Upon completion of this course, the student will be able to:
1. Discuss the process of theory construction.
2. Evaluate the current state of theory development in nursing.
3. Analyze inductive and deductive approaches to theory development.
4. Critique the contribution of middle range theories to nursing knowledge development.
5. Analyze the relationship between middle range and grand theories for nursing.
6. Compare and contrast properties of extent nursing theories and interdisciplinary theories relevant to nursing.
7. Propose concepts or themes for further theory development.
1.Theory & Reasoning in Nursing
2.Historical Perspectives on Theory Development
3.Focus of the Discipline and Nursing Metaparadigm
4.Concept Development
5.Concept Clarification/ Analysis
6.Models for Nursing Knowledge Development
7.Statement Development
8.Theory Development
9.Grand and Middle-Range Theories
10.Analysis and Evaluation of Theories
1.Meleis, A. I. (2007). Theoretical nursing: Development & progress (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
2.Fawcett, J. (2005). Contemporary Nursing Knowledge: Analysis and Evaluation of Nursing Models and Theories (3nd. ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
3.Rogers, B. & Knafl, K. A. (eds.). (2000). Concept development in nursing: foundations, techniques, and applications. (2nd.ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.
4.Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2005). Strategies for theory construction in nursing. (4th . ed.). East Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.
5.Chinn, P. L. & Kramer, M. K. (2003). Theory and nursing : integrated knowledge development. (6th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
References Articles
1.Andershed, B., & Ternestedt., B. M. (2000). Development of a theoretical framework describing relatives’ involvement in palliative care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(4), 554-562.
2.Boyldn, A., Parker, M. E. & Schoenhofer, S. 0. (1994).Aesthetic knowing grounded in an explicit conception of nursing. Nursing Science Quarterly,
7(4). 158-161.
3.Bruggerman, J., & Vermeulen, I. (2002). A logical toolkit for theory (re)construction. Sociological Methodology, 32(1), 183-217.
4.Dunn, K. S. (2004). Toward a middle range theory of adaptation to chronic pain. Nursing Science Quarterly, 17(1), 78-84.
5.Fawcett, J.; Watson, J.; Neuman, B.; Walker, P. H. & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2001). On Nursing Theories and Evidence. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 33(2). 115-119.
6.Flaskerud, J. H., & Winslow, B. J. (1998). Conceptualizing vulnerable populations health-related research. Nursing Research, 47(2), 69-78.
7.Georges, J. M. (2003). An Emerging Discourse: Toward Epistemic Diversity in Nursing. Advances in Nursing Science. 26(1). 44—52.
8.Hilton, P. A. (1997). Theoretical perspectives of nursing: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(6), 1211-1220. Retrieved on August 1, 2005 from EBSCO database.
9.Hawley, P., Young, S. & Pasco, A. C. (2000). Reductionism in the pursuit of nursing science. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. 32(2\ 75-88.
10.Kikuchi, J. F. (2003). Nursing knowledge and the problem of worldviews. Research & Theory for Nursing Practice. 17(1). 7-17.
11.Kulig, J. C. (2000). Community resilience: The potential for community health nursing theory development. Public Health Nursing, 17(5), 374-385.
12.Landreneau, K. J. (2002). Response to: ‘The nature of philosophy of science, theory, and knowledge relating to nursing and professionalism’ by J. E. Rutty. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(3), 283-285.
13.Lauzon, S. (1995). Gortner's Contribution to Nursing Knowledge Development. Image - the Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 27(2). 100-103.
14.Leight, S. B. (2002). Starry night: using story to inform aesthetic knowing in women's health nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 37(1). 108-114.
15.Munhall, P. (1993). "Unkowing": Toward another pattern of knowing in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 41(3). 125-128.
16.Perkins, N. & Wilson, C. (1995). Beyond the empirical: The integration of Carpers ways of knowing. Whitireia Nursing Journal, 2, 14-19.
17.Poss, J. E.(2001). Developing a new model for cross-cultural research: Synthesizing the Health Belief Model and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Advances in Nursing Science, 23(4), 1-15.
18.Rawnsley, M. M. (1998). Ontology, epistemology, and methodology: A clarification. Nursing Science Quarterly. 11(1). 2-4. 19.Rutty, J. E. (1998). The nature of philosophy of science, theory, and knowledge relating to nursing and professionalism. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 243-250.
20.Stajduhar, K. I., Balneaves, L., & Thorne, S. E. (2001). A case for the ‘middle ground’: Exploring the tensions of postmodern thought in nursing. Nursing Philosophy, 2, 72-82.
21.Silva, M. C.; Sorrell, J. M. & Soirell, C. D. (1995). From Carper's patterns of knowing to ways of being: An ontological philosophical shift in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science. 18(1), 1-13.
22.Sorrell, J. M. (1994). Rememberance of things past through writing: esthetic patterns of knowing in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science. 17(1). 60-70.
23.Wade, G. H. (1998). A concept analysis of personal transformation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(4), 713-719.
24.White, J. (1995). Patterns of knowing: Review, critique, and update. Advances in Nursing Science 17(4t, 73-86.
25.Whittemore, R., & Roy, C. (2002). Adapting to diabetes mellitus: A theory synthesis. Nursing Science Quarterly, 15(4), 311-317.
Other Reference
Textbooks
1. Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K. & Lewis, F. M. (2002). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Johnson, B. M. (2005). An Introduction to Theory and Reasoning in Nursing (2nd ed.). Lippincott.
3. McEwen, M., Wills, E. M. (2002). Theoretical Basis for Nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
4. Peterson, S. J. & Bredow, T. S. (2004). Middle Range Theories: Application to Nursing Research. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
5. Reed, P. G., & Shearer, N. C., & Nicoll, L. H. (2004). Perspectives on Nursing Theory. (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
6. Rodgers, B. L. (2005). Developing Nursing Knowledge: Philosophical Traditions and Influences. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Component | Percentage |
100% | |
Participation in class | 25% |
Paper #1: | 25% |
Paper #2: | 25% |
Class presentation | 25% |