One major knowledge claim that I made in one of my posts was that “the standard of replicability will help us determine whether we know that caring behaviour promoted healing.” The reason for pursing this evaluation is that a standard determines the knowledge claim.
Criticisms: A) Definitions and Meaning - “caring behaviour” and “healing” need to be carefully defined.
Points: Healing is defined as: heal (h
v.tr. 1. To restore to health or soundness; cure.
2. To set right; repair: healed the rift between us.
3. To restore (a person) to spiritual wholeness.
v.intr. To become whole and sound; return to health.
Reference: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/healing
heal·ing ˈhilɪŋ[hee-ling]
adjective 1.
curing or curative; prescribed or helping to heal.
2. growing
sound; getting well; mending.
noun 3.
the act or process of regaining health: a new drug to accelerate healing.
Based on these definitions and my own conception of what “healing” is, I define it as "progress, growth or advancement toward what the healer or client declares as a state of improvement in any area of health (biological, psychological, social or spiritual)."
car·ing (kâr
Reference: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/caring
verb (used without object)
7. to be concerned or solicitous; have thought or regard.
8. to be concerned or have a special preference (usually used in negative constructions):
I don't care if I do.
9. to make provision or look out (usually followed by
for ): Will you care for the children while I am away?
10. to have an inclination, liking, fondness, or affection (usually followed by for ): Would you care for dessert? I don't care for him very much.
Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/care
Based on these definitions and my own conception of what it is to care, I define “caring behaviour” as "a set of actions that evoke positive feelings in the receiver or even the giver that are measured by the fact they are reported." This reporting can be measured in order to meet the replicability standard for this knowledge claim.
Criticisms: B) Evidence – the point made was that conditions need to be carefully controlled for contaminating contextual factors. Studies, which outline context and parameters and state limitations, are gathered into meta-analyses where such details are examined, peer reviewed and judged. The use of constants and control groups in the experiments or studies assists in strengthing the use of such evidence. The use of multiple studies lends itself to the replicability standard as well.
Criticisms: C) Consistency and Reliability – the need to narrow the focus of studies in order to control for inconsistencies is recognized in nursing research. The closer the studies are in similarities increases the reliability and applicability to the broader population. Studies on increased rates of healing are measured in various ways: decreased length of stay, wound repair time, counseling intervention resitivism, decreased scores on psychological measures (such as the Beck Depression or Anxiety Inventories) and the like. The more consistent the statistical scores are in showing significance in the trends and the statistical realiability and validity scores meet the prescribed standards, the more we can state that the studies are replicable and useful to measure that “caring behaviour promotes healing”.
Now I need outside, skeptical, inquisitive, scholarly teachers to critique these arguments to see if I am walking into common errors and fallacies yet again! Thanks for your attention!
Hi Brenda,
ReplyDeleteIt was nice to see you creating your own definition for healing and caring. I also like how you reasoned your critiques. It would be interesting to see how these two things come together, for example, the studies used in meta-analysis to provide evidence, do they use a similar definition for these terms? If not, how close are they and does it matter? The process you identify including replicability, follows the scientific method and certainly, this approach is widely accepted as truth.
Beth
Brenda,
ReplyDeleteYes I think you are onto something here. I went back and looked at your knowledge claim and the way you addressed the criticisms.
The claim:
"the standard of replicability will help us determine whether we know that caring behaviour promoted healing"
You identify that caring behavior involves:
"a set of actions that evoke positive feelings in the receiver or even the giver that are measured by the fact they are reported"
I think I'd work this to remove the "or even the giver" because now it seems you'd be saying that if someone felt good about treating someone, they would promote the patient's healing - and personally I'd have trouble accepting this as a true belief. I appreciate that you may differ in my assessment on this issue.
So now I'd try to find a way of substituting these statements into your original. Perhaps:
The standard of:
repeated, consistent incidents of a giver (nurse/health care professional?) evoking positive feelings in the patient leading to increase metrics of health help us determine whether caring behavior promotes health.
Well, its a start - and I may off base in what you wanted to achieve, but perhaps this helps?
Brenda, I understand the claim and can relate to it; however, here you are asking me to put on my skeptical hat (which is still in the developing stage).
ReplyDeleteI think your definition of healing is a huge ask of the nurse or physician; especially when individuals are so different in our belief system. I think if the nurse/physician could empower the patient to bring about the healing it would be still a huge ask but more individualized. The next question would be how can this be achieved? BY caring enough to give the patient the required unbiased opinion of the condition and options and then providing the support needed depending on their choices.
To bring it back to your claim, can this caring behavior be documented and replicated to ultimately provide a satisfied patient empowered to make educated choices. Medical choices people make are often mingled with values and belief system of individuals, which takes us to empathy.
I'm excited to see you working on definitions, Brenda! Let's look at them . . .
ReplyDeleteYou define "healing' as: "progress, growth or advancement toward what the healer or client declares as a state of improvement in any area of health (biological, psychological, social or spiritual)."
What's interesting about this is that it ties healing to perceptions. So, whether one is healing would then depend on whether the healer or the client perceives this state of improvement. This would seem to exclude some things that we take for granted as healing. For instance, one could have a stomach inflammation that is unperceived but which heals as a result of treatment. Because it is unperceived, according to this definition, this wouldn't count as healing. That seems odd.
A further problem seems to arise if, say, the healer perceives a state of improvement but the client does not. In such a case, has healing occurred? What if there's no healer around, but there is a family member who perceives a wound not to be improving, though the client does perceive it as improving? Has healing occurred?
So I guess the part that really needs to be explained is why you believe it's a good idea to tie healing to the perceptions of various people, given the issues I've raised above. At the moment it seems to create unnecessary complications that are contradicted by how the term and its associated concept are used.
You define "caring behaviour" as: "a set of actions that evoke positive feelings in the receiver or even the giver that are measured by the fact they are reported."
Although you state that this could be measured, I don't see how. Nevertheless, if we cut it off after the word "giver", I think it's a pretty good start! One concern to address when revising the definition might be similar to that raised regarding the previous definition, namely: is behaviour caring if the giver perceives it as such but the receiver does not? No doubt many of us have experienced behaviour that someone intended as caring, and saw as caring, but that struck us (the receivers) as oppressive, selfish or harmful. If caring behaviour is defined in the way you've suggested, how would such a conflict be resolved?
A good start!