http://nsq.sagepub.com/Nursing Science Quarterly

http://nsq.sagepub.com/content/20/1/64The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0894318406296295

2007 20: 64Nurs Sci QBarbara W. Wright

The Evolution of Rogers' Science of Unitary Human Beings: 21st Century Reflections  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Nursing Science QuarterlyAdditional services and information for    

  http://nsq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://nsq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://nsq.sagepub.com/content/20/1/64.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 3, 2007Version of Record >>

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on October 17, 2014nsq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on October 17, 2014nsq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

InNiE.scprreusscNithiknCoismwhcaopopatinop.

Ro

beshRaceshdiaof suce

Nu

©

The Evolution of Rogers’ Science of Unitary HumanBeings: 21st Century Reflections

Barbara W. Wright, RN; PhD; FAANAdjunct Professor, Seton Hall University, College of Nursing, South Orange, New Jersey

The purpose of this article is to reflect on the state of Martha E. Rogers’ science of unitary human beings as it hasevolved over the past 40 years, with particular attention to the decade since her death. Although Rogers neverupdated her 1970 book, revised concepts and principles of homeodynamics, as reported in other publications, arediscussed. In more than a decade since Rogers’death, nurse scientists have been prolific in explicating the sciencein scholarly research and writing. An example of theories derived from the science, as well as concepts under study,and research methods are identified. Twenty-first century thoughts on the science of unitary human beings, asexpressed by three founders of the Society of Rogerian Scholars, are highlighted from an interview conducted byFawcett. Rogers suggested that the development of a science of unitary human beings is a never ending process.

a commemorative edition ofghtingale’s Notes on Nursing, Martha Rogers (1992a) wrote, “Rogerianience of irreducible human beingsovides a framework rooted in a newality and directed toward moving from what might be called a pre-ientific era to a scientific era . . . .ghtingale laid a firm foundation fors kind of an approach to nursingowledge and its use” (p. 61).ntrary to a worldview of reduction-, Rogers supported a worldview ofoleness, and rejected mechanistic

usality. She wrote, “In a universe ofen systems, causality is not antion; change is continuously innov-ve and creative . . . association doest mean causality” (Rogers, 1992b,30).

gers’ Transformation

Martha Rogers died in 1994 shortlyfore her 80th birthday (a birthday sheared with Nightingale on May 12).wnsley (1995) memorialized Rogers,lebrating “the legacy of one splendidimmering, pulsating thread that irra-tes an otherwise pedestrian tapestrydisciplinary lore” (p. 4). Rawnsley

ggested that “(t)here can be no suc-ssor to Martha Rogers, but there are

many heirs”; to fulfill a promise, “(o)urmission is to share the gift of Martha(with) each one who seeks to know herthrough her work” (p. 10).

Parse (1997) described MarthaRogers as “an earthquake” (p. 7). Parsepointed out that “while the ramifica-tions of investing the legacy of MarthaE. Rogers can be recognized, they cannot be predicted, but her voice will notbe silenced” (p. 7). Parse wrote that theRogerian landscape “has proven a fer-tile field for (Rogers’) ideas to takeroot and has provided a basis for nurs-ing science to grow in the simultaneityparadigm” (p. 8). Two extant theories,Newman’s (1997) theory of health asexpanding consciousness, and Parse’s(1998) human becoming theory,evolved from the paradigm set forth byRogers.

Nursing Science Paradigms

During more than a decade sinceRogers’ death, nurse scientists havecontinued to explicate nursing sciencethrough scholarly research and writing.According to Parse (as cited in Barrett,2002) “there is general agreement onnursing’s phenomenon of concern asthe human-universe-health process”(p. 52). Although definitions of theseterms may differ in each paradigm,Barrett (2002) explained nursingscience. Because of the significance of

The contrast between worldviews isoften explained by the two paradig-matic views of the human as a wholeperson, although this is only oneexample of difference. The totalityparadigm views the whole human asa biopsychosocioculturalspiritualbeing who can be understood bystudying the parts, yet is more thatthe sum of parts. The person is sepa-rate from the changing environment,but interacts continuously with it.Health exists on a wellness-illnesscontinuum. Most authors includeKing, Orem, Roy, Betty Neuman,Peplau, Leininger, and others astotality paradigm theorists.

In the simultaneity paradigm,whole means unitary, and the uni-tary human has characteristics thatare different from the parts and can-not be understood by knowledge ofthe parts. Moreover, the human can-not be separated from the entiretyof the universe, as both changecontinuously in innovative, unpre-dictable ways, and together createhealth, a value defined by peoplefor themselves. The simultaneitytheorists include Rogers, Parse,Margaret Newman, and some . . .say, Watson. (p. 52)

Barrett (2002) suggested that whilethese paradigms of nursing are differ-ent, neither is superior. These paradig-matic differences give rise to alternativemethods of inquiry and practice.

rsing Science Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1,

January 2007, 64-67DOI: 10.1177/0894318406296295

Barrett’s discussion, it bears repeating.2007 Sage Publications

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on Octobensq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Keywords: nursing theory, Rogers’science, science of unitary humanbeings

r 17, 2014

Evolution of Rogers’ Science 65

Science of Unitary Human Beings

Fawcett (2003a) chronicled detailsof the changes in the explication of thescience of unitary human beings overthe past 4 decades. She addressed thechanges in Rogers’ conceptual modelfocusing on the language, the concep-tual system, and principles of homeo-dynamics.

Changes in the language describ-ing Rogers’ conceptual system haveevolved, for example, from people toman, to unitary man, and to unitaryhuman beings (Fawcett, 2003a).Rogers (1970) was one of the firstnurse scholars to identify people as thecentral phenomenon of interest tonursing; “nursing aims to assist peoplein achieving their maximum healthpotential” (p. 86). Rogers (1992b)described unitary human beings asirreducible wholes, not to be confusedwith the term holistic, “generally sig-nifying a summation of parts” (p. 29).

Fawcett (2003a) pointed out theimportance of knowing the unique lan-guage of a discipline and stated that“knowing the unique distinctive lan-guage of each conceptual model andtheory underpins the existence and vis-ibility of that model or theory” (para.7). While unique language may be con-sidered jargon, Fawcett found that theuse of specific words is not as much ofan issue as previously claimed.

Originally, Rogers (1970) set forthassumptions on which the science ofunitary human beings would be based.She described general characteristicsof the phenomenon of the human, nurs-ing’s basic concern: humans are unifiedwholes, continually exchanging energywith the environment (open systems),possessing a capacity for abstractionand imagery as a sentient thinkingbeing; life’s pattern and organizationidentify the human and reflect innova-tive wholeness. After several decades,modified characteristics emerged: humanand environmental energy fields, open-ness, pattern, and pandimensionality(Rogers, 1992b). Her thoughts relatingto the changes made in the science havenot always been documented. However,Rogers (1994a) stated that “suddenly

one morning about 3 AM, I knew thatpandimensional was the right word” (p.4). She rejected the use of linear con-cepts. While the “slinky” was used as amodel in 1970, Rogers was adamantthat the spiral represented by it denotesevolution, and not repetition along acontinuum.

Changes in Rogers’ (1970) princi-ples of homeodynamics evolved fromthe original four described as reci-procy, synchrony, helicy, and reso-nancy. Over time, the principles werere-conceptualized as helicy, resonancy,and complementarity; and finally theybecame integrality, helicy, and reso-nancy (Rogers, 1992b). The principlesexplained the nature and process ofchange. For the principle of integrality,Rogers described change as a mutualprocess of the human and environmen-tal fields that she viewed as infinite, andboundary-less. Furthermore, she modi-fied the definition of helicy replacing theterm probabilistic with unpredictable,reporting that the literature describesunpredictability as transcending proba-bility. Resonancy was characterized byenergy field changes from lower tohigher frequency wave patterns.

In her focus on the discipline ofnursing, Rogers stressed that the goalof nursing was the promotion of health,a positive, optimistic approach consis-tent with the science of unitary humanbeings, and she avoided the use of thewords prevention of illness. Rogers(1994b) wrote that “well-being is amuch better term because the termhealth is very ambiguous . . . (and) tofocus on (well-being) puts nursing atthe center of the health care system,because the primary purpose of healthcare is the promotion of health” (p. 34).

Theories and Concepts EvolvingFrom Rogers’ Science

Malinski (2006) identified severalfactors that have negatively influencedthe development of proposed theoriesbased on the science of unitary humanbeings. She wrote that the continueduse of Rogers’ 1970 book that was notupdated is one factor; another is thattheories often have been proposed in

doctoral dissertations and the researchershave not continued to research theconcepts. However, Newman andParse have credited the paradigm setforth by Rogers in the development oftheir work. According to Fawcett(2005), other theories consistent withthe science of unitary human beingshave been identified, such as, artof professional nursing (Alligood),power (Barrett), perceived dissonance(Bultemeier), human field motion(Ference), healthiness (Leddy), sen-tience (Parker), and self-transcendence(Reed).

Studies of the concept of well-beinghave been reported, for example(Gueldner et al., 2005; Hills &Hanchett, 2001; Yarcheski, Mahon, &Yarcheski, 2004). Madrid and Winstead-Fry (2001) examined nursing researchon health patterning, therapeutic touch,and imagery; Barrett (2003) studiedimagery, an experience in pandimen-sional awareness; and Lewandowski(2004) reported on patterning of painand power with imagery. Shearer andReed (2004) have offered a reformula-tion of the concept of empowermentusing Reed’s description of nursing as aparticipatory process that transcends thepatient and nurse relationship, acknowl-edging Rogers’ science and Barrett’stheory of power.

Malinski (2006) discussed Rogers’concern about studying the concept ofspirituality, as it might be viewed asdichotomous, such as body-mind-spirit; and that many view religionand spirituality as the same concept.Earlier, Malinski (1994) and Smith(1994) initiated discussions on spiritu-ality; Hanchett (1997), Reeder (1997),and Sarter (1997) wrote about Rogers’science, spirituality, and mysticism.

Innovative research methodsderived from the science of unitaryhuman beings have been reported inthe literature (Barrett, 2002; Parse,2001). Butcher’s (2005) unitary fieldpattern portrait, Carboni’s (1997)Rogerian process of inquiry, Cowling’s(2005) unitary appreciative inquiry,and Bultemeier’s (1997) photo-disclo-sure method are examples of methodsthat have been developed.

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on October 17, 2014nsq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

66 Nursing Science Quarterly, 20:1, January 2007

Rogers (1992b) often referred tonon-invasive practice modalities astools of practice. Therapeutic touch andimagery, as well as giving physical careare identified. Practice methods basedon the science of unitary human beingshave been reported, such as, Barrett’s(1998) health patterning; Butcher’s(1999) synthesizing health patterningand pattern appreciation; and Cowling’s(2005) unitary appreciative nursing.Practice and educational settings haveadopted the science of unitary humanbeings as a guide. Washburn Universityin Topeka, Kansas, uses the science ofunitary human beings as a conceptualframework for its course of study(washburn.edu).

21st Century Updateon Rogers’ Science

A 21st century update on Martha E.Rogers’ science of unitary humanbeings was presented by Fawcett(2003b), who interviewed ElizabethBarrett, Violet Malinski, and JohnPhillips, founders of the Society ofRogerian Scholars. She focused theinterview with these Rogerian expertson the discipline of nursing, nursingpractice, education, administration,and research. Highlights of that dis-cussion follow.

Barrett (as cited in Fawcett, 2003b)suggested that consumer demand wouldlead to increasing unitary nursing ser-vices and research. However, a generallack of awareness of the importance ofnursing care in promoting health andwell-being continues to exist in society.Barrett (as cited in Fawcett) recom-mended the use of the concept unitaryparadigm that could transcend the total-ity and simultaneity worldviews andproposed “that nursing is the study ofpeople as unitary human beings inmutual process with their environments”(p. 46). Phillips (as cited in Fawcett)pointed out that Rogers’ science of uni-tary human beings facilitates an under-standing of the “unitary nature of theuniverse, its people and their environ-ments . . . this unitary knowledge willhelp to pattern the current crisis in thediscipline of nursing” (p. 46).

Malinski (as cited in Fawcett,2003b) stressed that a nursing model ortheory to guide practice and research isimportant, and encouraged support forall nursing theory efforts in education,focusing not on our differences, but onour similarities. The experts stressedthat the science of unitary humanbeings has been used as a conceptualframework in educational programs fornurses and focuses on unitary thinkingin caring for the whole person.

Phillips (as cited in Fawcett,2003b) explained that the science ofunitary human beings provides aframe of reference for practice, andthat nursing is more than taking careof the physical body; “it is the humanenergy field and its manifestations thatshould be the focus” (p. 50). To con-duct research, he suggested creating“unitary methods that get to the full-ness of the life process,” however, “whatwe are looking for will not come fromoutcomes-based research, whetherquantitative or qualitative” (p. 48).Barrett (as cited in Fawcett) com-mented that we need to enlighten theNational Institute of Nursing Researchleaders of the relationship betweenknowledge about unitary persons andimprovement in people’s health.

Recognizing the leadership rolethat nurse administrators play inhealthcare, Barrett (as cited inFawcett, 2003b) suggested that “anurse administrator can optimally fos-ter creation of a nursing environmentto guide autonomous nursing practice”(p. 49). Malinski (as cited in Fawcett)suggested that clients and staff experi-ence increased power within environ-ments of autonomous practice andmeaningful partnerships develop basedon mutual well-being. Autonomouspractice is demonstrated through themutual process and the power of par-ticipating knowingly in the process ofchange.

Barrett (as cited in Fawcett, 2003b)concluded that “nursing frameworksand theories provide the power thatgives substantive form to the vision ofnursing’s important contribution to21st century health care” (p. 50).Rogers’ science of unitary human

beings offers such a framework fromwhich theories have evolved.

The heirs of Rogers, through theircollective body of research and writingabout the science of unitary humanbeings since her death, give assurancethat her voice has not been silenced(Parse, 1997). Rogers (1992b) explained“that the development of a science ofunitary human beings is a never endingprocess. The abstract system first pre-sented some years ago has continued togain substance. Concomitantly, earlyerrors have undergone correction, defin-itions have been revised for greater clar-ity and accuracy, and updating ofcontent is ongoing.” (p. 28). MarthaRogers will have the last word.

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on Octonsq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

References

Barrett, E. A. M. (1998). A Rogerian prac-tice methodology for health patterning.Nursing Science Quarterly, 11, 136-138.

Barrett, E. A. M. (2002). What is nursingscience? Nursing Science Quarterly,15, 51-60.

Barrett, E. A. M. (2003, November).Imagery: Experiencing pandimen-sional awareness. Presentation at theConference of the Society of RogerianScholars, Emerging Pattern in aChanging World, Savannah, GA.

Bultemeier, K. (1997). Photo-disclosure. Aresearch methodology in investigatingunitary human beings. In M. Madrid(Ed.), Patterns of Rogerian knowing(pp. 63-74). New York: NationalLeague for Nursing.

Butcher, H. K. (1999). Imagination col-umn: The artistry of Rogerian practice.Visions: The Journal of RogerianNursing Science, 7, 49-54.

Butcher, H. K. (2005). The unitary fieldpattern portrait research method: Facets,processes, and findings. NursingScience Quarterly, 18, 297-297.

Carboni, J. T. (1997). The art of creatingmethod: A Rogerian process of inquiry.In M. Madrid (Ed.), Patterns ofRogerian knowing (pp. 54-58). NewYork: National League for Nursing.

Cowling, W. R. (2005). Despairing womenand healing outcomes: A unitary appre-ciative nursing perspective. Advancesin Nursing Science, 28, 94-106.

Fawcett, J. (2003a, November). The evolu-tion of the science of unitary humanbeings: Focus on language. Keynoteaddress presented at the Society ofRogerian Scholars Conference, Emerg-ing Patterns in a Changing World,Savannah, GA.

ber 17, 2014

Evolution of Rogers’ Science 67

Fawcett, J. (2003b). The nurse theorists:21st century updates-Martha E. Rogers.Nursing Science Quarterly, 16, 44-51.

Fawcett, J. (2005, October). Evaluatingtheoretical-empirical structures forscience of unitary human beings-basedresearch. Workshop presented at theSociety of Rogerian Scholars Confer-ence, Savannah, GA.

Gueldner, S. H., Michel, Y., Bramlett,M. H., Liu, C., Johnston, L. W., Endo,E. et al. (2005). The well-being picturescale: A revision of the index of fieldenergy. Nursing Science Quarterly,18, 42-45.

Hanchett, E. (1997). Mysticism in Bud-dhist philosophy and Rogerian science:Awareness, integrality, and compas-sion. In M. Madrid (Ed.), Patterns ofRogerian knowing (pp. 103-111). NewYork: National League for Nursing.

Hills, R. G. S., & Hanchett, E. (2001).Human change and individuation inpivotal life situations: Developmentand testing the theory of enlightenment.Visions: The Journal of RogerianNursing Science, 9, 6-19.

Lewandowski, W. A. (2004). Patterningof pain and power with guided imagery.Nursing Science Quarterly, 17, 233-241.

Madrid, M., & Winstead-Fry, P. (2001).Nursing research on the health pattern-ing modalities of therapeutic touch andimagery. Nursing Science Quarterly,14, 187-193.

Malinski, V. M. (1994). Spirituality: A pat-tern manifestation of the human/envi-ronment mutual process. Visions: TheJournal of Rogerian Nursing Science,2, 12-18.

Malinski, V. M. (2006). Rogerian science-based nursing theories. NursingScience Quarterly, 19, 7-12.

Newman, M. A. (1997). A dialogue withMartha Rogers and David Bohm aboutthe science of unitary human beings. InM. Madrid (Ed.), Patterns of Rogerianknowing (pp. 3-10). New York:National League for Nursing.

Parse, R. R. (1997). Investing the legacy:Martha E. Rogers’ voice will not besilenced. Visions: The Journal ofRogerian Nursing Science, 5, 7-11.

Parse, R. R. (1998) The human becomingschool of thought. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Parse, R. R. (2001). Qualitative inquiry:The path of sciencing. Sudbury, MA:Jones and Bartlett.

Rawnsley, M. M. (1995). Rogerian nursingscience: Celebrating the legacy.Visions: The Journal of RogerianNursing Science, 3, 4-11.

Reeder, F. (1997). Mysticism/spiritualityof aborigine people and Rogerianscience. In M. Madrid (Ed.), Patterns ofRogerian knowing (pp. 120-126). NewYork: National League for Nursing.

Rogers, M. E. (1970). An introduction tothe theoretical basis of nursing.Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Rogers, M. E. (1992a). Nightingale’s noteson nursing: Prelude to the 21st century.In F. N. Nightingale, Notes on nursing.What it is and what it is not(Commemorative ed., pp. 58-62).Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Rogers, M. E. (1992b). Nursing scienceand the space age. Nursing ScienceQuarterly, 5, 27-34.

Rogers, M. E. (1994a). Nursing scienceevolves. In M. Madrid & E. A. M.Barrett (Eds.), Rogers’ scientific art ofnursing practice (pp. 3-9). New York:National League for Nursing Press.

Rogers, M. E. (1994b). The science of uni-tary human beings: Current perspec-tives. Nursing Science Quarterly, 7,33-35.

Sarter, B. (1997). Hindu, mysticism: Therealization of integrality. In M. Madrid(Ed.), Patterns of Rogerian knowing(pp. 112-119). New York: NationalLeague for Nursing.

Shearer, N. B., & Reed, P. G. (2004).Empowerment: Reformulation of anon-Rogerian concept. Nursing ScienceQuarterly, 17, 253-259.

Smith, D. W. (1994). Toward developing atheory of spirituality. Visions: TheJournal of Rogerian Nursing Science,2, 35-43.

Yarcheski, A., Mahon, N. E, & Yarcheski,T. J. (2004). Health and well-being inearly adolescents using Rogers’ scienceof unitary human beings. NursingScience Quarterly, 17, 72-77.

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on October 17, 2014nsq.sagepub.comDownloaded from