Talk by members of executive hospital boards influences the organizational positioning of nurses. Talk is a relational leadership practice. Using a qualitative‐interpretive design we organized focus group meetings wherein members of executive hospital boards (7), nurses (14), physicians (7), and managers (6), from 15 Dutch hospitals, discussed the organizational positioning of nursing during COVID crisis. We found that members of executive hospital boards consider the positioning of nursing in crisis a task of nurses themselves and not as a collective, interdependent, (...) and/or specific board responsibility. Furthermore, members of executive hospital boards talk about the nursing profession as (1) more practical than strategic, (2) ambiguous in positioning, and (3) distinctive from the medical profession. Such talk seemingly contrasts with the notion of interdependence that highlights how actors depend on each other in interaction. Interdependence is central to collaboration in hospital crises. In this paper, therefore, we depart from the members of executive hospital boards as leader and “positioner,” and focus on talk—as a discursive leadership practice—to illuminate leadership and governance in hospitals in crisis, as social, interdependent processes. (shrink)

Nursing and nurses rely upon qualitative research to understand the intricacies of the human condition. Acknowledging the subjective nature of reality and commonly founded in a constructivist epistemology, qualitative approaches offer opportunities for uncovering insights from the perspective of the individual participants, the insider's view, and the construction of representations that maintain an intimacy with the subject's realities. Debate continues, however, about what is needed for a qualitative construction to be considered an authentic understanding of a subject's realities. Authenticity in (...) the context of qualitative research has been described as entailing consideration of a number of well‐trodden dimensions: fairness, ontological, educative, catalytic and tactical. Taking these dimensional requirements as key, this paper argues that authenticity may not always be as well‐developed through some of the standard practices in qualitative research as perhaps expected. In particular, qualitative understandings of authenticity stress that participants should not be merely reported on but instead should be dynamically involved in and changed by the constructions and interpretations of data developed throughout the research process. As this paper illustrates, such engagements appear problematic for qualitative research approaches that are beholden to designative commitments in the context of language and meaning‐making and which tend to prioritise commonality and generality at the expense of individual authenticity. An alternative qualitative approach, Hermeneutic Constructivism, is proposed as better able to achieve the requirements of the dimensions of authenticity. As outlined, this approach is well‐placed to present an understanding of human experience through a genuinely expressivist approach and transcends the stress upon the common or the general that can be pervasive and problematic. (shrink)

Nurse clinician‐scientists are increasingly expected to show leadership aimed at transforming healthcare. However, research on nurse clinician‐scientists' leadership (integrating researcher and practitioner roles) is scarce and hardly embedded in sociohistorical contexts. This study introduces leadership moments, that is, concrete events in practices that are perceived as acts of empowerment, in order to understand leadership in the daily work of newly appointed nurse clinician‐scientists. Following the learning history method we gathered data using multiple (qualitative) methods to get close to their daily (...) practices. A document analysis provided us with insight into the history of nursing science to illustrate how leadership moments in the everyday work of nurse clinician‐scientists in the “here and now” can be related to the particular histories from which they emerged. A qualitative analysis led to three acts of empowerment: (1) becoming visible, (2) building networks, and (3) getting wired in. These acts are illustrated with three series of events in which nurse clinician‐scientists' leadership becomes visible. This study contributes to a more socially embedded understanding of nursing leadership, enables us to get a grip on crucial leadership moments, and provides academic and practical starting points for strengthening nurse clinician‐scientists' leadership practices. Transformations in healthcare call for transformed notions of leadership. (shrink)

Some nurses are responding rebelliously to the changing healthcare landscape by challenging the status quo and deviating from suboptimal practices, professional norms, and organizational rules. While some view rebel nurse leadership as challenging traditional structures to improve patient care, others see it as disruptive and harmful. These diverging opinions create dilemmas for nurses and nurse managers in daily practice. To understand the context, dilemmas, and interactions in rebel nurse leadership, we conducted a multiple case study in two Dutch hospitals. We (...) delved into the mundane practices to expand the concept of leadership‐as‐practice. By shadowing rebel nurse practices, we identified three typical leadership practices which present the most common “lived” experiences and dilemmas of nurses and nurse managers. Overall, we noticed that deviating acts were more often quick fixes rather than sustainable changes. Our research points to what is needed to change the status quo in a sustainable manner. To change unworkable practices, nurses need to share their experienced dilemmas with their managers. In addition, nurse managers must build relationships with other nurses, value different perspectives, and support experimenting to promote collective learning. (shrink)

Texts about theory in nursing often refer to theory construction by using inductive methods in a rigid way. In this paper, it is instead argued that theories are created, which is in line with most philosophers of science. Theory creation is regarded as a creative process that does not follow a specific method or logic. As in any creative endeavour, the inspiration for theory creation can come from many sources, including previous research and existing theory. The main idea put forward (...) is that deductive qualitative research approaches should play a key role in theory creation. Furthermore, there is a need to differentiate between theory creation and theory justification. A model that emphasizes the creative aspects of theory creation and theory justification using qualitative approaches is presented. The model suggests that knowledge development is a deductive trial‐and‐error process where theory creation is followed by testing. Scientific theory creation and justification are presented as an iterative process that is deductive in that a testable hypothesis is derived from the theory. If the hypothesis is falsified, then the theory needs modification or might be altogether wrong. Several factors can block the creative process, both in theory development and in finding ways to test a theory in the justification phase. Some of these blockers are the idea of ‘building blocks’ and the inductive view of science often brought forward in nursing. Other blockers include striving for consensus and adherence to existing nursing philosophies and existing theories. Research and knowledge development are creative processes, and following predefined methods is not enough to ensure scientific rigour in qualitative nursing research. (shrink)