Running head: REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS OF NURSING METAPARADIGM 1

Reflective Analysis of Nursing Metaparadigm

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation
REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS OF NURSING METAPARADIGM 2

Reflective Analysis of Nursing Metaparadigm

As learned through the course, the application of nursing philosophy as the foundation for

nursing practice is primary in the development of nursing theory as well as knowledge. In the

first part of this paper, my definitions of nursing metaparadigm were adopted from Parse’s

totality to define my concepts of environment, person, health, and nurse. The definitions were,

therefore, based on totality. However, after our presentation on Martha Rogers definitions that

were based on simultaneity, my understanding was transformed. In this paper, I will provide a

self-reflection of my transformation of the metaparadigm understanding and the reason for the

change. I will do so by highlighting my initial definitions of the four concepts, assumptions,

values, and beliefs. From the reflection, it is assertive that my learning, as well as, reflection

throughout the course and in particular, the presentation of the simultaneity paradigm influenced

my thinking about my practice as initially understood.

My concept definition and paradigm analysis as per 1st Paper

Author’s Definition and Paradigm Analysis

Person

Simultaneity metaparadigm can be considered the totality’s competitor and it provides

different view over various aspects such as the interaction between the person and the

environment (Thorne, 2014). Unlike in the totality paradigm where the person and the

environment are considered to be in a constant interaction that allows the accomplishment of

goals as well as maintain balance, the simultaneity metaparadigm considers the person as a freely

choosing being that co-creates health using a mutual exchange with the environment. Moreover,

per the simultaneity paradigm, nursing role is to promote the quality of life through the person’s

perspective
REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS OF NURSING METAPARADIGM 3

Rogers (1987) considers the person as a unitary being that continuously interact with the

environment. The person is considered as a whole and cannot be viewed as parts as in the totality

paradigm. The paradigm further defines the person as an irreducible, para dimensional, and

indivisible field of energy that cannot be predicted by the knowledge of its parts (Wesley, &

McHugh, 1995). The paradigm considers the life of a unitary being as continuous and whole and

is associated with dynamism as well as constant change.

Environment

The simultaneity metaparadigm considers the environment an irreducible energy field

that is identified by its pattern, organization, and is integrated with the human field. It includes

the entire field of energy that is separate from the person and is not limited to space or time.

Critically, the environment and person are seen as two different energies that engage in a

constant interaction with the person.

Nursing

According to Rogers (1987), nursing seeks to ensure a symphonic interaction between the

human and environment fields, increase the integrity of the human field, direct and redirect the

patterning of the human and environment energy fields to ensure the achievement of the

maximum health. Nursing focuses on to provide care in their life processes. As an art and

science, nursing purposes to serve people and is a direct responsibility to the community. Nurses,

therefore, knowingly participate with the patient to ensure human betterment. The nursing

practice per the simultaneity paradigm is focused on unitary being as well as a change of the

energy field between the person and their environment. It includes all the non-invasive actions

used to enhance the potential of the human field through pain management, rehabilitation, and

supportive therapy.
REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS OF NURSING METAPARADIGM 4

Health

According to Rogers (1987), health is determined by the interaction between the person

and the environment. The kind of interaction engaged by the two components creates the nursing

practice, resulting in good or bad health. Misplacement of energy or bad intentions or choices

made by the person results in illness while proper choices as well as intentions creates the

desired health. The paradigm considers the person responsible of creating their health through

their proper choices in their interaction with the environment. Concepts of heath and illness

results from mutual and simultaneous pattern process between the human and the environment

fields. Rogers’ framework health as well as illness are considered a continuous manifestation or

expression of the life process.

Transformational Analysis

From a critical comparison between my original definition and paradigm and Rogers’,

vivid differences are visible. Starting with the definition of the person, my initial definition

considered a person a combination of social, biological, psychological, and spiritual aspects that

are constantly interacting with the environment to achieve goals and maintain balance. Rogers’,

on the other hand defines a person is seen as more than as well as different from the sum of the

parts and he/she changes mutually and simultaneously with the surrounding. The person is free

to choosing being where the actions engaged defines their health.

According to my first definition, health refers to the general wellbeing of a person. It is

further a state that a person experiences while being well physically, mentally, and emotionally

and as accepted norm by the society or science. Health to me was being free of pain, suffering or

trauma. Rogers, on the other hand, brings out heath as a results of the mutual and simultaneous
REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS OF NURSING METAPARADIGM 5

pattern process between the human and the environment fields. It may be considered the result of

the person’s interaction with environment.

Environment, according to my initial understanding, is the surrounding of a person. They

are the factors and interactions with the individual and are inseparable and interrelated and may

impede the ability of a person to achieve a state of health. Rogers’s definition, on the other hand

considers environment an irreducible energy field that is identified by its pattern, organization,

and is integrated with the human field (Rogers, 1987). From a critical analysis and evaluation of

the environment concept, it is apparent that the two paradigms consider it the surrounding of a

person and affects the ability of the person in achieving their goal of good health. That presents

the major similarity between the two paradigms and its definitions of concepts.

Focusing on the nursing concept, I initially understood it as the act of taking care of the

patients (person) by addressing their needs to reach the goal of physical, mental and socio-

cultural health (Fawcett, 2015). The definition is similar to Rogers’ who defined nursing as an

act that promote interaction between the human and environment fields, increase the integrity of

the human field, and direct and redirect the patterning of the human and environment energy

fields to ensure the achievement of the maximum health. Nursing, therefore is engaged to ensure

the health of the person.

However, the goal of nursing in the two paradigms differ. In totality paradigm, nursing

focus on promotion of health, prevention of illnesses and caring and curing the sick. The

simultaneity paradigm, on the other hand, considers the improvement of quality of life from the

perspective of the person the main nursing goal (Bahramnezhad et al. 2015). Critically, although

there are some differences in the definition of the person and health concepts, the two paradigms
REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS OF NURSING METAPARADIGM 6

pose a similar idea of the environment and nursing aspects. As such, despite the noted

differences between the two paradigms, they agree on some aspects.

After studying the author’s definition and presentation of simultaneity metaparadigm, my

original concept definition was modified. Although the simultaneity paradigm is not well

covered in literature, it provides a better understanding of the person and his environment. It is

apparent that in promoting the health of the society as a nurse, it is important for every person to

take responsibility of their actions towards their environment as it is the root cause of ill health.

For instance, actions such as pollution, deforestation, and use of chemicals brings the people

different health complications. When adopted in practice, the paradigm will result in better

interaction between the person and the environment, hence promoting health.

Conclusion

From my critical analysis and comparison of the totality and simultaneity paradigms, it is

apparent that they present different definitions of some concepts. However, due to its more

emphasis on the way a nurse should view the patient, I adopted the simultaneity paradigm.

Rogers in her framework has distinct principles that emphasize that patients or persons should be

viewed as a whole. From the definitions, further, I believed that a person and the environment

are integral and interrelated. I learned that a person cannot be separated from the environment

when providing healthcare.

References

Bahramnezhad, F., Shiri, M., Asgari, P., & Afshar, P. F. (2015). A review of the nursing

paradigm. Open Journal of Nursing, 5(01), 17.9++

Fawcett, J. (2015). Evolution of the Science of Unitary Human Beings: The Conceptual System,

Theory Development, and Research and Practice Methodologies. Visions: The Journal of

Rogerian Nursing Science, 21(1).

Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and

emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parse, R. R. (1987).Nursing science: Major paradigms, theories, and critiques. Philadelphia:

Saunders.

Rogers, M. E. (1987). Rogers’ science of unitary human beings. RR Parse (Ed.), Nursing

science: Major paradigms, theories, and critiques, 139-146.

Thorne, S. (2014). Theoretical issues in nursing. Canadian Nursing-E-Book: Issues and

Perspectives, 85.
REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS OF NURSING METAPARADIGM 8

Wesley, R. L., & McHugh, M. K. (1995). Nursing theories and models. A study and learning

tool (2nd ed.). Springhouse, PA: Springhouse