Caring : perceptions of students and a community college diploma nursing program / Karen Elizabeth Doran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While caring has been a recent focus of nursing and curricula for \nnursing education, little research exists on student and faculty \nperspectives of caring. There is a particular lack of research on \ncaring within diploma nursing programs which prepare the majority \nof Registered Nurses in Ontario. This researcher sought to \ninvestigate to what extent a diploma nursing program in an Ontario \ncommunity college, enables caring among its' students and faculty. \nWhat behaviours/practices inhibit and foster caring from student \nand faculty perspectives? A phenomenological approach was used to \ngain the student and faculty views of caring and uncaring \nexperiences within the nursing program. Three senior nursing \nstudents and three full-time nursing faculty described their \nexperiences of caring and uncaring, and the effects of these \nexperiences on them. The descriptions were analyzed using a \nmodification of Giorgi's method of analysis. Based on the findings, \nbehaviours which inhibit and foster caring were identified. The \nmeaning of caring for each participant and for the whole was \ndescribed and a visual description of the structure of the meaning \nof caring is proposed. The visual description illustrates \nvulnerability as pivotal to the caring experience and the effect of \nbehaviours which inhibit and foster caring on the extent to which \ncaring is enabled. The emergence of the role and importance of the \none cared-for and their freedom to be cared-for is discussed. Two \ncategories of caring emerged from this study, day to day caring and \ncaring in a crisis. The two categories of caring are compared to Noddings* (1984) discussion of 'rule-bound* caring and caring \nwithout rules. A question is raised regarding a relationship \nbetween faculty caring and the nursing students' apparent conflict \nwith their image of a nurse and their image of themselves. \nImplications of the research include development of strategies to \nfoster caring in practice and in education and the development of \nnursing curricula to incorporate theories of caring and qualitative \napproaches to learning. There are implications for faculty in terms \nof collegial relationships and as role models for students and each \nother. Further research on the notion of vulnerability in caring \nand what influences one to care or not care is suggested. Research \nfocusing on the one cared-for and on the possibility of faculty-student \nresearch teams is recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".