Empathy is a fundamental concept in health care and nursing. In academic literature, it has been primarily defined as a personal ability, act or experience. The relational dimensions of empathy have received far less attention. In our view, individualistic conceptualizations are restricted and do not adequately reflect the practice of empathy in daily care. We argue that a relational conceptualization of empathy contributes to a more realistic, nuanced and deeper understanding of the functions and limitations of empathy in professional care practices. In this article, we explore the relational aspects of empathy, drawing on sources that offer a relational approach, such as the field of care ethics, the phenomenology of Edith Stein and qualitative research into interpersonal and interactive empathy. We analyse the relational aspects of three prevalent components of empathy definitions: the underlying ability or act (i.e. the cognitive, affective and perception abilities that enable empathy); the resulting experience (i.e. empathic understanding and affective responsivity) and the expression of this experience (i.e. empathic expression). Ultimately, we propose four inter‐related understandings of empathy: (a) A co‐creative practice based on the abilities and activities of both the empathizer and the empathee; (b) A fundamentally other‐oriented experience; (c) A dynamic, interactive process in which empathizer and empathee influence each other's experiences; (d) A quality of relationships .
It appeared possible to develop a self-report questionnaire for measuring presence and establish face and content validity. In initial exploratory factor analysis, the eight theoretical principles of ToP used to develop the questionnaire were not reflected, and three new components appeared. Further research is needed to examine the value of the three new dimensions, and investigation into the construct validity and reliability of the three new components is recommended.
Based on our findings, we formulate pathways that may guide the further analysis of empathy in care practices and care ethics.
Throughout the years, care ethicists have raised concerns that prevalent definitions of empathy fail to adequately address the problem of otherness. They have proposed alternative conceptualizations of empathy that aim to acknowledge individual differences, help to extend care beyond one’s inner circle, and develop a critical awareness of biases and prejudices. We explore three such alternatives: Noddings’ concept of engrossment, Meyers’ account of broad empathy, and Baart’s concept of perspective-shifting. Based on these accounts, we explain that care ethics promotes a conceptualization of empathy that is radical in its commitment to engage otherness and that is characterized by being: (1) receptive and open, (2) broad and deep in scope, (3) relational and interactive, (4) mature and multifaceted, (5) critical and reflective, (6) disruptive and transformative. This type of empathy is both demanding and rewarding, as it may inspire health professionals to rethink empathy, its challenges, and its contribution to good care and as it may enrich empathy education and professional empathy practices in health care.
This paper investigates the functions, downsides, and limitations of empathy in chaplaincy care. Data were collected from 20 humanist chaplains working in health care, prison, and military settings using semi-structured interviews. According to the participants, empathy is at the heart of their profession but has disadvantages as well. The analysis yields seven major functions of empathy with corresponding downsides and limitations: (1) to connect, (2) to understand, (3) to guide, (4) to acknowledge, (5) to motivate, (6) to inspire, and (7) to humanize. We argue for a need to “talk about empathy” since despite its importance and challenges, there is little professional and academic discussion about empathy in chaplaincy care. We hope that the findings of this study can function as starting points for the discussion and thus contribute to the ongoing professionalization of chaplaincy care. To that end, we propose three topics for further reflection and conversation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.