Asai y Cáncer

gave guidance and mentorship to others. As a teacher, she imparted her knowledge and encouraged students to push themselves to a professional level that they may have never imagined on their own. In this chapter, the contributions of Imogene King’s work to the

profession of nursing are explored. This chapter includes a discussion of King’s contributions in her role as a theorist, an educator, and a leader in professional nursing associations.

As a Theorist

King’s greatest contribution to the nursing profession was her work to advance

knowledge in nursing. This was exemplified by her two books. The first, Toward a Theory for

Nursing: General Concepts of Human Behavior (1971), described a conceptual framework for

nursing. The second, A Theory for Nursing: Systems, Concepts, Process (1981), presented her middle-range Goal Attainment Theory. Many nurse scholars, including King acolytes Christina Sieloff, Bev Whelton, and Maureen Frey, have used King’s conceptual framework and theory as a theoretical framework for their scholarly research. The following sections explore the process through which King developed her conceptual framework and middle-range theory of goal attainment and how these books have made a significant contribution to the creation of nursing knowledge and improvements in nursing practice.

Giving Back to the Nursing Profession

After her graduation from Teacher’s College at Columbia University, King had a strong desire to start give back to the profession of nursing through scholarly work. Before King’s success as a published theorist, she attended a National League for Nursing (NLN) conference. In an effort to market herself, her ideas, and her work, King approached the F. A. Davis booth, who published the new journal Nursing Science. King praised to the editor of the journal, Martha Rogers because she was particularly impressed by Roger’s work for the journal. When King and Rogers met at the conference, they discussed possible contributions that King could make to the journal. King presented Rogers with the draft of an article she had authored entitled, “Nursing Theory Problems and Prospects.” This work argued that in order for nursing to evolve as a profession, it must have a coherent theory base. Rogers was intrigued with the idea and asked King to submit her article to the journal. The article, Nursing Theory- Problems and

Prospect, was published in October 1964. This was the beginning of a lifelong friendship

between Imogene King and Martha Rogers (King, 1994).

King and Rogers met again a few years later when Rogers attended a presentation that King gave in New York City. King was surprised to see Rogers in the audience because the event was a gathering of the alumni of an associate degree program. Her friend, Dorothy White, who was also in attendance at the meeting, said that Rogers wanted to meet with King to discuss an opportunity for her. Apparently, Rogers was interested in recruiting King for a faculty

position at New York University. While honored by the offer, King was in the process of developing the master’s program at Loyola University and did not feel that she was in the

perhaps sometime in the future they would work together. Sadly, that collaboration never did occur, yet it was the basis for a long-standing joke between the two. Despite their inability to collaborate with one another, the relationship that King developed with Martha Rogers was one of great friends who were supportive of each other in their work (King, 1994).

Imogene King’s Conceptual Framework

Inspired by her academic work, King believed that she should contribute to the base of emerging knowledge in nursing, by informing practice and legitimizing nursing as a profession. She wanted to contribute to the body of nursing knowledge that was absent in the literature at the time. King believed that society did not appreciate the hard work and knowledge required of nurses in their work. King believed that the public oversimplified the work of nursing because they failed to understand the knowledge, skills, and the values that are required of nurses. She felt that she could best convey the essence of nursing through the development of the concepts of nursing (King, 1994).

As noted in Chapter Four, a significant influence on King came from her childhood and her father’s lesson to “think it through.” Another major influence was King’s Jesuit education (which required a philosophy minor) thatprovided her with a framework on which she based her work. Her philosophy classes had emphasized the importance of organizing one’s thoughts to critically appraise the information, taking a position, and then defending that position. These lessons helped King both to create her theoretical works, and to defend her work to critics.

In the mid-1960’s the John C. Wiley and Sons Publishing Company decided to publish a series of books on nursing. They approached Mildred Montag at Teachers College at Columbia University to ask her for recommendations of people in the nursing profession whom they could

approach to write a book. Imogene King was one of the names that Montag provided to the publishing company. King was then approached by John C. Wiley and Sons Publishing Company to write a book. King was flattered that Mildred Montag recommended her for this prestigious opportunity, King agreed to develop a book for the publishing company, and signed a book contract (Helene Fuld Health Trust, 1988; King, 1994).

Conceptualization of King’s Ideas

King began to develop her conceptualization of a nursing theory by reading all the

nursing research studies that were available at the time. Because King realized that to understand theory development in nursing, she first needed to understand theory in a broader context; she researched theory in the disciplines of sociology and psychology. King immersed herself in the theoretical literature in those fields so that she could understand the process of theory

development. At the time, only one or two theories, Hildegarde Peplau’s Theory of

Interpsersonal Relations (1952) and Virginia Henderson’s 1956 publication that provided a definition of nursing, had been developed for the profession of nursing (King, 1994). As discussed in Chapter Five, King found her inspiration when she discovered a dissertation

developed by Margaret Kaufman that presented a conceptual framework for nursing. This work influenced King to utilize Kaufman’s methodology to develop a theory of nursing. King

continued her study of theory in the fields of psychology and sociology (influences of which are evident in King’s work, particularly in the area of perception). Thus, King developed the

conceptual framework that provided the building blocks for the creation of her theory of nursing. Through her relationship with Mildred Montag, King had the opportunity to publish a work that would advance knowledge in nursing. Initially, King intended that her first work

would be a theory for nursing rather than the conceptual framework that she published in 1971. The title of King’s first book, Towards a Theory for Nursing, is quite revealing. King had worked on her manuscript with the intent of developing a theory. However, the due date in her contract with the publishing company, John C. Wiley and Sons Publishing Company, arrived before she could fully develop her ideas into a theory. However, her conceptual framework was developed through a process that was not well defined. King published a conceptual framework rather than a fully developed theory because she was contractually obligated to deliver the book to John C. Wiley and Sons Publishing Company. Because the deadline was imminent, King submitted the book for publication in an incomplete form. The manuscript was incomplete because King simply ran out of time (Helene Fuld Health Trust, 1988; King, 1994). Ultimately, King’s conceptual framework contributed to the knowledge base of nursing in a meaningful form.

In keeping with the publisher’s protocol, Imogene King’s manuscript was sent to three reviewers for their honest critiques. King naively assumed that her work would be sent

reviewers, such as Martha Rogers and Mildred Montag because they were known experts in the field. However, John Wiley and Sons sent the manuscript to three anonymous reviewers. As King recalled, one review did not take a strong stance on her work in a way that was either positive nor negative. According to King (1994), a second review “came back very negative. The third review was so negative; I was devastated. Now Wiley’s editor…said ‘Imogene, this doesn’t mean that we’re not going to publish something you’re writing. But see what you can do with this.” (p. 76). King’s response was understandable; she had poured herself into her work, and it was rejected. The response she received for this work would influence the manner in

which she would critique the work of others in the future; particularly the work of students. King strove to provide students and peers with constructive criticism from which they could learn and improve their work (King, 1994).

Critique of King’s Conceptual Framework

The receipt of the book reviews came soon after her move to Washington D. C.. King shared the negative reviews with her new boss, Fay Abdullah, who suggested that King submit an excerpt of the conceptual framework for publication in a journal. At the time, King was naïvely unaware that a name and power could influence the publication process. However, when King submitted the article, she mentioned that it was suggested to her by Fay Abdullah. That article, Conceptual Frame of Reference for Nursing, was accepted for publication by Nursing

Research in 1968 (King, 1994).

Still reeling from the rejection by the reviewers of her book, King continued in her work with the Nurse Scientist Fellowship Program Research Grants Branch, Division of Nursing, Bureau of Health Manpower HEW in Washington, D. C.. Hildegarde Peplau was a reviewer for the fellowship program. King had admired Peplau’s book and spoke to her about Peplau’s work. Peplau asked King if she was working on anything not involved in the obligations of her job. King discussed her experience at Teachers College (Peplau was a graduate of the same doctoral program) and mentioned that the university instilled in its students the directive to share their voice; to write for the profession. King then shared with Peplau the negative critiques that her manuscript had received. Hildegarde Peplau responded that her first manuscript had also received negative reviews. Imogene King (1994) lamented “Well, I’ve got it at home in a desk drawer, and I really can’t touch it. I’m still devastated by those critiques.”. Peplau responded,