El Torito en la encrucijada

The writings of Goffman provide substance for grounding our understandings of role, both the definition of role and the way that role is applied to an individual and groups. For Goffman, his conception of role is constructed around the perspective of the theatre, the analogy of a theatrical performance and his language employs dramaturgical references and analogies. Interaction is defined as the ‘reciprocal influence of individuals upon one another’s action’ when face to face (Goffman, 1959, p. 15), while a performance is defined as ‘all the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence other participants’ (Goffman, 1959, p. 15). Regarding the reciprocity of social interaction, Goffman describes the ‘symmetry’ of communication as a kind of ‘information game’ (Goffman, 1959, p. 8).

Three focal points are relevant to the investigation of role; expectations held by the person living a role, the role as a social front that is presented in social interaction and the ‘rhetoric of training’ associated with roles (Goffman, 1959, p. 46). An individual who possesses or embodies certain characteristics associated with a role and claims that role, has expectations for others to treat him or her with the value associated with that role. There is an associated moral obligation of society to attribute the associated value and meaning attached to a particular role to an individual who lays claim

to a role (Goffman, 1959). If during the course of social interaction, the person playing a role does not experience a valued response from others, then that is an occasion that may provoke feelings of tension for the individual and reveals an incongruency of expectations surrounding social interaction. Associated with each role is a social front, defined as ’the expressive equipment of a standard kind intentionally or unwittingly employed by an individual during performance of role’ (Goffman, 1959, P. 22). A front may consist of a wide range of characteristics or qualities such as the setting surrounding it, the appearance, clothing, posture or manner of speaking associated with the role.

In the context of what that means for nursing, there may be expectations associated with a social front and for roles such as nursing, the front may be ambiguous due to the lack of visibility surrounding the role, for example bedside nursing or emerging roles such as nursing within industry. Some roles have a high degree of specificity regarding the ’rhetoric of training’ (Goffman, 1959, p. 47). Qualifications, regulations, certifications and competencies may all be included as elements of that rhetoric, with the intent to create a boundary that sets that role or group, apart from others. Regarding nursing, that rhetoric may have layers of complexity or may vary substantially depending upon the educational background and training. This inconsistency of the rhetoric of training within nursing may be a source of confusion to others. The lack of visibility of nursing, combined with the complexity of nursing’s rhetoric of training serve to contribute to a social front that may lack clarity for non-nurses. To gain insight into the ambiguity associated with social front, an investigation of roles, role sets, relationships and the social mechanisms, that frame the social front is essential to gain a level of transparency. When transparency is achieved, congruent expectations for social and professional interaction become possible.

Role Sets and Social Mechanisms

An individual performing a role in a single social status is like the hub of a wheel with an array of role relationships radiating outward and associated with that role. Any role carries with it a spectrum of relationships that influence the way in which roles are experienced by the occupant of the role. Role Set is defined as a ‘complement of role-relationships in which persons are involved by virtue of occupying a particular social status’ (Merton, 1996, p. 113). The way that a role set is engaged depends upon the social interaction of the self with others and is impacted by the legacy of the past and the current experience of socialization. The role set is the aggregate network of role relationships

associated with a role as a single social status, rather than relationships associated with multiple roles; that is an important distinction. In a demonstration of the complexity of social structure, each social status has a role set that is accompanied by a suite of role relationships that defines the network associated with that social status (Merton, 1996, p. 114).

Five social mechanisms are identified as determinants of how role sets affect the social structure (Merton, 1996, p. 116-121). These mechanisms include the relative importance of status, the varying degrees of power among the role set, the observability of role activities and conflicting demands and the mutual support of individual status-occupants. Social mechanisms are inherent to the social structure and influence the expectations of members of the role set. They impact how the individual performing the role or the status occupant, experiences and manages social interactions within the role set. Even if all social mechanisms are functioning the role set may still not be operating at a level that maintains a balance to facilitate efficiency (Merton, 1996, p. 122). Observability or visibility of a role is integral to the functionality of that role set, both in terms of the quality of the role set and the impact on social interaction. Sharing of status and role jurisdiction cannot be operationalized without visibility of the role. Balance, coping, tension and conflict are all potential outcomes that may be experienced by the status occupant, depending upon how expectations are perceived.

Roles and Professionalism

As was apparent in the literature on identity, language and terminology may influence role

expectations and may be perceived as symbols that represent professional status. A characteristic aim of any occupation may be to turn itself into a profession (Hughes, 1971, p. xviii). Nursing is on a path to professionalization. There is a precedent for the evolution of professionalization, roles are examined by those who are living the experience (Hughes, 1971, p. 311). Descriptions of the roles performed, and the work done, are set within the context of the work and the surroundings of where it is executed. Investigation of organizations looks at work, not just as functional tasks but as the social roles that are performed and associated with expectations. These descriptions often reveal work being done on the periphery at the ‘frontier’ (Hughes, 1971, p. 312). Frontiers are described within the contextual interface on the periphery, by those who are pushing the boundary. As an occupation expands, the context of the role changes as the frontiers migrate. The roles and the individuals who perform roles are the essence of the identity of the profession.

Social Identification and role relationships

Social identification within an organization, may be defined as ‘oneness with or belongingness to a group’ (Ashforth and Mael, 1969, p. 34). Social Identification Theory (SIT) orders the social

environment and is the topic of a paper by Ashforth and Mael (1969) as it applies to organizations. It enables individuals to be positioned in roles, geographically within that social environment. The frequency of references to geography and location in the discussion of role are sign posts of the concept of social ecology, an application of the concept of physical mapmaking in the earth sciences to society. They (Ashforth and Mael, 1969) posit that individuals tend to define themselves, their

identities and their roles, using their position within their world as a reference point to various organizations. Identity and role are significant determinants of group affiliations within and between organizations and the boundaries that separate them.

Sluss and Ashforth (2007) suggest that identification of self is essentially based upon social interactions in role relationships, the reciprocity of meanings and comparisons between oneself and others. The definition of self is on three levels of identity; individual, interpersonal and collective. They equate SIT with interaction based upon group prototypes that tend to be depersonalizing as opposed to personal characteristics and they view roles within SIT in terms of expectations based on position within

organizations (Sluss and Ashforth, 2007, p. 18). Relational identity and identification are grounded in person-based identity and role-based identity of each individual in a role relationship. A typology of relational identification is a composite of both individuals within the role set and may indicate either relational identification, ambivalent relational identification or relational disidentification (Sluss and Ashforth, 2007, p. 19). Relational identification may be considered as either particularized as in the context of between two individuals or more generalized (Sluss and Ashforth, 2007, p. 19). This concept of relational identification adds the potential for an element of personalization, a blend of the person and the role. Over time, with frequent contact and interaction, relationships may become more personal. Acknowledgement and recognition of interpersonal attraction and role transcendence also distinguish relational identity from social identity, providing for the transition from generalized to particularized and the closeness that may evolve in relationships over time with more frequent interaction (Sluss and Ashforth, 2007, p. 17). Sluss and Ashforth see the structural functionalists, those who advocate social identity theory and the symbolic interactionists as complementary, both yield

reciprocal interaction of individuals, systems, structure and process (Sluss and Ashforth, 2007, p. 12). Framed by symbolic interactionism, meaning of identity is always evolving through the social

reciprocity of communication rather than expectations.

Role relationships that occur between a subgroup of an organization and that larger organization are affected by being nested within that larger organization. Social ecology and the pervasiveness of location are determinants of the functionality of social mechanisms. Nested groups are challenged to identify with each other, despite of and because of the position of one as a subgroup of the other (Ashforth and Mael, 1969, p. 30). Expectations may be experienced as congruent or incongruent depending upon the functionality of social mechanisms. Incongruent expectations are an output of dysfunctional social mechanisms, or at best mechanisms that are not fully optimized. Bias and conflict may exist if expectations of the nested group are incongruent with the larger organization. Social distancing, negative stereotypes may become contagious (Ashforth and Mael, 1969, p. 32). ’Wisdom is little more than the ability to remember the lessons of previous identities and integrity is the ability to integrate and abide by them’ (Ashforth and Mael, 1969, p. 31). The very existence of groups paves the way for conflict and the authors call for future research on the boundary issues surrounding group insecurity and the tension expressed through groups’ efforts for legitimacy (Ashforth and Mael, 1969).

Thus, for nursing, like other professions, roles are socially constructed and framed by the context of their everyday reality. Depending upon the visibility of their social front, the functionality of their social mechanisms impacts the expectations of others and influences the structural integrity of their role. At a micro level, relations between individuals may become more congruent over time with increased frequency of interaction. For nurses, increased professional interaction has the potential to clarify expectations and build more personal and functional relationships. For nurses in industry, the synergy of their role relationships is affected at a macro level by their geography of being nested as a subgroup of the WOCN Society. Being nested poses potential challenges to boundary work and may impact their efforts at legitimacy. Defining their role, effectively relating to their role set and establishing their boundary are all part of their professional project. Their unique space in a zone at the margin of their territorial practice, has expanded the scope of practice and they are processing a new role set that no longer incorporates the patient, but a new domain of others. The next section focuses on