Rodgers first published her evolutionary method for concept analysis in 1989 (Rodgers, 1989). According to Rodgers (2000), concept analysis is necessary because
1. Become thoroughly familiar with the existing literature.
2. Search other fields of interest for new ways of viewing the topic.
3. Select a parent concept that gives an insightful view of the topic.
4. Redefine the concept(s) in terms of the topic of interest.
Source: Walker and Avant (2005, p. 55).
BOX 3-2
Steps in Concept Derivation
Concept Reference
Art of nursing Finfgeld-Connet, D. (2008). Concept synthesis of the art of nursing.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(3), 381–388.
Care dependency Bogatz, T., Dijkstra, A., Lohrman, C., & Dassen, T. (2007). The meaning of care dependency as shared by care givers and care recipients: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(5), 561–569.
Grief Sullivan, K. (2005). Grief: An analysis of the concept as it relates to bereavement. In J. R. Cutcliffe & H. P. Mckenna (Eds.), The essential concepts of nursing (pp. 161–178). New York: Elsevier.
Loneliness Brown, R. (2005). An analysis of loneliness as a concept if importance for dying persons. In J. R. Cutcliffe & H. P. Mckenna (Eds.), The essential concepts of nursing (pp. 229–242). New York: Elsevier.
Patient advocacy Bu, X., & Jezewski, M. A. (2007). Developing a midrange theory of patient advocacy through concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(1), 101–110.
Preserving dignity Anderberg, P., Lepp, M., Berglund, A., & Segsten, K. (2007).
Preserving dignity in caring for older adults: A concept analysis.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 59(6), 635–643.
Teamwork Xyrichis, A., & Ream, E. (2008). Teamwork: A concept analysis.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(2), 232–241.
Therapeutic relationships Chambers, M. (2005). A concept analysis of therapeutic relationships.
In J. R. Cutcliffe & H. P. Mckenna (Eds.), The essential concepts of nursing (pp. 301–316). New York: Elsevier.
TABLE 3-4Examples of Concept Analyses Using Walker and Avant’s Methods
concepts are dynamic, “fuzzy,” and context dependent and possess some pragmatic utility or purpose. Furthermore, because phenomena, needs, and goals change, con- cepts must be continually refined and variations introduced to achieve a clearer and more useful meaning.
Rodgers (2000) examined two viewpoints or schools of thought regarding con- cept development and showed that the methods of each differ significantly. She termed these methods “essentialism” and “evolutionary” viewpoints. In her work, she contrasted the essentialist method of concept development as exemplified by Wilson (1963) and Walker and Avant (1995) with concept development using the evolutionary method.
The evolutionary method of concept development is a concurrent task approach.
In it, the tasks may be going on all at the same time, rather than a sequence of specific steps that are completed before going to the next step. The activities involved in the evolutionary method are listed in Box 3-3.
Rodgers (2000) defined many terms and explained the process of concept analysis using the evolutionary view. The goal of the concept analysis will, to an extent, determine how the researcher identifies the concept of interestand terms and expressions selected.
The incorporation of a new term into a nurse’s way of viewing a client situation is often a circumstance warranting analysis of a new concept.
The goal of the analysis will also influence selection of the setting and samplefor data collection. For instance, the setting may be a library and the sample might be literature.
The sampling might be time-oriented, say literature from the previous 5 years. In any case, the researcher’s goal is to develop a rigorous design consistent with the purpose of the analysis. The selection of literature from related disciplines might include those that typically use the concept. An exhaustive review includes all the indexed literature using the concept and may be limited by a time frame such as several years.
A randomization process is then used to select the sample across each discipline over time. In collecting and managing the dataa discovery approach is preferred. The focus of the data analysis is on identifying the attributes, antecedents, and conse- quences and related concepts or surrogate terms. The attributes located by this means constitute a “real definition as opposed to a nominal or dictionary definition” (Rodgers, 2000, p. 91).
Rodgers defines surrogate termsas ways of expressing the concept other than by the term of interest. She distinguishes between surrogate terms and related concepts by showing that surrogate terms are different words that express the concept, whereas
“related concepts are part of a network that provide a background” and “lend signif- icance to the concept of interest” (Rodgers, 2000, p. 92).
1. Identify the concept and associated terms.
2. Select an appropriate realm (a setting or a sample) for data collection.
3. Collect data to identify the attributes of the concept and the contextual basis of the concept (i.e., interdisciplinary, sociocultural, and temporal variations).
4. Analyze the data regarding the characteristics of the concept.
5. Identify an exemplar of the concept, if appropriate.
6. Identify hypotheses and implications for further development.
Source: Rodgers (2000, p. 85).
BOX 3-3
Steps in Rodgers’ Process of Concept Analysis
Analyzing the data can go on simultaneously with its collection according to Rodgers (2000), or it can be delayed until all the data are collected. The latter is allowed in concept analysis using the evolutionary process because data are currently available, rather than being constantly created by the subjects as in qualitative research study. The researcher must beware of considering the data “saturated,” that is, redundant, too early.
Identifying an exemplarfrom the literature, field observation, or interview is impor- tant and will provide a clear example of the concept. Examples of real cases are preferred over constructed cases (in contrast to Wilson’s [1963] method). The goal is to illustrate the characteristics of the concept in relevant contexts to enhance the clarity and effec- tive application of the concept.
Interpreting the resultsinvolves gaining insight on the current status of the con- cept and generating implications for inquiry based on this status and identified gaps.
Interpreting the results may involve interdisciplinary comparison, temporal compar- ison, and assessment of the social context within which the concept analysis was conducted.
Identifying implicationsfor further development and formal inquiry may be the result. The results of the analysis may direct further inquiry rather than giving the final answer on the meaning of the concept. The implications of this form of research-based concept analysis may yield questions for further research, or hypotheses may be extracted from the findings. The major outcome of the evolutionary method of concept analysis is the generation of further questions for research rather than the static definition of the concept. Table 3-5 lists a number of references for concept analyses using this method. For more information, the reader is referred to Rodgers (2000).
Concept Reference
Cancer Doyle, N. (2008). Cancer survivorship: Evolutionary concept analysis. Journal of survivorship Advanced Nursing, 62(4), 499–509.
Chronic fatigue Jorgenson, R. (2008). Chronic fatigue: An evolutionary concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(2), 199–207.
Empathetic response Campbell-Yeo, M., Latimer, M., & Johnston, C. (2008). The empathetic response in nurses who treat pain: Concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(6), 711–719.
Forgiveness Recine, A. G., Werner, J. S., & Recine, L. (2007). Concept analysis of forgiveness with a multicultural emphasis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 59(3), 308–316.
Hope Johnson, S. (2007). Hope in terminal illness: An evolutionary concept analysis.
International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 13(9), 451–459.
Information need Timmins, F. (2006). Exploring the concept of information need. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12(6), 375–381.
Renal supportive Noble, H., Kelly, D., Rawlings-Anderson, K., & Meyer, J. (2007). A concept analysis of care renal supportive care: The changing world of nephrology.Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 59(6), 644–653.
Routine Zisberg, A., Young, H., Schepp, K., & Zysberg, L. (2007). A concept of routine: Relevance to nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(4), 442–453.
Self-monitoring Wilde, M. H., & Garvin, S. (2007). A concept analysis of self-monitoring. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 57(3), 339–350.
Stigma Butt, G. (2008). Stigma in the context of hepatitis C: Concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(6), 712–724.
TABLE 3-5Examples of Concept Analyses Using Rodgers’ Methods