Symbolic Interactionism – Key Concepts 51

Symbolic interactionism thus assumes that human nature is not motivated solely by external, or internal, factors but rather through meaningful reflexive interactions between individuals (Farganis, 2011). Social interaction is achieved through symbols, with language being the most significant symbolic system as it is a key in expressing social life. Individuals therefore learn the meanings of objects in life through socialisation and interactions in which meanings are developed and refined. As a result, some meanings will be learnt differently by different groups at varying times and places (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1936; Ritzer, 2008). Therefore, in exploring the social interactions of nurse educators, throughout the research ongoing consideration was given to relevant symbols, including language and behaviours that exist in a continuous ‘state of flux’, and were constantly changing through interaction (Blumer, 1969; Denzin, 1989; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

Although the focus of the present research was to advance knowledge by interpreting the phenomena of the world of the nurse educator, social interaction within the acute healthcare setting also needed to be explored in light of its potential to influence outcomes. No matter what roles people assume, they will shape who they are and how they interact in their social worlds with ‘self’ defined by the social role in which one is involved (Annells, 1996; Mead, 1934). Additionally, persons who share common circumstances, for whatever reasons, tend to share common meanings and subsequent inter-subjective behaviours and activities (Patton, 2002; Mead, 1934).

Chapter 3 Research Design 52

Symbolic interactionism as the theoretical underpinning of this research brought focus to the social acts, both individual and collective, of the participants and the associated meanings so that patterned social processes could be discovered and understood (Blumer, 1969). It required an emphasis on the meanings given to phenomena and the continuous and systematic reinterpretation of those meanings within a social context (Milliken & Schreiber, 2001). This view is important as it is argued that nurses collectively and nurse educators as a subgroup, share behaviours consistent with a concept of ‘joint action’ whereby an individual does not develop in isolation, but the self emerges from the responses of others and from the way they respond to and develop their own responses to others (Blumer, 1998; Goffman, 1963; Mead, 1936).

Symbolic interactionism supports the perspective that the individual is capable of membership of multiple groups simultaneously and relates to different generalised others at different times (Mead, 1934). Each participant is an actor who constructs the meaning of their experiences and then acts on the basis of that meaning (Mead, 1934). More importantly, an individual identifies one’s self with the meanings experienced by a group or the larger community (Mead, 1934).

In considering this perspective, the researcher also reflected on Blumer’s (1969) caution that failure to recognise that ‘joint action’ provides stability and predictability to social interaction is a mistake. In light of this caution, the researcher ensured that participant meanings were documented and interpreted, rather than those of the researcher (Denzin, 1989; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). This was achieved by documenting verbatim the words of each participant, paraphrasing participant statements, clarifying behaviours and expressed language. Additionally, the common set of symbols and understandings between the study groups and individuals were ascertained and the participant data guided analysis. Additionally the researcher, as much as possible, attempted to understand the perspective of the participants (actors) as well as those of the groups to which they belonged. Consequently, the researcher paid attention to the concept of the emergence of self during social interaction with groups and attempted to understand the different roles played by members of a group, their sense of belonging and how they attached meanings that shaped behaviours. The researcher also considered that the research

Chapter 3 Research Design 53

participants were conscious choosing individuals who were active in constructing their social realities while living in the world of everyday life. As such, it was acknowledged that their socially constructed reality was subject to change and dependent on roles played, experiences, and one’s sense of identity and belonging.

Additionally, the researcher considered context in taking into account social structures such as power, organisation, culture and practice. Blumer (1969) argued that human behaviours occur within social and cultural constraints and as such affect how individuals define a situation, develop their understandings of these structures and their respective interactions. Thus one adopts the perspective that best fits how one defines themself in a given situation and attempts to try and understand the world view of others in order to define the situation and establish how to behave (Charon, 2007). This process of reflection is about accommodating change and maintaining stability and leads to negotiation between groups and individuals with the aim of achieving shared meaning and perspectives of the social world (Dennis & Martin, 2007). It also assists an individual to gain a view of how they appear and are judged by others and to then act in ways consistent with imagined expectations (Dennis & Martin, 2007). Hence, in line with the pragmatic view, the symbolic interactionist perspective asserts that “meaning is not fixed and immutable; rather it is always shifting, emergent and ultimately ambiguous” (Plummer, 2000, p. 194). Hence, the structural conditions in providing the social context for interaction are considered in this research as it is acknowledged that context and social structures, combined with meaning construction and definition, shaped the actions, interactions and experiences of the participants.

Symbolic interactionism was chosen as the theoretical framework underpinning this study because of its focus on understanding how participant behaviours have been shaped through social interaction and interpretations in a particular context (Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1963; Mead, 1934; Milliken & Schreiber, 2001). This theoretical view provided the lens through which participant interpretations and constructions of experiences of hospital employed nurse educators could be explored. The research also considered how social structures (such as power, organisation, culture, emotions) shaped individual behaviours. The combination of constructed experiences and social structures locates the study theoretically.

Chapter 3 Research Design 54