• No results found

Symbolic Interactionism in Grounded Theory: A Viewpoint for Explaining the Student-Educator Relationship in Clinical Nursing Education

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Symbolic Interactionism in Grounded Theory: A Viewpoint for Explaining the Student-Educator Relationship in Clinical Nursing Education"

Copied!
12
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

1 ! 2 -# $ % & % & ' 3 : ' )* + , ! Email: yaghoubiniaf861@mums.ac.ir

:

! ""!

# $

% "& # '( )

!; < + 1 ' )* + , ! 2 =!>? @ ' A 3 "*+ , : B *2 C 6 D ' ' A 3' /!# E!)12 % F+2 G2 E!)12 H# ' % C $ - !' I J 3' K -!% L +2 . N6O ' 6P% P 3' C C!' L +2 -!% % K B! 12 K 3' % Q6# /!# C!))1 P# . B *2 ' G2 E!)12 L +2 -!% C!!+2 R % ' 3*? > C B *2 ' # C 6 $ P!? ' D& K $ L +2 ' ' % P 3' . ' : 3*? > R % 3' ' ! ' 3*? > C 2 .S % Scopus Elsevier Google ProQuest Scholar $ 8O . T ! # B *2 % G2 C 6 D P L +2 P!? ' D& K $ 3? ) UV -, W / -, W ' % . , . $ : C C!))1 3? ) ' ' 3*? > Q T ? % P , 5 X C!' L +2 ' O % Blumer B *2 ' C 6 D P 6 I > G2 . B *2 1!J 2 0 W UV 3*? > /8 , P' & P 3' C 6 C!!+2 G2 W Y1' P!? ' D& K $ L +2 . , " " : B *2 G2 @ Z Z O ' G2 E!)12 3# $ 3*? > 1!J 2 @ Z Z P 3' C 6 K =!X 2 3' % P , % , C!!+2 O 3' E)1 % & . 3*? > C [ P6W. % A ' 6P% 2 B *2 /8 , P' & P+ ' \ 3*? > ]W 3# ' G2 D 3' P% $ C 6 . [ C C!P^6% 3+PO N6O 3*? > - % % B! 12 K NW P % . / "01 $ : B *2 G2 C 6 D P L +2 D& K $ : 2. 3 : 15 / 7 / 91 ' 9% 3 : 30 / 8 / 91 = > : ' )* < + !; =!>? + , ! @ ' A . : ! ""! # $ % "& # '( ) . /!# 0 )!)12 3 $ - . 1391 _ 1 ) 4 :( 298 -309 . , B *2 < ' C 6 , 3' 3> B *2 ' P* *W ! -& & & ' PP# ) 1 .( Lomborg Kirkevold ' ! 6 3# C )12 ! E G2 S +2 ' , 3* O ! P# ) 2 .( L +2 ' ! C B *2 6 C G2 d 3 , . C , % ' E, 2 . E' > ' e Aldiabat Aldiabat

(2)

R % X G2 = # , % P 6 O $ G2 3 / % ' . C R % G2 ' R % B *2 6 C $ G2 % f6% 3# % , 8 = # PP# ' 3*? > & % & 8 % # 62 . ) ' C -3# ' # B *2 6 C G2 ' ' % , 8 F 2 ))1 ! C # !/ 3' g B & hf' i . B *2 6 C Q @ Z Z 6P% ' N6O K % * j X \ & , ' . D P G2 ! Q keP ' ? 2 ! G2 % -3# % , 8 3' P Q , P 6 O *W ! -% *2 % ) 3 .( C!' l -!? *, *2 -!*W Q D& K - $ . *2 -!*W C S C ' P' K & l * B , 6 F 2 % ! W !im2 -12 ! . @ $2 & B' ) l B! 82 ' W ' $ F 2 3 d l 3' J % 6 0 # ; .# 5 L +2 -) 4 .( ' L +2 h) D& K ; & h!' -!6% O O 3P! & C * 0. & P% K n!1X . 3*? > [ 3 6 P 3' * W P ' » h) 6 O 3 C 2 $ 0. *2 2 % « L +2 3# $ % 6 W \ ' = f =!*J ) 5 .( F 2 3*? > , P -12 g » 0 -!*J S +2 % K & $ ' ! & K h) # « $ . $ e & 3# K [ 4 / 60 X 0 @ > S +2 % 6 / 39 X 0 @ > S +2 % P ' . C!' 0 0 S +2 % !s .# L +2 % P* L +2 ' ! & ' .# - O . C 0 -!*J 3# 6 I > 3*? > S +2 % & !im2 K & K 6 ' ! & ' % ) 6 .( -!6% 3Z K C -3# % ! -W! E L +2 ' ! C B *2 G2 3' A j J % )12 ! E % 3# ' G2 ' W !' -; X 3' ' ! . 3*? > F 2 Klunklin Greenwood P ' » B *2 C 6 G2 :

P 2 & 6!' & 3 , )' & « $ . G2 C!' L +2 -!% C!))1 K B *2 & & @ $2 C 6 ' & 6!' ' = # B; & / D P B *2 6 C!!+2 C 6 ) 1 .( C 3# -, 3*? > 6 C!!+2 I J 3' ' \ 3' -!% . B *2 ' C!))1 J ; 3*? > W Y1' K 5 X C 6 . UV C!' L +2 F 2 I > Q T ? 5 X Blumer ) B *2 C 6 ( O ' 6 O ! k!) 8 ' # I > G2 Q T ? . C!' L +2 C!))1 = # Q T ? % P , ) Exploration ( ' ) Inspection ( 38 ) !? K P ' 3 6 C!!+2 0 )+S % # & + * G2 ! 6 . 5g C!P^6% E!)12 ' )>P % ' P!? ' D& K $ L +2 P , /8 , P' & ' G2 D & / B *2 # 3 C 6 B *2 ' C 6 t , j J X @ Z Z P 3' . ' ' 3*? > Q J ; 3*? > . 3*? > C , ' % ' F+2 N' P D P B *2 G2 C 6 $ 8O P!? ' D& K $ L +2 2 .S % Scopus Elsevier Google scholar ProQuest 5 & 1990 2 2012 $ . T ! # % B *2 G2 C 6 D P L +2 W / P!? ' D& K $ -, . 3 f' # N' P C!P^6% . $ 8O & U

(3)

u P 3*? > C 2 3+PO h e & % j J = f % ' @ f W -, . , . $ 3 , % E!)12 < ' 3*? > C & BX ; % hf' $ B *2 ' F+2 % L +2 C 6 B *2 B *2 ' # G2 ' C 6 P!? ' D& K $ L +2 C!!+2 C 6 - I > . 3 , % ' P + % 3? ) - 3 ' % . B *2 3 e C 6 B *2 B6 3*? > ' 6 O 5 ; ]2 $ 8O ' , \ P K F 2 -\ % ' . 3 e C - C ' !#m2 5 +6 P+ ' \ 5 +W 0 !*W , 3# % ) % 6 ( & \ ! ' B *2 E S & . 3' 8 2 + % -# j 6 O 3# P 8% ? *, PP# & 3' K 3# !*W B 3' ' P* E \ 3' ? *, & ) 9 -7 .( B *2 ' C 6 8 % , = # , C!' B *2 P , ' # 62 - K B!\ 6 O C! W ) 8 7 .( 3' C!P^6% Q6# E)1 P# C!!+2 3' % , =!X 2 O 3' 2 K & V' % -# !8/2 3' Q & 5 6 & PP# -!*W P# % ) 10 1 .( Strauss Corbin & B) 3' Blumer 6 I > A B C 6 B *2 3# , C!' 3# - 0. *2 & t /2 , ) 11 .( * 3# - ) * G2 C 8% 3 d l 3' Q , F 2 P ) 7 1 .( Blumer %

George Herbert Mead

B *2 T 3* 2 5 C 6 1973 3 6 . /2 .# * B BX 3 NW I > G2 C ' . # O * P 8% 8 , . 3# * < ' , 3# B!? C 3' -+8 % !Z 3' B6 P% PP# . & .# 5 +6 % 6 F 2 # d E S B) P P* % P# . 5 +6 C !8/2 /2 UV I.X B *2 % P# ) 13 12 .( B *2 0 !J , !) C 6 ' 3# ! 8 , % ' ' % K ' w ! , K 3# - * < ' w ! % . 3 \ , C!' 6 O 0. *2 E S & * B *2 !8/2 % P , E S & P 2 I.X . e ' E' > Smit Fritz 3# B *2 0. *2 E S & , 3# 6 x , 3 C C 6 , C!' 3 \ % ) 12 .( Blumer B *2 3# 6 I > 3 C C 6 D P B *2 Q P 3' & C 6 - !/ ' e 6 O -!*W Q !8/2 3# . & -!*W eP C P* , ' 6 O % P 8% 3 \ 6 O 0. *2 E S & * uW * . B *2 T C!' B *2 & ]f A 3' C 6 8 % . I > -)!); C A C P# 8 3# hP# 6 3' F), 3# C O 3' % !8/2 = *2 6 P% PP# . K y 6 3 \ 5 6 & k!) 8 % ' 3 ' K 3# - * < -+8 % 6 C!PZ 3' % P% . / F 2 8 0. *2 C ' P' % 6 & ) 5 +6 % ( = # 6 P* !8/2 B *2 . -!*W 36% 5 +6 6 6 O % W / L +2 ' 3# P 8% * ! ) 14 .( - ! % 6 & ! 6 O ! . % 6 ' k ' P 8% L +2 W ' 3' $2 /2

D& P% , % $P% , '& & 3 , ' % 6 ' , 0. *2 P ' . * & 8 P 8% 6% .# !s .# % 6 ' , % , !8/2 3# - ' B *2 W ' E S ! . B *2 -)!); k . !8/2 P , C 6

(4)

3 - 6 O % . 3# ' * , % !8/2 ! 3 Z D.2 PP# 2 P# h! , Z 6 P!' . < C ' \ y z/; 3' y & % 3' -+8 \ !!{2 - C!!*2 h ' 3# * E' > -!*W % ) 15 .( B *2 C!P^6% x , 3 P+ ' C 6 & 3# * < ' 3# C & 0 + 3# - - ' F!1 , U B6 PP# B6*? ' * C - 0 S +2 6 O 0. *2 < E \ , % F 2 $ !8/2 P , E S & ) 16 .( Q!? +6 * 3# - C 3O 2 B' W 3 6 , % - 0 / , % ' B # S 3' 2 K 6 l , & % . & 0. *2 6 O O * * $ = *2 3' - C 6 P ) 17 .( -# , & * l ' PP# K F 2 $ !8/2 P , ' E)1 E!)12 % 6 l ) 18 .( 8 5 *, G2 C & % 6 ' \ , ' 3# P 8% t +> 5 B!? C 3' P% E!+>2 5 6 ' \ P 2 K !8/2 3' W 3# P% P 8% % ) 9 .( 8 l & O O < ' 3# O % !8/2 '& % 6 Z ' 8 0. *2 !8' !im2 ! /2 C . ! * < ' F w 8 C!' B *2 B % - ! 8 C!' * BX ; E, 2 % ) 19 9 .( B *2 , C!' 0. *2 P ' C 6 B6 & f' P 3' !8/2 0 S +2 % 6 & / 2 E S & 3 , B % P , ' B *2 L + R >* k!eP2 B' W 6 O !#m2 d ) 9 ( Blumer 4 6 I > C 6 B *2 -!X ]\ . 1 -% 6 : P! % | & +!# 2 6 O ! - P%} . 0 O & 8 t , uO 3Z K .\ 8 / - L +2 % 6 & t . P* % 6 C E S & ! /2 0. *2 5 6 P' . e 3' -' i % 6 C P* 3Z C 6 B *2 t.\ % 6 & / 1 3# !#m2 C ' R >* d ' . 1 I > !!{2 E' >2 P , N! I > 8 0. *2 ' % $P% 2 ! . 2 -E' >2 !!{2 : B P 3' , C 6% P 8% 6 O 3P1X X & ' 5 *, 6 O 0. *2 & 5 ; P ' ) 9 .( 8 % ' 3# P 8% 6 O \ - B *2 ) 19 .( !s ~ ? - 3 , B 0. *2 C \ B' W ' E' >2 S 3' 3 ' -8! !!{2 R >* - ) 9 .( C!P^6% Jeon 8 : » ? ]1 \ -# 6 8 P , Q S - 6 O B *2 & B *2 B 2 3* O ' « ) 20 .( 3 -0. *2 : 3 ' P 8! , I > 5 6 y 5 6 ' L +2 6% K B' ) % % W . 4 & @ $2 ' L +2 : k & C 2 W & !im2 C 6 B *2 3# g 20 - 3 *2 -)!); 3Z K 3' 3# - C 8 0. , & @ $2 3O 2 % 6 . & ! , 6 O 0. *2 3*? > ' C 6 B *2 6 O 5 3* 2 ' \ 3' k!% / 2 % 6 $ g ' G2 -W ' )>P ) 9 .( ! # 8 % , C!!+2 l R % ' G2 E!)12 $ . G2 $ ' C & % N6O P , Q E S N6O keP !? K K K B! 12 ) 21 .( -12 , G2 -)!); C!!+2 =!X 2 3*? > P# Q D P ' 3* 2 G2 3 / % -3# 3' S Q!2 6 8! N6O K B! 12 . C 3 G2 B *2 6 C ) 22 .( )12 ! E G2 B *2 ' P + C 6

(5)

# ! C 6 * 3Z l 3# - C R % P% , 6 / .# !s % , ! < +? I > ' B *2 ' ) 8 7 .( G2 NW 5 +6 0. *2 -!*W 0 !!{2 Z % • \ % 3*? > P# . McCreaddie Payne 0 !!{2 P' K ' 3 , @ $2 ) 23 .( C!P^6% W # d % 6 .# E S & * C % 6 K & , % !8/2 C uW * ! B *2 . 3# C \ ' L +2 /2 , 3 Z !8/2 Z ' # 3 8% PP!' % 6 B *2 ' ) 24 .( B *2 G2 @ Z Z F 2 G2 5 X - % 6P% C 6 . ! ' ' L +2 ' ' K O % P , 6 O ! n X C!' B *2 C 6 ) E' > ' D P Blumer ( 6 =!X 2 G2 O ' . ' > e ' E Blumer B *2 Q T ? A & 0 + C 6 - ' $2 6 O ! k!) 8 ' & . C P+ ' D P 3O E S & 6 O % P , = # & 0 W 6 O ! ' k!) 8 - d . ! B! 12 % B 0 W C N6O F+2 0. # €f ' K %

' ! E!W keP ' & E S & & ! C & E 0 )+S I # €f % 2 )+S C!PZ ' F+2 0 !J , C \ 0 )+S C!' L +2 G2 3 ) I S F+2 •W C \ ' & F 2 3 \ G2 •W 0 )+S &K ' $2 6 O ! $ ' . C 5 X T ? ~ )!W 6% -3# F 2 Klunklin Greenwood ) 1 ( Strauss Corbin ) 11 ( 3>' ' D P G2 3!X 2 ) 25 .( C ' P' ' 3O 2 3' C L +2 n X G2 B *2 C 6 €f % \ . 3 E!W L +2 ! C!' G2 B *2 C 6 ' % 3' O )!)12 Blumer % \ €f ' = # B ) 26 .( & B *2 D ! ' & ' / f % 6 O O 3# 3 ; = # ' ) '& ' !P ( ' ! ) 27 .( 3 ; = # : 3 ; = # 3 ; R >* - d - % W 5 X F 2 3# . ' ! - B! 82 3Z K & nJ ]2 Q 3' 3# P# Q t /2 6 O & & • \ 1 , . C!P^6% 3+; ] % & / ' 2 D 6 !s % 3 & / & 3^f 2 C , % / 3' % $ % Y1' 3 & 0 S \ ) 26 25 .( R >* ' 3# - P* C ' 3 ; C d # 62 3*? > # 62 # -, ! ' - N! 3*? > 2 1 ) 25 .( w O = # & O T ? Q Blumer ! & l ]2 S 3' E)1 I.X &K 3*? > -12 6 O P# . -Q \ N O P* & K 3Z ! 6 O ' $2 t /2 , & ) 26 25 .( C 3 ; )12 ! E ' h ' $2 -5 & ; ! 3> -12 3*? > k% , I S ?! 3 B ! 3# E)1 2 3*? > \ & sK 6 . Blumer - 6% R % ' = # 3# 6 I > . 1 - h j J & ? -12 3*? > k% , P# . 2 -3' P & ! 3P ' $2 -3# % P? ' % )12 ! E 0 S +2 12 ! 8/2 ! % k% , P# ) 14 .( w O 5 & # Blumer W E)1 S 3' 2 & R >* 3# 3Z K 3' d % t /2 , y % . NW t ] nJ 3 6 ! P6, % !? K G2 38 ) - . B' W y C!PZ NW K 3' , >* 3Z t /2 % 38 ) !? K @ !s , 3 6 ' % \ C 6 !s G2 ! ) 11 1 .( C 6 6 3 ; . =!X 2 3' 3# C -8f t /2 6 O -!*W 3Z K & E!W O ,

(6)

! -\ P - O E)1 ' X , & k% , 3*? > -12 ' $2 6 O P# ) 28 14 .( -!*W E)1 = # 3 ; W % X \ % % ) 29 .( 3!? l O C !Z 3Z 3# C & - 3' - , t /2 5 ; K . K ' F+2 * 3 ; S !' E!)12 ' 0. & C!!*2 ' 6 .

& O E)1 3' l -\ P C u8# % 1]2 E!)12 P , 3# +? W 3*? > 6 n! R >* *' 3 ; 3' UV % 3 d . N6O 3+; ] ' ' = # 3 ; K 6% % . C B! 12 % \ P ' 3 ; 3' % ) 14 .( 3 ; S 6 O & & $ ]2 6 3' = # & E!W k!) 8 ' & 3' & !

' $2 6 O ! . 3 ; 3' 6!) 8 ' & C!PZ 3' » ' « - P & ! ) 25 .( ' 3 ; : Q = # 3 ; P ! 3 ; C B! 12 B -8! -' i D % ' ) 25 .( ' 3 ; & E)1 N6O % K # k!% / h g n!1]2 ' = # 3 ; K 8 % , •W 0.6O B 3' % / P# ) 29 .( O & O 3' $P ' 3 ; C ' L +2 -!*W =!X 2 3*? > ! k UV O l -!*W & / ' ' 0. *2 5 . E!)12 ' # 62 ' 3 ; 5 3 ; S 3# - X \ 0 J ' ) = # ( C!!*2 ) 12 .( C!P^6% Blumer 5 3 ; [ 3# 6 k% , 3*? > -12 & Ps =!X 2 3# 6 3' B6 *' 3 ; !P' < P P# . C 3 ; *' NW 3 ; k +S ! -* » ' « ' R % K 12 ! B $ F 2 E)1 ' & ' ! 6 O ) 30 .( 3 ; ' 3 ; & )12 ! E +S ! -* 3 -3# K 3# P# 2 *2 !! C 3' S O 2 & & / f & ' ' W ! . C # ' nJ # 3* 2 0 )+S G2 $ . C 3 ; E)1 O O & k% *W ! -P# . *W ! -L +2 ' K O X 2 ! = P# B u? W G2 B % ) 31 25 .( w O -W ' ' & O D P Blumer l 3 ; C E)1 3# / % & P# . / UV & ' % QZ O % ' ~. # 3# P# Klunklin Greenwood ) 1 ( Strauss Corbin ) 11 ( + 3* 2 G2 0 )+S % # P ! 12 O 3' ! f' - & E+>P . !#m2 Blumer ) 3* 2 ' ' = # Q T ? P , % E S & k!% / ' $2 6 O ! ' ) 31 28 .( # 1 ! ""! % "& # '( ) P!? ' D& K Z 3# - Z 3' Z D& K )2 0 S +2 ! # h) K . k & C 2 C!' 0 S +2 )2 P!? ' D& K -!), i‚ B hf' i , ' ) 32 .( NW P , Q U 2 - L +2 *2 ) 34 33 .( -!/!# j C!P^6% B $ C!' 3# S +2 ]P ! - ! D& K ' ! # ) 35 .( L +2 C D 3' ' - P6 & P!? ' D& K % B! 82 = f ) 36 .( ' $ 3 & 8? B *2 ))1 3 P 3, ; , B n!1X 6 & !P ! F!1 $ P!? ' % # D ) 37 .( ! @ > % ! n!1X ; S F 2 2 ' ' ! B' W P!? ' ! F!1 . O Q $ 3' @ \ S +2 Z _- J P!? ' -!*W A $ ' 6; 2 % \ $P # C 3# k% , ! P , S ) 38 .(

(7)

3' $2 B; 62 $ ' hf' i L +2 z/; J $ 0. B; ' P!? ' -) 39 .( C ' P' B' W L +2 Q $ L +2 & e $ K 3# - P!6S & K R % 3' $ ' ! B! 82 ' 2 W P 6 / ) 40 .( A & 3# - C 8 0 S +2 k % ! 36% K S 3' R % ]W ' k . % B) P 3 % 6 . l L +2 S / Q 3Z K C!' u s O 0 /2 , l ' P# ) 41 .( C NW 0 /2 % C!' S +2 0. & ' 3' $P 2 P!? ' D& K $ . L +2 C B!? C!6% 3' P u f2 ; 3' 2 < $ 3' $ -!? ‚8 ! 3' -+8 $ d 6 8? P!? ' ) 42 .( K C ! W e ' - k 3Z 3# ), 0 S +2 P!? ' F!1 n!1X , C!' h , 3' $P 6O 2 % , 3# S 3' _ Cooke !' 6 # L +2 P 3 F!1 P!? ' % 2 6 $ $ ' ) 43 .( C!P^6% 3*? > % & S @ >J < 2 3# C!? ' F!1 $ 6 O P , 0 i 2 ' /P ' 3 ! ) 32 .(

& P% P!? ' D& K L +2 & -!6% O ' O 3P! & C 2. ) 46 -44 .( & B g X C P!? ' D& K S +2 0. O B # S 3' $ L +2 *' 36% & P% 3# - 3 \ P ) 37 ( . & L +2 % !^! P & ! K B # -\ P 3# - 8 Q B# ' . $ L +2 C!!+2 0 J B!? C!6% 3' E!)12 & / ' < 8; /!# % . % ? = # G2 R % 3# C 3' 3O 2 ' C l - % P , & Q 3 Z 3# ' , -!*W = *2 ' \ 6 O 0. *2 E S & % PP# ) 8 ( $ L +2 P , ' 2 6 C!!+2 ' \ 3' C & / . , S & B *2 L +2 C!!+2 G2 P 3' C 6 & O C!))1 3' ' 2 % L +2 R X =!X 2 O 3 & V' K C!!+2 3' $ . -!6% C ' . 3, ; L +2 C 6 * 0. *2 6 O F!1 $ ' * C L +2 P!? ' % k 8! €f h! & h!' = f & % P# . *2 3# O K & B L +2 P+ ' G2 C 6 0. *2 S +2 3 % 3# 3Z K ' ' ' W / €!f 2 ! . L +2 NW B *2 < C 6

George Herbert Mead

' ) 47 .( 0. *2 3 6O & 6 O 0. *2 P , S K & Q % $ h! ' % B' ) , y P!' 3 Z 6 ' 2 - D.2 k !8/2 l P# . \ 6 K < ' UV E!+>2 ' % & . ' C B!? C!6% 3 @ $2 =!X 2 = # ' O 2 F!1 ' \ L +2 & $ P!? ' % 6 k% , . C!P^6% Q6# l 2 P# 5 +6 3 Z $ K * % , & % l 6 L +2 K < ' 3 Z PP# = *2 \ PP# ) 37 .( L +2 ' P!? ' D& K $ W ' * % 6 < ' L +2 C S P 6 l !8/2 K & , % PP# . K , % U , & 3 \ * P+ ' \ B6*? F!1 6 E!+>2 P!? ' % P% B *2 PP# . F 2 E \ * 3 ! 3' L +2 C W !im2 -12 $ ! . B *2 C 6 x , S C $ C!' B' ) E, 2 3# P# K n!1X 6 C 3' W % & . 3' C K 3# - C 3> % 3' 3# * ! w % ,

(8)

-+8 \ F!1 % 6 ' L +2 P% & E, 2 3' P ) 4 .( C!P^6% George Herbert Mead T » k , « 6 I > \ G2 . & ? P 3' 3# , P ; u O , 3* 2 ' P 8% 3, ; 2 !; k P ' . - )>P B!? C!6% 3' P 3' \ $ 3# » k , « 3# ! ' e K ' B 8 P 2 % P ' 3 B *2 ' / Y1' . ' / % 6 $ -X , % 6 C & BX ; * ' \ L +2 K & / !/ 3, ; Q P 3' l ' % ' % \ . 3, ; % 6 & / C!P^6% Q €!f 2 ' $ 2 6 ' ƒ 2 L +2 3, ; \ -, ! C!!*2 K - 6; % P# ) 4 .( H# 3 \ N $ €!f 2 \ % K < ' P% B6 % PP# . & C x , h! B *2 % - C 6 ) 48 .( ! $ L +2 3*? > C!P^6% x , h B *2 G2 3# - C C 6 -# @ $2 ' L +2 P , 3' ' ' PP# K 0. *2 % ? K ! /2 ' % L +2 & % #d P , 3' ' 2 W 3O 2 P!? ' D& K ' . B *2 /8 , P' & P 3' C 6 C , 5 + 3' !#m2 \ & !' P , ' G2 -# @ $2 3# - % P , K < ' PP# - 3 , B . 3' 3O 2 ' < C ' #d 2 , P L +2 D& K ? ' !P 3# @ $2 $ ' < K B 3 , -3*? > # . @A# 3*? > C & BX ; [ < ' ' 2 B *2 G2 Q T ? 5 X & / 6 C!!+2 C C!' L +2 C 6 . E!W % ' 3' 2 3 , 2 -!% 3*? > & BX ; % = # B; C!' L + Q T ? 5 X & ' Blumer G2 O ' C!!+2 I J 3' ' \ 3' . B; ' E+>P = # ' ' \ ' & B; T ? Q G2 P N6O K % 3 6 ! G2 ? K ! ) 38 3* 2 6 2 ! B 0 )+S 3 ! Q G2 ' B *2 - C 6 . 3' E!W 3O 2 D P C B; - % ' 6P% 2 ' G2 P+ ' E!)12 $ = f . 3P! & C Holloway Wheeler B) 3' & Denzin 8 : » D ' C 6 B *2 E!)12 % -*!+S /!# - F+2 . ' ))1 3# u!2 2 C ' K P ' 2 , *2 ! l ' % P 6 « . -!*W # C ' -# & % PP# E!)12 . D -)!); ' /!# % 0 !J , 8 3# Z _ -+ P C 6 B *2 G2 G2 % ' \ 0. *2 ' P 8% 5 *, t.\ 2 O ! W ' % ) 49 .( C!P^6% Priest & B) 3' 6% Nousbam Chenitez 8 : » C ' ) C 6 B *2 -8 3# 2 O ~ , X 3# C 2 P 8% P# !' % P ' P# . -!? *, 5 6 ' P + P6, % 8 % K ' , 3# P 8% * % « . C ' P' % 3*? > *!+S 3P! & -, ' ' G2 C ' P + % D & / ' % % 3+; ] !e N6O K ) 50 .( & Blumer 5 6 ' , ! l ' 3' W B! 12 3 $2 ' , 0. *2 3' 6 W ' B *2 h% A , ' 5 *, S K & % -8 % . D C & 3# ))1 / ! 5 *, S 3' ' P# -# PP# . D & / ' 3 6 P 3' C # % ' % \ d ) 19 .( C!P^6% Jeon 3# 6 I > Blumer % O

(9)

B *2 ' Q T ? ' C ' - B W C 6 5 6 B! 12 3' ' • \ ! l ' 3# 0. *2 5 *, -# -\ PP# . W ' E)1 & ' ' 3*? > -12 , ' ? *, B *2 3' K 3 & K *!+S 8' % P!+' % . C ' P' B *2 @ f 0 X 3' ' E)1 C 6 3*? > -12 ! @dO 5 *, S ) 20 .( 3# C B!? ' + P P' & C Z P!? ' D& K $ L +2 3*? > R >* C 3' ' B *2 u 3# $ 8O ' , 6 O 0. *2 3*? > ' C 6 K -\ 5 ; ]2 & K P* l -!*W & % K D.2 % 0. *2 ' K # 62 C !' P# - , . L +2 P , X # 62 , S & % , 0. *2 ' P!? ' D& K $ K 6 $ S +2 * P+ ' % l , & ' . L +2 C6J 5 +6 - B *2 P , & O 3# ! 5 ) % h) - L +2 . 3' P , L +2 -)!); K * -, l % 6 C d l % ' ) 28 .( E!)12 P' & P 3' G2 C & / C ' P'

3' J u P L +2 e . , " " !? 2 ' /!# E!)12 Q P 3' G2 G2 2 } % Substantive theory % P , 3# C!!+2 6 O % A F 2 PP# - 3 , W / . 3# % A B *2 P 3' C 6 ' G2 6P% W / t , % P , \ 3*? > - % B *2 % P , 5 X & ' P% C 6 K ' # N6O 6P% P 3' % B! 12 K % P ' 3 % K G2 ' K L +2 \ . Y1' % A 3' C C!' L +2 -!% 3 Z 3# C % , J % N6O 8 # % \ Q6# P 6 B! 12 K . S +2 % , ' ' % A B *2 P+ ' P!? ' D& K $ C 6 ' K C!' B *2 % ? l = # ' % % K F 2 3 d l 3' * K % ! % 3P! & B !im2 • \ % , % , K ' K !8/2 C!P^6% % , & % ) 3 6 P 3' K 3# C 3 d l 3' * 3 Z % B *2 \ 0 6!6]2 ' K !im2 \ % , I , B *2 P% ( N6O P 6 K & V' L +2 C!!+2 3' E S C & . 3 , C & BX ; % 3*? > W ' -!6% D& K *' 2 C!' n!1X L +2 ' 6P% $ ' P!? ' . h% A 3>!; C!P^6% 3 P 3' 2 3*? > $ ' Q T ? % G2 -!% C!!+2 3P! & !' % A B *2 I > C 6 . 2 A $ & - 1 3? ) +6# 3*? > C % % G2 C!' ! L +2 nJ C!!+2 3P! & B *2 ' C 6 . 3? ) 3# 2 X !' % W ' 3? ) C k!) 8 3# - O Ps [ 2 K - 3' -8 2 . * B & 3 , ' 3? ) C 3' # 3 % A - * @ ] I S 0 X # ' 89428 ' . 6% & C & C % V 3 6!6X - * .

(10)

References

1. Klunklin A, Greenwood J. Symbolic interactionism in grounded theory studies: women surviving with HIV/AIDS in rural northern Thailand. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care 2006; 17(5): 32-41.

2. Lomborg K, Kirkevold M. Truth and validity in grounded theory -- a reconsidered realist interpretation of the criteria: fit, work, relevance and modifiability. NursPhilos 2003; 4(3): 189-200.

3. Aldiabat KM, Le Navenec CL. Philosophical roots of classical grounded theory: it's foundations in symbolic interactionism. The Qualitative Report 2011; 16(4): 1063-80.

4. Carlson E. Precepting and symbolic interactionism--a theoretical look at preceptorship during clinical practice. J AdvNurs 2013; 69(2): 457-64.

5. Ghaneierad MA. The role of student teacher interactionin genesis of social capital. Iranian Socialogy Journal 2006; 7(1), 3-29.

6. IranfarSh, Azizi F, Valaee N. The status of teachers' communication skills of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences and its role in teachers' evaluation. Behbood 2000; 4(2): 1-8.

7. Chen HY, Boore JR. Using a synthesised technique for grounded theory in nursing research. J ClinNurs 2009; 18(16): 2251-60.

8. Cutcliffe JR. Methodological issues in grounded theory. J AdvNurs 2000; 31(6): 1476-84.

9. Gingrich P. Symbolic Interactionism. [Thesis]. Regina, CA: University of Regina Department of Sociology and social studies; 2000

10.Charmaz K. Discovering' chronic illness: using grounded theory. SocSci Med 1990; 30(11): 1161-72.

11.Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.

12.Smit B, Fritz E. Understanding teacher identity from a symbolic interactionist perspective: two ethnographic narratives. South African Journal of Education 2008; 28(1): 91-102.

13.Lin CC. The role of the registered nurse in Taiwanese nursing homes: a grounded theory study. [Thesis]. Queensland, AU: Queensland University of Technology; 2008.

14.Lamb JT. Implementing mandated curriculum reform: sources of support for teacher meaning- making. Queensland, AU: Australian Catholic University; 2010.

15.Charon JM. Symbolic interactionism: an introduction, an interpretation, an integration. 10th ed. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009.

16.Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: principles and methods. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.

17.Grove SK, Burns PN, Gray JR. The practice of nursing research: appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2012.

18.Carr GS. Negotiating trust: a grounded theory study of interpersonal relationships between persons living with HIV/AIDS and their primary health care providers. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care 2001; 12(2): 35-43.

19.Benzies KM, Allen MN. Symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective for multiple method research. J AdvNurs 2001; 33(4): 541-7.

20.Jeon YH. The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scand J Caring Sci 2004; 18(3): 249-56.

21.Kneale J, Santy J. Critiquing qualitative research. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing 1999; 3(1): 24-32.

22.Streubert Speziale HJ, Streubert HJ, Rinaldi Carpenter D. Qualitative research in nursing: advancing the humanistic imperative. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.

23.Curtise KC, White P. Qualitative research design and approaches in radiography. Radiography 2005; 11(3): 217-25.

24.McCreaddie M, Payne S. Evolving grounded theory methodology: towards a discursive approach. Int J Nurs Stud 2010; 47(6): 781-93.

25.Blumer H. The methodological position of symbolic interactionism. In: Blumer H, editor. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. 6th ed. California, CA: University of California Press; 1986.

26.Stryker S. Symbolic interactionism: themes and variation [online]. [cited 2011 Jun]; Available from: URL: http://www.public.coe.edu/~lbarnett/445%20Readings/rt1.pdf. 2000.

27.de Almeida Araujo IM, da Silva RM, Bonfim IM, Fernandes AF. Nursing communication in nursing care to mastectomized women: a grounded theory study. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2010; 18(1): 54-60.

28.Spry G, Graham J. School community leadership: the perspective of primary school principal [Online]. [cited 2007]; Available from: URL: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/166814517

(11)

29.Herman NJ. Symbolic interaction: an introduction to social psychology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 1994.

30.Pasch D. Understanding Herbertblumer's methodological project [online]. [cited 2010 Nov 12]; Available from: URL: ebookbrowse.com/bl/blumer-herbert

31.Puddephatt A. The search for meaning: revisiting Herbert Blumer's interpretation of George Herbert mead. The American Sociologist 2009; 4(1-2): 89-105.

32.Fraser BJ, Walberg HJ. Research on teacher-student relationships and learning environments: context, retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Educational Research 2005; 43(1-2): 103-9.

33.Sutkin G, Wagner E, Harris I, Schiffer R. What makes a good clinical teacher in medicine? A review of the literature. Acad Med 2008; 83(5): 452-66.

34.Wubbles T, Brekelmans M. Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research 2005; 43(1-2): 6-24.

35.Newberry M. Identified phases in the building and maintaining of positive teacher-student relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies 2005; 26(8): 1695-703.

36.Tang FI, Chou SM, Chiang HH. Students' perceptions of effective and ineffective clinical instructors. J NursEduc 2005; 44(4): 187-92.

37.Gillespie M. Student--teacher connection in clinical nursing education. J AdvNurs 2002; 37(6): 566-76.

38.Hosoda Y. Development and testing of a clinical learning environment diagnostic inventory for baccalaureate nursing students. J AdvNurs 2006; 56(5): 480-90.

39.McGovern Billings D, Halstead JA. Teaching in nursing: a guide for faculty. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011.

40.Peters MA. Defining the boundaries of the nurse faculty role. Nurse Educ 2008; 33(5): 193-7.

41.Ellis RB, Gates B, Kenworthy N. Interpersonal communication in nursing: theory and practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 2003.

42.Lawrence- Murphy JA. MScN students' perceptions of student-teacher relationships. [Thesis]. Ontario, CA: The University of Western Ontario; 1995.

43.Cooke M. Nursing students' perceptions of difficult or challenging clinical situations. J AdvNurs 1996; 24(6): 1281-7.

44.Webb C, Shakespeare P. Judgements about mentoring relationships in nurse education. Nurse Educ Today 2008; 28(5): 563-71.

45.Savage JS, Favret JO. Nursing students' perceptions of ethical behavior in undergraduate nursing faculty. Nurse EducPract 2006; 6(1): 47-54.

46.Jouybari L, Sanagoo A. An effective instructor: a deep look at students and instructors' experiences and perspectives. Strides Dev Med Educ 2009; 6(2): 119-28.

47.Mazzotta T, Myers B. language and meaning: Symbolic interactionism. Undergraduate Research Journal 2008; 1: 19-23.

48.Clarridge A, Couchman WA, Holloway IM. Interaction in the classroom: district nurse students and their teachers. Nurse Educ Today 1992; 12(3): 200-6.

49.Holloway I, Wheeler S. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2009.

50.Priest H, Roberts P, Woods L. An overview of three different approaches to the interpretation of qualitative data. Part 1: Theoretical issues. Nurse Res 2002; 10(1): 30-42.

(12)

Symbolic Interactionism in Grounded Theory: A Viewpoint for Explaining the Student-Educator Relationship in Clinical Nursing Education

Abbas Heydari1, Fariba Yaghoubinia2, Robab LatifnejadRoudsari3

Received date: 6.10.2012 Accept date: 20.11.2012

Abstract

Introduction: Although it is generally acknowledged that symbolic interactionism and grounded

theory are connected, the precise nature of their connection remains implicit and unexplained in reviewed articles. Awareness of the nature of their connection can help qualitative researchers as guidance for data collection and analysis. This study was accomplished with the aim of exploration of the connection between grounded theory and symbolic interactionism.

Method: The search of related articles and resources was done in databases such as Scopus,

Elsevier, Google Scholar, and ProQuest and with keywords including grounded theory, symbolic interactionism, and methodology. Then the selected articles were reviewed.

Results: In this study, researchers, by reviewing of related articles, have propounded the

connection between methodological principles and processes of Blumer in the symbolic interactionism with grounded theory. Then, they have argued about the explanatory power of symbolic interactionism as a philosophical basis in a grounded theory study in the explanation of student-teacher relationship in clinical nursing education.

Conclusion: When the grounded theory study is undertaken without a symbolic interactionism

framework as an explanatory framework, the researcher describes rather than explains the data.

Keywords: Symbolic interactionism, Grounded theory, Methodology Type of article: Reveiw article

Citation: Heydari A, Yaghoubinia F, LatifnejadRoudsari R. Symbolic Interactionism in Grounded Theory: A Viewpoint for Explaining the Student-Educator Relationship in Clinical Nursing Education. J Qual Res Health Sci 2013; 1(4): 298-309.

1- Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2- PhD Student, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad And Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

3- Assistant Professor, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Corresponding Author: FaribaYaghoubinia, Email: yaghoubiniaf861@mums.ac.ir

References

Related documents

Factor of safety exhibited a hysteresis during the calculation process, which was similar in trend with the pore water pressure as well, and it showed some amplitude during

Samet, Spatial Data Structures in Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and. Beyond,

Summary of Lessons Learned – Fire Behavior in the Urban Interface  ·  In 2007,

In equilibrium, optimal loan contracts and the extent of credit rationing are determined jointly with market liquidity aggregate lending, borrower market participation endogenous

manages  such  potential  conflicts.. attorneys,  insurance  carriers,  and  potential  investors  may  be  identified.. Relationships  with  business  partners

We explore the influences of different choices made by the practitioner on the efficiency and accuracy of Bayesian geophysical inversion methods that rely on Markov chain Monte

The simulations were carried out twice for each algorithm/window/filter and frequency: firstly using white noise, and then again using noise which is due to

The present study analysed data collected on COPD status, life event stress and measures of pulmonary func- tion, cognitive function, depressive symptoms and quality of life in