More importantly, however, contemporary realists differ from Nightingale in four main areas, those of theistic assumption, methods of research, determinism, and naturalism. While contemporary realists certainly agree with Nightingale's position that simply realizing fact is not enough, and that actions based on findings is important (Porter, 2001), Nightingale inserted a certain assumption of God into her realistic viewpoints that modern realism avoids. Whereas Nightingale supported the concept that man's actions were dictated by God, modern realists recognize specific non-theistic causes for behaviors.
Secondly, Nightingale relied solely on quantitative method of research, since such methods were most available in her period. Such methods, involving the scientific, external, specific identification of patterns of events, are useful, but modern realists understand the need for individualistic understanding of information. Whereas Nightingale's focus was on identifying the patterns of relationships, modern realists focus more on understanding those relationships (Porter, 2001).
Third, modern realists differ slightly from Nightingale in their views on determinism. As discussed, Nightingale believed firmly in determinism, and believed no true free will of behavior existed (Porter, 2001). Modern realists, however, focus not only on the tendencies for patterns, rather than inevitable patterns of relationships (Porter, 2001). In this way, modern realists allow for flexibility in causation, whereas nightingale's hard deterministic stance did not.
Finally, modern realists recognize a unity between causation of social structure and natural structure. Whereas Nightingale held a naturalistic belief that social and natural events occur due to the same causation factors, modern realists see the two independently, in that social structures are the result of human action, while natural events occur due to natural law (Porter, 2001). Since human action is interpretable, such a belief breaks the naturalistic viewpoint.
Understanding these differences in realism views is vital to nursing practice. While Nightingale's harsh realism was acceptable in her time period, due to a reliance on theology and quantitative methods, such concepts are outdated, and should be rejected in modern nursing. While theological perspectives are important, understanding the basis of causation outside such a doctrine is vital to understanding modern causation of events, and thus, modern nursing concepts. The interpretable actions of individuals, outside of deterministic viewpoints, is vital to understanding human beings in the modern age, and is thus necessary to understanding the structures, norms, diseases, and atmospheres of modern man. Further, the break between social and natural law is necessary, in that natural law is not subjective. In order to fully comprehend causes and effects of specific nursing concepts, such an understanding of different levels of causation is necessary.
Porter (2001) concludes his article by noting the influence Nightingale's philosophy has had on modern nursing. While some critics have downplayed this influence, Porter is accurate in his analysis. He stresses the admitted limitations of her philosophy, such as her reliance on theological and religious aspects and quantitative research methods, due to the time period in which she lived, but also stresses the importance of her focus on the beginnings of a realistic approach to nursing and medicine. He points to Nightingale's insistence on deeper causes of illness and health, her focus on statistics as a means of measurement, and her linkage of fact and value. In this, Porter refers to the concept of understanding not only the disease and the etiology of disease, but also the experiences of those with disease and the social belief systems of the...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now