Theoretical thinking in nursing: problems and prospects.

Recent advances in nursing Pub Date : 1989-01-01
H S Kim
{"title":"Theoretical thinking in nursing: problems and prospects.","authors":"H S Kim","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The foregoing exposition suggests a global approach to evaluate theoretical thinking in nursing. Several issues have come to light in examining the current status of nursing's theoretical work within the proposed framework. In most of the theoretical pieces of work in nursing, major threads of theoretical thinking are difficult to identify. It seems that even if it were to be an afterthought, any major theoretical work should be committed to certain positions at the four higher levels so that it becomes obvious for the kind of theory that gets developed. As has been stated by many nursing scholars, the so-called grand nursing theories or conceptual frameworks require further specification to be called theories. There seems to be two ways these frameworks could be developed further: 1. They may be developed into paradigms of nursing by specifying advocated assumptions about the nature of human beings and nursing, theory-building strategy or strategies assumed to appropriate for the perspective, an image of nursing practice the perspective holds, and types of theoretical statements that are possible within the perspective; or 2. They may be developed as bona-fide theories by rigorously following the criteria at the fifth level. It seems that the time is ripe for nursing scholars working within similar theoretical perspectives to come together in order to formulate integrative nursing theories covering concepts from different domains of nursing. For example, much work in nursing within the symbolic interactionist tradition may be ready to be assimilated into a nursing theory of 'self-identity'. Similarly, much of the theoretical and empirical work dealing with how people develop competence in living with chronic illness, for example, cancer, can also be integrated into one nursing theory for further testing. The community of nursing scholars at large has not dealt with the meaning of prescriptive theories for nursing science and nursing practice. There should be more rigorous debates regarding the normative nature of prescriptive theories and their effects on the development of nursing science and application to nursing practice in the context of philosophy of science, nursing philosophy, and praxiology. The beliefs that praxiology follows naturally from prescriptive theories and that prescriptive theories are naturally the goal of nursing science are both naive and dangerous. Certainly, we are becoming increasingly sensitive and competent to carve out those requiring scientific explanation in the nursing perspective. And in doing so, we have created world views of nursing that seem both socially and epistemologically relevant to pursue.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)</p>","PeriodicalId":77776,"journal":{"name":"Recent advances in nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recent advances in nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The foregoing exposition suggests a global approach to evaluate theoretical thinking in nursing. Several issues have come to light in examining the current status of nursing's theoretical work within the proposed framework. In most of the theoretical pieces of work in nursing, major threads of theoretical thinking are difficult to identify. It seems that even if it were to be an afterthought, any major theoretical work should be committed to certain positions at the four higher levels so that it becomes obvious for the kind of theory that gets developed. As has been stated by many nursing scholars, the so-called grand nursing theories or conceptual frameworks require further specification to be called theories. There seems to be two ways these frameworks could be developed further: 1. They may be developed into paradigms of nursing by specifying advocated assumptions about the nature of human beings and nursing, theory-building strategy or strategies assumed to appropriate for the perspective, an image of nursing practice the perspective holds, and types of theoretical statements that are possible within the perspective; or 2. They may be developed as bona-fide theories by rigorously following the criteria at the fifth level. It seems that the time is ripe for nursing scholars working within similar theoretical perspectives to come together in order to formulate integrative nursing theories covering concepts from different domains of nursing. For example, much work in nursing within the symbolic interactionist tradition may be ready to be assimilated into a nursing theory of 'self-identity'. Similarly, much of the theoretical and empirical work dealing with how people develop competence in living with chronic illness, for example, cancer, can also be integrated into one nursing theory for further testing. The community of nursing scholars at large has not dealt with the meaning of prescriptive theories for nursing science and nursing practice. There should be more rigorous debates regarding the normative nature of prescriptive theories and their effects on the development of nursing science and application to nursing practice in the context of philosophy of science, nursing philosophy, and praxiology. The beliefs that praxiology follows naturally from prescriptive theories and that prescriptive theories are naturally the goal of nursing science are both naive and dangerous. Certainly, we are becoming increasingly sensitive and competent to carve out those requiring scientific explanation in the nursing perspective. And in doing so, we have created world views of nursing that seem both socially and epistemologically relevant to pursue.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

护理学理论思考:问题与展望。
前述的论述提出了一种评估护理理论思维的全球方法。几个问题已经出现在检查护理的理论工作在拟议的框架内的现状。在大多数护理工作的理论片段中,理论思维的主要线索很难确定。似乎任何重大的理论工作,即使是事后的思考,也应该在这四个更高的层次上,把它放在一定的位置上,这样才能使发展出来的理论变得显而易见。正如许多护理学者所说,所谓的大护理理论或概念框架需要进一步的规范才能称为理论。似乎有两种方法可以进一步发展这些框架:1。它们可以通过指定关于人类和护理本质的主张假设,理论构建策略或假设适用于该视角的策略,该视角所持有的护理实践图像以及该视角内可能的理论陈述类型,发展成护理范式;或2。通过严格遵循第五层次的标准,它们可以发展成为真正的理论。在相似的理论视角下工作的护理学者聚集在一起,以制定涵盖不同护理领域概念的综合护理理论的时机似乎已经成熟。例如,象征互动主义传统中的许多护理工作可能准备被同化为“自我认同”的护理理论。同样,许多关于人们如何发展与慢性疾病(例如癌症)相处的能力的理论和实证工作,也可以整合到一个护理理论中进行进一步的测试。护理学者的社区在很大程度上没有处理的意义规范理论护理科学和护理实践。在科学哲学、护理哲学和实践学的背景下,应该对规范性理论的规范性质及其对护理科学发展和护理实践应用的影响进行更严格的辩论。认为行为学自然地遵循规定性理论,而规定性理论自然是护理科学的目标,这种信念既幼稚又危险。当然,我们正变得越来越敏感,越来越有能力从护理的角度去探索那些需要科学解释的问题。在这样做的过程中,我们创造了护理的世界观,似乎在社会和认识论上都与追求相关。(摘要删节为400字)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信