclosure models (e.g. disease progression (Kalichman, 1995 ); consequences model (Serovich, 2001).

Step 2: Nurse Scholars need to develop a conceptual theoretical empirical (CTE) structure for linking concept analyses to the next step in theory generation. As described by Fawcett and Gigliotti (2001), theory generation studies usually proceed from the “conceptual model directly to the empirical research methods and the data obtained is analyzed creating a new middle range theory” (p. 342). Thus, the CTE structure should direct the nurse scholar to the relevant literature for the concept analysis, which will be summarized and synthesized to identify the antecendents, attributes and consequences of the new descriptive middle-range theory of the concept of interest (see Figure 2 for an example of the CTE structure for the concept analysis of HIV Disclosure). The “C” in the CTE structure represents the HIV Disclosure Conceptual Model by Bairan et al. (2007). The “T” represents the specific concept to be analyzed, which is “HIV disclosure.” The E of the CTE structure indicates the empirical research methods used to generate the antecendents, attributes and consequences of the studied concept, as explained in Walker and Avant’s (2019) approach to concept analysis.

Figure2: Conceptual-Theoretical-Empirical Structure for Linking Concept Analyses to Theory Generation


Step 3.  Nurse Scholars need to utilize the findings from the concept analyses to advance nursing knowledge by using the results of the concept analysis to develop/refine theory constructs, develop instruments and then progress to explanatory and predictive theories by linking other concepts of the conceptual model to theory concepts.  So how can scholars use the descriptive middle range theory from the concept analyses to advance existing theory/model development?  Figure 3 provides a CTE structure for a hypothetical study of linking the concept analysis of HIV disclosure to advance the HIV disclosure model by Bairan et al. (2007). The vital step within the CTE structure is the re-evaluation process of the theory of which I have named the “theory refinement” process. In the HIV disclosure example, the original guiding conceptual model by Bairan et al. (2007) needs to be refined utilizing the antecedents, attributes and consequences derived from the concept analysis of the HIV disclosure concept. Scholars should utilize the results of the analysis to assess the adequacy of the constructs of the HIV disclosure model and propose directions for further empirical inquiry to determine the theory’s credibility in clinical practice and advancing the discipline.

Figure 3 – A hypothetical Conceptual-Theoretical-Empirical Structure for the HIV Disclosure Concept Analysis by Eustace et al. (2010)

Here are some epistemological considerations if we choose to move forward with this approach:

  1. How can we best approach T in the CTE structure? In this case, how should nursology theorists guide scholars on how to systematically develop constructs from the descriptive middle range theory to be utilized in refining the concept for the existing theory/model?
  2. What strategic and systematic approaches should we employ to retrieve, summarize, and synthesize the evidence for concept analyses, report findings and, lastly evaluate empirical studies on the concept analyses -theory generation linkage? How can we standardize the documentation process during knowledge dissemination? For example, documenting the specific date ranges when evidence was retrieved, dates when the publication was received, revised, accepted, published online and in the journal.
  3. How should we move forward in designing shared CTE structures that are empirically adequate in nursing situations (Villarruel, Bishop, Simpson, Jemmott, & Fawcett, 2001). For instance, how can we generate a global nursing HIV theory model and also contribute to knowledge development of a global interprofessional HIV Disclosure model?


A Call to Action:

ARE YOU READY to end what Draper (2014) calls the “intellectual dead end” (p. 1208) of concept analyses in nursing? If so, join me in articulating and advocating for approaches that facilitate the use of concept analyses as the starting point for advancing nursing knowledge. Developing nursology focused CTE structures that link concept analyses to other relevant practice phenomena are timely and very much needed to meet the demands of the complex 21st health care delivery systems. I welcome any comments or suggestions from nursologist around the world on how we can better address this ongoing concern as we think about advancing nursing science for the Future of Nursing 2030.


Bairan, A., Taylor, G. A. J., Blake, B. J., Akers, T., Sowell, R., & Mendiola Jr, R. (2007). A model of HIV disclosure: Disclosure and types of social relationships. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 19, 242-250.

Draper, P. (2014). A critique of concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing70, 1207-1208.

Eustace, R. W., & Ilagan, P. R. (2010). HIV disclosure among HIV positive individuals: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing66, 2094-2103.

Fawcett, J. (1988). Conceptual models and theory development. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing17, 400-403.

Fawcett, J. (2013a). Thoughts about conceptual models and measurement validity. Nursing Science Quarterly26, 189-191.

Fawcett, J. (2013b). Thoughts about multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research. Nursing Science Quarterly26, 376-379.

Fawcett, J., & DeSanto-Madeya, S. (2013). Contemporary nursing knowledge: Analysis and evaluation of nursing models and theories (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.

Kalichman, S. C. (1995). Understanding AIDS: A guide for mental health professionals.  Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kanyamura, D., Ncube, B., Mhlanga, M., & Zvinavashe, M. (2016). HIV Disclosure: Concept AnalysisJournal of Research in Pharmaceutical Science, 3(4), 1-4.

Marrs, J. A., & Lowry, L. W. (2006). Nursing theory and practice: Connecting the dots. Nursing Science Quarterly19, 44-50.

Rodgers, B. L., Jacelon, C. S., & Knafl, K. A. (2018). Concept analysis and the advance of nursing knowledge: State of the science. Journal of Nursing Scholarship50, 451-459.

Serovich J.M. (2001). A test of two HIV disclosure theories. AIDS Education Prevention, 13(4), 355–364

Villarruel, A. M., Bishop, T. L., Simpson, E. M., Jemmott, L. S., & Fawcett, J. (2001). Borrowed theories, shared theories, and the advancement of nursing knowledge. Nursing Science Quarterly14, 158-163.

Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2019). Strategies for theory construction in nursing. New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc.

What makes a theory or model “nursing”?

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.

Why Not Nursology?

Photo – Adeline Falk-Rafael © 2018

Dr. Jacqui Fawcett  eloquently argued the case for “Why Nursology “a few weeks back. Another question might be asked – why not nursology? The use of “logy” – the study of – is widely used as a convention for identifying the knowledge base of other disciplines, e.g, biology, sociology, psychology, etc. On the other hand, the word “nursing” can be confusing because it has both popular uses, such as sipping a drink slowly or breastfeeding, and professional uses such as nursing (practice) and nursing (knowledge). It is beyond time for distinguishing between those two professional meanings. I believe doing so will go a long way toward making nursing knowledge visible, not only to other health disciplines and the public, but also to nurses and nursing students themselves. Language is powerful – it is the reason, I have previously advocated for replacing the term “student nurse” with nursing student. I look forward to that becoming nursology students!

I am excited about this initiative! Perhaps that is because my first nursing program was a hospital-based diploma program in the Canadian mid-west during the early 1960s in which the only reference to nursing science that I recall was a textbook called “The Art and Science of Nursing.”  The science of nursing was, sadly,  never explicated. I learned nursing basically as an ancillary medical service, i.e., the care required in the context of specific medical diagnoses and/or treatments. Over the next 15 years, I worked in various units in different hospitals in different cities and provinces. I practiced as I had been taught and consistent with how other Registered Nurses practiced. I say with some shame that I wasn’t reading nursing journals during that time and looking back, I think that was the norm for my colleagues, as well. Hospital or unit procedure books provided the necessary instruction for how to perform essential tasks.

It wasn’t until I moved into a leadership position and took a nursing leadership course that I was introduced to and required to engage with nursing (and other) literature. I marveled at how nursing leaders so articulately argued the contributions nurses make to health and healing, contributions that were based on nurses’ assessments and judgments, independent of medical directives. Nursing  process, nursing diagnoses and nursing theories excited me because they named and provided systematic structure for the work that nurses did in promoting health and healing. In other words, they began to make the invisible, visible! I began to read books and papers on my own, but soon realized I needed more knowledge and returned to school.

I don’t think my journey was unusual for that time. What grieves me is seeing still, much too often, nurses who acknowledge the biological, physiological, psychological, sociological and/or medical knowledge that informs their practice but fail to recognize the critical contribution of nursing knowledge. Nursology is a term that by its very nature emphasizes the disciplinary field of study that informs nursing practice. I can’t wait for the first Nursology programs and for nursing researchers and advanced practioners being recognized as nursologists, in keeping with the conventions of so many other disciplines.

Our Name: Why Nursology? Why .net?

Why Nursology?

At least since the publication of Donaldson and Crowley’s (1978) seminal paper titled The Discipline of Nursing, nurses have been considered members of a discipline. A discipline (the term comes from the Latin disciplina) is a branch of instruction or  learning and is a way of organizing knowledge. Different disciplines are distinguished one from another by the subject matter of interest to their members. In what way does calling our discipline nursing convey a focus on knowledge development and testing, rather than, for example, breast feeding? Those of us involved in founding this web site agreed to use of the term, nursology, as the best way to convey this focus.

The term, nursology, comes from the Latin, Nutrix, [meaning] nurse; and from the Greek, Logos, [meaning] science (O’Toole, 2013, p. 1303). The first mention of nursology apparently is by Paterson, an American nurse, in her 1971 journal article. She coined the term, nursology, “to designate the study of nursing aimed towards the development of nursing theory” (p. 143). Roper (1976), a Scottish nurse, also referred to our discipline as nursology. She explained,

“It could be that nursing might develop as a discipline without using a word to describe its characteristic mode of thinking, but it will have to make the mode explicit and it will have to have the same meaning for nurses anywhere. Should the nursing profession require to use a word, I propose the word nursology for the study of nursing, so that the logical pattern of derivation of an adverb could be followed. (p. 227)

Fitzpatrick (2014) pointed out that use of the term, nursology, as the name for the discipline has not been supported by nurses, although “remnants of this minor movement appear today. Students in current doctoral-level nursing theory classes often express interest in the term as a way to legitimize the scientific enterprise and distinguish nursing science from other disciplines, particularly [other] health disciplines” (p. 5).

Nursology is not only a name for our discipline. It also is regarded and has been used as a research method and a practice method (Fawcett et al., 2015). The name for our schools and department and programs most properly, also is nursology. The members of our discipline—students, practicing nurses, researchers, educators, and administrators—are scholars of nursology, that is, nursologists. Noteworthy is that Josephine Paterson (1978) and Loretta Zderad (1978) held the formal title of nursologists while at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Northport, New York. As nursologists, we clearly no longer regard ourselves or can be regarded by others as handmaidens to physicians, who are members of the trade of medicine (medicine cannot be regarded as a discipline due to no evidence of distinctive knowledge).

Why .net?
.net was selected as the extension for the web site name to,  as Peggy Chinn pointed out, convey a network of nurses who are interested in learning about all things theoretical in nursology, including advances in the knowledge needed and used by nurses to guide their practice.


Donaldson, S. K., & Crowley, D. M. (1978). The discipline of nursing. Nursing Outlook, 26, 113-120.

Fawcett, J., Aronowitz, T., AbuFannouneh, A., Al Usta, M., Fraley, H. E., Howlett, M. S. L., . . . Zhang, Y. (2015). Thoughts about the name of our discipline. Nursing Science Quarterly, 28, 330-333.

Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2014). The discipline of nursing. In J. J. Fitzpatrick & G. McCarthy (Eds.), Theories guiding nursing research and practice: Making nursing knowledge development explicit (pp. 3-13). New York: Springer.

O’Toole, M. (Ed.) (2013). Mosby’s medical dictionary (9th ed.). St.Louis: Mosby.
Paterson, J. G. (1971). From a philosophy of clinical nursing to amethod of nursology. Nursing Research, 20, 143-146.

Paterson, J. G. (1978). The tortuous way toward nursing theory. In Theory development: What, why, how? (pp. 49-65). New York, NY: National League for Nursing. (Pub. No. 15-1708)

Roper, N. (1976). A model for nursing and nursology. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 1, 219-227.

Zderad, L. T. (1978). From here -and-now to theory: Reflections on“how.” In Theory development: What, why, how? (pp. 35-48).New York< NY: National League for Nursing. (Pub. No. 15-1708)