This paper examines the nursing metaparadigm as a fourfold framework encompassing the patient, the nursing process, health, and the environment, tracing how major theorists have interpreted and contested these components since Florence Nightingale. It reviews Margaret Newman's relational, continuum-based conception of health, Dexheimer Pharris's culturally critical approach, and debates over whether grand theory risks reducing nursing to philosophical abstraction. The paper also considers the argument that middle range theories offer a more practice-oriented balance, and concludes with a personal reflection on how middle range thinking informs everyday clinical decision-making. Throughout, the tension between nursing as a practical discipline and nursing as a philosophically grounded profession is kept at the forefront.
Ever since Florence Nightingale published her thirteen canons of nursing, the profession has striven to define itself as a unique discipline with unique rules and protocols. The nursing metaparadigm embraced by most theorists today is a fourfold structure encompassing the patient (human being), the nursing process, health, and the wider environment. However, while these constructs connect many of the major theorists of nursing, all theorists have slightly different notions of what constitutes "nursing," which affects their views of every other component of the nursing process. Additionally, some writers on the topic even believe that to have a "theory" of the practical nursing process is an oxymoron.
Those who dispute the value of having a "theory" or larger construct with which to view nursing practice deny the value of breaking down nursing into the classic metaparadigm's four component parts. "In Meleis's (1991) view, the distinctions that some nurse theorists have made among metaparadigm, conceptual model and framework, and theory, in deciding what to call conceptualizations about nursing, are 'hair-splitting, unclear, and confusing at worst'" (Kikuchi 1999). However, defenders of the metaparadigm construct regard it as a critical component of establishing nursing's unique contribution to the field of medicine. During the 1970s, "nurses began to claim that the person is more than the disease, indeed a composite of physical, psychological, social and spiritual dimensions," and thus the definitions of what constituted the patient, environment, health, and by extension the nursing process began to incorporate more subjective, intangible elements (Thorne et al. 1998: 1259).
Fawcett (1995) states that a metaparadigm within any field must satisfy four conditions: "(1) it must identify a discipline's domain such that it is distinct from those of other disciplines, (2) it must parsimoniously encompass all phenomena of interest to a discipline, (3) it must be neutral in perspective, and (4) it must be international in scope and substance" (Kikuchi 1999). Metaparadigms are useful in that they set disciplinary limits. This is particularly vital for nursing today, given that nurses are increasingly being called upon to fulfill the functions of physician's assistants, physicians, and other medical roles.
The nursing metaparadigm thus serves not merely as an academic exercise but as a professional boundary-marker — distinguishing what nurses do from what other healthcare providers do, and grounding nursing's claim to be a discipline in its own right rather than a subordinate branch of medicine.
One prominent advocate of the metaparadigm construct, Margaret Newman, stated that the purpose of nursing is fostering "caring in the human health experience," and that nursing is designed to "help clients get in touch with the meaning of their lives by the identification of their patterns of relating" (Margaret Newman, 2009, Nursing Theories). In this model, nurses are viewed primarily as facilitators and partners. The object of nursing is not only the patient but also includes the patient's family and community. Because of her integration of environment and person, Newman does not spend a great deal of time analyzing the environment as separate from the patient, noting only that the environment constitutes "the larger whole, which is beyond the consciousness of the individual" patient (Margaret Newman, 2009, Nursing Theories).
Health, according to Newman, is defined as a synthesis of "disease and non-disease" — in other words, every person manifests some degree of health or illness at every point of his or her existence (Margaret Newman, 2009, Nursing Theories). In contrast to Fawcett's determination to define nursing in a concrete fashion, Newman stresses the "caritive" function of nursing and the degree to which health and illness exist on a continuum rather than as distinct entities. As such, nursing is a broadly conceived, subjective process. Illness or health "cannot be assessed objectively," and the patient is seen as freely choosing his or her state of wellness (Thorne et al. 1998: 1259). While this perspective can be empowering for the patient, it can also disempower the healthcare professional from seeking change, and may deny the significance of the patient's environmental and cultural situation, which can make achieving well-being difficult (Thorne et al. 1998: 1260).
"Dexheimer Pharris on race, culture, and nursing"
"Debate over philosophy versus practical nursing"
"Smith's middle range theories bridging theory and practice"
"Author's clinical application of middle range theory"
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.