Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Bağlamında Tutumları: Nitel Bir Çalışma

Yıl 2023, , 238 - 245, 29.12.2023

Pınar Harmancı

https://doi.org/10.5152/JANHS.2023.22249

Öz

Amaç: Araştırmanın amacı, hemşirelik öğrencilerinin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği konusundaki tutumlarını belirlemektir.

Yöntemler: Bu çalışmanın tasarımında nitel ve fenomenolojik yöntemler kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya 30 hemşirelik öğrencisi dahil edildi. Bu çalışma boyunca öğrencilerin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği konusundaki görüşleri değerlendirilmiş ve bu doğrultuda sorular sorulmuştur. Görüşmeler, veri doygunluğu sağlanana kadar sürdürülmüştür. Ardışık üç temel görüşme sonucunda yeni temalar ortaya çıkmadıysa, veri doygunluğu kriterleri karşılanmıştır. Bu çalışmanın analizinde MAXQDA nitel veri analiz programı kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın analiz basamakları buna göre gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Araştırmada araştırmacılar 3 ana tema ve 5 alt boyut belirlemiştir. Bu doğrultuda öğrenciler 1) Cinsiyetler arası farklılıkların yorumlanması ve kültürün etkisi, 2) Aile tutumunun cinsiyet eşitliğine etkisi, 3) Öğrencinin hemşireliğe yönelik tutumu ana temalar altında değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada beş adet subtema vardır bunlar; a) Öğrencinin Doğup-büyüdüğü ortamın cinsiyet algısı üzerindeki etkisi b) Öğrencinin kültüre ait mitleri taşıması c) Öğrencinin ailesinin, öğrencinin cinsiyet eşitliği tutumundaki etkisi d) Öğrencinin aileye ait cinsiyetçi mitleri taşıması e) Öğrencinin cinsiyet eşitliği bağlamında hemşirelik mesleği ile ilgili tutumu ve mitleridir.

Sonuç: Hemşirelik birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğine ilişkin geleneksel düşünceye sahip olduğu belirlendi. Bu nedenle hemşirelik öğrencilerine eğitimin erken dönemlerinden başlayarak toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği bağlamında dersler verilmesi gerektiği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eşitlik, cinsiyet, hemşirelik

Attitude of Nursing Students in the Context of Societal Gender Equality: A Qualitative Study

Öz

Objective: The aim of the study was to determine what nursing students think in regard to societal gender equality.

Methods: Qualitative and phenomenological methods were used in the design of this study. A total of 30 nursing students were included in the study. Throughout this study, students’ opinions on gender equality were evaluated, and questions were asked in this regard. And the interviews were held until data saturation was achieved. If new themes did not emerge as a result of 3 consecutive basic interviews, data saturation criteria were met. The MAXQDA qualitative data analysis program was used in the analysis of this study. The analysis steps of the study were carried out accordingly.

Results: In the study, the researchers identified 3 main themes and 5 subdimensions. In this regard, students were evaluated under the headings of main themes as follows: 1) interpretations of differences between genders and the effect of culture, 2) the effect of family attitude on gender equality, and 3) the attitude of the student toward the nursing profession in the context of gender equality. At article has five subthema and thats; a) The effect of the environment in which the student was born and raised on gender perception b) Student maintaining cultural myths c) The effect of the student’s family on student’s gender equality attitude d) Student maintaining sexist family myths e) The attitude and myths of the student towards the nursing profession in the context of gender equality.

Conclusion: The participants of the research maintained their traditional views on gender equality. The first-year nursing students included in the study also demonstrate this. For this reason, it
is thought that nursing students should be given lessons in the context of gender equality, starting from the early stages of education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Equality, gender, nursing

Kaynakça

• 1. Kocaer U, Öztop T, Usta N, et al. Male members in nursing. J Anatolia Nurs Health Sci. 2004;7(2):23-29.
• 2. Baykal U, Timuçin A, Özel S. Viewpoints of the first male students who study in a School of Nursing regarding the nursing profession and education. J Educ Res Nurs. 2010;7(3):48-55.
• 3. Dikmen-Özarslan A. Male nurses in the context of hegemonic masculinity alternative politics. 2015;7(1):118-142.
• 4. Zamanzadeh V, Azadi A, Valizadeh L, Keogh B, Monadi M, Negarandeh R. Choosing and remaining in nursing: Iranian male nurses perspectives. Contemp Nurse. 2013;45(2):220-227. [CrossRef]
• 5. Clow KA, Ricciardelli R. Attitudes and stereotypes of male and female nurses: the influence of social roles and ambivalent sexism. Can J Behav Sci/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Compertement. 2014;46(3):446-455.
• 6. Coşkun A, Özdilek R. Gender inequality: reflections on the Nurse’s role in women’s health. J Educ Res Nurs. 2012;9(3):30-39.
• 7. Eswi A, El Sayed Y. The experience of Egyptian male student nurses during attending maternity nursing clinical course. Nurse Educ Pract. 2011;11(2):93-98. [CrossRef]
• 8. Cui N, Wang R, Song F, Jin J. Experiences and perceptions of male nursing students in a single-sex class: a qualitative descriptive study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021;51:102996. [CrossRef]
• 9. Naudé A. Female Korean nursing Studentsviews toward feminism. Int J Gen Med Pharm. 2019;3999:2319.
• 10. Başar F, Demirci N. Attitudes of nursing students toward gender roles: a cross-sectional study. Contemp Nurse. 2018;54(3):333-344. [CrossRef]
• 11. Cangöl Söğüt S, Cangöl E, Özsezer G. Determination of gender perceptions of nursing and midwifery students. Int J Health Serv Res Policy. 2021;6(1):117-127.
• 12. Özdemir R, Çevik C. The educational issues of male nursing workforce from the perspective of male nursing students: A qualitative study from Turkey. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2019;6(1):13-19. [CrossRef]
• 13. Siyez DM, Beycioğlu K. Gender equality in education from kindergarten to higher education: Policies and practices. Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education; 2020:1687-1710.
• 14. Caner A, Demirel M, Ökten C. Attainment and gender equality in higher education: evidence from a large scale expansion. SSRN Journal. 2019. [CrossRef]
• 15. Tekbas S, Pola G. Evaluation of gender equality attitudes of Turkish and Foreign Nursing Students at a Private University. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(5):884-889. [CrossRef]
• 16. Tekkaş KK, Beşer A, Park S. Ambivalent sexism of nursing students in Turkey and South Korea: A cross-cultural comparison study. Nurs Health Sci. 2020;22(3):612-619. [CrossRef]
• 17. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (CoREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. [CrossRef]
• 18. Özden SA, Tekindal M, Gedik TE, Erim F, Ege A, Tekindal MA. Nitel Araştırmaların rapor edilmesi: CoREQ kontrol listesinin Türkçe uyarlaması. Avrupa Bilim Teknoloji Derg. 2022;35:522-529.
• 19. Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med. 2022;292:114523. [CrossRef]
• 20. Mocănașu DR. Determining the sample size in qualitative research. In: MCDSARE, vol. 4, No. 1. Ideas Forum International Academic and Scientific Association. 2020;181-187. [CrossRef]
• 21. Noble H, Smith J. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2015;18(2):34-35. [CrossRef]
• 22. Rädiker S. Focused analysis of qualitative interviews with MAXQDA: Step by step.; 2020.
• 23. Gizzi MC, Rädiker S, ed. Niteliksel Veri Analizi Uygulaması: MAXQDA Kullanarak Araştırma Örnekleri. BoD–Talep Üzerine Kitaplar; 2021.
• 24. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (CoREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. [CrossRef]
• 25. Wildemuth BM. Applications of Social Research Meth- Ods to Questions in Information and Library Science, 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIo; 2016.
• 26. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative con- tent analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105-112. [CrossRef]
• 27. Kuckartz U, Rädiker S. Nitel Verileri MAXQDA Ile Analiz Etme. Cham: Springer Uluslararası Yayıncılık; 2019:1-290.
• 28. Woolf NH, Silver C. Qualitative Analysis Using MAXQDA: the Five-Level QDATM Method. Routledge; 2017.
• 29. Rädiker S, Kuckartz U. Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA Text, Audio, and Video; 2019. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• 30. Fox-Kirk W, Gardiner RA, Finn H, Chisholm J. Genderwashing: the myth of equality. Hum Resour Dev Int. 2020;23(5):586-597. [CrossRef]
• 31. Martinsson L, Griffin G, eds. Challenging the Myth of Gender Equality in Sweden. Policy Press; 2016.
• 32. Morley L. Gender mainstreaming: myths and measurement in higher education in Ghana and Tanzania. Compare. 2010;40(4):533-550. [CrossRef]
• 33. Ehrensaft D. Boys will be girls, girls will be boys: children affect parents as parents affect children in gender nonconformity. Psychoanal Psychol. 2011;28(4):528-548. [CrossRef]
• 34. Pearce To. Dispelling the myth of pre-colonial gender equality in Yoruba culture. Rev Can Etud Afr. 2014;48(2):315-331. [CrossRef]
• 35. Alsaleh SA. Gender inequality in Saudi Arabia: myth and reality. Int Proc Econ Dev Res. 2012;39(1):123-130.
• 36. Nyalunga D. Dispelling the misconceptions and myths about gender. Int NGO J. 2007;2(1):001-005.
• 37. Olofsdotter G, Landén AS, Lykke N. Challenging the Myth of Gender Equality in Sweden. Policy Press; 2017.
• 38. Koç M, Kartal B. Comparison of nursing students’ sexual myths and some attitudes about sexuality. Int J Caring Sci. 2021;14(2):1178-1186.
• 39. Perales F, Jarallah Y, Baxter J. Men’s and women’s gender-role attitudes across the transition to parenthood: accounting for child’s gender. Soc Forces. 2018;97(1):251-276. [CrossRef]
• 40. Dhar D, Jain T, Jayachandran S. Intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes: evidence from India. J Dev Stud. 2019;55(12):2572-2592. [CrossRef]
• 41. Dossi G, Figlio D, Giuliano P, Sapienza P. Born in the family: preferences for boys and the gender gap in math. J Econ Behav Organ. 2021;183:175-188. [CrossRef]
• 42. Sharrow EA, Rhodes JH, Nteta TM, Greenlee JS. The first-daughter effect. Public Opin Q. 2018;82(3):493-523. [CrossRef]
• 43. Brownie S, Wahedna AH, Crisp N. Nursing as a pathway to women’s empowerment and intergenerational mobility. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(21-22):4050-4057. [CrossRef]
• 44. Mwetulundila P, Indongo N. Gender equity and impedes of career progression in the nursing profession in Khomas region of Namibia. SAGE Open Nurs. 2022;8:23779608221074652. [CrossRef]
• 45. Prosen M. Nursing students’ perception of gender-defined roles in nursing: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):104. [CrossRef]
• 46. Doğan Yüksekol ÖD, Duman M, Soylar P. The relationship between perception of gender, autonomy, and professional attitude in nursing students. Ordu Univ Hemşirelik Çalışmaları Derg. 4(3):368-374. [CrossRef]
• 47. Liu NY, Hsu WY, Hung CA, Wu PL, Pai HC. The effect of gender role orientation on student nurses’ caring behaviour and critical thinking. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;89:18-23. [CrossRef]