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 & Ilegan, 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

Figure2

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 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.

References

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.

An Update from the Nursing Theory Collective

Welcome to Chloe Olivia Rose Littzen, who has now joined our
Nursology.net blogging team!
Chloe is a founding member of the
Nursing Theory Collective and
currently a PhD Student at the University of Arizona (Tuscon)

I. Introduction

In June of this year, a blog post was shared on Nursology.net by the Nursing Theory Collective, a group of scholars and students with a mission to advance the discipline of nursing/nursology through equitable and rigorous knowledge development using innovative nursing theory in all settings of practice, education, research, and policy. (Visit that post here). We are using the term nursing/nursology as at this moment in time as we continue to have discourse on the exact word choice we will use to characterize ourselves as a collective. 

To review, the Nursing Theory Collective was formed after the landmark conference, “Nursing Theory: A 50 Year Perspective Past and Future”, on March 21-22, 2019 at Case Western Reserve University. Since May, the group has met monthly to further discuss pivotal issues related to nursing theory and the identity of nursing/nursology, define their mission and vision statement, and to establish action items to drive their vision forward. Currently, the Nursing Theory Collective has 45 members from around the world including Canada, China, Colombia, and the United States, promoting a global perspective of nursing and nursing theory. 

To promote global connectivity, the Nursing Theory Collective created a WhatsApp (https://www.whatsapp.com) group for an easily accessible format that members in other countries can easily connect via their smartphones. In this WhatsApp group, members discuss pertinent issues related to nursing theory and the identity of nursing, sharing articles, actions in progress, or reminders for actions that evolved from previous meetings. Our meetings have been hosted via Zoom Video Conferencing (https://zoom.us) which enables access to participate in most countries, and has allowed us to record all meetings for future reference. A shared Google Drive was also created, enabling all members to have access previous document, to assist in the development of future action items, and to collaborate in real time. 

II. Updates 

To date, the meetings for our collective have revolved around discussions on actions items that can be taken to move the discipline of nursing and nursing theory into the future. In order to accomplish our collective goals, we have been working to define our mission, vision and values, and establishing logical action plans in the forms of scholarly writing and policy letters. In the following paragraphs, you will find a brief synopsis of all the action items that are in progress or completed. 

Mission, Vision, and Values. We have been working diligently on defining our mission, vision, and values as a collective. We recognize that this is a work in progress. We have been inspired by the vast body of prior nursing knowledge and theory work in the United States and abroad, as well as our individual philosophies of nursing. Guiding our mission, vision, and values is a concise definition of nursing theory first advanced by a working group of international nurse theorists, who proposed that nursing theory is simply “a description of what is going on” (Petrovskya, Purvis, & Bjornsdottir, 2019, p.2). Petrovskya, Purvis, and Bjornsdottir’s (2019), elegant definition, adopted from Rolland Munro, invites nurses to engage ideas beyond the theoretical paradigms most familiar to nurses educated in the United States. As this is an ongoing and open process, we invite you into the discussion and to add to our mission, vision, and values.

King Conference. In June 2019, the Nursing Theory Collective submitted an abstract that was accepted to the upcoming King Theory Conference in Washington, D.C. (King International Nursing Group, 2019). The topic of our abstract is, “Driving the Future of Nursing: A Collective Approach to Nursing Theory.” We look forward to being a part of this landmark conference. We plan to arrange a meeting of the Nursing Theory Collective at the King conference, and we welcome all members and non-members to join us for important discussions in driving nursing and nursing theory into the future. We will post details about the time and place for this get together as the date gets closer. One action item of this in-person meeting at the King Conference will be to continue the debate surrounding the adoption of the term nursology to characterize ourselves. 

III. Collaborative Efforts 

As we are a collective, we understand the importance of branching out and collaborating with individuals and groups to enable us to accomplish our mission and vision. To date, collaborative efforts have been placed into two categories: 1) Nursology, and 2) policy items related to nursing education and the future of nursing. Below is a brief synopsis of both of these efforts. 

Nursology. In 2015, Dr. Jacqueline Fawcett presented a case for changing the name of nursing to nursology (Fawcett et al., 2015). A variety of nursing scholars have echoed support for this change, but others have been questioning how this impacts on the discipline as we know it (Parse, 2019). To be mindful of all members views, we held an anonymous survey in June – July 2019 to adopt the term Nursology in our name, mission, vision and values. A total of eighteen votes were received, with 11 (61.1%) in support of adopting Nursology, and 7 (38.9%) in opposition. Members also had the option to write-in anonymously a rationale for their vote, and a variety of comments were received. For example, one member who was in support of the adoption asked “if there was an opposition for the collective to have an open discussion as to why this was.” Concerns that were raised by members in opposition included the marginalization of practicing and non-academic nurses, the validity and legitimacy of the term, and the belief that Nursology should be a term reserved for higher degrees in nursing such as the PhD. Supporters of the adoption argued that the term Nursology, while radical, would improve the strength of the identity of nursing, and has powerful implications for the general public and legislation.

Prior to the results being discussed, Dr. Fawcett kindly agreed to participate in our meeting where we discussed the adoption of the term Nursology, as well as the rationale for members in support or opposition. With this discussion, members had opportunities to further voice their opinion, and ask important questions related to the term and its meaning. For example, one member asked for whom the title nursologist should be reserved. Dr. Fawcett and other members designated the adoption of the term nursologist for all members, who have passed their licensing examination and are a registered nurse. At the end of the meeting, it was proposed as the group was undecided to adopt the term nursology into the mission, vision, and values, but also include nursing. We thank Dr. Fawcett for her involvement, and plan to keep the Nursology group updated as we move forward. Our next discussion on this topic will be in November at the King Conference in Washington, D.C.

Policy Items. In July, two members of the Nursing Theory Collective participated in a Zoom meeting with board members from the American Holistic Nurses Credentialing Corporation (AHNCC, 2019). The purpose of this meeting was to begin a discussion and collaborate on a campaign to express the need for nursing theory to be a core part of the current educational essentials, as they are being revised by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN). Action items from this meeting included the development of two letters focused on the educational essentials, as well as the revising of the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN). To date, the letter to the AACN has been completed and is pending to be emailed out to key members of the essentials committee. After this, we plan to submit this letter for publication to spread the word of this important change that may impact the future of nursing. Our next step will be devising the letter the the NCSBN, we invite anyone who is interested in participating in developing this important letter. We thank the AHNCC for collaborating with us on this important project, and support them in their work as they promote a more holistic space for nurses to practice globally. 

IV. Future Efforts

While we have a significant to-do list as follow up from previous efforts, we continue to strive towards future actions in order to drive our vision for nursing and nursing theory into the future. We intend to remain vigilant about the AACN essentials, the NCSBN revision of the NCLEX, and will continue our activism aimed toward promotion of nursing theory at all levels of education. Our future actions include continuing our monthly meetings to have open discourse on the topic on nursing and nursing theory, we invite all members and non-members alike to participate. Additionally, we plan to write and submit manuscripts focused on demystifying nursing theory for practicing nurses and the educational environment. We welcome any and all ideas on how we can move forward with our goals, and hope that you would consider being a part of this movement. 

V. Conclusion and Invitation – Join us!

The next meeting for the Nursing Theory Collective is August 27th, at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. We encourage all nurses and students, regardless of setting, experience, or educational level, to join us by contacting clittzen@email.arizona.edu to participate. If you are interested in joining the WhatsApp group, please email us to let us know and we will add you promptly. We also have a twitter handle, @NursingTheoryCo, and you are welcome to follow us as we plan future social media events. We plan to continue to update the community here on Nursology.net to keep everyone informed, as well as promote a movement of inclusivity to drive nursing and nursing theory into the future.

With gratitude,
The Nursing Theory Collective

References

American Holistic Nurses Credentialing Corporation. (2019). About AHNCC. Retrieved from https://www.ahncc.org/about-ahncc/

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(4), 330-333. doi: 10.1177/0894318415599224

King International Nursing Group. (2019). Events. Retrieved from https://kingnursing.org/content.aspx?page_id=4002&club_id=459369&item_id=976945

The Nursing Theory Collective. (2019, June 18). Moving Towards the Next Fifty Years Together [Blog post]. Retreived from https://nursology.net/2019/06/18/moving-towards-the-next-fifty-years-together/

Parse, R. R. (2019). Nursology: What’s in a name? Nursing Science Quarterly, 32(2). doi: 10.1177/0894318419831619

Petrovskaya, O., Purkis, M. E., & Bjornsdottir, K. (2019). Revisiting “Intelligent Nursing”: Olga Petrovskaya in conversation with Mary Ellen Purkis and Kristin Bjornsdottir. Nursing Philosophy, 20(3), e12259. doi: 10.1111/nup.12259.

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.

Breaking the Silence-Exploring Perceptions of Power as Freedom in the World of Nursologists

by Julianne Mazzawi, Jacqueline Fawcett and Rosanna DeMarco

In 2015, the American Nurses Association released a purpose and position statement indicating that it is an individual and shared responsibility among all nursologists and employers to promote and sustain a culture of respect that is free of incivility, bullying, and workplace violence. Such a culture reflects the ethical, moral, and legal responsibility of everyone to create a healthy and safe work environment for all members of the healthcare team, participants in healthcare (sometimes called patients), families, and communities. So why is it that nursologists and their support staff continue to show manifestations of “silencing-the-self” when instances of incivility, bullying, and even violence occur? (DeMarco, Fawcett, & Mazzawi., 2017, p. 4)?

Too often, nursologists experience sleep problems, anxiety, distress, oppression, burnout, absence from or leaving work, organizational frustration, and job dissatisfaction, and commit more errors due primarily to incivility, bullying, and violence in the workplace (Lim & Berstein, 2014; The Joint Commission, 2008; Vagharseyyedin, 2015) Obviously, it is imperative to resolve these negative outcomes for all current and future nursologists.

We conceptualized civility and incivility within the context of Neuman’s Systems Model. (See model below). Accordingly, the client system was represented by the nursologists who are the perpetrators or recipients of covert incivility (CI), defined as the “appearance of civility with negative intent” (DeMarco et al., 2018, p. 254). Stressors were represented by CI, and the reaction to stressors was represented by such manifestations as sleep problems, anxiety, oppression, burnout, and organizational frustration. The reactions were regarded as the impact of CI on nursologists who are faculty, students, and staff nurses, as well as witnesses to CI. The workplace (academic or clinical) and society also may experience reactions to CI. We identified several prevention as interventions for CI, with an emphasis on secondary and tertiary interventions; we explained that these interventions “need to be directed to existing levels of CI of all kinds that include measuring the level of ‘silencing-the-self'” (DeMarco et al., 2018, p. 256).

2018 © Jacqueline Fawcett

Of course, primary prevention as intervention also must be considered; we recommended educating all students and graduate nursologists about both overt incivility and signs of CI and creating contracts for nursologists focused on “creating a formal promise to not engage in overt of covert incivility and addressing the behavior direction at the individual, group, and systems levels” (DeMarco et al. 2018, p 257).

In this blog, we offer the specific recommendation that focus on resolution of CI through application of nursological theories of power. Resolution of CI, we are convinced, will occur when nursologists’ perceptions of power change from perceptions of others having power over them to perceptions of power as freedom to choose and peace as power.

The idea for this blog was Mazzawi’s and Fawcett’s attendance at the 2018 Society of Rogerian Scholars (https://nursology.net/2018/10/09/celebrating-30-years-the-society-of-rogerian-scholars/), at which the four nursological theories of power discussed here were presented. We began to imagine a world where nursologists perceive power as freedom to choose and peace as power rather than perceiving power as others having power over them to control them and that in this world, civility would reign, bullying and workplace violence would not happen, and only positive outcomes would occur!

Four nursological theories of power provide explanations of having power that leads to civil discourse and the conversion of negative outcomes to positive outcomes.

  • Barrett’s (2010). theory of power as knowing participation in change provides a contrast between power as freedom and power as control and encompasses awareness, choices, freedom to act intentionally, and involvement in creating change. Participating knowingly in the ongoing mutual process with ourselves, with other people, and with our immediate world creates the opportunity for not only fulfillment in one’s life but also the opportunity to create positive change. (See https://nursology.net/nurse-theorists-and-their-work/theory-of-power-as-knowing-participation-in-change/).
  • Chinn’s (2013; Chinn & Falk-Rafael, 2015) theory of peace and power provides a contrast between peace-power and power-over. The theory empathizes how “individuals and groups . . . shape their actions and interactions to promote cooperation, inclusion of all points of view in making decisions and in addressing conflicts. [Accordingly], … individuals and groups can make thoughtful choices about the ways they work together to promote healthy, growthful interactions and avoid harmful, damaging interactions.” (Retrieved from https://nursology.net/nurse-theorists-and-their-work/peace-power/)
  • Polifroni’s (2010) theory of clinical power provides a contrast between having power as the result of knowledge and hierarchical power or taking power from another person. The theory emphasizes “the belief that power is knowledge and all nurses possess that power. In this context power is a right and it is truth/knowledge. Intentionality, authenticity, ways of knowing, PEACE . . . and CARE . . . surround the awareness and relationship of the nurse who is exercising clinical power” (Retrieved from https://nursology.net/nurse-theorists-and-their-work/clinical-power/).
  • Sieloff’s (1995, 2018) theory of work team/group empowerment in organizations provides an understanding of how nursologists have power in clinical and educational organizations. The theory encompasses competency in communication and in explicating goals and outcomes, as well as the work team/group’s leader’s competency; control of environmental forces; utilization of resources; empowerment perspective; empowerment potential and actual capacity to achieve outcomes; role, that is, the “degree to which the work of an [organization] is accomplished through the efforts of [a work team/group]” (Sieloff, 1995, p. 58); and position, that is, “the centrality of [the] nursing [work team/group] within the communication network of an [organization]” (Sieloff, 1995, p. 57).

Application of the power theories as ways to enhance understanding and resolution of CI provides a nursology discipline-specific approach to practice. Readers are invited to share their experiences with application of the power theories as comments for this blog.

References

American Nurses’ Association. (2015). Incivility, bullying, and workplace violence. Retrieved from http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/WorkplaceSafetyHealthy-
Nurse/bullyingworkplaceviolence/Incivility-Bullying-and-Workplace-Violence.html.

Barrett, E. (2010). Power as knowing participation in change: What’s new and what’s next. Nursing Science Quarterly, 23, 47-54.

Chinn, P. L. (2013). Peace & power: New directions for building community (8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Chinn, P. L., & Falk-Rafael, A. R. (2015). Peace and power: A theory of emancipatory group process. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 47, 62–69.

DeMarco, R., F., Fawcett, J., & Mazzawi, J. (2017). Covert incivility: Challenges as a challenge in the nursing academic workplace. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1-6.
doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.10.001

Lim, F. A., & Berstein, I. (2014). Civility and workplace bullying: Resonance of
persona and current best practices. Nursing Forum, 49, 124-129.

Polifroni, E. C. (2010). Power right and truth: Foucault’s triangle as a model for clinical power. Nursing Science Quarterly, 238-412

Sieloff, C. L. (1995). Development of a theory of departmental power. In M. A. Frey & C. L. Sieloff (Eds.), Advancing King’s systems framework and theory of nursing (pp. 46-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sieloff, C. L. (2018, October 6). Thoughts about nursing and power: Theory of work team/group empowerment. Paper presented as part of a symposium on nursological theories of power at the Society of Rogerian Scholars 30th Anniversary Conference, New York University Rory Myers College of Nursing, New York, NY.

The Joint Commission (2008). Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. Retrieved from https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/SEA_40.PDF.

Vagharseyyedin, S.A. (2015). Workplace incivility: A concept analysis. Contemporary Nurse, 50, 115-125.

About the authors

Julianne Mazzawi

Julianne Mazzawi, RN; MS
PhD candidate, Department of Nursing
University of Massachusetts Boston

Jacqueline Fawcett, RN; PhD; ScD (hon); FAAN; ANEF
Professor, Department of Nursing
University of Massachusetts Boston

Rosanna F. DeMarco, RN; PhD;  PHNA-BC; FAAN
Professor and Chair, Department of Nursing
University of Massachusetts Boston

Jacqueline Fawcett

Rosanna DeMarco

Confronting Cultural Noise Pollution

Much earlier in my career a group of colleagues and I conducted a survey published in the American Journal of Nursing that addressed friendship in nursing*.  We were motivated to confront the message that nurses are their own worst enemies, and not friends. The results of the survey affirmed that although the message persists, and sometimes accurately describes relationships and interactions, there is ample evidence that nurses are more often than not our own best supporters and friends. I call these kinds of repeated negative messages cultural noise pollution that obscure the realities of the more accurate and complete situation – messages that obscure what is real and what is possible.

We created Nursology.net with a  similar motivation to confront the often repeated message that nursing theory is irrelevant, not necessary, or too abstract to be useful in practice.  These messages obscure the realities of the vital importance of nursing knowledge in the context of systems that serve to address the healthcare needs of our time.  They interrupt serious consideration, discussion and thought concerning who we are as nurses, what we are really all about, and why we persist in our quest to improve our practice. Failing to recognize the value of our own discipline’s knowledge, we fall prey to serving the interests of others, and neglect our own interests.

My favorite pithy definition of theory is this – theory is a vision.  Theory provides a view of concrete realities that makes it possible to mentally construct all sorts of dimensions that are not obvious to our limited perception of a situation in the moment.  It provides ways to understand how a particular “thing” comes about, what it means, what might happen next,  how the trajectory of a situation might unfold, and how human actions might change that trajectory.   In the practice of nursing, this is precisely what we are all about – we take a close look at a situation that presents a health challenge, we set about to understand what is going on beneath the surface, we examine evidence related to the situation, and we chart a course of action that might move the situation in a way that would not otherwise be possible.  People in other healthcare disciplines are doing much the same thing, but we have a nursing lens through which we as nurses view the situation.  Our  lens determines what we deem to be important in the evolution of the situation, and shapes the sensibilities we bring to the actions we take.  Our lens derives from nursology – the knowledge of the discipline.

If you take even a brief tour of Nursology.net, you will soon see that nursing theories, models and philosophies represent a coherent message focused on visions of health and well-being in the face of complex, sometimes tragic,  health challenges. You will also find a vast diversity of lenses that give a particular focus on this central message.  Some of the lenses give us a vision that is a lofty “30-thousand foot altitude” view. Some of the lenses focus in more closely on particular aspects of health challenges. There is no “right or wrong,” “better or worse.” Each lens simply brings about a different vision. Just as a camera can bring a different tone, hue or filter to see a single image in different ways, our nursing theories open possibilities and alternatives that would never be possible if we did not have the various lenses through which to view the situations we encounter. Taken together, these theories, models, philosophies form an ever-expanding nursology. Our theories, models and philosophies open possibilities for practice that can make a huge difference in the lives of real people.

We have an amazing, vast and rich heritage of nursing knowledge – and we are nowhere near done with the task!  Our vision for Nursology.net is to document and honor the serious knowledge-work that has been accomplished in the past, draw on this foundation, and inspire new directions that are yet unimagined!  We hope nurses everywhere, regardless of how or where you practice as a nurse, will join us in this journey, and add your voice to help shape what is possible! And importantly, we invite you to join us in confronting the negative, self-destructive effects of various forms of cultural noise pollution that cloud our vision!

*Friendship Study references

Chinn, P. L., Wheeler, C. E., Roy, A., Berrey, E. R., & Madsen, C. (1988). Friends on friendship. The American journal of nursing, 88, 1094–1096.

Chinn, P. L., Wheeler, C. E., Roy, A., & Mathier, E. (1987). Just between friends: AJN friendship survey. The American journal of nursing, 87, 1456–1458.