The social organization of nursing practice in the hospital setting and the influence on the development of conflicting working relationships between registered nurse peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term conflicting working relationships (CWRs) is used in this research to represent working relationships between nurse peers that are non-collegial, uncaring, and non-supportive. These types of relationships have been reported in the research literature using many different labels including incivility, horizontal violence, and bullying and are known to be a source of job dissatisfaction, disengagement, and burnout. Despite efforts to limit the occurrences of CWRs between nurse peers, incidents of CWRs continue to occur. Using institutional ethnography, this research explored and made visible the relationship between the social organization of professional nursing practice in the hospital setting and the development of CWRs between Registered Nurse (RN) peers. Three aspects of the social organization of professional nursing practice, should nursing, double domination, and the big picture were revealed as creating disjunctures, frustrations, and tensions for nurses that were significant in the development of CWRs. The findings of this research further illuminate how conflict has become institutionalized and how there is a need for strong nursing leadership to advocate for workplace processes and contexts that support healthy and productive working relationships between nurse peers. The results of this study offer important insights into the ways CWRs between RN peers are influenced by the extra-level processes and relations of ruling that govern professional nursing practice. Through increased clarity of these factors, it is hoped that this research can be used to open a dialogue for leaders to discuss how nursing practice could be organized in a way that supports more collegial practices between RNs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".