竞争性话语是康复护理变革的障碍:话语分析

IF 1.3 Q3 REHABILITATION Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences Pub Date : 2023-12-12 DOI:10.3389/fresc.2023.1267401
Sanne Angel, Randi Steensgaard, Raymond Kolbaek, Søren Frimann
{"title":"竞争性话语是康复护理变革的障碍:话语分析","authors":"Sanne Angel, Randi Steensgaard, Raymond Kolbaek, Søren Frimann","doi":"10.3389/fresc.2023.1267401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The power of action research to create change by anchoring research results in practice was challenged in an action research project at a specialized rehabilitation unit for persons with acquired spinal cord injury. Despite the co-researchers' new insights, approaches, and actions supporting patient participation, it was not possible to change the basic conditions for the practicing of nursing. We aimed to raise awareness of the mechanisms that govern barriers by exploring these barriers as experienced by nurses in their effort to change their practice to improve patient participation.We used Fairclough's critical discourse analysis drawing on Foucault's practical systems; ethics (identity, relation to oneself), power (action, relation to others), and knowledge (representation, aspects of the world), which he combines with discourse-analytical concepts.Our discourse analysis of the empirical data at micro-level uncovers the nature of barriers to change in practice. In addition, our analysis at macro-level unveils how these practices are embedded in larger historical, societal, and institutional discourses. This identified two current discourses: a biomedical discourse and a biopsychosocial discourse. In the light of these two discourses, the nurses at micro-level saw themselves as strong agents for the best rehabilitation by acting in accordance with the biopsychosocial discourse. But they were unable to find the time and space to do so due to tasks, structures, and practices specified by an organization dominated by the biomedical discourse.","PeriodicalId":73102,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competing discourses as barriers to change in rehabilitation nursing: a discourse analysis\",\"authors\":\"Sanne Angel, Randi Steensgaard, Raymond Kolbaek, Søren Frimann\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fresc.2023.1267401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The power of action research to create change by anchoring research results in practice was challenged in an action research project at a specialized rehabilitation unit for persons with acquired spinal cord injury. Despite the co-researchers' new insights, approaches, and actions supporting patient participation, it was not possible to change the basic conditions for the practicing of nursing. We aimed to raise awareness of the mechanisms that govern barriers by exploring these barriers as experienced by nurses in their effort to change their practice to improve patient participation.We used Fairclough's critical discourse analysis drawing on Foucault's practical systems; ethics (identity, relation to oneself), power (action, relation to others), and knowledge (representation, aspects of the world), which he combines with discourse-analytical concepts.Our discourse analysis of the empirical data at micro-level uncovers the nature of barriers to change in practice. In addition, our analysis at macro-level unveils how these practices are embedded in larger historical, societal, and institutional discourses. This identified two current discourses: a biomedical discourse and a biopsychosocial discourse. In the light of these two discourses, the nurses at micro-level saw themselves as strong agents for the best rehabilitation by acting in accordance with the biopsychosocial discourse. But they were unable to find the time and space to do so due to tasks, structures, and practices specified by an organization dominated by the biomedical discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2023.1267401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2023.1267401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个为后天性脊髓损伤患者开设的专业康复机构开展的行动研究项目中,行动研究通过将研究成果融入实践来创造变革的能力受到了挑战。尽管共同研究人员提出了新的见解、方法和行动来支持患者参与,但却无法改变护理实践的基本条件。我们采用费尔克拉夫的批判性话语分析,借鉴福柯的实践系统:伦理(身份,与自身的关系)、权力(行动,与他人的关系)和知识(表征,世界的各个方面),并将其与话语分析概念相结合。此外,我们在宏观层面的分析揭示了这些实践是如何嵌入到更大的历史、社会和机构话语中的。这确定了当前的两种话语:生物医学话语和生物心理社会话语。根据这两种话语,护士们在微观层面上认为自己是最佳康复的有力推动者,按照生物心理社会话语行事。但是,由于以生物医学话语为主导的组织所规定的任务、结构和做法,她们无法找到这样做的时间和空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Competing discourses as barriers to change in rehabilitation nursing: a discourse analysis
The power of action research to create change by anchoring research results in practice was challenged in an action research project at a specialized rehabilitation unit for persons with acquired spinal cord injury. Despite the co-researchers' new insights, approaches, and actions supporting patient participation, it was not possible to change the basic conditions for the practicing of nursing. We aimed to raise awareness of the mechanisms that govern barriers by exploring these barriers as experienced by nurses in their effort to change their practice to improve patient participation.We used Fairclough's critical discourse analysis drawing on Foucault's practical systems; ethics (identity, relation to oneself), power (action, relation to others), and knowledge (representation, aspects of the world), which he combines with discourse-analytical concepts.Our discourse analysis of the empirical data at micro-level uncovers the nature of barriers to change in practice. In addition, our analysis at macro-level unveils how these practices are embedded in larger historical, societal, and institutional discourses. This identified two current discourses: a biomedical discourse and a biopsychosocial discourse. In the light of these two discourses, the nurses at micro-level saw themselves as strong agents for the best rehabilitation by acting in accordance with the biopsychosocial discourse. But they were unable to find the time and space to do so due to tasks, structures, and practices specified by an organization dominated by the biomedical discourse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Responses of several measures to different intensity levels of upper limb exergames in children with neurological diagnoses: a pilot study. Counting the costs: understanding the extra costs of living with disability in Indonesia to advance inclusive policies within the SDG framework. Exploring knowledge, perception, and use of surface electromyography in physiotherapy post graduate trainees in Italy: a single center preliminary survey. Distinguishing pain profiles among individuals with long COVID. Qualitative evaluation of factors influencing adherence to virtual exercise programs for people with physical disabilities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1