Social symbolism: forms and functions – a pragmatist perspective

Precepting and symbolic interactionism – a theoretical look at preceptorship during clinical practice

“…The second reason is that the understanding of and eventually mastering of, a professional language is a way to fit in and become accepted as a member of a specific professional group. Therefore, preceptors need to clearly and explicitly explain used expressions or abbreviations to students as mutual agreement between actors in a group will facilitate understanding and learning (Halas 2008). Once there is mutual understanding of the meaning of the used expressions or abbreviations between preceptor and student they can be used freely, allowing the student to internalize occupational language and to make sense of experienced nursing situations (Carlson et al.…”

‘This is our liver patient…’: use of narratives during resident and nurse handoff conversations

“…Informed by our analysis of resident and nurse handoffs, we identified three narrative structures that emphasise their role in the creation of patient imagery, coordination of care activities for ensuing shifts and in integrating contextual aspects of care. We found consistent patterns in such narratives within clinical professions, highlighting a mutually agreed structure in the terminology and format of handoffs;24 additionally, we also characterised the role of language in creating shared understanding between conversational partners 25. We discuss key implications of the use of these narratives for patient safety and for the design of handoff tools.…”

Constructing Interdisciplinary Educational Reality Into Information Age

“…3) bio-cognitive (considers cognition as a biological function and / or process in living system) (Maturana, 1970;Tardiff et al, 2017); 4) evolutionary-epistemological (provides an evolutionary explanation for cognitive phenomena and processes on the basis of universal evolutionism, in particular using the modern theory of complexity) (Onuf, 2016;Sanjeev &Boaz, 2009); 5) constructive-realistic (recognizes the existence of objective reality, but defends the interpretative nature of cognition) (De Gruyter, 2018); 6) embodied (postulates that we get to know not only through the brain, but by our whole being) (Abrahamson, Lindgren, 2014);https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.09.02.55 Corresponding Author: Natalia N. Naydenova Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN: 2357-1330 476 7) activate (consciousness is represented as immanent activity) (Knyazeva, 2014;Varela, Thompson, Rosch, 1971;Reid, Mgombelo, 2015); 8) personal (there is no objective knowledge, any knowledge belongs to the subject) (Roth, 2012;Dennett, 2005); 9) interactive (social interaction as interpersonal symbolic communication, that is, a person's ability to "take the role of another" and construct his own reality) (Hałas, 2008); 10) neuro-phenomenological (based on self-observation and analysis of subjective experience) (Thompson, 2006); 11) neuro-constructive (mental development is understood as the construction into the brain of neural systems that ensure the active interaction of the subject with the environment) (Mareschal et al, 2007;Trautmann, 2014); 12) non-dual (denial of the dualism of consciousness and peace, promotion of convergence theories of the physical and mental) (Riegler, Weber, 2013); 13) personality-constructive (it is believed that the constructs are invented by the person himself for the organization of subjective experience) (Kelly, 1955); 14) radical-constructive (objective reality is impossible, man as a cognizing being is infinitely lonely) (Glazersfeld, 2001); 15) social-constructive (studies the processes of socio-psychological construction of social reality in human activity) (Berger &Lukman, 1995;Matuszek, 2014); 16) constructional (considers the formation of social constructs in collective and group social processes) (Gergen, 2003;Pinch & Wiebe, 1984); 17) interpretative (understanding is based o...…”