Desenlace y anticipación

3.1 Introduction

The framework to inform the study, design and methods and interpretation used in this thesis was guided by the perspectives of role theory and the philosophical perspectives of symbolic interactionism. Role theory is a useful framework for research aimed at exploring, understanding and relating role perceptions and individual human interactions and behavior within a social and organizational context [1]. Role theory describes how an actor performs in specific roles and circumstances [2].

The stance of symbolic interactionism provides a f ramework for understanding how individuals derive meaning during social interactions and ho w they define their self and role within social circumstances [3]. The chapter commences with a brief discussion of concepts underpinning the development and application of theories in scientific research. Historical perspective and a de scription of role theory and sy mbolic interactionism are then provided. These perspectives are useful for appreciating the utility of the theoretical framework for describing the nurse educator role in acute care hospitals. Understanding the role dimensions of the nurse educator role was considered of high utility for supporting the nurse educator role and development of competency standards.

3.2 Development and application of theories in research

Theories guide research by supporting or generating new knowledge [4]. A theory comprises inter-related concepts and statements that are either concrete or abstract [5]. Concrete concepts, for example ‘lecturing’, can be observed, whereas abstract concepts, such as ‘learning’, cannot be observed [1]. ‘Role’ is a concept that adopts different meanings when it is associated with other concepts such as ‘ambiguity’[6]. The combination of concepts such as ‘role’ and ‘ambiguity’ to form ‘role ambiguity’ is called a construct [6]. Constructs allow us to examine a specific aspect or a concept. For example, when considering the concept of ‘role’ we may want to explore other concepts associated with the role such as ‘ambiguity’ or identity’ [6,7].

Theoretical frameworks [8] are formed through the linkage of concepts such as ‘clinical teaching’ and constructs such as ‘role ambiguity’ [1,9]. They serve to link all aspects of the research study — the questions to be answered, the literature review, methodological considerations, data collection and interpretation.

3.3 Role theory

Role theory is defined as a g roup of concepts and hypotheses predicting ‘actor’ performance in a specific role or anticipated behaviors in specific circumstances [1]. As a theoretical framework, role theory may accommodate connections between organizational and individual factors and behavior [10]. This may include exploring individual attitudes and perceptions of people in organizations [6].

Role may be defined as the character an actor assumes when performing activities or functions an individual may assume within an organization [6]. In the context of role theory, role may be defined as t he behavioral characteristics a pe rson may assume associated with their position and its functions. These characteristics may be influenced by their knowledge, attitudes, experiences and expectations of the role [6].

The utility of role theory has be en challenged by Clifford (1996) as agreement regarding role definitions and t he importance of role as a c oncept has not been reached [1]. That said, various role related studies have investigated role performance and se lf-appraisal as w ell as the impact of role performance on others [11]. Further studies have examined role conflict [12]and role strain [13] [13]. Although theoretical approaches to the role may vary, the theories have important common themes, namely: role acquisition, role behavior, normative behavior and social interaction [6].

3.3.1 Historical perspectives

The three key tenets of role theory are (i) social structuralism, (ii) symbolic interactionism and (iii) the dramaturgical approach [5,14].

(i) Social structuralism

Roles are functional components within a social system where the role and social structure may evolve and change along with the organization and society [6].

Structuralism provides connections with role theory and organizational nomenclature such as ‘position’ and ‘office’ as well as depicting role performance in a specific way [15].

Social structuralism theory asserts that there is a relationship between a role and a structural position where the individual assumes multiple roles within the position [1]. This theoretical perspective was further developed by Linton in the 1930s suggesting that the distinction needed to be made between social structures, such as an organization, and the individual [10].

Social structuralism focuses on society, social systems and st ructures that are perceived to influence individual behavior [6]. In this context, analysis is directed towards the structure as opposed to the individual in relation to the social environment [1]. The following section provides a description of the evolution of the theoretical constructs of symbolic interactionism.

(ii) Symbolic interactionism

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered to have laid the foundations for symbolic interactionism as a n academic at the University of Chicago [3]. Mead espoused that humans are creative, active beings who influence the world in which they live [16]. In turn, he derived that these interactions and forms of engagement determine behavior [16].

He also noted that human beings are selective about what they learn and remember, and t hat they view and de fine objects subject to their perceived utility [16] generating meaning from the effect they produce [16]. Mead also observed that actions and interactions, as opposed to person and society, should be the foci for studying social phenomena [16].

The concepts of habit, instinct and self were associated with symbolic interactionism. William James (1892–1911) believed that habits developed in response to past experiences and as a result of repetition. In his view, habits influence how we go about modifying and inhibiting our instincts [17].

The term ‘pragmatism’, that is ways of thinking about or interpreting things, was coined by Pierce [18]. He argued that mental activity is associated with physiological brain activity [18]. The work of John Dewy (1859–1914) was also

than from within the individual [18]. This underscores the importance of considering contextual factors and organization in understanding workforce behavior.

Another member of the Chicago school, William Thomas (1842–1910), is known for his concept of the ‘definition of the situation’ [17].He suggested that definitions of situations often reflect a po wer imbalance which is a use ful factor in interpreting social organizations. However, Thomas also suggested that social structure doesn’t necessarily determine the definition of a situation allowing for a range of other interactive factors [17].

The concepts attributed to Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) are the primary

group (significant others); sympathetic introspection (imagining situations as others perceive them) and the looking glass self (enabling us to view ourselves as others see us) [17]. These concepts are useful in interpreting how individuals are viewed and how they perceive each other within an organizational structure.

Herbert Blumer (1969) subsequently denoted three premises of symbolic interactionism:

• Humans act towards things as a consequence of the meanings these things hold for them

• Meanings arise through the process of communication • Interpretation modifies the meanings [3]