Part 10 (2/2)

relation are subscribed to in my approach to nursing practice and in this human or phenomenological nursology approach.[16] Buber held as prerequisite for intuitive type knowing of the other, or imagining the real of his potential for being, a knower, and ”I,” capable of distance from the other, able to see the other as a unique other, one who turns to the other, makes his being present to the other, and allows the other presence. The knowing, ”I,” in this case the nurse, responds to the other's uniqueness, does not superimpose, maintains a capacity for surprise and question, and is with the other, as opposed to ”seeming to be.” This kind of relating cannot be superimposed on a nurse clinician or researcher. It must be personally responsibly chosen and invested in.

The approach then of the second phase of this method and of the transactional phase of nursing when nurses are in the arena with others is the same. This method proposes that to study nursing from outside the arena for purposes of objectivity bursts asunder the very nature of nursing practice. The studier is a part of that which is being studied.

Observations interpreted from outside the situation could be cla.s.sified only as projections.

Phase III: Nurse Knowing the Other Scientifically

Bergson believes man knows incompletely through standing outside the thing to be known, metaphorically walking around it, and observing it.

This a.n.a.lytical process, this viewing of a thing's many aspects, he conceives as the habitual function of positive science. This is the third phase of this phenomenological nursology method. Bergson says:

”... a.n.a.lysis multiplies endlessly the points of view ... to complete the ever incomplete representation.”

”All a.n.a.lysis is thus a translation, a development into symbols, a representation taken from successive points of view.”

”a.n.a.lysis ... is the operation which reduces the object to elements already known, that is, common to that object and to others.”[17]

{73}

So phenomenological nursology proposes that after the studier has experienced the other intuitively and absolutely, the experience be conceptualized and expressed in accordance with the nurse's human potential. Humanly we can express only sequentially while our actual experienced lived worlds flow in an ”all-at-once” fas.h.i.+on. Our words are known symbols and categories used to convey the experience and thus deny the uniqueness of each realized experience.

Buber's description of man's ”I-It” way of relating to the world is in agreement with Bergson. He conveys the necessity of this kind of relating by man to his world; and despite its lacks proposes that man prize his a.n.a.lytical ability. Like Bergson, Buber views knowing as a movement from intuition to a.n.a.lysis, and not the other way around. Buber sees knowledge expressed or science created through the knowing ”I”

transcending itself, recollecting, reflecting on, and experiencing its past ”I-Thou” relation as an ”It.” This is man being conscious of, looking at, himself and that which he has taken in, merged with, made part of himself. This is the time when he mulls over, a.n.a.lyzes, sorts out, compares, contrasts, relates, interprets, gives a name to, and categorizes.

The third phase of this methodology is the same as that phase of clinical nursing practice in which the nurse, removed from the nursing arena, replays and reflects on this area and transcribes her angular view of it. In this reflective state the nurse a.n.a.lyzes, considers relations.h.i.+ps between components, synthesizes themes or patterns, and then conceptualizes or symbolically interprets a sequential view of this past lived reality. The challenge of communicating a lived nursing reality demands authenticity with the self and rigorous effort in the selection of words, phrases, and precise grammar.

Phase IV: Nurse Complementarily Synthesizing Known Others

In this phase of the methodology the nurse researcher, the knower, compares and synthesizes multiple known realities. Buber says of comparison:

”The act of contrasting, carried out properly and adequately, leads to the grasp of the principle.”[18]

In this comparison and synthesis the ”I” of the researcher a.s.sumes the position of the knowing place. The knower, like an interpreter, allows dialogue between the multiple known realities. These realities are unknowable to each other directly. The knower interprets, sorts, and cla.s.sifies.

In the human knowing place discovered differences in similar realities do not compete, one does not negate the other. Each can be true, present, ”all-at-once.” Differences can make visible the greater realities of each. Desan, the philosopher, says of this kind of synthesis:

{74}

”... a synthetic view where two or more positions are seen to illuminate and to transfigure one another through their mutual presence.”[19]

The knower alert to an aspect present in a single reality can question the other reality on this aspect. This aspect may be present in both, more blatant in one than in another. Its forms may be different or modified in each. It may be totally absent in one. Differences found may arouse or bring to consciousness other questions to ask of the data.

This oscillating, dialectical process continues throughout reflection on the multiple realities. This indirect dialogue is recorded by the investigator as the complementary synthesis.

This synthesis is more than additive because it allows mutual representation and the illumination of one reality by another.

The fourth phase of this research methodology is like that phase of clinical nursing in which a nurse compares and synthesizes the similarities and differences of like nursing situations and arrives at an expanded view.

Phase V: Succession Within the Nurse From the Many to the Paradoxical One

<script>