Kim H S
Recent Adv Nurs. 1989;24:106-22.
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)
上述阐述提出了一种评估护理理论思维的整体方法。在拟议框架内审视护理理论工作的现状时,出现了几个问题。在大多数护理理论著作中,理论思维的主要脉络难以识别。似乎即便事后诸葛亮,任何重大理论著作都应在四个更高层次上秉持特定立场,以便所发展的理论类型清晰明了。正如许多护理学者所言,所谓的宏大护理理论或概念框架要称得上是理论,还需进一步细化。这些框架似乎有两种进一步发展的方式:1. 通过明确关于人类本质和护理的主张性假设、假定适合该视角的理论构建策略、该视角所持的护理实践形象以及该视角内可能的理论陈述类型,将其发展为护理范式;或者2. 通过严格遵循第五层次的标准,将其发展为真正的理论。似乎对于在相似理论视角下工作的护理学者而言,是时候齐聚一堂,以构建涵盖护理不同领域概念的综合护理理论了。例如,符号互动主义传统下的许多护理工作可能已准备好被纳入“自我认同”的护理理论。同样,许多关于人们如何培养慢性病(如癌症)生活能力的理论和实证工作,也可整合为一个护理理论以供进一步检验。广大护理学者群体尚未探讨规范性理论对护理科学和护理实践的意义。在科学哲学、护理哲学和实践学的背景下,应就规范性理论的规范性本质及其对护理科学发展和护理实践应用的影响展开更严谨的辩论。认为实践学自然源自规范性理论以及规范性理论自然是护理科学目标的观点既天真又危险。当然,我们在从护理视角梳理那些需要科学解释的内容方面日益敏锐且得心应手。在此过程中,我们创造了在社会和认识论层面似乎都值得追求的护理世界观。(摘要截选至400字)