(How) Do we theorize? A focused mapping review and synthesis of theoretical nursing research in the German-speaking area of Europe

INTRODUCTION

Nursing science is considered an empirically oriented human science with an emphasis on practice, therefore the focus of research often lays on application. Nonetheless, it is also concerned with fundamental research to (further) develop the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological foundation of the discipline. Hence, the main tasks of nursing science are theory development, method development, empirical research, and implementation of the gained knowledge into practice (Brandenburg & Dorschner, 2021).

However, nursing science in the 21^st century has been described as being at a crossroads, with an imbalance between empirical and theoretical or philosophical inquiry threatening the development of the profession (Grace et al., 2016; Roy, 2018). Indeed, Grace et al. (2016) have cautioned that there is “the possibility of a tilt toward the empirical at the expense of the other two.” A similar observation is being discussed regarding the status of nursing theory construction in German-speaking countries of Europe, including Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, which has arguably come to a halt as a result of the strive for evidence-based nursing (Balzer, 2012; Meyer, 2010; Moers et al., 2011). In their critical essay, Moers et al. (2011) discussed the sparse theory development in Germany and noted that a gap had opened between theory development and empirical research in nursing in recent years. As theory building is defined as an indicator for the intellectual condition of a discipline, the authors expressed increasing concern about the situation in German nursing science. According to their observation, this also applied to neighboring countries, including Austria and Switzerland (Moers et al., 2011). Similar concerns had been raised earlier and continue to be addressed since the early 2000s. In 2002 Schaeffer reflected on current trends and challenges in nursing research and claimed that the state of theory development should be pushed to promote the scientific foundation of nursing. Two years later, Stemmer (2004) stated that the theory discussion has largely been abandoned and that a detachment of research from theory seems to be emerging in the development of nursing science. In 2009, Schaeffer (2009) reiterated her call for a revival of theoretical discourse, suggesting to consolidate the numerous incoherent theoretical perspectives. Moreover, Schmidli-Bless and Ricka (2011) observed a decline in the relevance of nursing theories, and Schrems (2011) noted that theory development in nursing science in German-speaking countries remains a stepchild. The existing critique culminated in the essay by Moers et al. (2011), which has kindled recurring critical debate ever since. Still in 2018, Bartholomeyczik (2018) lamented that a theory of nursing or even a theory of nursing interventions is lacking or has not been developed, and one year later Brandenburg (2019), as the situation had remained unchanged, diagnosed a widespread abstinence from theory in nursing science.

Moers et al. (2011) identified two main causes of this predicament: the increasing demands and pressures of academia, with researchers being “too busy to think”, i.e., too busy to construct theory, as well as a shift in focus from theory development to evidence-based nursing and intervention effectiveness research. Contributing factors include the fragmentation of higher education (Mayer, 2019) the “science circus” (Bartholomeyczik, 2018) with its tendency towards regulation, and the pressure to publish that scholars are exposed to (Bartholomeyczik, 2018; Stemmer, 2004).

The relevance of theories and their (further) development in nursing is based on the understanding that theories form a core body of knowledge related to significant issues in a field and set the thematic boundaries of a discipline (Meleis, 2018). Theories are central to scientific understanding because they help to gain a deeper understanding of phenomena by looking behind observed patterns and trying to explain them. In this way, theories allow us to identify relationships between phenomena that would otherwise remain unidentified. Furthermore, they make statements about the underlying condition or underlying causes of phenomena, which should be prevented or promoted. Theories are useful, for example, in developing and evaluating effective health interventions (Risjord, 2019). Not only theory and practice, but also theory and research are closely and interactively related. Scientific discoveries are particularly useful when they are organised as coherent wholes, such as theories. The information theories provide help in the conduct of studies by providing orientation regarding the context, efficiency and structure of the research design (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022). Theory building represents the heart of the scientific process of any discipline in its own right (Schrems, 2011) and can thus be seen as an indicator of maturity (Mayer, 2019). The progress of a discipline can be measured by the scope and quality of its theories and the extent to which its scientific community engages with, uses and develops its theories (Gasser et al., 2012).

Nursing theories are defined as an organised, coherent, and systematic articulation of a set of propositions to represent aspects of reality for the purpose of describing, explaining, and predicting reactions, events, situations, conditions, or relationships (Meleis, 2018). They can be classified according to different criteria, such as their level of abstraction, their goal orientation, type of construct, and based on the phenomena to which they refer. Meleis (2018) distinguishes descriptive from prescriptive goal orientations. The former describes relationships between phenomena, whereas the latter refers to nursing therapeutics and the outcomes of interventions. The level of abstraction can range from high to low. Grand theories are the highest in abstraction, reflect the broadest scope and provide relationships between many abstract concepts. Middle-range theories address specific phenomena or concepts and reflect practice. Situation-specific theories focus on specific nursing phenomena and are limited to specific populations or to a particular field of practice (Meleis, 2018).

Theory building is understood as a dynamic process in which theories should be continuously developed, tested, and modified according to research findings. Conducting empirical research is therefore crucial for theory dynamics in nursing (Meleis, 2018). Thus, theory development comes in many shapes and forms and includes a range of research practices, with some being more, and some being less explicit regarding their theoretical intent or utility. Jaccard and Jacoby (2020) identified 16 different ways of making a theoretical contribution (Table 1) (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2020).

Against the background of the discussion about sparse theory development in nursing of the German-speaking area of Europe, there was a need for an overview of the actual state of theoretical nursing research in this region. Thereby we intended to answer the questions of whether and how we theorize and subsequently to enable taking concerted action to reinvigorate theory discussion and development in nursing. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic assessment has yet been conducted for this geographic region to provide an overview of theoretical nursing research. Therefore, our aim was to map the landscape of theoretical nursing research by authors affiliated with an institution from a German-speaking country in Europe (Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, German-speaking area of Switzerland). We aimed to describe the characteristics of theoretical nursing research and to contribute to future theory dynamics in nursing science of the German-speaking area by commenting on the current knowledge production of the nursing discipline.

DESIGN

We conducted a focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) according to Bradbury-Jones et al. (2019) to address theoretical nursing research and its methodological characteristics in the German-speaking area of Europe (Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, German-speaking area of Switzerland). There are three main features characterizing the methodology of FMRS which allowed us to (i) focus on a defined area of knowledge and knowledge production rather than the state of evidence on effectiveness, (ii) provide a descriptive map of research, and (iii) examine the topic in a broad epistemological context (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2019). We followed the guidance of PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018) for reporting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS

Publication characteristics

Identification

Out of the sample with 1419 articles, we identified 32 (2%) publications with an explicit theoretical aim or methodology and the contribution of at least one author affiliated in a German-speaking country (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

PRISMA flow diagram 2020 (Page et al., 2021) of the search and selection process

Most of theoretical nursing research was published in the years 2017 (n=8) and 2018 (n=8) (Median publication year = 2018). The annual number of publications in the focused time period ranged from three to eight. Most contributions were made by authors with a German affiliation (42%). 19 articles were published in a total of 14 different international nursing journals and 13 were published in three different journals from the German-speaking area. Contributing authors were mostly affiliated with a university (n=48, 50%). Further details are listed in Table 3.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3:

Publication characteristics of included articles; Multiple counting: *(n=41), **(n=96)

DISCUSSION

We provided an overview of the landscape of theoretical nursing research in the German-speaking area of Europe of the last years. We found that two percent of articles from nursing journals with at least one affiliation of an author from a German-speaking country explicitly pursued a theoretical aim. Most theoretical research followed an inductive and theory-building approach and mainly referred to Grounded Theory as methodology and concept analysis as methods. Theoretical results were mainly descriptive, situation-specific and presented as models. Illness experience and self-management were the most prevalent among the addressed phenomena.

Our review corroborates the thesis of Moers et al. (2011) regarding the sparse theory development in nursing in the German-speaking area, which can be maintained for the time period of 2016-2021 (as of March 29). This observation pertains not only to the quantitative amount of theoretical research, but also to the overall contribution to our discipline’s body of knowledge on a metatheoretical level, which we, however, can only assess approximately based on this work. Nonetheless, a first picture emerged which also reveals the diversity of theoretical nursing research in the German-speaking countries of Europe, which we would like to emphasize and give importance to at this point. However, the more appropriate question to ask is thus not whether we theorize or not, but how we theorize.

Moers et al. (2011) outlined implications and pending tasks for theory development. What they considered essential was the theoretical generalization of research findings. At that time, initial meta-analyses on living with chronic diseases had shown that the available findings, which originated predominantly from qualitative, and occasionally also from quantitative research, resembled a colorful patchwork without a coherent pattern.

Schaeffer (2009) demanded at that time to discuss the heterogenous research in a generalizing way. In the context of this mapping review, we also came to this finding, as the proportion of metatheoretical research, such as meta-synthesis or theory-synthesis, was small, and others consisted mostly of qualitative studies that resulted in situation-specific theories with little reference to the existing body of theory. Often, nonspecific designs and analysis methods were selected that were generally not oriented toward theory development. However, Grounded Theory methodology was prevalent, probably due to its well-structured and explicitly described approach. Also, the large proportion of concept analyses must be emphasized, while it remains unclear how many of these are related back to theory and how they relate to each other. This variety of incoherent research, however, fits well the aforementioned patchwork analogy (Schaeffer, 2009). Therefore, there is still a need for a revival of inductive theory discourses so that different health and nursing science theory discourses can be consolidated (Schaeffer, 2009). Another implication outlined by Moers et al. (2011) for future theory development was to strengthen the patient perspective and to consider new aspects, such as participation and self-management. Accordingly, there was a lack of research on the patient perspective on illness experience and coping actions, which was especially discussed against the background of creating a knowledge base for theoretically supporting intervention development. However, our review identified a positive development in this regard, with half of the studies focusing on the illness experience or self-management. We furthermore identified studies on programme theories, albeit on a small scale, which provide the theoretical foundation for the development and evaluation of interventions for patients and therefore represent another theoretical aspect of the patient perspective and the promotion of self-management.

Finally, Moers et al. (2011) have pointed out the need for the further and new development of existing theoretical work that respond to the changing demographic, epidemiological, social, and structural conditions of society and healthcare in the German-speaking area of Europe. Here again, based on the results of this focused mapping review, we identified a persistent need, as mainly inductive theory-building work was identified but less theory-testing or modifying efforts. However, existing theories are a valuable resource and should be used to build better ones. Theory-building should be dynamic, as the process of theorizing never ends. To that end, we agree with Turner (87), who cautioned that researchers shall not become “monks copying and reciting passages from the sacred texts” (Turner, 1990).

It is interesting, however, that the theoretical generalization of research findings as well as the further development of theories, so the actual processes of theory construction, still seem to be an issue today, although these problems have been discussed and repeatedly demanded by the scientific community for more than twenty years now in the German-speaking area of Europe. The question arises whether the sparse theory-development is primarily caused by researchers being “too busy to think” (Moers et al., 2011) due to the constraints and trends in the research system (Bartholomeyczik, 2018; Brandenburg, 2019; Dorschner, 2022; Moers et al., 2011) and because critical thinking is not promoted enough in the scientific community (Bartholomeyczik, 2018), or whether we might need to learn to think theoretically and to theorize (again) in the first place. Theorizing is profoundly communal in nature and following it will only succeed if it is deeply rooted in a community of scholars and a general culture of theorizing (Swedberg, 2011).

There have been discussions for many years, primarily in the field of sociology, but also in the context of the social sciences, about whether the majority of researchers may never have properly learned how to theorize (Swedberg, 2016). One potential influence may be the increasing focus on theories as an end product and less on the process of theorizing itself. Swedberg (2011) speaks in this sense of the scientific enterprise as consisting of three elements: 1) theorizing, 2) theory and 3) testing of theory. According to him only the second and the third elements were properly attended to over the last years, whereas the first element of theorizing was largely ignored by social scientists. The neglect of theorizing, and the related overemphasis on theory, is related to the tendency in today’s social science to leave aside the goal of discovery and instead focus on justification. This is also in line with the fact that the scientific developments in the last decades were centered around developing research methods and introducing empirical research. Theorizing, as the practical skill of constructing and handling theories, however, has not developed in a similar manner. This led to social sciences with highly developed methods but underdeveloped skills in theorizing (Swedberg, 2014), which can also be observed in nursing science. Regarding our sample the description of the process(es) of theorizing was in most cases limited to naming or referring to standardized methods and the reduction of the procedure to systematized steps. Whether this is to be considered a lack of focus on theorizing, or plainly the way of reporting, remains open at this point.

One relevant factor leading to this neglect is that the process of theorizing it is not taught effectively (Mayer, 2019). While traditional lecturing combined with classroom discussions may be the common way to teach theory, something different is needed when it comes to teaching theorizing. Learning to theorize is similar to learning methods, you cannot learn by reading about it but by actively practicing to think theoretically, and by using or constructing theories (Swedberg, 2012). A challenge lays in the path of theorizing which is a creative process that cannot necessarily be derived systematically like research methods (Mayer, 2019). Theorizing demands learning by doing (Mayer, 2019; Swedberg, 2019) and constant repetition of thought experiments until a creative theorizing culture and attitude emerges to think about the world and its phenomena in a theoretical manner (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2020). This theoretical culture should not only be promoted in teaching, but also in the scientific community itself. According to Krause (2016), theorizing happens in the interstices, such as in designing a project or research methods, in journal clubs for discussing papers, in libraries and coffee-shops. In order to create intellectual space for practices of theorizing, we should spell out the many different ways in which theorizing can contribute to knowledge production and explanation (Krause, 2016).

Limitations of the study

This focused mapping review and synthesis aimed to provide an overview on theoretical nursing research landscape in the German-speaking countries of Europe. Nevertheless, this type of review has inherent limitations regarding its scope. Our descriptive “map” provides a snapshot, that is contextual and temporal and reflects only the published material in the included journals. However, as an impression of the state of theoretical nursing research in the German-speaking area of Europe, our review provided insights in theoretical activities over the last years. A further potential limitation concerns the focus on journal publications for the identification of theoretical research in our discipline. One could argue that theoretical work is rather published as a monograph due to their depth and extent, as already noticed by Bartholomeyczik (2018) that contributions as books often go unnoticed. Therefore, publications in journals should only be viewed with caution as an indicator of the status of theory development. Another limitation concerns our understanding of theoretical nursing research. The starting point for our analysis was to make decisions about whether an article was “theoretical” or not. This proved more of a challenge than we had anticipated, as judging articles for being theoretical by predefined categories was difficult. Nevertheless, we were able to work discursively on an inclusion criterion that still in the end was not always clear. Therefore, there is a high probability that we did not recognize or deliberately excluded work, although it might have been relevant for the scope of this mapping review. While with this work we can provide an overview of the theoretical characteristics of the included research articles, this focused mapping approach does not permit to give an overview of the process of theorizing.

CONCLUSION

Since an imbalance between empirical and theoretical nursing inquiry seems to be an issue in other nursing science communities as well(Grace et al., 2016; Roy, 2018), we assume that the significance of the results of this study goes beyond the cultural context of the German-speaking region of Europe.

More attention should be drawn to find a routine in thinking theoretically in nursing research. To this end, more efforts should be made on how we can work on theorizing rather than focusing exclusively on the theories that are available to us. Nursing researchers should be properly educated in theoretical thinking as well as in methodology of theory construction. Finally, we should actively revive theorizing, e.g. through scientific symposia on theory building, research projects on working theoretically and by living a culture in which theorizing is demanded and encouraged. Nursing professors have a crucial role to defy the demands of the current research mainstream and provide appropriate structures to learn to theorize, because “to think at all is to theorize” (Coleridge, 1812).

Data Availability Statement

All data generated for the purpose of this study are part of the manuscript and supplementary material.