Nursing has a unique opportunity to address issues of structural violence that contribute to poor health outcomes. Models for designing nursing care relative to the social determinants of health can be adapted from the discipline of peace studies and the phenomenon of peacebuilding. The aim of this qualitative study was to describe the lived experience of peacebuilding from the perspective of community or public health nurses. Interviews were conducted with eight participants. Attributes of the peacebuilder included fostering human relationships that (...) value the inherent worth and dignity of others, nurturing a character of humility and moral courage, and contemplating the personal cost of engaging in prolonged processes of peacebuilding. Practices of peacebuilding included mediating conflict through multilayered processes, accompanying others to places of empowerment, and utilizing interdisciplinary teaching and learning to build capacity for change. Increasing an understanding of the lived experience of peacebuilding by nurses is relevant to nursing research, theory, and practice, and adds to a broader understanding of peacebuilding. (shrink)

Phenomenology as rhetoric The literature on ‘nursing phenomenology’ is driven by a range of ontological and epistemological considerations, intended to distance it from conventionally scientific approaches. However, this paper examines a series of discrepancies between phenomenological rhetoric and phenomenological practice. The rhetoric celebrates perceptions and experience; but the concluding moment of a research report almost always makes implicit claims about reality. The rhetoric insists on uniquely personal meanings; but the practice offers blank, anonymous abstractions. The rhetoric invites us to believe (...) that knowing is subjective and involved, but at the same time it recommends a technique (bracketing) which can only represent a crude, and entirely misconceived, gesture towards objectivity. Finally, the rhetoric claims that generalisation is beside the point; but the majority of researchers generalise anyway. In quietly ignoring their own rhetoric, ‘phenomenologists’ appropriate scientific prerogatives illegitimately. For their methods do not entitle them to lay claim to anything resembling ‘objectivity’, or generalisability, or ‘reality’, or theoretical abstraction. Like other researchers, they want to talk in generalisable terms about reality; they want to be objective, they want to do theory. But they are saddled with a philosophy that is disabling, because it says they can only talk about perceptions, and meanings, and uniqueness. (shrink)

At the bedside, nurses are expected to be precise when they read indications on screens and on the bodies of patients and decide on the meaning of words framed by the context of acute care. In academia, although there is no incident report to fill when we misread or misrepresent complex philosophical ideas, the consequences of inaccurate reading include misplaced epistemological claims and poor scholarship. A long and broad convention of nursing phenomenological research, in its various forms, claims a philosophical (...) grounding in the ideas of Husserl, Heidegger, and other thinkers. But for nearly two decades, nurse phenomenologists' knowledge claims have been challenged by well‐informed criticisms, most notably by John Paley. At the heart of criticism lies an observation that Continental phenomenological thought is misrepresented in many nursing sources and that nursing phenomenology, both descriptive and interpretive, cannot appeal to the authority of either Husserl or Heidegger. Taking these criticisms seriously, I am asking, Is phenomenology after Paley possible? If misreading seems to be an issue, how can – or should – we read rigorously? My thinking through these questions is influenced by the ideas of Jacques Derrida. Under a condition of a play of language, of Derridian différance, when meaning is never self‐identical and never fully arrives, I suggest that one has to negotiate meanings through reading for differences. I develop this idea in relation to the methodological conventions of phenomenological nursing research and argue for a careful rereading of the whole field of phenomenological nursing research. Such rereading presupposes and necessitates interdisciplinary engagement between nursing and the humanities and interpretive social sciences. Greater familiarity with research practices of those disciplines that stress theoretical and writing rigour might make visible the limits of nursing research approaches and their quality criteria. An understanding of philosophical and theoretical works – a condition of quality scholarship – depends on our reading of both originary texts and contemporary literature from the humanities and the social sciences. This understanding, far from obliging researchers to always trace (often erroneously) their work to its philosophical roots, opens other, often more sound, methodological possibilities. (shrink)

Research Question: What are patients’ experiences of technology in adult intensive care? Research Objectives: -To explore patients’ perceptions of receiving care in a technological environment -To explore patients’ perceptions of how technology has influenced their experience of care Background: Technology is fundamental to the physical recovery of critically ill patients in intensive care (ICU), however, there is a suggestion in the literature that its presence may dehumanise patient care and distract the nurse from attending to patients’ psychosocial needs. Little attention (...) has been paid to patients’ perceptions of receiving care in a technological environment. The purpose of this research, therefore, was to explore patients’ experiences of technology and care within ICU. Methods: This study was informed by Heideggerian phenomenology. The research took place in a university hospital in England. Nineteen participants who had been a patient in ICU were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed utilising Van Manen’s framework. Findings: Resulting themes were ‘My Useless Body’ which describes how participants experienced their body as dysfunctional, disconnected and invaded by technology, ‘Making Sense of It’, which describes how participants rationalised their experiences by constructing a story, and ‘Technology and Care’, which describes how and why participants endured technologies in ICU. Conclusions: The disintegrated body is central to the critically ill’s experiences in ICU. Families play an important role in helping patients make sense of their experiences by filling in gaps in memory and helping them to sort the real from unreal memories. Families therefore require support and information resources in fulfilling this role. Patients experience technology and care as a series of paradoxical relationships: alienating yet reassuring, uncomfortable yet comforting, impersonal yet personal. Nurses maintaining a close and supportive presence and providing personal comfort and care may minimise the invasive and isolating potential of technology. (shrink)