Situation Specific Theories Philosophical Roots, Properties, and Approach Paper Please review the following article (there is an attachment). Here is it’s

Situation Specific Theories Philosophical Roots, Properties, and Approach Paper Please review the following article (there is an attachment). Here is it’s citation:

Im, E. O., & Meleis, A. I. (1999, December). Situation-specific theories: philosophical roots, properties, and approaches. Advances in Nursing Science, 22(2), 11–24.

Read the article, discuss the relevance to your current research agenda/problem. . ( Treating Eating Disorders)
Your identifiable problem. What is it?
Your proposed nursing theorist that most identifies with your research issue. Whom did you use?
Is there a direct correlation? Does the theorist support your research problem?
Is there a connection to nursing practice?
Does the research offer any diverse support or methodologies?
How will you use the outcomes in practice?

*- APA 6th Edition,

*- Please include references and intext citations if used.

*- A minimum of 300 words required

*- Also ,please elaborated two responses with a minimum of 150 words and reference as if it were to respond to two peers based on the above topic. Situation-Specific Theories:
Philosophical Roots,
Properties, and Approach
It is imperative to further develop theoretical bases in nursing, which incorporate diversities and complexities in
nursing phenomena, and which consider sociopolitical, cultural, and historic contexts of nursing encounters.
Situation-specific theories are proposed in this work as a future direction of such theoretical bases in nursing.
Philosophical roots and properties of situation-specific theories are discussed, and an integrative approach to developing this type of theories is suggested. Situation-specific theories could be based on the assumptions of postempiricism, critical social theory and feminism, and or hermeneutics. Six properties of situation-specific theories
are presented: (1) low level of abstraction, (2) reflection of specific nursing phenomena, (3) context, (4) connection to research and/or practice, (5) incorporation of diversities, and (6) limits in generalization. The proposed integrative approach to developing situation-specific theories includes (1) a nursing perspective, (2) a linkage among
theory, research, and practice, and (3) a conceptual scheme based on internal and external dialogues. Key words:
approach, future direction, philosophy, property, situation-specific theories, theory development
Eun-Ok Im, RN, MPH, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Health Maintenance,
School of Nursing
University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Afaf Ibrahim Meleis, PhD, DrPS (hon),
FAAN
Professor
Department of Community Health Systems
University of California
San Francisco, California
T
HEORIES HAVE been defined in different ways, and different levels of theories have been proposed in nursing. 1,2
Generally, theory means an organized, coherent, and systematic articulation of a set of
statements related to significant questions in
a discipline that are communicated in a
meaningful whole to describe or explain a
phenomena or a set of phenomenon.1,3
Theories have been categorized into several
types in terms of their level of abstraction,
goal orientation, scope of explanation, and
their components.1 When theories are described in terms of their level of abstraction,
they are usually categorized into grand theories and middle-range theories. Grand theories are defined as systematic constructions
of the nature of nursing, the mission of nursing, and the goals of nursing care, whereas
middle-range theories are defined as theories
that have more limited scope and less abstraction, address specific phenomena or
concepts, and reflect practice.1
The definitions and the levels of theories
reflect different stages in the development
of the discipline and the various stages in its
Adv Nurs Sci 1999;22(2):11–24
© 1999 Aspen Publishers, Inc.
11
12
ADVANCES IN NURSING SCIENCE/DECEMBER 1999
theoretical sophistication. Early in the history of the development of the discipline,
grand theories were articulated to answer
questions about the nature, mission, and
goals of nursing. Peplau, Henderson, Hall,
Johnson, Abdella, King, Wiedenbach, and
Rogers proposed coherent and well-articulated vision of the nature, goals, and boundaries of nursing care.1 These visions have
been instrumental in creating theoretical debates and in helping to develop the theoretical foundations of nursing knowledge.
These theories focused the discussions
among nurse scholars on defining and developing central concepts in nursing, on
connecting theory to practice, on developing theory-based research, and on the dialectical relationship between theory, research, and practice. Progress in theoretical
thinking was initiated by these theories.
From the end of 1960s, metatheorists
such as Ellis,4 Walker,5 Jacox,6 Fawcett,51
Duffey and Muhlenkamp,7 Hardy,8 and
Chinn9 addressed metatheoretical concerns
that focused on types of theories and
content of theories. The debates were more
on the form rather than the substance of
nursing. Dialogues and discussions included what is meant by theory, what are
the major components of theory, and ways
to analyze and critique theories.4–8 Then,
from the middle of the 1980s, there was an
increase in writing related to concept development, which is about more practiceoriented, integrative, and substance-related
questions.9–11 Furthermore, from the beginning of the 1990s, there was a considerable
progress in theory development in nursing
manifested by the development of numerous middle-range theories. 12–14 Middlerange theories have provided a conceptual
focus and a mental image that reflect the
discipline’s domain, but they did not provide the much-needed guidelines that may
connect theory to research and practice.15
Theory, research, and practice continue to
be somewhat disconnected.
There might be several reasons for the
seeming disconnection among theory, research, and practice. One of the reasons
could be the tension between theoretical vision and clinical wisdom.16 Although proponents of theoretical vision emphasize the
importance of theories as a framework for
practice, proponents of clinical wisdom as
the framework for practice argue that clinical work is based on the experiences of the
clinicians and the wisdom they develop
from their daily practice.17,18 The clinical
wisdom advocates remind us that the humanity of the nursing encounters cannot be
well articulated theoretically.19 However,
there are arguments that nurses tend to
focus on empirical phenomenon such as
blood pressure, pulse, blood test results, and
X-rays in their clinical settings, and they at
times may not have the time to deal with
contextual factors that may be influencing
their clients’ health. Even the nature of
nursing phenomenon may be conceptualized differently by those who advocate for
theoretical wisdom and by those who advocate for practical wisdom.19,20 Furthermore,
as Roy21 asserted, the nature of knowledge
for nursing practice can emerge from examining how the philosophical basis and the
derived practice theories address such issues as the phenomena of the discipline,
environment, teleology, and nursing theoretical frameworks.
Without ways by which the humanity in
nursing encounters can be articulated and
conveyed, the connection among theory, research, and practice may continue to be elu-
Situation-Specific Theories
sive.1,16 Phenomena related to patient care
are becoming more complex, and are complicated by multiple factors, including increased patient diversity.22 Nurses are working more and more with culturally diverse
groups, and an important goal for our discipline becomes to develop knowledge that
reflects the nature and the consequences of
diversities on responses to health and illness.22,23 Nursing scholars22,23 assert that
theoretical development must take into consideration the diversity of nursing philosophies as well as the diverse populations
served by nurses. However, traditional approaches to knowledge development that
depend on the assumptions of homogeneity,
normality, and statistical reliability rather
than coherent reflections of diverse human
experiences have limitations in generating
competent models of care.24 Without incorporating the diversities, complexities,
and contextual complexities, theoretical
foundations of nursing discipline cannot
achieve the connections for which its members have been striving.22 How, then, can
we connect theory, research, and practice
while incorporating the diversity, complexity, and context? Perhaps the answer is not
in grand theories, middle range theories, or
concept development.
Grand theories and middle-range theories
rarely incorporate the diversities in nursing
phenomenon, and have limitations in describing, explaining, and providing understanding of the diversities in clients’ experiences
and responses to specific phenomenon. The
theories also do not consider the diverse ways
that nurses may interpret these phenomena.
They also have limitations in guiding nursing care for the increasing diverse clients in
health care systems. Middle-range theories
also tend to assume a wide range of general-
13
ization and universalization; although far
less so than grand theories.12,24,25 However,
this generalization may be incongruent with
the nature of a human science.
Furthermore, grand theories and middle
range theories rarely consider sociopolitical, cultural, and/or historic contexts inherent in each client-nurse encounter.12,24,25 For
example, Orem’s self care theory, when to
guide nursing practice with Korean patients, may not allow an understanding of
this population’s assumptions and cultural
attitude toward the relinquishment of self
care responsibilities to the extended family
care. In their traditional culture, patients
expect to and are entitled to be cared for
by their caregivers, and they do not expect
to be their own self-care agencies. 26,27
Consequently, although self care theory
provides useful and productive guidelines
for nursing practice in general, it does not
provide adequate guidelines for phenomenon within diverse contexts and situations,
and it limits the consideration of patients
and their dynamic historic and sociocultural
context. Therefore, the question is: Are
other types of theories to develop that may
overcome the limitations inherent in the
nature of grand and middle-range theories?
Meleis and Meleis and Im1,22,28 defined
situation-specific theories as theories that
focus on specific nursing phenomena that
reflect clinical practice and that are limited
to specific populations or to particular fields
of practice. Situation-specific theories are
put in social and historical context and they
are not developed to transcend time, a socially constraining structure, or a politically
limiting situation.1,10,22,28 They are theories
that are more clinically specific, that reflect
a particular context, and that may include
blueprints for action.1,10,22,28 We propose
14
ADVANCES IN NURSING SCIENCE/DECEMBER 1999
that situation-specific theories could be the
discipline of nursing. Situation-specific
theories can incorporate diversities and
complexities of nursing phenomena, and
emphasize contextual factors surrounding
nursing. Situation-specific theories may
provide integrative frameworks and or
guidelines for nursing practice and research. The purpose of this article is to
argue that situation-specific theories are
more congruent with the future goals of our
discipline. It is also to clarify what philosophical base situation-specific theories
have, what their properties are, and how to
develop them.
PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS OF
SITUATION-SPECIFIC THEORIES
Philosophical bases of the substance and
the syntax of nursing knowledge have been
debated by many nursing scholars.23,29–32
There are debates on the relationship among
philosophies, theories, research, and practice.32–34 The debates can be roughly categorized into three positions:34 (1) the purist
bona-fide position that philosophical viewpoints should guide and direct theory development, research strategy, and clinical practice; (2) the nonpurist position about
philosophical, theoretical, and methodological pluralism; and (3) the radical separationist position, which argues that a discipline’s theory and research are distinct
entities and do not necessarily have to be
congruent philosophically and methodologically. We assume the need for philosophical, theoretical, and methodological plurality, and we further assert that such pluralism
is more congruent with the nature and goals
of nursing and those of situation-specific
theories. Three major philosophical roots
that could drive the development of situationspecific theories might be (1) postempiricism, (2) critical social theory and feminism, and (3) hermeneutics. Each of these
could provide the assumptions and the
framework for situation-specific theories.
Postempiricism
One of the philosophical roots compatible
with situation-specific theories is postempiricism. Until recently, empiricism has
been equated with positivism, especially
logical positivism and the Vienna Circle,34
and the equation brought hot criticisms
about empiricism. Consequently, nursing
scholars tend to abandon the traditional realist approach to the care of patients, and nursing theory is currently beset by the problems
of scientific and moral relativism and philosophical incoherence.35 Contemporary empiricist views—so called postempiricism—
are somewhat different from positivism,
especially logical positivism. A contemporary empiricist view continues belief in observables and in careful scientific strategies
that bear results that can be corroborated if
not confirmed.36 Yet, no common pattern is
rigidly viewed as having relevance for every
individual or situation, and no universal
laws governing all of health are believed to
exist by contemporary empiricists. Rather,
the empiricists assume that reasonable predictions are possible and that these predictions can provide nurses with estimates of
expected human responses under certain
conditions of health and illness as well as
how nursing care may serve to influence
these responses in beneficial ways.
Empiricists are concerned with complex
phenomenon, some of which can be reduced
and partitioned for study and some of which
Situation-Specific Theories
cannot.34 Some of extant theory is used generally, but generative theory is not ruled out.
The empiricists believe that the phenomena
under study can be modeled or “objectified.”36 Furthermore, contemporary empiricism is regarded as having the capacity for
explanation that is so necessary for clinical
practice because it provides the linkage between the observables such as vital signs
and laboratory findings and the unobservables, and between those normal and abnormal physiologic and psychological
processes, which suggest causal factors and
subsequent treatment.34 Situation-specific
theories can be developed using the assumptions and the methodology of contemporary
empiricism because they aim at modeling
the linkages between the observables and
the unobservables, and between those normal and abnormal processes influencing
human beings’ responses toward health and
illness, especially a particular group of people in a specific situation. Furthermore, the
theories have a goal of predicting experiences and responses of a particular group of
human beings under certain conditions of
health and illness.
Critical social theory and feminism
Another main philosophical root could be
critical social theory and feminism. Critical
social theory and feminism provide the
rationale for respecting diversities and sociopolitical and historical contexts of situationspecific theories. Feminist assumptions,
goals, and values, as well as critical theories
that emphasize the consideration of values
imbedded in societies, challenge scientists
and scholars in a number of fields who subscribed to traditional epistemology.29,31,37
Feminists and critical theorists emphasize
the subjective and social construction of re-
15
ality; sociopolitical and economic influences on science; and the prevalence of
racism, classism, and sexism in scientific
and social activities in many fields, including nursing.1,29,37
Critical theory holds that all research and
theory are sociopolitical constructions, that
human societies are inherently oppressive,
and that all interpretations including mythical, religious, scientific, practical, and political interpretations are open to criticism.37,38
Critical theorists believe that all theories
reflect underlying ideologies, and critical
theory provides a multidimensional lens for
scholarship. However, the critical theory
lacks modeling.1,37 Critical theory disagrees
with classical social and economic theories,
which consequently limits its empirical
application. Thus, it is difficult to say that
situation-specific theory is based on critical
theory, but it would be true that critical theory tremendously influences its philosophical
roots because situation-specific theories
emphasize sociopolitical and historic contexts surrounding a phenomenon.
The use of liberal, cultural, and radical
feminist thoughts in nursing theory and research is increasing. It is particularly meaningful for nursing as a predominantly female
profession.39,40 Indeed, feminist thought has
had tremendous influence on theoretical debates in nursing discipline, and has provided
an important perspective on nursing phenomenon. Despite diverse perspectives
within feminism, all feminists share the
view that it is important to center on problems that reflect the diversity of women’s
situations.39–42 Feminism emphasizes the
world of women in a male-dominated society, and shares with hermeneutics the belief in lived experience and history as the
basis of knowing, generating, and using lan-
16
ADVANCES IN NURSING SCIENCE/DECEMBER 1999
Feminist thought has had tremendous
influence on theoretical debates in
nursing discipline, and has provided
an important perspective on nursing
phenomenon.
guage for documentation and analyses.34 In
this regard, situation-specific theories are
congruent with feminist thinking and assumptions.
Hermeneutics
A third philosophical root could be
hermeneutics. Hermeneutics can influence
the development of situation-specific theories through emphasizing historical consciousness and the value of humanistic and
historical knowledge in understanding
human existence. Hermeneutics appreciate
the human state or essence as supreme; emphasize the interactive circle—“hermeneutic circle”—between patient and nurse or
subject and scientist; share meanings and
embedded meaning, and self reflection; and
regard understanding as the basis of knowing.34,43 However, because hermeneutic
philosophers negate objectifying the human
state or negate the modeling of the human
state except the objective, validation hermeneutics it may be difficult to justify the development of a situation-specific theory
with hermeneutics. Nursing theories increasingly address biology, behavior, and
culture, and they depict associations among
factors and suggest explanatory variables
for human health and illness. Therefore,
they require reduction, objectification, and
specification of relationships between the
variables. These goals may not be accom-
modated by a hermeneutic or phenomenologic perspective.34,43
PROPERTIES OF SITUATIONSPECIFIC THEORIES
Situation-specific theories may emerge
from synthesizing and integrating research
findings and clinical exemplars about a specific situation or population with the intent
of developing a framework or blueprint to
understand the particular situation of a
group of clients. Even though researchers or
authors may not have identified models
and/or theories that they developed through
research and/or practice as situation-specific
theories, there are some examples of socalled situation-specific theories. When
compared with grand theories and middlerange theories, situation-specific theories
can be characterized by (1) a lower level of
abstraction, (2) reflection of specific nursing phenomenon, (3) context, (4) readily accessible connection to nursing research and
practice, (5) reflection of diversities in nursing phenomena, and (6) limitation of generalization. A comparison of the properties of
grand theories, middle-range theories, and
situation-specific theories is provided in
Table 1. Some examples of each type of
theories are also presented in Table 1.
Low level of abstraction
Changes in theory development from
grand theories to middle-range theories may
be considered significant milestones marking a considerable progress in nursing
knowledge development.1,12 Because nursing phenomena require a focus on specific
phenomena that reflect and emerge from
nursing practice and clinical process, there
was an increasing need for a shift from
Situation-Specific Theories
17
Table 1. Properties and examples of grand, middle-range, and situation-specific theories
Properties…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment